Searching for the "Truth"

You have to look everywhere

from JoeUser Forums
Several yeas ago I read a book about "God and the New Physics" (by Paul Davis - pb.1984, Simon &Schuster). It is a good book, but selectivity is rampant in it. In all what the author lists as blatant contradiction between science and religion he mainly uses the Old and the New Testaments. Although he mentioned Islam in the beginning, he never took Islam's view in the matter into consideration.

No where is this selectivity so obvious than when searching for the "Truth" about how we and our universe were created and about our relationship with the "Creator". Scientists and Theologians are searching for the same "Truth" each from a different angle and with different tools. However, no matter how different are the angles or the tools, there are few basic principles that they both theoretically share. Both say that they rely mainly on "Logic" And "Evidence". Of course that "Evidence" relies heavily on an element of "faith". The scientists have faith in their methods and results and theologians have faith in the people who relayed the words of God to them. Unfortunately in most discussions, they both selectively pick and chose their "Logic" and their "Evidence".

Because of this selectivity, they both find contradictions and incompatibilities either within the other’s view or between their view and the other’s view. This is because sometimes incomplete truths or falsehoods are used and sometimes ignoring logic entirely is used.

I was reminded of that book while following recent dicussions here on JU about God, Good, Bad ....etc and I can safely say that the author of that book, as a scientist, usually uses All the facts available to him whenever he discusses any purely scientific topic. Considering the known fact that a good deal of human input went into the writings of both of the OT and the NT while Qura'an is considered (by Muslims) to be the direct and literal words of God, it is very strange that the author ignores a source that claims to be the actual words of God and relies solely on the two texts that don’t claim that. If he had included Qura'an in his discussion, ALL the contradictions that he pointed out would have been resolved.

For Example: The famous contradiction is the age of the Universe. All of the three Books say it was created in Six Days. The OT and the NT say nothing further than that. and it is understood by both religions as just "Six Days". This is obviously in clear contradiction to the scientific evidence that to go from the instant of the Big Bang (the light as it is called in the three books) when creation started to where you have seven heavens, stars, planets and moons you need billions of years. Had he consulted the third book, he would have realized that there really is no contradiction. Qura'an clearly says in many separate verses the Following: one time it says "And the Day of your Lord is 100,000 years of what you count". and in another verse it says "And the Day of your Lord is 50,000 years of what you count", and still in another it says "And the Day of you Lord is 20,000 years of what you count". It is amazing that more than 1425 years ago, there was a book talking about the relativity of time and its changing duration depending on where you are. Those "Six Days of your Lord" could easily be the billions of years of what we count that are needed for the universe to reach the point when Adam was created i.e. when there was Earth. No contradiction there.

Another example is the God/Adam/Eve/Snake (Satan) conflict. The OT/NT narrative presents many problems: why were Adam and Eve being tested? Did they have a choice in the matter? Why did Satan deceive Eve and Adam? and many other logical questions. Of course OT/NT believers have answers to these questions, but all these answers are not based on God's own words. It is based on the interpretation of the human input into the two books. and the answers themselves pose many logical questions.

However, Qura'an claims to be the literal and direct words of God, so at least he should have checked what it says about that conflict. If he had done that, he would have found that All the questions that he posed have a very logical answer in Qura'an's narrative

Religion/Science debate is not the only arena where incomplete information or biased one sided view clouds the vision of whoever is looking for any "Truth" . This distortion exists in most of what people generally discuss and that makes it almost impossible to reach a general agreement on any thing no matter how simple it is.

I don’t know if this is intentional bias in order to discredit the other's view or is it just natural tendencies to prove ourselves right and the others wrong regardless of the situation
religion
7,296 views 30 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Your first mistake is assuming that the Inconceivable's actions have to be logical in the first place. Logic is a human construct


While it is true that the inconceivable does not lend itself to logic, the "Truth" that is "Humanly Knowable" and we search for must be. If you read the words of God in His Books, you sure will see that He is logical in all his dialogues with His Prophets and with humans in general. Logic and Reason are integral to His dealings with us. We learned it from Him, we did not construct/create it.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
God wrote a book?


He revealed his words to his prophets, and they wrote or instructed others to write the books we see now. The problem i am pointing out is this: in the OT/NT there is no dispute about the fact that what we see in them now has a significan amount of input from people that were not with Moses or Jesus. accordingly, we cant say that their input is God's words. On the other hand, Quran, as Muslims believe, is unadultrated document for God's words. Literally and word for word and all of it was documented in written form under the eyes of Prophet Mohammad himslef.

considering that, whoever is looking for truth - whatever the difinition is - about God should consider the three books regardless of whetehr he/she believes in them or not since they are the books that supposedly contain His words about Himself, us, life and everything else.

I never said i read All the books about God (where did you get that?), but yes i read His 3 books (well, Qura'an and the bible which contains the OT/NT to be exact) . the others are opinions about Him, and some are correct and some are not. But i am not even close in reading a fraction of those. I can have my opinion based on His words not based on others opinion about His words.

As I pointed out before, it would take a lifetime of constant reading to persuse everything that every man ever had to say about God


of course, i was talking about those who write about God. Thay should at least read His words first in all of supposedly His 3 books. If they only read two of them, then they cant claim that He is this or that since they dont know what he say about this and that in the third book, can they? they should have the full picture if they are interested in a true search about Him.
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
in the OT/NT there is no dispute about the fact that what we see in them now has a significan amount of input from people that were not with Moses or Jesus. accordingly, we cant say that their input is God's words


How so? You mean...you 'won't say? It's not can't. It's won't. Because you believe the Quran over the OT/NT.

Have you read in it's entirety the whole counsel of God? By that, I'm talking OT/NT.
On the other hand, Quran, as Muslims believe, is unadultrated document for God's words. Literally and word for word and all of it was documented in written form under the eyes of Prophet Mohammad himslef.


this is a double sided argument. Just as the Muslims believe the Quran is unadultrated so to do the Christians believe the bible is unadultrated.

Here's a grid you might be interested in since you are seeking truth. You should be able to see that both can't be from God. There's too many contradictions for it to be so.

WWW Link
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
How so? You mean...you 'won't say? It's not can't. It's won't. Because you believe the Quran over the OT/NT.


No, not at all that i "won't say", i am NOW looking in the Bible. it clearly has many many statements that are clearly not the words of God. The bible ITSELF doesn't even claim that. God's words usually are in Quotes, after saying God then said " such and such ..... ". Dont deny the obvious KFC. The Bible is a collectionn of what people remember what God said as told by Moses and the other prophets. Accordingly, it is sometimes incomplete and sometimes does not represent the exact words of God due to the translations or because the documentation of what was said was not exhaustive and accurate due to the fact that the effort to write it was decades after jesus was raised.

Qura'an on the other hand, according to Muslims, does not have a single word outside God's own words. and it was written during Muhammad's life. and reading the book itself it clearly does not have anything to suggest that something was inserted between God's words

Have you read in it's entirety the whole counsel of God? By that, I'm talking OT/NT.


yes i have of course. and even in the preface the Authors' say how it was written. it has God's words there for sure. not all of it and not exactly in some cases. Qura'an was revealed in Arabic and is written in Arabic. no translations required, and it has no words outside God's words. Muhammad's own statements are written in other books. and he made sure that the revelations are kept separate from his own words.

Read its history and see how it was documented. it is very interesting and the original copy still exist in London's Museum and I think also in Turkey's.

this is a double sided argument. Just as the Muslims believe the Quran is unadultrated so to do the Christians believe the bible is unadultrated


Of course, and by looking at the grid you linked to, it is very clear that the two are very very similar. they only differ in details.

I noticed that in the Grid, it says that " no atonement work" in Islam. That is very untrue. Qura'an says that repentance and good deeds are the way to atone for sins. not just confession. this difference and others could be due to the way the Bible was translated and written. But in general they only differ in details and completeness. not in fundamentals.

Believe it or not when i read some English translations of the Qura'an, i can see how translation can mislead and not convey the real meaning of the original verse. I know and studied Arabic and i can see the difference in both the original and the translated. That is why it is no surprise to me , and no disregard either, that the Bible is the way it is.

You should be able to see that both can't be from God. There's too many contradictions for it to be so.


if you consider the fundamentals, you and I can surely see that they are both from God. Go to the origin of the contardictions in both books and you will see that the Bible is the source of that contradiction due to the reasons i outlined above.

However, regardless of one's view it is always a must to look for what both sources say if we really looking for some kind of a full picture.

The claim that Muhammad wrote Qura'an is unsupported in anyway by the historical facts. He was illeterate. and if you read Arabic you will see that not even an accompolished auther can say or make these verses of Qura'an. But there are more logical reasons that proves that the book is not a work of any normal human let alone an illeterate unschooled (in anything) man. The internet is full of sites that provide a good material on that subject if you are interested.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
I noticed that in the Grid, it says that " no atonement work" in Islam. That is very untrue. Qura'an says that repentance and good deeds are the way to atone for sins. not just confession. this difference and others could be due to the way the Bible was translated and written. But in general they only differ in details and completeness. not in fundamentals.


No, I think you may be misunderstanding what atone means. It means at one with God that could only be done by the blood. Atonement is really an OT word and one that was used for the blood that would atone for the people's sins. What is being said is that while Christians believe in the atonment of Christ's death on the cross for our sins, the Muslims believe in no such thing. That is an essential and a big criteria for the Christian Faith. Without that we have nothing. Christianity is all built around the death, and resurrection of Christ. So that would be a big fundamental they disagree on. Without the atoning blood of Christ we have nothing.

I know and studied Arabic and i can see the difference in both the original and the translated. That is why it is no surprise to me , and no disregard either, that the Bible is the way it is.


I do not know Arabic. My son tho is studying this language for the AF. Have you ever read any of the objections to the Muslim faith from former Muslims? Have you ever heard of Ergun Mehmet Caner? You may want to check him out. His Muslim family all but his father converted to Christianity and he has alot to say about the Quran.

Go to the origin of the contardictions in both books and you will see that the Bible is the source of that contradiction due to the reasons i outlined above.


But that's just it. There are NO contradictions in scripture. I can't find any. Those that are deemed contradictions are not. They are explained quite easily using another part of scripture. People like to believe it is filled with contradictions to appease their conscience of having to adhere to its teachings. It frees them up so to speak to believe what they want.

Don't you find it strange that Muhammad himself thought he was possessed by demons? What if he were right? It was his wife that talked him out of that notion. Do you know right now that there is a list of 10 countries that are the worst persecutors of Christianity and six of them are Muslim led? Doesn't that say something? No, they are not both on the same page.

You cannot reconcile as hard as you'd like the Muslim faith and the Christian one.



Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
You cannot reconcile as hard as you'd like the Muslim faith and the Christian one.


I am not trying to do that. All i am saying is this. Look at all sources of religion if you really looking for the truth. Every one can then decide what is truth for one's own faith. The reasons you mentioned that makes you disregard Qura'an are the same that could be made about the Bible. If you look at both without bias and take them at their face value you will be closer to the truth. that is my opinion, But then again, that is me.

I understand what you saying about atonement, Qura'an way is as i descibed. the word means two different things for the two faiths but they reach the same goal which is forgiveness from God for the sins committed.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Look at all sources of religion if you really looking for the truth. Every one can then decide what is truth for one's own faith.


I actually agree with you here to a degree. We need to examine and look at things closely. While I've never been Muslim I've been just about everything else in my quest for truth. I have studied Islam quite a bit since it's so prevalent. I see alot of similarities, between many of the cults and the Muslim faith. I don't believe they are from God but I do believe he's allowing them to exist and flourish.

While I admit to not reading the Quran in full, I've read parts of it. I've read parts of the Gnostic Gospels as well. Many people believe those lost books are truth. As a JW we had truth books we handed out. As an Adventist I handed out books by Ellen White that were "up there." Pearl of a Great Price was another book we sent around as Mormons with the Book of Mormon.

I've read and seen so much and all the while the bible has been the only book that has held up not only to my srunity but countless others as well. I believe it's the only book that isn't lying to us.

I think the bible is the only truth book out there.



Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Don't you find it strange that Muhammad himself thought he was possessed by demons? What if he were right? It was his wife that talked him out of that notion


Isn't that what every other human who was in direct communication with God felt at the start? Moses was scared and ran away on the mountain from HIM. Mary was terrified when informed by Gabriel that she will carry a baby, Even Abraham when he got the dream to sacrifice his son got terrified and didnt act on it till God repeated the order in a succession of dreams.

The fact that Mohammad himself did not know proves that he did not invent that whole idea. His wife took him to her cousin who was a christian (Ibn Waraqa) who told him "what you saw is the Same as waht happened to Moses" wait and see what comes next. and the rest is history.

If Mohammad was not truthful he would have pretended that it was a revelation from the begining. He was just like Moses, terrified first, what came next calmed him down and showed him that it is God. that is what Muslim texts say. so this point is really a proof for his message not against it.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Isn't that what every other human who was in direct communication with God felt at the start? Moses was scared and ran away on the mountain from HIM. Mary was terrified when informed by Gabriel that she will carry a baby, Even Abraham when he got the dream to sacrifice his son got terrified and didnt act on it till God repeated the order in a succession of dreams.


I don't see Mary terrified nor do I know what you're talking about with Abraham. And you might want to check Ex 3 when Moses first met God....nope nothing on being terrified.

Not that I'd blame them. One thing you do notice in scripture tho is when the angels came they always said the same thing..."Do not Be Afraid." When the supernatural touches the natural this statement was always given. But nope I don't know what you are referring. Would you like to give me scriptures on this? Luke 2 and Exodus 3 might be a start.

If Mohammad was not truthful he would have pretended that it was a revelation from the begining. He was just like Moses, terrified first, what came next calmed him down and showed him that it is God. that is what Muslim texts say. so this point is really a proof for his message not against it.


I'm not saying Mohammud wasn't truthful. I'm saying we always need to test the spirits to see if they are of God or not. I think Mohammud was right in his assesment. I don't think it was from God only one that was pretending to be God. Again, I'd go by the fruits of the spirit.

Chritiantiy is about loving someone to God. Islam is all about submission, not only to Allah but also to Islam. It's about force and control. This is not the God I worship. To say that six out of 10 countries are severely persecuting Christians are Muslim is a very big clue.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
I believe it's the only book that isn't lying to us.

I think the bible is the only truth book out there.



The truth MUST hold to logic and MUST be consistence. As it is written now, the Bible has a problem with these two criteria. Many others pointed that to you on your blog. and the funny thing is all these problems are easily and logically resolved when you see what Qura'an says about the same points that people raised. and i answered few for them there, But you chose to ignore that completely. which is ok but based on that you cant claim that the Bible as is NOW is the "only truth book out there". You can of course believe what you choose but please dont make claims you are not able to support.

All your arguments in response to the comments you recieved are not consistent.

One very obvious point that should make you wonder is this: If the Bible (as we see it now) is the true words of God without human input in it, how come there is so many versions of the faith using so many versions of the book . not only that, but the same version is revised every once in a while. God's words are not a history book to be revised as time passes.

One more point, we are talking about the Books of God themselves not what someone says about them. if you didnt read it fully and understood what it says completely, i suggest that you do before making your claim.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't see Mary terrified nor do I know what you're talking about with Abraham. And you might want to check Ex 3 when Moses first met God....nope nothing on being terrified.


Exodus 3 might be a start


my goodness KFC. You really are something : Here is what Exodus 3.5 says at the very end: "and Moses hid his face , for he was AFRAID to look at God"

and you still arguing that you dont know what i am talking about?

this statement i just qouted proves two main points you refuse to accept:

1- it is clearly not a statement from God. It is a human input from whoever wrote it describing what he heard. Not an exact statement from God. just a description of something happened between God and Moses.
2- That even that human input indicates that moses was AFRAID.

Qura'an tells the same story complete with God's own words. It says why he was afraid and how God calmed him.

Same thing with Abraham's and Mary's Stories. They are not just a recollection of someone's memory and verbalization. It is in God's own words in its original language. not even a translation involved.


I don't think it was from God only one that was pretending to be God. Again, I'd go by the fruits of the spirit.


You really think this is logical arguemnet? you just think this or that? this is not search for truth KFC. take the book and argue with it not what you or I think. if the words dont agree with what you believe, you say you dont think they are correct?

you must reach whether they are correct or not based on what they say and on whether that is logical and consistence not on what you think.

Islam is all about submission, not only to Allah but also to Islam. It's about force and control. This is not the God I worship


You certainly dont know Islam then. it is far far from what you said. where did you get that idea? it is an amazing thing to do for someone who claims that she is looking for truth. you just said something that utterly not true about Islam.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
my goodness KFC. You really are something : Here is what Exodus 3.5 says at the very end: "and Moses hid his face , for he was AFRAID to look at God"


yes, but that's not what you said...you said this...

Moses was scared and ran away on the mountain from HIM


and you are misunderstanding 3:5....Moses looked away from God because he was afraid to "look upon God."

This is alot diff than how you're presenting it. While I'm sure there was some fear there to some extent it wasn't the same kind of fear you're saying. He didn't run away. Scripture says no one can LOOK at God and live. Later we see that God passes by Moses so Moses can get a "glimpse" of him without dying.

Same thing with Abraham's and Mary's Stories. They are not just a recollection of someone's memory and verbalization. It is in God's own words in its original language. not even a translation involved.


you're making assertions you cannot back up. Show me where Abraham had countless dreams before he sacrificed Isaac like you asserted and the same with Mary. Show me the proof text. You are saying things that are not right. I brought you to Ex 3. Did n't you think I'd know what it said?

You certainly dont know Islam then. it is far far from what you said. where did you get that idea? it is an amazing thing to do for someone who claims that she is looking for truth. you just said something that utterly not true about Islam.


I'll get back to you later....since I don't have alot of time now and give you what a former Muslim said about Islam being all about Submission. I would think he would know more than I. I would defer to someone that has been there.

you cant claim that the Bible as is NOW is the "only truth book out there". You can of course believe what you choose but please dont make claims you are not able to support.


I most certainly can make these claims. I can support. Stay tuned. Later I'm going to write more on this on my blog. Maybe tomorrow.

If the Bible (as we see it now) is the true words of God without human input in it, how come there is so many versions of the faith using so many versions of the book . not only that, but the same version is revised every once in a while. God's words are not a history book to be revised as time passes


this is easy. First off I never said the bible was without human input. It most certainly was. God who is infallible used fallible men to write his words for him.

There's nothing wrong with the diff versions. We have diff versions of the dictionary also. It doesn't make it wrong. It modernizes it in our own langages. First we had the King James Version. Then we realized we don't talk with thees and thous so it was changed to you and yours or truly truly instead of verily verily. Nothing wrong with that. I can sit down and read the NIV, KJV, NKJV or the NASB and see that it all says the same thing....they just use diff words for the same thing....for instance, corpse might be in one version and body in another or eagle instead of bird. Nothing wrong with that.....but important to remember it was in the original languages of Hebrew and Gk that are important, not our English versions. While I believe they are true enough they had to be translated from the original langauge and while it's good it can't be perfect.

One more point, we are talking about the Books of God themselves not what someone says about them. if you didnt read it fully and understood what it says completely, i suggest that you do before making your claim.


what claim? Why am I not being consistent? You keep making accusations but are not clear in what they are. You still have not answered my question on contradictions either. If you are really a truth seeker, as you say, then you would look into all these claims you're making as well. Where did Abraham do what you said? Where did Moses run away afraid off the mountain? Where did Mary do what you said? What are the contradictions you are saying? Why am I being inconsistent? I see you're not backing up your claims here.

I'm not seeing much logic here. If you really want to discuss I will, but just don't make assertions that you can't back up.




Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
you're making assertions you cannot back up. Show me where Abraham had countless dreams before he sacrificed Isaac like you asserted and the same with Mary. Show me the proof text. You are saying things that are not right. I brought you to Ex 3. Did n't you think I'd know what it said?


if you go to the story of Moses, Abraham and Mary in Qura'an you will see what i mean. When i said Ran away, it wasn't meant that he was rejecting God. it was just a human reaction to something that was not normal. In case of Moses, God told him, come back and "dont be afraid". In case of Mary, she pleaded with Gabriel to go away and leave her alone, but he calmed her and assured her that he was sent by God. Qura'an details the three stories in much more details. Those details are the ones that make things clear and not contraversial. here is moses story in qura'an:chapter 28, V.29 - 39. verse 31 specificaly says (literal translation): "And drop your staff, when he saw it shaking he RAN AWAYand didnt even look back. O' Moses come back and dont be afraid. you are safe".

I can give you all the references. This really is not the issue. these are details. The point is if we looking for the whole picture, i think we should look at all sources.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'll get back to you later....since I don't have alot of time now and give you what a former Muslim said about Islam being all about Submission. I would think he would know more than I. I would defer to someone that has been there.


that is not the way to look for truth KFC. others opinions are theirs, you shouldnt take others' opinions as a reference. the book itself is the reference not what someone say about it.

And yes, Islam is about submission .... ONLY TO GOD. not to anything or anyone else. that is not what you said. and the idea is this: by submitting only to God humans dont have to submit to anyone or anything else. He is their creator and He is the only being desrves that submission. By that God elevates humans over all else. no one is controlling any human's destinay except Him and humans dont have to rely on anyone or anything other than Him. That way they dont have to comptomise their opinions, their believes or their actions that they believe is according to God's guidelines as stated in Qura'an.


this is easy. First off I never said the bible was without human input. It most certainly was. God who is infallible used fallible men to write his words for him.


Now we agree on something. AND that is my point. Qura'an claims to be the Direct and literal words of god. no human words there as per the prophet himself.

remeber i said that is a CLIAM. just like the Claim that of the the Bible except it says no human input in it. if you are neutral then you look at both. i am not saying believe that or this. but just see what both say about any issue equally then decide which one is complete and more logical. that is all i am saying. this way you know what all the claims are.

There's nothing wrong with the diff versions. We have diff versions of the dictionary also. It doesn't make it wrong. It modernizes it in our own langages


Again that is my point. God's words are not a Dictionary or a history book that needs to be revised or modernized. if we , humans, inject something in his book, who authorised that? he certainly did not. no prophets or messengers anymore for the last 1400 years. We cant change a human author's book without his permission, how in the world can we do that with God's books????

what claim? Why am I not being consistent? You keep making accusations but are not clear in what they are. You still have not answered my question on contradictions either. If you are really a truth seeker, as you say, then you would look into all these claims you're making as well. Where did Abraham do what you said? Where did Moses run away afraid off the mountain? Where did Mary do what you said? What are the contradictions you are saying? Why am I being inconsistent? I see you're not backing up your claims here


comon KFC. I referred you to Qura'an but you refuse to consider it. that is where you will see the difference.

one example of the contradictions in the Bible is this: at one point in Gen.16.15 it says Abraham was 86 when Ismael was born. then Gen. 21.5 it says Abraham was 100 when Isaac was born. this clearly makes Ismael 13-14 yrs old. Then here is the contradiction: 21.14 and 21.15 it says Hagar put Ismael along with the skin of water on her shoulder and in the desrt she put the child under a bush.

Does this make sinse? a 13 or 14 years old boy is put on his mother's shoulder and then put by her under a bush?

i am not trying to count or point out the contradictions here because i think it is due to human input there not a contradiction in god's words. and this makes me say we have to see what the other book that says it has no human input says about the same point. it may clear the issue. and it sure does. since it clearly says that Ismael was taken with his mother to the desert way before Isaac was born and when he was a baby.

Another point that i really think is very offensive to God is the story of Lot and his two daughters. Do you really think that God will allow any of His prophets to commit incest? all his prophets are imune to that kind of actions. HE protects them even if the circumstances put them in a compromising position.

i am sure that is one of things that human input caused, not the words of God.

i think you said yourself, "if it make sense, why look anywhere else" but what if it doesnt? that is my point. that is where you are inconsistent, you refuse to look somewhere else if you find something in the bible that doesnt make sense. In other words your position sounds like this : look only to the bibel whether it makes sense or not.

and if it does not you try to make it so. but it doesnt work.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
one example of the contradictions in the Bible is this: at one point in Gen.16.15 it says Abraham was 86 when Ismael was born. then Gen. 21.5 it says Abraham was 100 when Isaac was born. this clearly makes Ismael 13-14 yrs old. Then here is the contradiction: 21.14 and 21.15 it says Hagar put Ismael along with the skin of water on her shoulder and in the desrt she put the child under a bush.

Does this make sinse? a 13 or 14 years old boy is put on his mother's shoulder and then put by her under a bush?


ok, now this is something I can relate to. If you give me specifics. I can address it. But I can't to vague assertions. So let's look at this logically.

Ishamel was about 14 yrs old when Isaac was born. This is fact.

This is what Gen 21:14-15 says:

And Abraham rose up early in the morning and took bread and a bottle of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba. And the water was spent in the bottle and she cast the child under one of the shrubs.

I see that Abraham put the water on her shoulders. Not the child. He allowed her to take the child with her. He didn't put this child on her shoulders. Only the water. When all was hopeless, she put the child under the shrub for him to die since she couldn't bear him to see him die. So putting him under a bush is a problem? How?

Anyhow this wouldn't be called a contradiction. A contradiction is when something is said to have happened in a specific manner and then later said differently.

Another point that i really think is very offensive to God is the story of Lot and his two daughters. Do you really think that God will allow any of His prophets to commit incest? all his prophets are imune to that kind of actions. HE protects them even if the circumstances put them in a compromising position.


Lot wasn't a prophet. Where do you get that he was? I would agree that God wouldn't have picked his prophets if they had such inclinations. He set them apart from their mother's womb.

See, the problem isn't the bible is all mixed up because of human writers. It's all mixed up because of OUR understanding of it. If God is truly God, don't you think he would leave his words in capable hands? I think so. From what you wrote here I have to say, it's not the bible but your understanding of it that is the issue.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
think you said yourself, "if it make sense, why look anywhere else" but what if it doesnt? that is my point. that is where you are inconsistent, you refuse to look somewhere else if you find something in the bible that doesnt make sense. In other words your position sounds like this : look only to the bibel whether it makes sense or not.


Well it's like this. I believe the Bible is the actual word of God. I believe he left it here using human authors and witnesses to give to us. The Apostles warned us quite consistently NOT to look elsewhere. They all said that Satan is trying his best to convolute scripture and bring in other doctrines. They warned us about heresy. Not to fall for it. You can read 1 John and Colossians as two good books on that, but it's all over the NT. Actually it's all over the OT as well. Only then it was heathen nations trying to infiltrate Israel with their idol worship and all that went with it.

I refuse to look elswhere because I've been elsewhere and I know that for the most part is all the same. It's to take us away from biblical doctrine. Alot of the cults do the same. They all have their "prophets" and they all have their extra biblical books. Quite often these "special prophets" have visions not unlike Muhummed did in the cave. If you look really close you start to see similarities. Only it's not coming from the same God as the Bible speaks of.

We always must test the spirits to see if they are from God or not. When I look at Islam with their history and even now with their persecution of Christianity I don't have far to go to test the spirit here. Islam has been propagated by the sword and there is no denial of that. Christianity has been propagated by Love and we know that God is Love.

We've been told to look elswhere since the Garden of Eden when Satan via the snake said to plant the seeds of doubt in Eve's mind...."Did God really say?"

I'm not falling for it. Been there, done that.

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away


You read this and YOU inject other qulifiers between the words so you can say he didnt put the child on her shoulder. When i read the words without that, it says simply " putting it on her shoulder, and the child..." if it wasn't on her shoulder then "and the child .... what?"

please always remeber that i am not trying to descridt the Bible. It is one of God's book. The problem is it was not written in complete form and it was written 100 yrs or more after Jesus. and human input rendered it not very clear and confuse the words of God with human words. That is all. all these are details and i said that many times. and puts shadows on God's words.

This is really the reason i dont want to discuss these points because it is certainly not God's words that is the source of these issues.

Lot wasn't a prophet. Where do you get that he was?


Yes he was, God sent the angels to him and led him and his family out before destroying the city. God doesn't send Angels to destroy cities and lead just regular good believing humans out before doing that. Only He does that with prophets. if you believe otherwise, then that is your belief. i cant argue with that. He is to Abraham as Aaron to Moses. not a messenger but a prophet, like Joseph and Isaac and Jacob ..etc. He was the prophet for that city. I dont know how you missed Gen 21, it says "He said to him 'very well, i grant you this favor too ....' " . who is "He"? before that it always referred to the angels as "they" now it says "He" isn't that God speaking with Lot? again it depends how you read the text, and is the point. all this is making the book subject to many versions of understanding. Gen 22 says "hurry, escape there ,for "I" can do nothing until you arrive there" and Gen 24 says "then The Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur ....." . it is clear from that that the "He" and the "I" is referring to the Lord isnt it? God speaks only to prophets. That is the way I look at it.

Another point that is also strange in this is that the bible is silent about what Lot did when his daughters got pregnant. Now if you read the same story in Qura'an it clearly says that he was a prophet and it did not mention that incident at all. also Qura'an praises him and honer him greatly in God's words. God will never honer a person who gets drunk and commits incest like that.

what is very interesting here is this : If Qura'an was not God's words, why did Mohammad write these stories that way and not the way they are in the Bible? what interest did mohammad have in changing the story and make someone like lot a "prophet"?

From what you wrote here I have to say, it's not the bible but your understanding of it that is the issue.


of course, but our understanding comes from the text, we cant just make things up. i think that is what you are doing. the text should stand on its own, no injection of qualifiers to make it the way we wish.

the words of god are sacred and should be understood using the rules of the language it is revealed in.

in the Bible that i have has notes at the bottom of the page explaining the meaning of certain words. Now, these notes clearly indicates that there is a big problem there. these notes use words like Gk ... Heb... or meaning uncertain or the word means something and in the text they put something else.

Here is another thing: In Psalm 2.7 ".... you are my son today, i have begotten you..."

now you also say that Jesus is also God's son, so how many sons of God are there? or is it a problem in the translation and/or human verbalization of Gods words who made it that way.

I dont mean to undemine anyone's understanding of the book that he/she believes in, all i am saying if you really looking for the truth look at all God's words not just one of them.

You and I dont differ on many basic issues. except the fact that i read both books and i found it very helpful in clearing many logical points.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm not falling for it. Been there, done that.


wish you the best in your journey. just remember what i said about looking for the truth. it is not an easy journey and more information always help.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
please always remeber that i am not trying to descridt the Bible. It is one of God's book. The problem is it was not written in complete form and it was written 100 yrs or more after Jesus


it couldn't have been written that much after his death. It was written by eyewittness accounts or dictated by eyewitness accounts. The gospels were most likely written 20-30 years after his death. We know Luke wrote Luke. Right in the first chapter we see he was going by eyewitness accounts. We know Mark wrote Mark dictated by Peter. Matthew also was an eyewitness. John as well.

How could this be 100 yrs later. They were not living that old at the time.


Yes he was, God sent the angels to him and led him and his family out before destroying the city. God doesn't send Angels to destroy cities and lead just regular good believing humans out before doing that. Only He does that with prophets


Then you have to ask yourself...what is a prophet? Did Lot fit this description? If you are honest you'll say no. Compare to Ezek, Jeremiah, Amos, Hosea, Daniel etc who were all declared prophets. A prophet warned, and wrote about the future. Lot did not. Besides God spared and protected others and that did not make them prophets either. Rahab comes to mind and she was a prostitute.

Another point that is also strange in this is that the bible is silent about what Lot did when his daughters got pregnant. Now if you read the same story in Qura'an it clearly says that he was a prophet and it did not mention that incident at all. also Qura'an praises him and honer him greatly in God's words. God will never honer a person who gets drunk and commits incest like that.


All you're saying here is you accept the Quran's version. As you can see they both differ. So how can they "both" be God's books? Follow the trail...again, test the spirits. Look into those two children born to Lot. Notice we never hear of Lot again. So you're right. Lot turned out not so good at the end. God didn't honor or bless him after that. Again, look at the baby boys born. Do you notice anything?

what is very interesting here is this : If Qura'an was not God's words, why did Mohammad write these stories that way and not the way they are in the Bible? what interest did mohammad have in changing the story and make someone like lot a "prophet"?


Remember when the Quran was written. Take that into account. The bible was already written. The OT was well finished and cannonized well before Muhummad was even born. So who do you think is behind these writings? Test the spirits. You'll see when you trace the lineage of those babies you'll find they were enemies to Israel later on. Big enemies. So you do the logic. What do you think?

Here is another thing: In Psalm 2.7 ".... you are my son today, i have begotten you..."


I actually read this last night. Go to Colosians 1:18 and you'll see that Jesus is the first born of the dead. Paul also says this in Acts 13:33

"God has fulfilled the same to us their children, in that he has raised up Jesus again, as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."

now you also say that Jesus is also God's son, so how many sons of God are there? or is it a problem in the translation and/or human verbalization of Gods words who made it that way.


One son. Jesus. He was talking about what was about to come. It's a prophetic psalm and also a royal one.

I dont mean to undemine anyone's understanding of the book that he/she believes in, all i am saying if you really looking for the truth look at all God's words not just one of them.

You and I dont differ on many basic issues. except the fact that i read both books and i found it very helpful in clearing many logical points.


I don't see you as undermining really. I think you're misunderstanding only. I believe as I said, the bible is the only word of God. The rest are all forgeries. They all came after the bible was written to undermine it, to confuse the people and we know who is the master of that.

But I do think we do differ on the basics if you are believing the Quran as your go to book. The most important essential we could not beieve in would be that Jesus was God in the Flesh. The Quran does not teach that. Both books contradict each other. I could give you lots of stuff on this. Just Jesus being God is a biggie. One says yes. One says no.







Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
It was written by eyewittness accounts or dictated by eyewitness accounts. The gospels were most likely written 20-30 years after his death


I am talking about the whole book not just parts of it. And even that is still 20-30 years and are not from Jesus himslef.

Here is a quote from the preface of the bible i have: " it is evident that the text has suffered in transmission and that none of the versions provide a satisfactory restoration {of the original text]"

There is no question about the fact that not all the words in the bible are the actual "words of God", or even the actual words of Jesus himsel. it is at best an "eye witness accounts" as you put it yourself.

Compare that to the way Qura'an was documented: It was dictated by Mohammad himself to his scribers right after revelation and were written on sheep skin and paper. Not only that, they were memorized, word for word by them and for over 23 years they reviewd what they wrote and what they memorized with him. after his death, all the documents were collected and written in one complete volume that was reviewed by all the scribers and the memorizers. the final copy was then copied four more times. the original was kept in the prophet's mosque and the other four were distributed to the main regions of the state: Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and Iran. Some of these five copies still exist and to this day each print of any Qura'an must be checked against one of these copies by certain authorized agencies in the Muslim world. That is why you will never find a single authentic print of Qura'an differs from another.

Now, regardless of whether anyone believes that these are the words of God or not, no one doubts that they are the words that Mohammad said were the words of God.

All you're saying here is you accept the Quran's version. As you can see they both differ. So how can they "both" be God's books? Follow the trail...again, test the spirits


when i compare the two versions of the story the one in qura'an is logical while the one in the bible is not. Lot to Abraham was like Aaron to Moses, he can't just do this and just disappear. considering the way the Bible was written you can see which one is more reliable. Which book i go by is not the issue here, the issue is when something sounds incomplete or illogical we must look for the missing parts not just test the spirits. If you rely on Spirits then there is no use in discussing anything really. and as you said they could be Evil spirits too. so as regular humans, not prophets or messengers, we can only rely on logic and consistency and reliability of the source not on Spirits.

Paul also says this in Acts 13:33


That is the point, Paul says that. not Jesus. paul was not a prophet or a messenger from God.

He was talking about what was about to come. It's a prophetic psalm and also a royal one.


The words "this day" and "thee" don't mean anything? Paul is saying that was a prophetic statemnet while the statement itself indicates that it is directed at some one present at that "day" not in the future. and you go with Paul. then it is a matter of preference not logic and understanding.

I think you're misunderstanding only. I believe as I said, the bible is the only word of God. The rest are all forgeries


I know what i understand and what i don tunderstand. and you sure can believe what you prefer, but claiming that others are forgeries to justify your position is a claim you can't support with any eveidence. Just saying it doesnt make it so. The proof is in the puding as they say

Both books contradict each other. I could give you lots of stuff on this. Just Jesus being God is a biggie.


Of course they do, but when one book say Jesus is God, and then it says he is a Son of God and all that not from Jesus but from an eye witness, and even that eyewitness is not exactly quoated or translated, while the other book say he was a messenger and the words are from the man who recieved them. then you can see the difference in reliability.

But as a practical matter, what difference does it make, except of course as a personal visualization of God, whetehr Jesus was a God, Son of God or a messenger? what matters is what he said as morals and guidelines for people. And in that i don't find much difference at all. If we disagree on what was Jesus exactly, God Himself promised that He will be the Judge of that when we meet him. So this point that you consider major, i dont see it as a point that affects the main thing which is: what are the guidelines of a human to live by in order for God to be pleased which him/her? In that I dont find much difference at all between the three religions.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Compare that to the way Qura'an was documented: It was dictated by Mohammad himself to his scribers right after revelation and


ok, let's do that shall we....not that I think you're really interested in truth, but heck, I'll give it a shot...one last time.

Any reader of the Quran familiar with the OT discovers that the names and events of OT books and prophets are very definitely copied in the Quran. Often the stories in the Quran are garbled and confused. Muhammad must have heard these stories from his Jewish friends in Medina. His 7th wife Raihana and ninth wife were Jews. Did you know this? His first wife Khadija had a Christian background as well as his 8th wife. They most likely shared with him much of the OT and NT with him.

I read the thoughts of a now Arab Christian, a Palestinian whose own father was killed by the Jews in Palestine, on Muhammad. He said after studying the Quran he thought it was composed by Muhammad who was trying to collect and edit his prose and poems before publishing them before he died unexpectantly. He said there is hardly a single complete narrative on any given topic recorded in one Surat. Instead bits and pieces are recorded here and there. Surely if God speaks only Arabic and sent down the Quran from heaven in Arabic he would certainly have used more discretion, better organization and sequence of facts and events...(as is the bible).

There are many passages in the so-called inspired Quran which originally appeared in the OT more than 1000 years before Muhammad was even born. I can give you many examples easily.

His teachings concerning God, creation, Adam and Eve, sin, the fall, angels, heaven, hell, Abraham, Moses, the Jews, and prophets had alredy been revealed and proclaimed in the OT. Muhammad added nothing new. His revelations were in no way superior to the revelatioons given to the earlier prophets. The truth had been revealed and taught for centuries before the birth of Muhammad.

One of the perplexing statements in the Quran cannot be a divine one. It is the Quranic declaration that Alexander the Great was a prophet. How can a heathen general whose debauchery and drunkenness contributed to his death at 33 be considered a prophet? He was closer to the anti-christ than prophet. But then again, remember Muhammad thought he himself was possessed. We cannot forget this. Who would consider Alexander a prophet? God or Satan?

Numerous passages in the Quran so closely parallel passages in the NT which is 600 years older than the Quran that one can safely conclude that Muhammad borrowed some of the content of his revelations from the truly inspired text of the NT scriptures and I can give you examples of these also.

Ask yourself this. What was Muhammad doing between the time he married Khadija and his prophetic call, a period of 15 years? You may want to do some HW on Buhaira a Nestorian monk and Waraqa ibn Nofal, considered to be Muhammad's uncle and was a Nestorian. Check into what the Nestorians believed and compare to the Quran.

Muslims believe Arabic is the language of Allah. They believe the Quran is perfect in the Arabic language. Many Muslims memorize the Quran in Arabic for this reason. But get this......Muhammad used a number of foreign words or phrases in the Quran, leaving questioners wondering if "God's language" is deficient because he needed help from other languages.

1. "Pharoah" comes from the Egyptian langauge. It is repeated 84 times in the Quran.

2. "Adam" and "Eden" are Accadian words. Adam in Arabic would be "basharan" or insan" meaning mankind. "Eden" could be the Arabic "janna" or garden. Why weren't they used instead?

3. "Abraham" comes from the Assyrian language, and would be better represented in the Arabic, "Abu Raheem."

4. "Gospel" comes from the Gk "Injil" and the correct Arabic is "bisharah."

There's more even. I won't even get into grammer. But if you really want to check into this you will see poor grammer in the Quran. So much for your perfect book.

How can one God send two clashing revelations, the Bible and The Quran? Is it to confuse us? The bible is not confusing nor contradictory. The evidence is very clear that the Quran is both. If Muslims insist that the Bible is corrupt, I will have to say that the evidence vindicates the Bible and condemns the Quran. Any reasonable person who is really looking for the truth presented with the evidence cannot believe otherwise. It's all there. One just has to put their presuppositions aside and search for the truth.

It's there, but do you really want to know? Or do you really just want your group?





Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is the Quranic declaration that Alexander the Great was a prophet


This a completely false statement and I challenge you and you friend to point to that verse. you relying on hearsay not on critical reading of the book itself. just like there are people who say the Bible is just a collection of history and not from God, there are also people who say the same about Qura'an.

Qura'an is not interested in history and family lineage as the current Bible is, it is the words of God for guidence through life as the words of God were to all his prophets. God is not a historian. but for each story you mentioned the narrative there is enough to give you the main point intended not to give you a lesson in history.

Muhammad used a number of foreign words or phrases in the Quran, leaving questioners wondering if "God's language" is deficient because he needed help from other languages


if this is your logic, i guess no point in trying to explain it to you. If God uses the name of people or things as they were known to the people at the time, He is deficient?

we should check all sources ourselves not from a second hand source, that is all i said about searching for the truth. , then you reach what conclusion you like. I am not trying to convince anyone one way or another.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
This a completely false statement and I challenge you and you friend to point to that verse


fair enough. I will gladly do this for you. Check Surat al-Kahf (The Cave) 18:83-100.

I found this as well.

It is almost universally held, among Western scholars, that the character of Dhul-Qarnayn corresponds to Alexander the Great. The reason for this is that the story of Dhul-Qarnayn as described in the Qur'an follows very closely some passages of the Alexander Romance, a thoroughly embellished compilation of Alexander's exploits from Hellenistic and early Christian sources, which underwent numerous expansions and revisions throughout Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Historically, Muslim scholars have endorsed the identification of Dhul-Qarnayn with the Alexander the Great, although competing theories have been proposed, some recently (see Dhul-Qarnayn for details). Orientalist scholars, studying ancient Christian legends about Alexander the Great, independently came to the conclusion that Dhul-Qarnayn is an ancient epithet for Alexander the Great. As a result, the identity of Dhul-Qarnayn has become a matter of great controversy in modern times.

Ibn Ishaq's original work is lost, but it has been almost completely incorporated in Ibn Hisham, another early Muslim historian. Ibn Hisham collected Ibn Ishaq's Sira and added his notes to it; in regards to Dhul-Qarnayn, Ibn Hisham noted:

"Dhu al-Qarnain is Alexander the Greek, the king of Persia and Greece, or the king of the east and the west, for because of this he was called Dhul-Qarnayn [meaning, 'the two-horned one']..."
The theme, amongst Islamic scholars, of identifying Dhul-Qarnayn with Alexander the Great appears to have originated here. Why Ibn Hisham made this identification is not entirely clear. Aristotelian Muslim philosophers, such as al-Farabi, Avicenna, and al-Kindi enthusiastically embraced the concept of Dhul-Qarnayn being an ancient Greek king. They stylized Dhul-Qarnayn as a Greek philosopher-king.

you can read more about the similarities to Alexander the Great here:

WWW Link
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Qura'an is not interested in history and family lineage as the current Bible


see you don't understand the bible. The family lineages were mentioned as PROOF. It helped give credibility to the scriptures. Names, dates and places were very prominent as proof. You don't see that in the Quran. Nothing can be nailed down or proven because these things are omitted. Many of the names and places in the bible have been found or dug up in the field of archeology. Even some things or events thought to be questionable were later deemed true after all.

So instead of knocking geneologies you should be digging into them to see exactly how they all fit together and the reason for them. It's actually an amazing study. Compare the geneology to say....Abraham in Genesis to Christ in Luke Chap 3.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
As a result, the identity of Dhul-Qarnayn has become a matter of great controversy in modern times.


and that proves that Qura'an identifies him as Alexander? these are people talking, no muslim regardless of his/her location ever thought of Zul-Qarnayn as alexander. now you can see what human input does when it gets between God's words. Qura'an speaks in clear terms, if this was Alexander it would have said so like it identified The Romans, and Persians.

I am afraid that the idea of human input within God's words is not a no-no to you. for Muslims it is. all interpretitions are just that, only the words of Mohammad and that of Qura'an are the ones that count, not anyone else.