Post Reply
Page 1 of 12  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12 Next
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 11:03AM #1
JAstor
Posts: 3,957

May 2, 2012 -- 12:20AM, Lilwabbit wrote:


You failed to offer any objective criteria for establishing that Christianity and Islam "base" their religion on Judaism. Neither did you offer any objective criteria for establishing that the Muslims got the original accounts of the prophets wrong, for to do that you'd have to first establish that the Jews and the Christians got it right. You can't. I'll be happy to examine all your objective evidence once you've got some.



Let's start with who was brought up as a sacrifice by Abraham. The Torah says it was Isaac in Genesis 22.

bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=di... 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 12:09PM #2
rocketjsquirell
Posts: 16,216

It was Issac, but he was never to be the sacrifice. Ishmael was long gone from the scene by that time. After his exit from the Bible, Ishmael is no longer an important character. Nothing whatsoever is known about what became of Ishmael or his descendants. Some Arab Muslims like to pretend that he founded the Arab nation. There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim.   

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 1:24PM #3
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,903

May 2, 2012 -- 11:03AM, JAstor wrote:


May 2, 2012 -- 12:20AM, Lilwabbit wrote:


You failed to offer any objective criteria for establishing that Christianity and Islam "base" their religion on Judaism. Neither did you offer any objective criteria for establishing that the Muslims got the original accounts of the prophets wrong, for to do that you'd have to first establish that the Jews and the Christians got it right. You can't. I'll be happy to examine all your objective evidence once you've got some.



Let's start with who was brought up as a sacrifice by Abraham. The Torah says it was Isaac in Genesis 22.

bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=di... 




So what objective criteria can you provide for me to accept that the account of Torah is correct and not that of the Qur'án? You'd have to start by providing objective evidence that Isaac and Ishmael even existed. Argumentum ad populum won't do (i.e. "coz the Jews and Christians who disagree on so many things both believe in the account of the Torah!). Neither does argument for age (i.e. "coz Torah is older and therefore must be truer!").


Regards,


Wabbit

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 1:33PM #4
vra
Posts: 6,403

I have to ask what difference does it make?  To me, what was, was.  It may be a nice little academic debate but, to me, that's about all that it's worth.


Shalom

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 1:41PM #5
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,903

May 2, 2012 -- 1:33PM, vra wrote:


I have to ask what difference does it make?  To me, what was, was.  It may be a nice little academic debate but, to me, that's about all that it's worth.


Shalom




Agreed, wholeheartedly.

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 1:46PM #6
JAstor
Posts: 3,957

May 2, 2012 -- 1:24PM, Lilwabbit wrote:


May 2, 2012 -- 11:03AM, JAstor wrote:


May 2, 2012 -- 12:20AM, Lilwabbit wrote:


You failed to offer any objective criteria for establishing that Christianity and Islam "base" their religion on Judaism. Neither did you offer any objective criteria for establishing that the Muslims got the original accounts of the prophets wrong, for to do that you'd have to first establish that the Jews and the Christians got it right. You can't. I'll be happy to examine all your objective evidence once you've got some.



Let's start with who was brought up as a sacrifice by Abraham. The Torah says it was Isaac in Genesis 22.

bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=di... 




So what objective criteria can you provide for me to accept that the account of Torah is correct and not that of the Qur'án? You'd have to start by providing objective evidence that Isaac and Ishmael even existed. Argumentum ad populum won't do (i.e. "coz the Jews and Christians who disagree on so many things both believe in the account of the Torah!). Neither does argument for age (i.e. "coz Torah is older and therefore must be truer!").


Regards,


Wabbit



1) The Jewish masoretic text and the Septuagint (any number of its variations used traditionally by Christian scholars) both say Isaac. 


2) I don't need to provide evidence that Isaac and Ishmael even existed because both the Torah and the Quran state they exist. There is no argument there. Since both assume they exist the question is did one of them get it right and another one wrong? (If they're both wrong, if there's no God, if the universe is expanding and it's all going to end one day anyway, what the heck are we wasting our time on BNET?!)


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. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 1:59PM #7
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,903

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. 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. 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

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 2:03PM #8
rocketjsquirell
Posts: 16,216

May 2, 2012 -- 1:33PM, vra wrote:


I have to ask what difference does it make?  To me, what was, was.  It may be a nice little academic debate but, to me, that's about all that it's worth.


Shalom




The only reason for the discussion is because Mulsims and those who follow from the Muslim tradition use the difference as part of their "argument" that the Torah has been corrupted and thus needed correction by the Qur'an. While the Muslims and those who follow from the Muslim tradition need to justify their scripture, practice, etc...  in reference to ours, we have no such need.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 2:06PM #9
Lilwabbit
Posts: 2,903

May 2, 2012 -- 2:03PM, rocketjsquirell wrote:


May 2, 2012 -- 1:33PM, vra wrote:


I have to ask what difference does it make?  To me, what was, was.  It may be a nice little academic debate but, to me, that's about all that it's worth.


Shalom




The only reason for the discussion is because Mulsims and those who follow from the Muslim tradition use the difference as part of their "argument" that the Torah has been corrupted and thus needed correction by the Qur'an. While the Muslims and those who follow from the Muslim tradition need to justify their scripture, practice, etc...  in reference to ours, we have no such need.




Inaccurate. The discussion was started by JAstor and you gladly joined the bandwagon. Vra is being very reasonable. It is you who seem to be far more eager to dwell on the Qur'ánic departure from the Torah than the Muslims or "those who follow from the Muslim tradition" who don't seem to care one bit whether or not the Torah agrees with their account. Besides, you do not even know the Bahá'í account.

"All things have I willed for you, and you too, for your own sake."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 02, 2012 - 2:07PM #10
rocketjsquirell
Posts: 16,216

Nor do I care.


Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 12  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 12 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook