tariki Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 8 minutes ago, romansh said: So why do you keep repeating yourself? Hi romansh, toty is in fact quoting me! He seems not to know how to use the "quote" facility. 😀 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted August 18 Share Posted August 18 18 minutes ago, tariki said: Hi romansh, toty is in fact quoting me! He seems not to know how to use the "quote" facility. 😀 I know ... you were in italics and toty in regular font. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 8 hours ago, toty said: However, you will not find the original source of the Bible..... Can you please show me where the original Quran is, as written in Mohammad's handwriting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tariki Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 7 hours ago, PaulS said: Can you please show me where the original Quran is, as written in Mohammad's handwriting? Hi Paul, quite interesting to look up the current state of Islamic Scholarship, as well as just scholarship in general. Here is one summary of the origins of the Quran, from the book "Creating the Quran":- Creating the Qur’an presents the first systematic historical-critical study of the Qur’an’s origins, drawing on methods and perspectives commonly used to study other scriptural traditions. Demonstrating in detail that the Islamic tradition relates not a single attested account of the holy text’s formation, Stephen J. Shoemaker shows how the Qur’an preserves a surprisingly diverse array of memories regarding the text’s early history and its canonization. To this he adds perspectives from radiocarbon dating of manuscripts, the linguistic history of Arabic, the social and cultural history of late ancient Arabia, and the limitations of human memory and oral transmission, as well as various peculiarities of the Qur’anic text itself. Considering all the relevant data to present the most comprehensive and convincing examination of the origin and evolution of the Qur’an available, Shoemaker concludes that the canonical text of the Qur’an was most likely produced only around the turn of the eighth century. (My emphasis) Obviously such a conclusion would be resisted by many fundamentalist Muslims, yet on this Forum we find one such quick to quote any scholar at all who denigrates the authenticity of the New Testament. Such it is when anyone seeks some sort of "infallible" set of words to bolster themselves in our multi-dimensional world, seeking - and relying upon - belief (and thereby "justification") rather than faith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted August 19 Share Posted August 19 13 minutes ago, tariki said: Hi Paul, quite interesting to look up the current state of Islamic Scholarship, as well as just scholarship in general. Here is one summary of the origins of the Quran, from the book "Creating the Quran":- Creating the Qur’an presents the first systematic historical-critical study of the Qur’an’s origins, drawing on methods and perspectives commonly used to study other scriptural traditions. Demonstrating in detail that the Islamic tradition relates not a single attested account of the holy text’s formation, Stephen J. Shoemaker shows how the Qur’an preserves a surprisingly diverse array of memories regarding the text’s early history and its canonization. To this he adds perspectives from radiocarbon dating of manuscripts, the linguistic history of Arabic, the social and cultural history of late ancient Arabia, and the limitations of human memory and oral transmission, as well as various peculiarities of the Qur’anic text itself. Considering all the relevant data to present the most comprehensive and convincing examination of the origin and evolution of the Qur’an available, Shoemaker concludes that the canonical text of the Qur’an was most likely produced only around the turn of the eighth century. (My emphasis) Obviously such a conclusion would be resisted by many fundamentalist Muslims, yet on this Forum we find one such quick to quote any scholar at all who denigrates the authenticity of the New Testament. Such it is when anyone seeks some sort of "infallible" set of words to bolster themselves in our multi-dimensional world, seeking - and relying upon - belief (and thereby "justification") rather than faith. Thanks @tariki, It was a bit of a rhetorical question to hopefully get @toty thinking that whilst he is calling into credibility the writings of the New Testament because there are no originals (I agree there are none), perhaps he should check his understanding of what we have by way of 'original' when we refer to the Quran. Obviously there is no original Quran, with the best we can possibly hope for currently being the Birmingham Quran manuscript parchment, a single sheet of parchment which is just two leaves of writing dated to between 568 and 645 CE. Author unidentified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toty Posted August 20 Author Share Posted August 20 If what you say about Islam is true, why do scholars and your families leave your religion and embrace Islam? Radiocarbon analysis dated the parchment on which the text is written to the period between 568 and 645 AD with 95.4 per cent accuracy. The test was carried out in a laboratory at the University of Oxford. The result places the leaves close to the time of the Prophet Muhammad, who lived between 570 and 632 AD. The Qur’an is a revelation from God Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toty Posted August 20 Author Share Posted August 20 It appears after the fall of the Bible and the scandal of its distortion Christians began to say this is a spiritual book, this is a historical book, This is a book that I don't care about It is surprising that they know their alleged Lord from this book They cite the verses of this book on the crucifixion, redemption, and the Trinity, and consider it a reference to them despite its distortion Even Christian theologians, academics and scholars examine the BibleThey proved its distortion scientifically and historically Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tariki Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 13 minutes ago, toty said: If what you say about Islam is true, why do scholars and your families leave your religion and embrace Islam? Hi toty, nice to hear from you again. Data on those switching or embracing various faiths is very patchy. If you only wish to consider Christians switching to Islam, so be it. The vast majority of educated westerners are now very sceptical of ALL fundamentalist claims, of infallible texts, of each and every Religion. As said, this is the consequence of scholarship and wider education than people knew previously. The dating you allude to is of one very small portion of the Quran, which in no way contradicts the conclusion of many modern scholars that the full text as we have it is the product of a much later date, and therefore is likely to contain revisions etc. Really toty.... " you will be shocked"! No, I don't think so. Nothing concerning Religion shocks me anymore. But thanks for your input. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tariki Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 23 minutes ago, toty said: It appears after the fall of the Bible and the scandal of its distortion Christians began to say this is a spiritual book, this is a historical book, This is a book that I don't care about It is surprising that they know their alleged Lord from this book They cite the verses of this book on the crucifixion, redemption, and the Trinity, and consider it a reference to them despite its distortion Even Christian theologians, academics and scholars examine the BibleThey proved its distortion scientifically and historically As has been said previously, a true faith (which is NOT "belief") does not rest on infallible texts. So you can continue to repeat yourself about "distortion", but it really is beside the point. You really do need to embrace a wider scholarship, a less insular ideology. All the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tariki Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 For anyone interested, a very wide ranging assessment of the parchments in question can be found HERE:- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Quran_manuscript Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toty Posted August 20 Author Share Posted August 20 Wikipedia is an unreliable source Your words are incorrect, you did not study the Qur’an And you do not know the provisions and controls of the Qur’an And you do not know the language of the Qur’an, the Arabic language And many anti -Islam sites and some historians in the West are of questionable integrity. It is better for us to be fair, we study Islam in specialized Islamic centers Where the original references are if there is a mistake in the translation See here This old manuscript is the same as the Quran that exists today University of Birmingham Qur’an manuscript among world’s oldest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-HDFiC2boQ Scientists' comments on Quran https://www.islamicity.org/5437/scientists-comments-on-quran/ the Qur’an was written down during the reign of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and it is alive with the presence of hundreds of reliable eyewitnesses A Qur’an manuscript held by the University of Birmingham’s Cadbury Research Library has been placed among the oldest in the world thanks to modern scientific methods. Radiocarbon analysis has dated the parchment on which the text is written to the period between AD 568 and 645 with 95.4% accuracy. The test was carried out in a laboratory at the University of Oxford. The result places the leaves close to the time of the Prophet Muhammad, who lived between AD 570 and 632. Researchers conclude that the Qur’an manuscript is among the earliest written textual evidence of the Islamic holy book known to survive. This gives the Qur’an manuscript in Birmingham global significance to Muslim heritage and the study of Islam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tariki Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 1 hour ago, toty said: Wikipedia is an unreliable source The Wiki article simply quotes the conclusions of a variety of scholars. Simply asserting that those scholars who agree with your own viewpoint are those of "integrity" is quite desperate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tariki Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 1 hour ago, toty said: 2- Trinity in the literal sense was the version that evolved in stages and then coalesced in 325 AD to the satisfaction of Constantine in Nicaea. It had been a hot topic and it was more or less determined that different councils and scholars would debate this until they came up with a version that pleased the emperor. The winning doctrine was the version we have today. Christ never taught the Trinity. The literal Trinity does not exist in the Bible. It was to cement Jesus into the Godhead so no other religion could ever compete, or be considered as an authentic teaching on a par with Christianity. but at no time was Jesus literally G.d. This does not take much consideration to understand that G.d is not subject to any form of division, G.d is alone and transcendent, nor does G.d enter into a relative state of imperfection by becoming some physical version of His spiritual perfection. They got it wrong in 325 AD and nobody seems to have the courage or conviction to correct it today. It's an albatross around the neck of the Catholics. You may be exacerbated that some can't see your point of view, but that's a good thing, because religion is not strengthened by just accepting errors of theology without question. 3- There are several key verses which Christians use to prove the biblical origin of the Trinity. Upon analysis of these verses, one can clearly see that they do not prove the Trinity, but rather the same monotheistic message of God. . The Bible Says that God is Greater than Jesus John 14:28 “My Father is greater than I.” John 10:29 “My father is greater than all.” Jesus can not be God if God is greater than him. The Christian belief that the Father and son are equal is in direct contrast to the clear words from Jesus. . Jesus Never Instructed His Disciples to Worship Himself or the Holy Ghost, but God and God Only Luke 11:2 “When you pray, say Our Father which art in heaven.” John 16:23 “In that day, you shall ask me nothing. Whatsoever you ask of the Father in my name.” John 4:23 “The hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him.” If Jesus was God, he would have sought worship for himself. Since he didn’t, instead he sought worship for God in the heavens, therefore, he was not God. Ahmed Deedat exposes the Trinity to the public.flv https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20GEBV1cEzA Dr Zakir Naik uses Bible to prove Trinity is a Lie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8ZOFm5AguQ Yet another lengthy cut and paste which demonstrates your inability to actually engage in genuine dialogue - displays that you are simply interested in asserting a position that you obviously have no interest in questioning in any way, shape or form. Once again, I will now withdraw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tariki Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 2 hours ago, tariki said: Once again, I will now withdraw. Well, for the sake of friendship, a final word or two. toty, you were told early on that this was a Progressive Christian Forum. Therefore it should have been apparent that no one here actually takes the Bible literally, as inerrant, or whatever. Yet being told this made no difference to your posts, which in effect simply tried to undermine the New Testament as not able to be taken literally! Then, being asked why you still continued to repeat yourself when you acknowledged that no one here actually takes the NT as inerrant, you responded by simply continuing your dismantling of the inerrancy of the NT! Sadly, you seem to have no other mode of thought. And again, your attempt to replace one "infallible" word of God with another.......surely you must realise that those who have seen through the whole idea of any "God" revealing some infallible book to the world would not be convinced by what in effect are the self same reasons and arguments already rejected, accept simply in favour of another book! Anyway, enough. All the best Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted August 20 Share Posted August 20 Thank you @toty for this link ... perfect .... I suggest you watch it It would appear you too spread lies like some other Muslims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 10 hours ago, toty said: If what you say about Islam is true, why do scholars and your families leave your religion and embrace Islam? Radiocarbon analysis dated the parchment on which the text is written to the period between 568 and 645 AD with 95.4 per cent accuracy. The test was carried out in a laboratory at the University of Oxford. The result places the leaves close to the time of the Prophet Muhammad, who lived between 570 and 632 AD. The Qur’an is a revelation from God Again I will ask you @toty - where is the original Quran? It means nothing to me that Christians become Muslims, just as many Muslims convert to Christianity. None of that has to do with the originality of their so called holy books. I imagine you know - we don't have an original Quran! All we have are later documents, claiming to be copies. The parchment you are referring to is only 2 leaves of writing - nowhere near a complete Quran - not even 1% of it! So let's see if we can discuss this lack of original documents like adults, and consider the ramifications it has concerning dogma and later influences forming a religion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 22 hours ago, toty said: Wikipedia is an unreliable source Your you tube videos are totally unreliable sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted August 22 Share Posted August 22 On 8/21/2024 at 5:03 AM, romansh said: Thank you @toty for this link ... perfect .... I suggest you watch it It would appear you too spread lies like some other Muslims. A clear example of the dangers of dogmatism - seeking out and swallowing without question, any source that supports what you already believe is the truth! Anybody can 'follow' a religion - the real challenge is actually digging down into it's 'truth' and sorting claims from facts! It's a challenge not many are prepared to take up unfortunately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted August 22 Share Posted August 22 19 minutes ago, PaulS said: A clear example of the dangers of dogmatism - seeking out and swallowing without question, any source that supports what you already believe is the truth! Anybody can 'follow' a religion - the real challenge is actually digging down into it's 'truth' and sorting claims from facts! It's a challenge not many are prepared to take up unfortunately. Yeah ... I wondered about some of the expert confirmations. It will be interesting to see how @toty handles this. Also I wonder if toty looks at TheRationalizers other videos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted August 22 Share Posted August 22 1 minute ago, romansh said: Yeah ... I wondered about some of the expert confirmations. It will be interesting to see how @toty handles this. Also I wonder if toty looks at TheRationalizers other videos. One can hope, but the power of dogmatism can be too strong for any but the boldest. I remember from my fundy Christian days, how 'frowned upon' real questioning was. Questions were framed as 'doubts' and having doubts in your faith was 'bad', so it's hard to break that barrier and genuinely be open-minded. One can only hope he is brave enough to be open-minded - then again, one can't 'make' themselves be open-minded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tariki Posted August 22 Share Posted August 22 7 hours ago, PaulS said: One can hope....... Yes, there is always hope! But as has been said, you cannot argue someone out of a position that they were not argued into. Something other than strict logic is at work. At work in all of us. My own way of seeing things is that fundamentally we are all in the same boat, driven by winds beyond logic and conscious decision making. No one is of another "type" fundamentally, though we are all unique. As I see it, we must see this deeply before we seek for differentiation between ourselves and others. Which I also see as the nature of Reality-as-is, which is unity and "one" before differentiation. Anyway, I ramble. But the main objection I have to toty is his insistence upon division, not just now, but eternally. "Them" and "us" forever. The saved and the lost, the sheep and the goats. Sadly, this outlook is projected upon "God" or whatever - whereas I would see Reality-as-is as always "working" towards "restoration" and "reconciliation". The "working" of wu wei, effortlessness - when logic subsides and the love that "has no why" can arise. Maybe a chance to quote here my latest love, the lyrics of Elvis Costello. I like these, from "When Summer Comes":- But as every day still succeeds the darkest moments we have known When seasons turn Springtime colours will return And as the first pale flowers of the lengthening hours Seem to brighten the twilight and that melancholy cloak Then a fresh perfume just seems to burst from each bloom Until the green shoots through each day As it arrives in every shade of hope When summer comes There will be a dream of peace And a breath that I've held so long that I can barely release Then perhaps I may even find a room somewhere Just a place I can still speak to you Good stuff....."a breath that I have held so long that I can barely release" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted August 22 Share Posted August 22 For the record and passers-by: @toty: Exhibits troll-like behaviours Pastes similar spam all over the internet with pseudonyms like @akay Does not engage with people or discussion When it comes to science he is illiterate Is philosophically naïve Loves Zakir Naik and the Qur'an. They are his golden idols toty is a liar, lies by omission, and accuses people of being mercenaries of the church without justification While this is not toty's fault as such, after all, he is a product of his environment. If anyone doubts what I have written, I welcome people to peruse toty's posts to confirm what I have written. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulS Posted August 23 Share Posted August 23 On 8/22/2024 at 5:25 PM, tariki said: Yes, there is always hope! But as has been said, you cannot argue someone out of a position that they were not argued into. Something other than strict logic is at work. At work in all of us. On 8/23/2024 at 1:17 AM, romansh said: For the record and passers-by: @toty: Exhibits troll-like behaviours Pastes similar spam all over the internet with pseudonyms like @akay Does not engage with people or discussion When it comes to science he is illiterate Is philosophically naïve Loves Zakir Naik and the Qur'an. They are his golden idols toty is a liar, lies by omission, and accuses people of being mercenaries of the church without justification While this is not toty's fault as such, after all, he is a product of his environment. If anyone doubts what I have written, I welcome people to peruse toty's posts to confirm what I have written. As far as @toty's posts go - enough is enough. @toty clearly doesn't have the integrity to adhere to the Forum guidelines that they committed to follow when joining here. Future spam posts will simply be deleted. If they choose to engage with the community here in a respectful manner, then I will permit their posts. Whilst they have had numerous warnings and edits to their posts to try and accommodate/encourage them and continue to allow them to participate in this Progressive Christian website, enough is enough. It simply doesn't seem to be working or positively impacting on the breach of their promise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romansh Posted August 23 Share Posted August 23 Thank you 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tariki Posted August 24 Share Posted August 24 On 8/23/2024 at 6:05 AM, PaulS said: @toty @totyenough is enough. Yes, hope finally evaporates, and to my mind the correct decision. I did see the culprits final post and once again every question put to him was ignored in favour of yet another "Mohammed (PBUH) is the greatest" post. Obviously he was simply on the wrong Forum. His anti Biblical slant, attacking its infallibility, is obviously lost upon progressive Christians. Really, his opinions would be better tested on a Fundamentalist Christian Forum, where maybe they could knock hell out of each other....😀 Two brick walls! Yes, thank you Paul. A moderator has a thankless task! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.