Quran, Book Of Morman

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1647550' date='Sep 4 2008, 06:18 PM']clean out your mailbox please Don![/quote]


partially cleaned

[dairygirl4u2c]

just noting... while those quran verses are tough,,, they are not contradictions,,, and really are not any different than much of the old testament stuff.

[url="http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm"]http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm[/url]

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1647865' date='Sep 5 2008, 12:27 AM']just noting... while those quran verses are tough,,, they are not contradictions,,, and really are not any different than much of the old testament stuff.

[url="http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm"]http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm[/url][/quote]


Oh I didn't say they were contradictions, Islam is very consistant about killing and enslaving all us polythiest, though those of us who were given the Book get to be enslaved and subjegated rather than killed. I was posting them in response to the statement ( a common myth) that the Koran (thats right Koran) does not call for violence agianst the infidel. It certianly does.

As for them being like ike the Old Testement, there are some differances, namely in the OT God tells the Jews to fight those in a particular geographic area which God is giving to them, in the Koran "God" is telling them to seek out non moslems through out the world and kill or subjugate them. That is a significant differance.

[dairygirl4u2c]

here's this. not so much about God telling them to kill necessarily, as much as them desiring to kill others for not believing. arguably:

"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)"

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1648073' date='Sep 5 2008, 12:02 PM']here's this. not so much about God telling them to kill necessarily, as much as them desiring to kill others for not believing. arguably:

"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)"[/quote]


Well first of all that is not the Lord speaking directly but Asa's convenet with the Lord. Further and this goes to what I said before... this is internal, this is a self policing action, they are not seaking nations to put under their subjugation, they are removing the idolitry from their own nation.

[dairygirl4u2c]

yeah i tried to edit that, to acknowledge that, the world v. local distinction. but i've been having computer problems.

there's plenty of other quotes though, where God does command them to kill a lot, at least locally.

i don't see it being that big of a difference. i mean, sort of. but when it comes down to it,,, it's a lot to expect someone to say "oh, it's okay since the genocidal comments weren't worldwide, but were rather localized to that one country". if that's the best that can be given for a distinction, it's not much.
i do see your point though.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1648391' date='Sep 5 2008, 04:06 PM']yeah i tried to edit that, to acknowledge that, the world v. local distinction. but i've been having computer problems.

there's plenty of other quotes though, where God does command them to kill a lot, at least locally.

i don't see it being that big of a difference. i mean, sort of. but when it comes down to it,,, it's a lot to expect someone to say "oh, it's okay since the genocidal comments weren't worldwide, but were rather localized to that one country". if that's the best that can be given for a distinction, it's not much.
i do see your point though.[/quote]

I think it is quite a distinction.

That said, I have no problem with the idea that God has given such commands... I do not find such a thing inconsistant--- sin brings death... that is universal, not inconsistant at all.

[misereremi]

The first time I read the Qur’an I was confused by a number of verses which seemed to contradict each other. For example, this verse says Muslims should not marry idolatrous women. Idolatrous as in al-mushrikat, as in practicing shirk. My selafi ‘friends’ (well [i]I [/i]treat them like friends...) refer to me as a Murshrik for belief in the Holy Trinity- which is shirk, the biggest sin in their book.

[quote]And do not marry Al-Mushrikât (idolatresses, etc.) till they believe (worship Allâh Alone). And indeed a slave woman who believes is better than a (free) Mushrikah (idolatress, etc.), even though she pleases you. And give not (your daughters) in marriage to Al-Mushrikûn till they believe (in Allâh Alone) and verily, a believing slave is better than a (free) Mushrik (idolater, etc.), even though he pleases you. Those (Al-Mushrikûn) invite you to the Fire, but Allâh invites (you) to Paradise and Forgiveness by His Leave, and makes His Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) clear to mankind that they may remember. (Al-Baqarah 2:221)[/quote]

Yet this ayat says Muslim men can lawfully marry people of the book (i.e. the Injeel and Torah books):
[quote](Lawful to you in marriage) are chaste women from the believers and chaste women from those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) before your time, when you have given their due Mahr (bridal money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage), desiring chastity (i.e. taking them in legal wedlock) not committing illegal sexual intercourse, nor taking them as girl-friends. And whosoever disbelieves in the Oneness of Allâh and in all the other Articles of Faith [i.e. His (Allâh's), Angels, His Holy Books, His Messengers, the Day of Resurrection and Al¬Qadar (Divine Preordainments)], then fruitless is his work, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers. (Al-Ma'idah 5:5)[/quote]

When I asked for an explanation from Muslims I was given to understand that:
1. I will never understand the Qur’an because I do not understand Qur’anic Arabic

2.The Qur’an was revealed over 23 years and so it had laws that were temporary, and later revoked. The ‘wisdom’ of abrogation allows for one revelation to be cancelled out by another :

[quote]And when We put a revelation in place of (another) revelation, - and Allah knoweth best what He revealeth - they say: Lo! thou art but inventing. Most of them know not.) 16:101.[/quote]

3.The implication in 5:5 is that the women of the book will convert to Islam anyway.

Answers one and two are the usual ways that any contradictions I bring up are explained away.

[mortify]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1643427' date='Aug 31 2008, 03:22 PM']so can anyone find a blatant contradiction in: the quran, or the book of mormon?[/quote]

I'm not familiar with the book of Mormon but with regards to the Qur'an, the answer is yes. The Quran has several variations of the same events. For example, who believed in Moses when he went before the Pharoah? Compare Surat 7:120-126, 10:81-83, and 40:28.

[quote]i am skeptical of the bible's inerrancy,,, but i have to concede i can't find any blatant contradictions,[/quote]

I think what has to be immediately recognized is that the Bible is a Canon of Sacred Writings written by numerous human authors under the guidance of the Spirit centuries apart. The use of numerous human authors and the differences in time and place make *apparent* contradictions almost unavoidable. The Quran on the other hand is *one* book by *one* human author who supposedly memorized the passages as they were revealed. Contradictions in the latter are therefore less forgivable, and apparent lack of contradictions more understandable.

[mortify]

[quote name='misereremi' post='1648472' date='Sep 5 2008, 05:49 PM']1. I will never understand the Qur’an because I do not understand Qur’anic Arabic[/quote]

In my opinion this is a major flaw of their book. I don't need to read Greek to appreciate the immense beauty of the NT.

[misereremi]

[quote name='mortify' post='1649190' date='Sep 6 2008, 08:03 PM']In my opinion this is a major flaw of their book. I don't need to read Greek to appreciate the immense beauty of the NT.[/quote]
Yeah I agree. Yet for Muslims it's one of the strongest points, and that it rhymes from start to finish.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='MakeYouThink' post='1647192' date='Sep 4 2008, 12:30 PM']If the first chapters of the Book of Genesis were just to reveal God's relationship with humanity and shouldn't be taken as an accurate history, why then the geneologies in the fourth and fifth chapters? Why have the genologies in the books that went up to the Birth of Jesus? Why did Jesus say, as were the days of Noah, so too shall be the coming of the son of man? If there was no flood, then there were no days of Noah, and Jesus lied to us if that was true! Can God lie?

And why was Jesus linked to Adam, because if there was no flood, and Noah is linked to Adam through geneology in the Bible, then there is no Adam either? Is the Bible one huge lie to make us behave in a certain way? Atheists would be right, if what you say is true![/quote]

It sounds like you assumed a lot of things about what I believe based on my statement that the Bible is not a simple recording of factual events in history. The genealogies are not to be taken literally. There are "contradictions" among the ones that overlap, and most of them skip generations. Matthew "edited" Jesus' genealogy to make the nice pattern of 14 generations from Adam to Abraham, then David, then Jesus. Those who think Scripture is a history textbook are scandalized, but those who understand Matthew was opening his Gospel by illustrating through genealogy and numbers (both held supernatural meaning to Jews) that Jesus was a Jew in the line of Abraham and David, all having two times the "perfect number" (that is, seven) generations between them, then we see the Matthew was setting up his Gospel to help Jews see that Jesus was clearly the Christ.

In less significant ways, we still use this technique. This morning at church, someone told me he caught a 20 pound catfish this past week. Now, if I were to find out the fish actually weighed 19.2 lbs, would I call him a liar? Of course, he was using a factual statement to say this was a really big fish. In the context of the conversation, that was clear, and I have no need to run a fact check. The Jews used numbers in a similar way in telling their stories and passing on their faith. That's why I say the Bible isn't a recording of facts. Whether the Great Flood literally lasted 40 days and 40 nights doesn't matter, but the meaning of "40 days and 40 nights" is very important.

To be clear, the Church affirms that Adam and Eve existed, and while I'm not certain, probably affirms all the events of the OT actually happened. However, the description and details about them are usually more symbolic or allegorical than literal.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1649188' date='Sep 6 2008, 03:01 PM']I'm not familiar with the book of Mormon but with regards to the Qur'an, the answer is yes. The Quran has several variations of the same events. For example, who believed in Moses when he went before the Pharoah? Compare Surat 7:120-126, 10:81-83, and 40:28.[/quote]

We see the same thing in the Bible. What were Jesus' last words on the cross?

[quote name='mortify' post='1649190' date='Sep 6 2008, 03:03 PM']In my opinion this is a major flaw of their book. I don't need to read Greek to appreciate the immense beauty of the NT.[/quote]

True, but much is lost in translation, especially in English. To fully appreciate the New Testament, knowledge of Greek is necessary, just as knowledge of Hebrew is necessary to fully appreciate the Old Testament.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1650128' date='Sep 7 2008, 04:39 PM']We see the same thing in the Bible. What were Jesus' last words on the cross?



True, but much is lost in translation, especially in English. To fully appreciate the New Testament, knowledge of Greek is necessary, just as knowledge of Hebrew is necessary to fully appreciate the Old Testament.[/quote]


But we do not contendthat it is not really the Bibleif not read in the original language, Moslems do contend that the koran is not really the Koran if it is not in Arabic.

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1650134' date='Sep 7 2008, 05:43 PM']But we do not contendthat it is not really the Bibleif not read in the original language, Moslems do contend that the koran is not really the Koran if it is not in Arabic.[/quote]

Misereremi and mortify only touched on one's ability to understand and appreciate the Qu'ran without knowledge of Arabic. I'm aware that the true Qu'ran only exists in Arabic, and might be what misereremi meant, but that isn't what was said.

Fact is, to fully appreciate any work of literature, one must know the original language.

Edited September 7, 2008 by LouisvilleFan