At least this is what the Muslims claim. Until I had come on this forum I didn't have a clue as to what complex and convoluted problems Biblical text offers upon scholarly examination.
I never took the muslim claim seriously I was quite derisory about the whole thing but now I have to give it more thought.
Is there anybody on this forum that has a clue about the Koran and it's message? Is it written with less mistakes and does it seem more divinely inspired than the Biblical mess?
If the Bible is in such a mess is the Quoran God's final version?
by Spectrum 17 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Spectrum
-
greendawn
The Bible was written over numerous centuries by many persons but the Quran in a just few years by one person. But clearly its author was inspired by what he had read from the Bible both the Hebrew and Greek scriptures and copied much from them.
In my opinion it represents a regression from the New Tastament because it goes back to keeping the letter of the law from which Christianity had been freed. -
lovelylil
I have read the Qu'ran, it borrows much from the bible. The bible I believe is older. Also, under the Qu'ran you are enslaved to laws again. Why do you think the bible is such a mess?
-
EAGLE-1
Mein Kampf for Arabs and the like.I read it.
-
Midget-Sasquatch
The Qu'ran does make use of biblical material as well as non-canonical christian material. Like Mary (JC's mom) being fed by angels, or someone else (it says Judas) being substituted for Jesus at crucifixion.
As for it being the very word of Allah, I suggest you look into the abrogated verses of the Qu'ran.
-
Carmel
The Koran (Quran) was not "written" by Muhammed. He was illiterate, could not read or write, had no education other than what he learned from his uncle who taught Him the basics of commerce. He apprenticed to His uncle on guiding camel caravans from the Arabian dessert cities to eastern destinations. His revelations were transcribed by one or more scribes and given as guidance to those that had specific questions for Him. It is presumptive to claim He copied or stole from the bible although He was esposed to both Jews and Christians and Zoroastrians in His travels.
As to the content of the Koran, it is linked to the Old and New Testaments in that it reiterates the fundamental spiritual teachings, but it goes beyond the NT in that it provides guidance for collective relationships, not just individual moral guidance. In that sense, it transcends the bible recognizing the advance of humanity. It has to be understood in the context of the regional practices that His tribal adherrents were accustomed to, highly immoral and clanish violent behavior, (burrying new born daughters alive) worshipping 360 idols, and a host of other things unfiamiliar to most westerners. He strongly supported the "people of the book" (i.e. Christians and Jews) and condemed those that did not accept Jesus as a Prophet of God.
I would suggest you get a copy of "Muhammed and the Course of Islam" by H.M. Balyuzi. He is neither a blind apologist for Muhammed nor a rabid Xtian opposer. You may come away with a whole new perspective on the contribution made to humanity by the Koran and its author.
carmel
-
free2beme
There are enough Muslims out there to make your believe or they will blow you up if you do not.
-
Star Moore
Hello
R ecently, I was really surprized to find this scripture in the bible..
Gen. 17:20 NWT "but as regards Ishmael, I have heard you. Look! I will bless him & will make him fruitful & will multiply him very, very much. He will certainly produce 12 cheiftains, & I will make him a great nation."
This scripture leads me to believe that God has also blessed the muslim nation, as well as the bloodline of Issac.
As a witness, ofcourse, I believed that the bloodline of Issac, was the only ones God care a diddly squat about.
Now, I believe God, has always cared for all races of people, and has had a spiritual outlet for them all.
-
lovelylil
Carmel,
thanks for the name of that book. I think I will see if I can get a copy it looks interesting.
Star,
you make a great point because sometimes we Christians feel God only cares about us or blesses us and that is not true. It reminds me of this scripture;
Acts 10:34,35
34 Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.
-
Abaddon
No... although Carmel's answer is a very good one... I believe the problem is the question is putting the cart before the horse.
If the Bible (believed in by billions to one extent or another - including Muslims, as the largest part of the Bible (Pentateuch, Prophets, Psalms, Gospels) are accepted as inspired by them (although interpreted from their view-point) is not an accurate guide to god's requirements (which in light of its provable inaccuracies is a reasonable stance), is any such claim (of a book being an accurate guide to god's requirements) reasonable?
Can any 'holy book' differentiate itself from the rest by having no provable historical errors or mythic elements?
If no such book can differentiate itself, is it reasonable to assume god would invest a single book with such a responsibility when it can't distinguish itself from the rest and therefore give people certainty about their choices? The idea that any god worthy of regard would have us engage in a quiz game and punish us for making the wrong choice is rather silly and one I'll pass over...
... for me, 'holy books' are maps that made sense of the world from the viewpoint of the various authors. Whether this has ANYTHING to do with god at all an entirely different question. God was an easy solution to insoluble problems.
The problem now is most traditional ideation's of god now create more questions than they answered to those who originally recorded their ideas.
Maybe it is a case of 'many paths one destination' with many such books having 'insights' into 'god'. Or maybe 'god' is just a stage of a society building stable communities that can be replaced with secular values achieving the same ends as regards stable and functional communities? For me it is a question of letting the bocks go and thinking of god as it might be, rather than as <insert historical group> thought of it.
That of course includes the possibility there is nothing like any traditional form of god, or any god at all.