Idea ripped from the evidence for and against the bible?

Originally posted by babloyi
drbryan, I am aware that there are hundreds of ways that any scripture could be interpreted. That, unfortunately, is the cause of divisions even within religions. Surprisingly enough, though, Islam doesn't really have divisions with regard to interpretations of the Quran. The divisions stem from such material and worldly matters as succession, which arose, obviously, after Muhammad died.
However, those "scientific facts" I gave would take a large stretch of imagination to interpret any other way.

So is that to say those who say the Islamic reliigion calls for the actions of the insuregents as they claim was not of the first gen QURAN and in fact a false prophet changes it.

ohh... I thought you were referring to "people from the same realm of existence as me" (muslims). According to muslims the Quran has not been changed, and cannot be changed-it would be instantly detected.

Originally posted by babloyi
ohh... I thought you were referring to "people from the same realm of existence as me" (muslims). According to muslims the Quran has not been changed, and cannot be changed-it would be instantly detected.

No I was refering to the relm of people who use the Quran despite their religions name. Im an equal oppurtunity debator. Opinions are like noses everyone has one, well except Micheal Jackson but who cares what he thinks, anyway.

[edit on 22/2/2005 by drbryankkruta]

Heheh...that is an interesting approach. Does that mean you argue against whichever side you see has inconsistencies?
About your earlier point, like I said, it is impossible for someone to have changed the Quran without anyone noticing. There is an oral tradition of the Quran, that is completely separate from the written version. It could be easily verified. Also, if someone changed something, the continuity would be broken, the rhythm would be broken, or the numerology would not work anymore (the words would not be completely divisible by 19).
However, all this is not really necessary for someone if they wish to make it so that their personal agenda matched the Quran. They could easily misquote, or quote in part some portion of the Quran. You see it happening here often enough

Originally posted by babloyi
Heheh...that is an interesting approach. Does that mean you argue against whichever side you see has inconsistencies?
About your earlier point, like I said, it is impossible for someone to have changed the Quran without anyone noticing. There is an oral tradition of the Quran, that is completely separate from the written version. It could be easily verified. Also, if someone changed something, the continuity would be broken, the rhythm would be broken, or the numerology would not work anymore (the words would not be completely divisible by 19).
However, all this is not really necessary for someone if they wish to make it so that their personal agenda matched the Quran. They could easily misquote, or quote in part some portion of the Quran. You see it happening here often enough

what i am saying is that those on the inside and those on the outside shall always argue because interpritations are the cause of all disagreement, every one in the world would be better of to agree to diagree and go on their way.


But I also am trying to genuinley understand why there is a differnce between pre mohaammad and post mohammad times , was there a literal interpritational rewriting or just an expressed views cause the later seems to fall into my statement above.

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
But I also am trying to genuinley understand why there is a differnce between pre mohaammad and post mohammad times , was there a literal interpritational rewriting or just an expressed views cause the later seems to fall into my statement above.

I am not entirely sure what you are asking. Is this about my statement earlier that the divisions in Islam occured after Muhammad's death? That had nothing to do with scripture. One faction wanted Ali (Muhammad's closest living male relative) to succeed him when he died, while the other faction wanted Abu Bakr (as decided by a council). This is what resulted in the Shia and Sunni factions.

If you were referring to Muhammad changing the previous scriptures...well, the Bible had not been translated to Arabic, so Muhammad could not really have changed anything, because he had nothing to change. The Quran was therefore sent as a complete scripture on it's own, because it was believed that the other religions had been distorted by man, and their scriptures were changed, so they could not be trusted.
However, after Muhammad died, there was no changing of the scripture. It was just collected into 1 book (in the order that Muhammad spoke it orally).

The supposed 'True Furqan' might be perceived as an 'answer' to the quran also no?

Answering islam is obviously an anti-islam site, but then again so are 'errors in the bible type sites'.

As for scientific information in the quran, its not really there. The 'famous' test case is the claim of the fraud 'Harun Yahya' that it has scientifically accurate information on the development of the fetus. There are various sites that answer these bogus claims.

Originally posted by babloyi

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
But I also am trying to genuinley understand why there is a differnce between pre mohaammad and post mohammad times , was there a literal interpritational rewriting or just an expressed views cause the later seems to fall into my statement above.

I am not entirely sure what you are asking. Is this about my statement earlier that the divisions in Islam occured after Muhammad's death? That had nothing to do with scripture. One faction wanted Ali (Muhammad's closest living male relative) to succeed him when he died, while the other faction wanted Abu Bakr (as decided by a council). This is what resulted in the Shia and Sunni factions.

If you were referring to Muhammad changing the previous scriptures...well, the Bible had not been translated to Arabic, so Muhammad could not really have changed anything, because he had nothing to change. The Quran was therefore sent as a complete scripture on it's own, because it was believed that the other religions had been distorted by man, and their scriptures were changed, so they could not be trusted.
However, after Muhammad died, there was no changing of the scripture. It was just collected into 1 book (in the order that Muhammad spoke it orally).

Then this all makes me understand a little better what is what then , you have accomplished something here today and we did it with out war over differnce, see thats how easy it is people, understanding not war.

Originally posted by Nygdan
The supposed 'True Furqan' might be perceived as an 'answer' to the quran also no?
As for scientific information in the quran, its not really there. The 'famous' test case is the claim of the fraud 'Harun Yahya' that it has scientifically accurate information on the development of the fetus. There are various sites that answer these bogus claims.

I have heard of the "True Furqan". You just got me to search it up on the net (unfortunately the closest 'research tool' I have at the moment). I am looking over the information now.
Yeah, the Harun Yahya site has some pretty suspect information. It had this whole page of numeric "miracles" like "the word pray is mentioned 5 times in the Quran, and man is commanded to pray 5 times a day", while pray is probably mentioned hundreds of times. However, the information I supplied is (as far as I can tell), accurate, and easily verifiable.

Then this all makes me understand a little better what is what then , you have accomplished something here today and we did it with out war over differnce, see thats how easy it is people, understanding not war.

It makes me very happy that you think this way. Here, I'll pass around these (non-lethal) virtual cigars, and we can contemplate on the unity and humanity.

Originally posted by babloyi

It makes me very happy that you think this way. Here, I'll pass around these (non-lethal) virtual cigars, and we can contemplate on the unity and humanity.

Great then there we go , I will be passing around a nice non- addictive , Woodsy
semi dry , with a vingtage of what you say 1929 marlow or bourdau , sound good.

[edit on 22/2/2005 by drbryankkruta]