Who wrote the Bible?

[Wilse]

Channel four (UK), 8:30pm tonight.

[swift240]

Yeah I think I wll tape that.

[bloodline]

Any chance someone could put it on line?

[Wilse]

swift240 wrote:
Yeah I think I wll tape that.

I'll have to tape it too; going out to play soon. :-D

[bloodline]

Pretty good show, and very well done even in it's pro christain stance. :-)

DAMN! Forgot to see it.

What was the verdict of the show? Who wrote that fictuitous tome of nonsense?

[swift240]

I think the verdict is, that many people took part in both the old and new testament that its hard to belive ALL of it.

I think I will stick to the Beano and Dandy. There just as much truth on those.


Mike. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[bloodline]

JonoPike wrote:
DAMN! Forgot to see it.

What was the verdict of the show? Who wrote that fictuitous tome of nonsense?

The show was good, to sum it up:

1. The Book is not historically accurate, in any way shape or form.
2. It is compiled form many sources.
3. Many people wrote it (and the "holy" texts it was based on).
4. Each person had a differing point of view (and made up bits of the stories to add weight to their ideas).
5. It is full of spin an political bias.
6. The final version we have now is a result of a selective cull.

The most important thing to remember is that ALL religious texts suffer from these problems.

The presenter of the show was able to describe it best, and in such a way not to sound as negative as I do :-D

[whabang]

Who wrote the Bible?
o_0 did it!

The most important thing to remember is that ALL religious texts suffer from these problems.

The Qur'an was written by one man. I'm not saying it doesn't suffer from the other points you listed, but points 2, 3 and 4 it does not suffer from.

[Wilse]

Just watched it on video and was a bit disappointed with it.

I also found the presenter's continuous nodding, when interviewing someone, to be incredibly irritating.

Guess I'm too uptight. :-D

[blobrana]

Hum,
it was
Old news...

[bloodline]

mdma wrote:
The most important thing to remember is that ALL religious texts suffer from these problems.

The Qur'an was written by one man. I'm not saying it doesn't suffer from the other points you listed, but points 2, 3 and 4 it does not suffer from.

That's not true, it was spoken (apparently by one man) and was maintained as a verbal tradition until it was finally colated much later... It has suffered just as much, but it's followers are somewhat deffensive when you question it (always a bad sign).

[dezignersrepublic]

@Bloodline

I dont know who told you that about the Quran but this is what actually happened (the following events all took place during the Prophets (pbuh) lifetime):

# Each verse received was recited by the Prophet, and its location relative to other verses and surahs was identified by him.

# The verses were written by scribes, selected by the Prophet, on any suitable object - the leaves of trees, pieces of wood, parchment or leather, flat stones, and shoulder blades. Scribes included Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Mu'awiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan, Ubey Ibn Ka'ab, Zayed Ibn Thabit.


# Several hundred companions memorized the Qur'an by heart.

So a written version of the Quran DID exist during the prophets lifetime with the Prophet informing his companions of the order in which the verses were to be arranged.

In addition to the above the Quran contains many mathematical patterns which would be impossible to maintain (the main one being about the number 19) if there were several authors of the Quran as you suggest or even with one author who was illiterate. The mathematical miracle that stands out most for me is:

The word "land" appears 13 times in the Qur'an and the word "sea" 32 times, giving a total of 45 references. If we divide that number by that of the number of references to the land we arrive at the figure 28.888888888889%. The number of total references to land and sea, 45, divided by the number of references to the sea in the Qur'an, 32, is 71.111111111111%. Extraordinarily, these figures represent the exact proportions of land and sea on the Earth today.

For more info about the mathematical miracles in the Quran please see

this page (http://www.harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_p4_01.php)

Any questions feel free to ask.

[Cymric]

Mathematical miracles in books are no miracles. Need I remind you of the Bible Codes, which would conclusively show that the Bible held the Truth once and for all? Embarrassment all around when it was found that Moby Dick Codes work even better.

If you find peace and comfort in the Qu'ran, then so be it. I hope it you will find it useful (although it is horribly out of date and many of life's lessons it contains predate it) in the rest of your life. However, you have chosen to believe, and that rules out any logical foundation of your faith whatsoever. You cannot reason out faith. You just have it. It is nice to see that with very selective maths you can make it appear that the Qu'ran is miraculous, but it won't convince anyone, and in fact makes it sound like you're practising your religion the wrong way around.

Put another way: if you can find miracles in the occurrences of sea and land in a book, then I claim the right to disprove you by counting the number of red and black paperclips in the jar on my desk.

[GadgetMaster]

bloodline wrote:

it was spoken (apparently by one man) and was maintained as a verbal tradition until it was finally colated much later... It has suffered just as much, but it's followers are somewhat deffensive when you question it (always a bad sign).

Verbal tradition is in incorrect term to describe the rigorous process of preservation that has been practiced? Memorizing it verse by verse line by line and word by word is a very diffeerent concept. Also there is a preserved line of transmission as well as the written manuscript. It was written by scribes with strict measures in place to ensure authenticity.
I don't understand your reasoning about defensiveness. Questioning Who wrote the Quran (http://www.quran.org.uk/ieb_quran_who.htm) has been done before.

If you really are interested in research then the following link will give you some insight into the matter:
http://www.quran.org.uk/ieb_quran_preserved.htm

As for the mathematical elements they are not relevant to the faith at all. it is only of academic interest and can not be used to prove anything. The preservation of the Quran is factual based on history and on the methodology used more than anything else.

It is prohibited to print a book containing only the translation of the Quran. The Original Arabic text always must be present beside any translation. A few publishers like Penguin decided to break that rule and were met with huge oposition from the Muslim world.

If you can prove that any part has been changed then please feel free to do so instead of just wild speculation based on hearsay.

bloodline wrote:

mdma wrote:
The most important thing to remember is that ALL religious texts suffer from these problems.

The Qur'an was written by one man. I'm not saying it doesn't suffer from the other points you listed, but points 2, 3 and 4 it does not suffer from.

That's not true, it was spoken (apparently by one man) and was maintained as a verbal tradition until it was finally colated much later... It has suffered just as much, but it's followers are somewhat deffensive when you question it (always a bad sign).

Thats not true at all, dezignersrepublic has beat me to a better explanation though.

[bloodline]

mdma wrote:

bloodline wrote:

mdma wrote:
The most important thing to remember is that ALL religious texts suffer from these problems.

The Qur'an was written by one man. I'm not saying it doesn't suffer from the other points you listed, but points 2, 3 and 4 it does not suffer from.

That's not true, it was spoken (apparently by one man) and was maintained as a verbal tradition until it was finally colated much later... It has suffered just as much, but it's followers are somewhat deffensive when you question it (always a bad sign).

Thats not true at all, dezignersrepublic has beat me to a better explanation though.

I have no wish to critisize the Qur'an, Indeed my Muslim friends find great strength and support in it's texts, just as my Christian friends find in the bible.

But I find that discussing such matters with them disappointing. My muslim friends find the New Testiment "funny" and consider it "a load of crap" (their words not mine). They have no problem with archaeology being appied to the Bible to discredit it, but as soon as that same archaeology is applied to the Book of Moses (The Old Testiment) or the Qur'an there is instant hostility.

I just have to appreciate the nature of faith is that the believer is always right and everyone else is wrong.

I just have to appreciate the nature of faith is that the believer is always right and everyone else is wrong.

I know what you mean. All believers of all faiths are the same when it comes to defending it.

[Karlos]

bloodline wrote:

I just have to appreciate the nature of faith is that the believer is always right and everyone else is wrong.

I don't think this is limited to faith. I mean, is there anything within the scope of human opinion this does not equally apply to?

[Cymric]

Science. Theoretically, people should instantly adapt their opinion as new evidence presents itself. In practice, it may take a while (or somewhat longer :)) because scientists are still human, and thus subject to human emotions such as envy, hatred, and greed. (Or stupidity.) But facts always prevail. People who bring about the most profound changes of insight are (usually) awarded the Nobel Prize.

Maths. Only the one who proves a lemma, hypothesis or theorem is right. The rest is wrong.

[Karlos]

Well, I did say "within the scope of human opinion".

Pure maths/science, in the absolute, are not subject to opinion. There are simply facts and as you correctly point out that facts speak for themselves.

The problem is, different people "hear" them differently ;-)

Nobody ever instantly adapts their scientific opinion, in my experience :-)

[bjjones37]

Karlos wrote:

bloodline wrote:

I just have to appreciate the nature of faith is that the believer is always right and everyone else is wrong.

I don't think this is limited to faith. I mean, is there anything within the scope of human opinion this does not equally apply to?



Have to agree with you Karlos. How much consistency of thought do we have within the political arena, just for one example? Another would be economic theory. But rather than say that the believer is always right, I would say that God is always right (I have been wrong far too many times to believe otherwise). How do we know God's truth? Well, we have to ask him. I have never read the Quran, but I have been told that it contains the Old Testament. That sounds pretty good to me. Personally I read the Bible from cover to cover and have been doing so for 20 years. Read it through some ten times already. From it, in prayer and meditation on God's word, I have found comfort, peace, strength, and answers for everything from improving my marriage and raising kid, to being a better employee. The final 'proof' for me has simply been that it worked - in every area of my life. Of course I have to reiterate that this is only true in the context of a relationship with God. Without Jesus Christ in my life, it would have been fairly meaniningless. I think I can safely say that my marriage would have failed within the second year, but for God.

[sumner7]

Fair point, but Christianity can't necessarily make everyone happy. The Bible can help people in some circumstances, but imo I feel that it just doesn't work for me i'm afraid.

I'm sorry for saying this, but I just think it was written by some philosophical Cavemen.

[bloodline]

sumner7 wrote:
Fair point, but Christianity can't necessarily make everyone happy.

I personally find that religious texts cause more damage to a person than help (personal experience). But my general feeling is that religious texts are for people who are unable to understand/find joy in the universe.

[Karlos]

bjjones37 wrote:

I have never read the Quran, but I have been told that it contains the Old Testament. That sounds pretty good to me.

To be more precise, it contains many of the same stories as the Old Testament - it doesn't just #include "oldtestament.h" it.. ;-)

[Karlos]

bloodline wrote:

I personally find that religious texts cause more damage to a person than help (personal experience).

It depends, really. If you force a religion (or indeed any viewpoint) upon someone against their wishes, you will generally cause harm, whereas a person looking into a religion of their own free will has the opportunity to evaluate and consider what they are reading. If they don't find any value, sense or use in it, they can just leave it alone, no harm done. If they do, then it has helped.

But my general feeling is that religious texts are for people who are unable to understand/find joy in the universe.

I disagree - you can marvel and wonder at the intricate nature of the universe, quantum theory etc. till the cows come home and still feel unhappy or unappreciated or whatever.

In days of old I'm sure people did look to religion to explain the fundamental origin of everything but these days it's these sort of personal issues I see people turning to religion for.

[bloodline]

GadgetMaster wrote:

bloodline wrote:

it was spoken (apparently by one man) and was maintained as a verbal tradition until it was finally colated much later... It has suffered just as much, but it's followers are somewhat deffensive when you question it (always a bad sign).

Verbal tradition is in incorrect term to describe the rigorous process of preservation that has been practiced? Memorizing it verse by verse line by line and word by word is a very diffeerent concept. Also there is a preserved line of transmission as well as the written manuscript. It was written by scribes with strict measures in place to ensure authenticity.
I don't understand your reasoning about defensiveness. Questioning Who wrote the Quran (http://www.quran.org.uk/ieb_quran_who.htm) has been done before.

If you really are interested in research then the following link will give you some insight into the matter:
http://www.quran.org.uk/ieb_quran_preserved.htm

As for the mathematical elements they are not relevant to the faith at all. it is only of academic interest and can not be used to prove anything. The preservation of the Quran is factual based on history and on the methodology used more than anything else.

It is prohibited to print a book containing only the translation of the Quran. The Original Arabic text always must be present beside any translation. A few publishers like Penguin decided to break that rule and were met with huge oposition from the Muslim world.

If you can prove that any part has been changed then please feel free to do so instead of just wild speculation based on hearsay.


Just to back up my claims, one is able to read a book called "An Introduction to the Other History: Towards a New Reading of Islamic Tradition"*, -The book was based on a wealth of material unearthed for the first time from the old Zhaheria Library in Damascus. It consisted largely of references which belonged to the first century and a half after Mohammed, and which were hidden or ignored by the official orthodox history of Islam.-

Fascinating reading.


*Suleiman Bashir, Mukaddima fi al-tarikh al-akhar, published by the author, Jerusalem, 1984