Koran-vs-Bible

utherpendragon View Profile

Spirituality

10 May '09 05:25

jaywill
Joined
02 Aug '06
Moves
12622
11 May '09 13:333 edits
Originally posted by FMF
One can ask a similar question about the corporate-friendly gibberish "John" came out with that gave rise to the Book of Revelation: was "John" mistaken when he recites the revelations?

I mean, the deception of the Book of Revelation was predicted earlier in the Gospels: "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." (Matthew.)
One can ask a similar question about the corporate-friendly gibberish "John" came out with that gave rise to the Book of Revelation: was "John" mistaken when he recites the revelations?

First of all, let's serparate your big fat opinion from the known facts.

John is not known to have doubted that the revelation he wrote about had a divine source. Muslim biographers of Muhammed admit that he had instances of doubt.

That has nothing to do with your big fat opinion about the book of Revelation.

==========================
I mean, the deception ...
==============================

Again, your big fat opinion. With which I have no use because I don't think it is the least bit true.

============================
of the Book of Revelation was predicted earlier in the Gospels: "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." (Matthew.)
==================================

The point I brought up was the self doubt of Mohammed that his Koran was entirely a divine communication.

We're comparing the Koran to the Bible. There is no record of the self doubt of John as compared to that of Mohammed.

Do you have a comment on that specifically?
FMF
Joined
28 Oct '05
Moves
34587
11 May '09 13:38
Originally posted by jaywill
John is not known to have doubted that the revelation he wrote about had a divine source. Muslim biographers of Muhammed admit that he had instances of doubt.
My point was that "John" was at best mistaken. Personally, I don't think he was - per se - because the whole thing was a bogus corporate-friendly manipulative afterthought. The reasons for this I have already laid out clearly in another thread. Your responses at that time amounted to nothing much more than quotes from the Book of Revelation in which The Book of Revelation declared itself 'true'.
jaywill
Joined
02 Aug '06
Moves
12622
11 May '09 13:441 edit
Originally posted by FMF
My point was that "John" was at best mistaken. Personally, I don't think he was - per se - because the whole thing was a bogus corporate-friendly manipulative afterthought. The reasons for this I have already laid out clearly in another thread. Your responses at that time amounted to nothing much more than quotes from the Book of Revelation in which The Book of Revelation declared itself 'true'.
========================
My point was that "John" was at best mistaken. Personally, I don't think he was - per se - because the whole thing was a bogus corporate-friendly manipulative afterthought. The reasons for this I have already laid out clearly in another thread. Your responses at that time amounted to nothing much more than quotes from the Book of Revelation in which The Book of Revelation declared itself 'true'.
=================================

Both books claim to be true revelations. In the case of the Koran, Muslim biographers record that Muhammed doubted at an early point in his 30 years writing. He suspected that he had a demon.

The attitude of one writer therefore is vastly different in the case of the Koran, in spite of the fact that both books are claiming to be true revelations.

IF you don't grasp the significance of this by now, I won't bother repeating it to you. I am not interested in your particular silly axe to grind against the book of Revelation - corporate propoganda and such poppy cock as that.
FMF
Joined
28 Oct '05
Moves
34587
11 May '09 13:48
Originally posted by jaywill
IF you don't grasp the significance of this by now, I won't bother repeating it to you. I am not interested in your particular silly axe to grind against the book of Revelation - corporate propoganda and such poppy cock as that.
I grasped the true significance of the Book of Revelation long long ago.

On the other hand. I suspect that you are neither intellectually nor emotionally capable of "grasping" anything other than what you have already "grasped" the unoriginal and internalized details of which you trot out here day after day.
jaywill
Joined
02 Aug '06
Moves
12622
11 May '09 14:03
Originally posted by FMF
I grasped the true significance of the Book of Revelation long long ago.

On the other hand. I suspect that you are neither intellectually nor emotionally capable of "grasping" anything other than what you have already "grasped" the unoriginal and internalized details of which you trot out here day after day.
We're comparing the Quran with the Bible. I am simply dealing with comparisons at this point.

The Quran is dependent upon the Bible. The Bible is not dependent upon the Quran.

The Quran accepts certain things written in the New Testament, when they are convenient to establish the teaching of the Quran. There is no dependency the other way around.

The Quran constantly gives the impression that the Bible "left out" certain details which somehow Muhammed was privy to be informed. There is no such dependency the other way around.

We're comparing the Quran to the Bible.
jaywill
Joined
02 Aug '06
Moves
12622
11 May '09 14:083 edits
What I mean above is that the Quran deals with a good number things of which the Bible speaks. But there is frequently added details to conversations and added previously unknown details, as if Muhammed had the "inside story".

He is telling you what really happened by adding details. There is no dependency of the Bible on material in the Quran to either embellish or supplement.

Indeed, it is hard for me to imagine the Quran without the Bible having preceeded it.
jaywill
Joined
02 Aug '06
Moves
12622
11 May '09 14:38
Other comparisons of the Bible to the Quran. Let's consider the life of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels compared to the author of the Quran.

We are comparing a Galilean peasant accompanied by a few fishermen - Jesus, with

a conqueror at the head of his army - Muhammed.

We are comparing Jesus, without force, without power, without much support, without external circumstance of attraction or influence praviling over prejudice, the learning, the hierarchy, of his country with

Mahammed making his way Arabs; collecting followers in the midst of conquests and military triumphants at a time when success of military arms was considred a sure testimony of Divine approbation.

Jesus, the itenerate preacher as compared to Muhammed collecting followers behind a victorious chief of bloody battles.

I am talking about the times during the teaching of each person - Jesus and Muhammed.

Jesus did not subdue multitudes and convince them to join Him because of irresitable violent power of arms.

I will not avoid saying that Christiandom afterwards had its military crusades. But during the time of the two founders of the New Testament and the Quran - one is peasant teacher as opposed to a chieftan of force of arms conducting raids of blood letting.
FMF
Joined
28 Oct '05
Moves
34587
11 May '09 16:54
Originally posted by jaywill
We're comparing the Quran to the Bible.
No. We were talking about you. Don't hide behind semantics.
whodey
Joined
02 Jan '06
Moves
12857
11 May '09 19:09
Originally posted by FMF
Are you suggesting that books written by more than one author are always better than those written by one author? Or only when it suits your preconceived ideas?
What I am saying is that the Bible is a cohesive book. The books are compatible enough to include in one large work as where the Koran would be incompatible. With the Koran we are left with two possibilites which are that the Koran could have been incorporated into the Bible if only it had not first become "corrupted" or it is incompatible in its totality. Ask any Muslim and he will tell you as much.

So the question begs, how is the teachings of Christ compatible with the Old Testament? To begin with, Christians do not teach that the Old Testament has been "corrupted". Instead they have incorporated its teachings along side their own. In fact, Christ pointed to teachings within the Torah as well as prophesies about himself. Not even Christ had the audacity to poo poo the Torah and start over again. Intead he pointed to the prophets and said these are my credentials.

Another striking difference is that Christ did not pick up a pen and pencil and begin writing the New Testament much like Mohammad or say a Joseph Smith. Again, his witness was based purely on other witness accounts. In short, I believe it gives a more credible witness than someone simply saying this is or was the way it is.
scherzo
At the Revolution
Joined
15 Sep '07
Moves
5073
11 May '09 20:44
Originally posted by utherpendragon
is the Koran superior to the Bible and if so,why? Is the Bible superior and if so,why? Are they equal? Why?
The Qur'an is supposed to be read as a supplement to the Old Testament in Islam, along with the Hadith, which is sort of similar to the "New Testament for Muslims."
jaywill
Joined
02 Aug '06
Moves
12622
11 May '09 22:232 edits
Originally posted by FMF
No. We were talking about you. Don't hide behind semantics.
FMF
Joined
28 Oct '05
Moves
34587
12 May '09 01:451 edit
Originally posted by whodey
Another striking difference is that Christ did not pick up a pen and pencil and begin writing the New Testament much like Mohammad or say a Joseph Smith. Again, his witness was based purely on other witness accounts. In short, I believe it gives a more credible witness than someone simply saying this is or was the way it is.
So presumably you too think the Book of Revelation is not credible seeing as it is "someone simply saying this is or was the way it is"?

Or do you think it's "cohesive" because whoever wrote it - a team player right down to his corporate church cotton socks - cleverly made sure it was "cohesive"?
~~robbie carrobie~~
Account suspended
Joined
26 Aug '07
Moves
38239
12 May '09 08:311 edit
Originally posted by scherzo
The Qur'an is supposed to be read as a supplement to the Old Testament in Islam, along with the Hadith, which is sort of similar to the "New Testament for Muslims."
no, the hadith are the sayings of the prophet, and there is much speculation amoung muslim scholars as to which should be regarded as authentic, for as you are aware, some are quite strange indeed, this is not the case amoung christians, who generally regard the Anjil (new testament, that being the christian Greek scriptures, as the revealed word of God.)
jaywill
Joined
02 Aug '06
Moves
12622
13 May '09 00:20
Originally posted by whodey
What I am saying is that the Bible is a cohesive book. The books are compatible enough to include in one large work as where the Koran would be incompatible. With the Koran we are left with two possibilites which are that the Koran could have been incorporated into the Bible if only it had not first become "corrupted" or it is incompatible in its totality. ...[text shortened]... ve it gives a more credible witness than someone simply saying this is or was the way it is.
Notice that FMF accuses the book of Revelation of being "cohesive". Shall we then suppose that he doesn't regard it as a "madman's dream"?
UzumakiAi
Joined
30 Dec '07
Moves
9905
13 May '09 01:38
Originally posted by greenpawn34
The Bible comes out ahead on sales.
Previous posters link bears that out.

But if we can leave the subject matter out of it
(on here...am I kidding?).

I have an interesting observation.

Been going around 2nd hand book shops since 1981.

2nd hand Bibles are everywhere. Some shops had a shelf full of 2nd hand Bibles.

Never seen 1 copy of th ...[text shortened]... n.
I cannot state that one is better than the other as I have only
read the Bible.
You probably don't live in a place where Islam is the majority religion. How many people in your area possess Korans that they could even put at a second hand book store? Surely, if you were to go to Turkey or the United Arab Emirates, and see no copies of the Koran at such stores, it would be a more meaningful observation.

Personally however, I think both books are written in a rather stilted way. Neither would ever be bought if religion were not a motivator.