PAUL SAID, "God is not the author of confusion," (I Corinthians 14:33), yet never has a book produced more confusion than the bible! There are hundreds of denominations and sects, all using the "inspired Scriptures" to prove their conflicting doctrines. Why do trained theologians differ? Why do educated translators disagree over Greek and Hebrew meanings? Why all the confusion? Shouldn't a document that was "divinely inspired" by an omniscient and omnipotent deity be as clear as possible? "If the trumpet give an uncertain sound," Paul wrote in I Corinthians 14:8, "who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air." Exactly! Paul should have practiced what he preached. For almost two millennia, the bible has been producing a most "uncertain sound." The problem is not with human limitations, as some claim. The problem is the bible itself. People who are free of theological bias notice that the bible contains hundreds of discrepancies. Should it surprise us when such a literary and moral mish-mash, taken seriously, causes so much discord? Here is a brief sampling of biblical contradictions.

SHOULD WE KILL?
Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."

Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."

vs.

Exodus 32:27 "Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and slay every man his brother, companion, neighbor."

I Samuel 6:19 " and the people lamented because the Lord hadsmitten many of the people with a great slaughter."

I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8 "Thus saith the Lord. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not;but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. . . . And Saul smote the Amalekites. and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."

Numbers 15:36 "And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."

Hosea 13:16 "they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall bedashed in pieces, and their women with children shall be ripped up."

SHOULD WE TELL LIES?
Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness." Proverbs 12:22 "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord."

vs.

I Kings 22:23 "The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of allthese thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."

II Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strongdelusion, that they should believe a lie."

SHOULD WE STEAL?

Exodus 20:15 "Thou shalt not steal."

Leviticus 19:13 "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither robhim."

vs.
Exodus 3:22 "And ye shall spoil the Egyptians." Exodus 12:35-36 "And they spoiled the Egyptians."

Luke 19:29-34 "[Jesus] sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the village . . . ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. . . . And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him." I was taught as a child that when you take something without askingfor it, that is stealing

SHOULD WE OWN SLAVES?

Leviticus 25:45-46 "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, . . . and they shall be your possession . . . they shall be your bondmen forever."

Genesis 9:25 "And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant ofservants shall he be unto his brethren."

Exodus 21:2,7 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shallserve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. . . . Andif a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go outas the manservants do."

Joel 3:8 "And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the handof the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, toa people far off: for the Lord hath spoken it."

Luke 12:47,48 [Jesus speaking] "And that servant, which knew hislord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to hiswill, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, anddid commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with fewstripes." Colossians 3:22 "Servants, obey in all things your masters."

vs.

Isaiah 58:6 "Undo the heavy burdens . . . let the oppressed go free,. . . break every yoke."

Matthew 23:10 "Neither be ye called Masters: for one is your Master,even Christ.

IS GOD GOOD OR EVIL?
Psalm 145:9 "The Lord is good to all."

Deuteronomy 32:4 "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and rightis he."

vs.
Isaiah 45:7 "I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all thesethings.

Lamentations 3:38 "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth notevil and good?"

Jeremiah 18:11 "Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil againstyou, and devise a device against you."

Ezekiel 20:25,26 "I gave them also statutes that were not good, andjudgments whereby they should not live. And I polluted them in theirown gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all thatopeneth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end thatthey might know that I am the Lord." WAS

JESUS TRUSTWORTHY?

John 8:14 "Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true." vs. John 5:31 "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true."

SHOULD WE CALL PEOPLE NAMES?

Matthew 5:22 "Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger ofhellfire." [Jesus speaking]

vs.

Matthew 23:17 "Ye fools and blind." [Jesus speaking]

Psalm 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."

IS GOD OMNIPOTENT?Jeremiah 32:27 "Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is thereanything too hard for me?

Matthew 19:26 "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With menthis is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

vs.

Judges 1:19 "And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out theinhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitantsof the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

DOES GOD ACCEPT HUMAN SACRIFICES?
Deuteronomy 12:31 "Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: forevery abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done untotheir gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burntin the fire to their gods."

vs.

Genesis 22:2 "And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac,whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer himthere for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I willtell thee of."

Exodus 22:29 "For thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripefruits, and of thy liquors; the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou giveunto me."

Judges 11:30-39 "And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, Ifthou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hand, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of myhouse to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon,shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burntoffering. So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon . . .and the Lord delivered them into his hands. . . . And Jephthah cameto Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meethim with timbrels and with dances: . . . And it came to pass at theend of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did withher according to his vow which he had vowed."

II Samuel 21:8-14 "But the king [David] took the two sons of Rizpah.. . and the five sons of Michal . . . and he delivered them into thehands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before theLord: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in thedays of harvest . . . And after that God was intreated for the land."

Hebrews 10:10-12 " we are sanctified through the offering ofthe body of Jesus Christ. But this man, after he had offered onesacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God."

I Corinthians 5:7 ". For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Prince Juno,

PJ: whoever wrote the above is in a quandary. A first week yeshiva pupil can point out that the hebrew bible quotes do NOT contradict.
(don't take this the wrong way...and I hope you see where I am coming from...when addressing a public audience, use "Hebrew Bible" instead of "Old Testament." Just that. No explanation needed.)

It's old news that the current versions of the Bible has many contradictions...

True. I was referring to the ones he quoted. Bart Ehrman, John spong have written at great length on this...and showed that scribes often made mistakes, or in effort to correct what they deemed to be mistakes, "corrected" stuff..leading to mistake upon mistake. From a Muslim perspective..and I know this does not matter to non-Muslims..the Pentateuch is more regarded than the others. The NT is regarded like hadith...

Yep, Bart Ehrman did some detailed work in this area - very informative.

quote:

Originally posted by limer:
It's old news that the current versions of the Bible has many contradictions...

It's also old news that the current version of the Koran has many contradictions...

quote:

Originally posted by André:
It's also old news that the current version of the Koran has many contradictions...

Not to people who knows what they are talking about. The current Arabic Qur'an is the same as the one that Muhammad left and there are no contradictions or changes. That is a fact no matter how you would wish to believe otherwise.

quote:

Originally posted by ksazma:

quote:

Originally posted by André:
It's also old news that the current version of the Koran has many contradictions...

Not to people who knows what they are talking about. The current Arabic Qur'an is the same as the one that Muhammad left and there are no contradictions or changes. That is a fact no matter how you would wish to believe otherwise.

yeah right, after Uthman butcher it up and bun up all de odda versions :-))

did y'all find de verses ofthe rajam dat gone missin yet? ;-)

Andre: those are oral traditions...but no one has found within the document a contradiction in one place and another.
BTW, you shoulda print the story about the rajm..that is indeed laughable for those who believe in it. AH think that is the goat the Devdas trying to find :-)

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:
Andre: those are oral traditions...but no one has found within the document a contradiction in one place and another.
BTW, you shoulda print the story about the rajm..that is indeed laughable for those who believe in it. AH think that is the goat the Devdas trying to find :-)

wait, when Mohamed believe dat de earth was flat an he seh dat de Sun set in a muddy spring (in the Koran), yuh still tink dat's true? :-))

Nothing laughable about Bukhari's hadith that details the missing Rajam verses. Bukhari's hadiths are some of the most reliable, don't try to downplay their significance now.

quote:

Originally posted by André:

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:
Andre: those are oral traditions...but no one has found within the document a contradiction in one place and another.
BTW, you shoulda print the story about the rajm..that is indeed laughable for those who believe in it. AH think that is the goat the Devdas trying to find :-)

wait, when Mohamed believe dat de earth was flat an he seh dat de Sun set in a muddy spring (in the Koran), yuh still tink dat's true? :-))

Nothing laughable about Bukhari's hadith that details the missing Rajam verses. Bukhari's hadiths are some of the most reliable, don't try to downplay their significance now.

Bukhari;s hadiths are classified as the most reliable. By hadith followers. Hadith are by nature debatable hence their definition. As far as the sun goes...that story I guess is less/more than God stopping the sun for Joshua? In arabic, that verse can be read several ways...in the same manner we say the sun sets in the west. No one finds fault with that last statement....
As for me downplaying bukhari...don't hafta do that...all academics and reformists have found problems in it...including his own student. BTW...although I know this is not your argument...and it applies more to Muslims than to yu...a "sahih' hadith does not mean it is true in essence..it means that the reporters are reliable witnesses. Hair splitting to be sure, but it is a serious point to consider.

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:

quote:

Originally posted by André:

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:
Andre: those are oral traditions...but no one has found within the document a contradiction in one place and another.
BTW, you shoulda print the story about the rajm..that is indeed laughable for those who believe in it. AH think that is the goat the Devdas trying to find :-)

wait, when Mohamed believe dat de earth was flat an he seh dat de Sun set in a muddy spring (in the Koran), yuh still tink dat's true? :-))

Nothing laughable about Bukhari's hadith that details the missing Rajam verses. Bukhari's hadiths are some of the most reliable, don't try to downplay their significance now.

Bukhari;s hadiths are classified as the most reliable. By hadith followers. Hadith are by nature debatable hence their definition. As far as the sun goes...that story I guess is less/more than God stopping the sun for Joshua? In arabic, that verse can be read several ways...in the same manner we say the sun sets in the west. No one finds fault with that last statement....
As for me downplaying bukhari...don't hafta do that...all academics and reformists have found problems in it...including his own student. BTW...although I know this is not your argument...and it applies more to Muslims than to yu...a "sahih' hadith does not mean it is true in essence..it means that the reporters are reliable witnesses. Hair splitting to be sure, but it is a serious point to consider.

The sun setting in the west (denotes a direction in which the sun goes below the horizon - factual) and setting in a muddy spring are two very different statements. One is a nancy story.

I will not argue whether it is a nancy story or not, since, just from an academic view, all scripture might very well be. But since you embark on what the quran says, could you tell me the arabic for setting? and why you choose to argue a point when you have NO knowledge of the language and its usage? If you did, you would see where I led you...meaning that you must consider two things before you try to indulge in attempts at debunking the quran
1. for all the centuries of european science, no scholar from christianity dared mess with that particular verse. Why? because a proper knowledge of arabic..as many of them did, since mny Arabs are christians...precluded them reading it the way you CHOOSE to do.
2. The QUr'an still exists in its original language and therefore I can argue the linguistic connotations. Its manuscripts are still extant. U can't say that for the other abrahamic religions.
Other points
before you embark on what you just attempted, make sure you have some rudimentary knowledge of the language..because it is the kernel of every argument regarding the Qur'an.
Out of respect for you, I let the part about me not tryin gto downplay bukhari go..but proper ethics would have demanded that you not pull that...ever since I came on this board, and as ALL my academic writings show, I am opposed to bukhari...as are academics who study the issue and several Muslims...don't try to tell a perceived opponent what to say. And don't ever assume he forgets an argument that has been revisited several times. It reveals a side that ought not to be there.

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:
I will not argue whether it is a nancy story or not, since, just from an academic view, all scripture might very well be. But since you embark on what the quran says, could you tell me the arabic for setting? and why you choose to argue a point when you have NO knowledge of the language and its usage? If you did, you would see where I led you...meaning that you must consider two things before you try to indulge in attempts at debunking the quran
1. for all the centuries of european science, no scholar from christianity dared mess with that particular verse. Why? because a proper knowledge of arabic..as many of them did, since mny Arabs are christians...precluded them reading it the way you CHOOSE to do.
2. The QUr'an still exists in its original language and therefore I can argue the linguistic connotations. Its manuscripts are still extant. U can't say that for the other abrahamic religions.
Other points
before you embark on what you just attempted, make sure you have some rudimentary knowledge of the language..because it is the kernel of every argument regarding the Qur'an.
Out of respect for you, I let the part about me not tryin gto downplay bukhari go..but proper ethics would have demanded that you not pull that...ever since I came on this board, and as ALL my academic writings show, I am opposed to bukhari...as are academics who study the issue and several Muslims...don't try to tell a perceived opponent what to say. And don't ever assume he forgets an argument that has been revisited several times. It reveals a side that ought not to be there.

Every language can be translated into English including Arabic so I don't have to know Arabic to understand what the Koran says. The Bible was not written in English either and I can still read it and understand what it says. It's a poor excuse used by many Muslims to justify their reasoning when they run out of material to support their argument or lack of one. All I have to do is get a reliable translation such as the ones found here. It doesn't take a genius to recognize a nancy story when you see one or are you going to tell me now that you're more knowledgeable than these three translators.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/018.qmt.html

018.086
YUSUFALI: Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."
PICKTHAL: Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. We said: O Dhu'l-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness.
SHAKIR: Until when he reached the place where the sun set, he found it going down into a black sea, and found by it a people. We said: O Zulqarnain! either give them a chastisement or do them a benefit.



Any yes I do believe that all of the old scriptures (including the Koran) are filled with many nancy stories.

By the way, do you study Christian, Jewish, or Hindu religious works in the original languages they were written in or in English?

Since my speciality is in Islam, I study in the original language. Since my speciality is in Judaism, I study in hebrew. YOur take on any language being translatable into english is a weak response: in any dept of religion, no one can get an MA in the religion of study UNLESS he has learned the language of its scripture. That is for a single reason: each language has idioms that cannot be taken over. I notice you use Yusuf ali..in case you did not know it, he graduated in classics from oxford.
You could not answer my question directly: the quran refers to itself on more than one occasion about its being in arabic FOR A REASON. What you believe about languages is nonetheless immaterial to me..or to anyone for that matter..for our contention is about the use of a translation. As you ought to know, many Jewish scholars have proven time and again that the translations of the hebrew bible are wrong..not because of contradictions in the bible necc, but beccause of translators not having the necc background in the field, or being perceived throuhg christain eyes. Which is exactly how you are perceiving the QUr'an. Either you know something or you don't.
ONce again: I studied in hebrew and arabic. That gives me a good background in aramaic, the langauge that Jesus spoke..so in case ou are thinking about telling me about greek..that supposed language of the NT..don't try it.
I never claim to be an expert in hinduism, although I do claim based on academic study of that religon at a certain level to know it better than the average lay person. YOu are attempting to somehow claim some specialized knowledge of the qur'an which you obviously don't have. If you don't know the nuances of a lnaguage that is extremely detalied, then you ought to get off the islamophobic track..it is a tired track. if you remember, we already visitd this sun issue before on GNI.
What you beleive are nancy stories of the scriptures may well be so..but since you obviosly have no knowledge of symbolism, then again, what you think is immaterial. And it would behoove you to get at least a few courses under your belt before talkng about langauge.
Incidentally: to prove my point: what is the word used for "rib" as in the rib story, and why is it, from the hebrew bible perspective, nonsense? If you take tiem to revisit the discussions on religon right here on gni, you might find it.
As well as the obvious answer to your supposed take on language.

incidentally, since language can be, as per your "scholarly take" translated, perhaps youy can explain why Muslims have been for centuries and still oppose any "authorised" translation of the Qur'an. That was before, by the way, any attempt by people to mistranslate. But let us focus on the verse: so we see: setting place, setting, black. Interestting differences. I wonder...perhaps you can find a dictionary to give me those words? I am always open to learning something new...

Re your statement that you can read the bible and understand it..I challenge that seriously. For the changes that have occured in translation are several. Thou shalt not steal for example..that is not what the literal hebrew says. but u think you know what it means.
YOur statement about "poor excuse"...as I pointed out, the Muslims have always opposed translation. For obvious reasons: they saw what the christians fell into, because from the septuagint, mistranslations started as exemplified by almah meaning young womn in literal hebrew somehow getting rendered as virgin, messiah meaning anointed king somehow being rendered as savior...don't made conculsions without proof simply to argue. Prove your point by language or go learn anew.
And again returning to your polemically designed question as to if I learn about xity and other religons in the origninal language: none of my arguments about hindusim is based on language, but rather on unaminously accepted concepts. With Judaism, Christianity and Islam I can and do get into language. There goes your attempt at a comeback.

Any teenager with a bit of knowledge of the solar system can read that passage and tell that it's a nancy story. Only narrow minded people who try to justify everything in their "Holy Book" as being factual would attempt to make some truth out of these stories. Symbolism = another fancy word for nancy stories. Since Jesus spoke Aramaic and you are not fluent in that language then you are depending on translations when you study the word of the Christian God and that would make your research null and void (according to your harebrained theory about translation). People who are not ready for primetime use the "lost in translation" defence. Lame. :-))

This message has been edited. Last edited by: André,

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:

quote:

Originally posted by André:

quote:

Originally posted by dara shikoh:
Andre: those are oral traditions...but no one has found within the document a contradiction in one place and another.
BTW, you shoulda print the story about the rajm..that is indeed laughable for those who believe in it. AH think that is the goat the Devdas trying to find :-)

wait, when Mohamed believe dat de earth was flat an he seh dat de Sun set in a muddy spring (in the Koran), yuh still tink dat's true? :-))

Nothing laughable about Bukhari's hadith that details the missing Rajam verses. Bukhari's hadiths are some of the most reliable, don't try to downplay their significance now.

Bukhari;s hadiths are classified as the most reliable. By hadith followers. Hadith are by nature debatable hence their definition. As far as the sun goes...that story I guess is less/more than God stopping the sun for Joshua? In arabic, that verse can be read several ways...in the same manner we say the sun sets in the west. No one finds fault with that last statement....
As for me downplaying bukhari...don't hafta do that...all academics and reformists have found problems in it...including his own student. BTW...although I know this is not your argument...and it applies more to Muslims than to yu...a "sahih' hadith does not mean it is true in essence..it means that the reporters are reliable witnesses. Hair splitting to be sure, but it is a serious point to consider.

the earth is flat??? koran said so.

The following chapter and verses clear said the earth is flat.
13:3 ... the arabic word use here is madda
15:19 .. the arabic word use here is madadnaha
20:53 ................... mahdan
2:22 ...... Firasha
43:10 ...... Mahdan
50:6,7 ..... Madadnaha
51:48 .......Farashnha
71:19 .... Bisata
78:6 .......Mihada
79:27-30 .........Dahaha
88:20 .........Sutehat
91:5,6 .........Tahaha

each one of these arabic words means flat. We all know the earth aint flat.

Dara, you ever read up on this dude Abdul Aziz Bin Baz .. he had one of the highest islamic religious position is Saudi in the 80's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd-al-Aziz_ibn_Abd-Allah_ibn_Baaz

the dude once issue a fatwa patwa lol. ... saying that any muslim would believe that the earth is not flat is unislamic and contradicts the quran

quote:

Originally posted by Aragorn:
the earth is flat??? koran said so.

The Qur'an says that wherever you are, you will find the earth stretched out in front of you. That means that it is continuous. Like the ring around your finger. If it was flat, you will fall off. The Qur'an does not say that you will fall off. Therefore it is round. It goes further by describing it as egg shaped. Just like the scientists say it is today.