May 2, 2012 -- 2:51PM, JAstor wrote:

May 2, 2012 -- 1:59PM, Lilwabbit wrote:

May 2, 2012 -- 1:46PM, JAstor wrote:

3) Given that both texts agree they both existed, the question is which one, from an objective standpoint, is more likely correct? I submit that in any valid court of law, for instance, if you have two older documents from different sources that cannot be accused of intentionally doctoring the document and that they are in agreement, and you then compare their consistent document to a new document that disagrees with both, then it is the former which an objective observer will conclude is correct, not the latter. At the very least, such a court would put the burden of proof upon the latter to uproot the assumption that the earlier competing-but-agreeing texts got it wrong. 

Firstly, there's only one older document -- the Torah. Christians happen to agree with that one for a purely subjective reason.

You misunderstand. It's the preservation of documents in different languages from different times by two religious streams often at bitter odds with each other that matters. If there are two claimants to an object and two bills of sale in the hands of one of them, a judge could discount the second one. But if one bill of sale is in the hand of one claimant and an almost exact bill of sale is in the hands of his enemy, then we are talking about two pieces of converging evidence. That's a categorically stronger case.

I don't misunderstand. It's the utter unreliability of both documents (the Torah and the Gospels) as accurate historical narratives that makes your case fall flat at the very outset. Neither is the Qur'án to be regarded an accurate historical narrative. Please pay attention to what Vra just wrote.

May 2, 2012 -- 2:51PM, JAstor wrote:

May 2, 2012 -- 1:59PM, Lilwabbit wrote:

Secondly, if you wish to use the court analogy, then the question of bias will also have to be brought to bear. Christians have every reason to oppose the Qur'án because it suggests that the truth of Jesus isn't enough nor complete.

I hope you're not serious about that. Are you really saying that 500 years before Islam the Christians decided to give credence to the Septuagint so that they could use it to oppose the Quran five centuries later?

Yes, I'm really saying that Christians might have just as well accepted the Qur'ánic revelation 500 years later, and by extension its account on Ishmael, if their Jesus cult wouldn't have made them biased against any further revelation. The fact that even today they agree with you guys owes only to their Jesus cult which accepts the Torah. It doesn't owe to any objective criterion which I was asking you to provide. Some Christians (probably not even the majority) accept the Torah as a literal account only because in the Gospels Jesus states that he came to confirm the law and not change one bit of it. They do not accept the Torah because they see some intrinsic value in the Torah independent of the Gospels.

May 2, 2012 -- 2:51PM, JAstor wrote:

May 2, 2012 -- 1:59PM, Lilwabbit wrote:

Thirdly, by your logic we should accept that Isaac was also 180 years when he died, and Noah was a ripe 950 when he met his Maker.

I hope you're not serious.

Wabbit

The immortality gene

THE EXTREME LONGEVITY OF THE EARLY GENERATIONS IN GENESIS by Prof. Natan Aviezer, Dept. of Physics

You are serious. I must apologize, but your citation by a "respected physicist" reeks religious bias and lack of academic qualification for a ground-breaking biological treatise. All google mentions of Aviezer are by fellow-Jews, and he's not a biologist. You'd think a proof of an immortality gene would have rocked the scientific world. But it seems nobody of repute has ever heard of Aviezer.

Kind regards,

LilWabbit

In my own semi-humble opinion, I think we may be making a mistake if we try to force the view of any of these scriptures being written by the authors' supposed intent to have scientific or historical accuracy.  Much like Clinton's internal campaign slogan of "It's the economy, Stupid!", I would suggest we adopt "It's the teachings, Stupid!", except I ain't calling you guys "Stupid". 

And then we can take "the teachings" and go from there. 

May 2, 2012 -- 4:04PM, JAstor wrote:

May 2, 2012 -- 3:13PM, Lilwabbit wrote:

I don't misunderstand. It's the utter unreliability of both documents (the Torah and the Gospels) as accurate historical narratives that makes your case fall flat at the very outset. Neither is the Qur'án to be regarded an accurate historical narrative.

I guess there's no point belaboring it, but you have misunderstood. Even if all documents were fake, the fact that two of them say the same thing, even though their owners are different and oppositional toward each other, makes the newcomer the one who is suspect (or, if you will, obviously fraudulant).

There's no way to put it nicely, so: What utter hogwash! :)

Even if there were a gazillion fake documents made by mortal enemies that agree on the fake stories recorded in those documents, the newcomer who says they're all fake is still right. No doubt he'd be suspect. Just as your "science" articles are highly suspect as proofs of ancient human longevity. Many of the Lord of the Rings and the Harry Potter fans are very much at odds with one another (I must admit I'm a rehabilitated Tolkien geek). But both books talk about sorcerers and wizards. The high school drop-out mom next-door who teaches her kids that sorcerers and wizards don't exist is still right.

From an objective point of view, the Qur'ánic account on Ishmael is of course just another unsubstantiated account. Just because an earlier unsubstantiated account (there's only one, that of Torah, not two - the NT only agrees with the Torah) is different doesn't make the later unsubstantiated account wrong. The fact that Christians agree on the basis of their purely subjective faith with the Hebrew Bible account does not logically nor scientifically imply that the Qur'ánic account is wrong. Neither does it make it right. Like Vra said, objectively speaking, we simply have no way of knowing who's right. That's all I've been saying and you've implicitly agreed by your inability to provide any objective criterion to establish the truth.

Keep your pants, bro!

Kind regards,

LilWabbit

ffb,

That's a very apt summary of the various ways by which the Qur'ánic statements on the Torah can be interpreted. The main point is that in the Qur'án the Torah (Taurat) as well as the Gospel (Injeel) refer to the original revelation of God to Moses and Jesus, respectively. There's no error in either. But their transcription and final recording is not deemed by the Qur'án to be entirely flawless. However, only the most antagonistic scholars would maintain that the texts are by and large "corrupted". As to Ishmael and Isaac, indeed, the near-sacrificed son is never named in the Qur'án and, in fact, the renowned 9th century exegete of the Qur'án, Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, explicitly maintained that it was Isaac. However, the matter has been debated for centuries among Muslim scholars. There are good arguments for both positions. I am personally persuaded that the Qur'án implicitly clearly implies Ishmael.

For deepened non-politically-minded Muslims (as well as for Bahá'ís), the moral of the story as one of utter obedience and self-abnegation before God, is far more important than the name of the son. In my personal view, the power of the story is only heightened when it is told to be the long-awaited first son that God asks to sacrifice. However, from the Jewish perspective it is understandable why the name is very important.

Kind regards,

LilWabbit

P.S. ffb, since we're at it, I must share one more point which I find rather profound. Bahá'u'lláh (the prophet-founder of the Bahá'í Faith) writes that even if God were to have initially said it was Isaac, and later told us all that it was Ishmael, in the spirit of Abraham's obedience none should question God's decision. (God is free to change anyone's name posthumously, isn't He?) In a nutshell, Bahá'u'lláh suggests that God is using the very story of Abraham's sacrifice of his son as an "Abrahamic" test of our obedience to Him. There's the ultimate wisdom. Like in the case of the sacrifice, God appears to be asking us to accept a pronouncement that is unthinkable and seemingly makes no sense. But if it is really God that so asks, we comply without question and trust His goodness and wisdom.

May 3, 2012 -- 10:56AM, ffb wrote:

"(God is free to change anyone's name posthumously, isn't He?) "

does that intimate that the character is the same and that there were not 2 sons, and the question is whether we accept a renaming? Otherwise, it is saying that god is actually choosing to change the detail of the narrative. As to whether god is "free" to do something, that is a difficult concept in judaism but the general sense is that god is free to do anything but he is by naturre already perfect as is his word, so change is unneccessary. claiming a change of god's mind is to question the perfection of the original.

Bahá'u'lláh can be interpreted in two ways. Either he is saying that the character was the same, but the name (Isaac or Ishmael) was simply a contextually appropriate title/station given by the Torah and the Qur'án, respectively, to the son who was to be sacrificed (implying we don't even know his real historical name). And that there's a wisdom why a different title is employed at different times to grant the same station of sacrifice to the same son. Or then, there were indeed two different persons and the title/station of 'Sacrifice of God' was transferred from Isaac to Ishmael during the time of the Qur'án for a special wisdom.

In any event, what is noteworthy is that Bahá'u'lláh says that the station of "Sacrifice of God" was given by God first to one named Isaac during the time of Abraham and later to one named Ishmael during the time of the Qur'án. He stresses that since nobody was actually sacrificed, the "Sacrifice" is a station/title rather than a historical fact. God is not changing historical facts retrospectively but rather demonstrating that He can confer a station of sacrifice on whomsoever He deems deserves it inasmuch as a General can promote anyone to be a Colonel. Bahá'u'lláh can be also interpreted to mean that there was indeed a firstborn named Ishmael who was historically commanded to be sacrificed by God. But his younger brother Isaac remained with Abraham and was given by God the station of "Sacrifice" to convey the wisdom of the story to his descendants. Hence the actual commandment to sacrifice a son, quite understandably, ended up in a historically inaccurate form (directed at Isaac) in the codified Torah. But according to this alternative interpretation of Bahá'u'lláh's statements, Isaac was indeed given the station of sacrifice by God through Abraham, while Ishmael was historically the one commanded by God to be sacrificed but wasn't supposed to be known as the sacrifice until an appointed time.

Here is how Bahá'u'lláh puts it (provisional translation by Iskandar Hai from a Persian tablet to one Hájí Mírzá Kamálu'd-Dín):

"It is the Word of God that transcendeth all things, creates the universe, educateth the people, guideth them who are sore athirst from separation unto the ocean of reunion, and penetrateth through the darkness of ignorance with the light of understanding. Consider: all those who believe in past Scriptures think of Isaac as the Sacrifice; likewise, the people of the Qur'án confirm this station for Ishmael. It is clear and evident that no one was outwardly sacrificed.... Therefore, ponder upon this: Why is it that a person who hath gone to the altar of sacrifice for the Beloved and yet hath come back alive, is adorned with the raiment of 'Sacrifice of God' and accepted as such? There is no doubt that this is so because of the Word of God. Therefore, the criterion for the manifestation of all names and for confirmation and fulfillment of all stations is dependent upon the Word of God. . . . It is now, therefore, established and confirmed that the station of 'Sacrifice of God' was, according to the past Books, given to Isaac by Abraham and that the very same station is, according to Divine Revelation, Ishmael's in the Qur'ánic Dispensation."