Validity of differing eyewitness accounts in religious texts

I did answer this, more than once. There is no indication whatever that God is the author of the Koran except that people are told that he is. The Bible however contains dozens of references to God's speaking with Moses and others, and I did answer this even in my last post. I also answered it when I said that Moses knew the Creation stories from speaking with God face to face. I also answered this. If you want to get nitpicky about "wrote" I already answered that too. Moses is the traditional author in the sense of being responsible for the Pentateuch. He got the laws direct from God but he is the one who "wrote" them down, or dictated them or taught them to the people from which teaching a scribe wrote them down. It doesn't matter, the source is Moses. He is named in many places as the source. And where he is talked ABOUT that is somebody else filling in the story as the entire Pentateuch is both BY AND ABOUT Moses. Answered above. I was specific that I was referring only to the frequency of appearance of the word "witness" throughout the Bible, period. I also gave a very shortened list of OTHER references to Moses as the author of the Pentateuch in Message 19. These include specific references within the Pentateuch to Moses' authorship. You are insisting on a narrow definition that no believer insists on. These are trivial concerns, nuisance concerns, you are raising. I defined witness in two senses in my first post and said both apply to Moses. You make up your own rules and don't address anything I said.{Sorry, I did edit some changes into this text.}This message has been edited by Faith, 04-25-2005 01:22 PM

I'm not interested in debating the Qu'ran. I made a few simple points about its utter lack of the barest attempt at authentication, and that's all I'm up for on this thread. If I have time I will review your posts later, but I don't have time now.

You are trying to argue the entire content of the Koran and the Bible. That is not the topic here. The topic is the validity of differeing eyewitness accounts, period.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-25-2005 01:26 PM

No matter about chronology, jar. Don't you know that Moses TOO was REALLY a Muslim?

I read the title of this thread to have to do with the RELATIVE value of eyewitness accounts in religious texts. You have agreed there are none in the Koran. There is nothing more to discuss.

Thanks, Pecos, but I really don't want to argue about Islam at all. The thread is about eyewitness accounts in religious texts. The Koran has none. I really think there's nothing more to say.

It is enough for the purpose of this thread that there are no eyewitness accounts in the Koran and no witness support for a single one of Mohammed's claims either to his own qualifications as a prophet or to his prophecy itself. If you believe the Bible then you should believe that God requires at least TWO witnesses for the establishment of any claim. Mohammed had only himself. The Koran has only Mohammed.

The number of Biblical authors speaks to the point of NUMBERS OF WITNESSES, and the length of time between them speaks to the validation from completely different time/culture contexts to the same message from so many different witnesses."Witnesses" in this case in the sense of people who wrote about essential events in the history of God's dealings with humanity which became the Christian religion. Any written account is a witness in this sense. And there are also direct references to other witnesses of some events. All in all "a great cloud of witnesses" as the Bible puts it.And how only the Bible quotes God may not be strictly on the topic, and in fact I would have mentioned it in my first post if I thought so. But it was an answer to PaulK's claim that it IS relevant. He claimed that the Koran was authored by God and that this trumps Moses' witness claims. In fact, again, there are NO references in the Koran to God's speaking to anyone, and Mohammed doesn't even claim such a thing, but God {edit: DID speak to Moses and many others in the Bible} and is indeed the author, inspirer and overseer of every word of the Bible. If this isn't about witness value, speak to PaulK. Pardon me, that was sloppy. I was still meaning to refer to WITNESS authentication. Mea culpa.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-25-2005 03:01 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 04-25-2005 03:07 PM

quote:

---

In particular, the Eastern religions which are almost all accounts of discussions.

​

Buddha, Confuciouos, Lao Zi, Mencius, Mo Tzu are all historical charachters that are very well documented. Their lives and body of work extended over far longer period than Jesus, they all started their missions at around the same ages (although Muhammad was slightly older when he had his revelation) and they all produced large bodies of text that have survived.

---

Well, are they witness accounts?My point about the Bible is that its authors and protagonists are real historical people who witnessed and reported primarily upon real historical EVENTS that demonstrate the doings of God with His people -- both His actions and His communications.My impression of the Eastern texts is that they are strictly philosophical discussions of questions of ethics and wisdom and the nature of reality and life, some quite edifying and interesting, but that they are not about events as the Bible is, so the idea of "witness" doesn't pertain.

quote:

---

Is there any reason that their material should not carry the same weight as the Judaic texts (Tanakah, Bible and Koran) and should not be considered as authoritative?

---

They may have some claim to some other kind of authoritativeness but not witness-to-history authoritativeness (neither does the Koran, however, as Checkmate has confirmed), but as for the the question about the "same weight," that would be a discussion in itself not related to the question of witness validity -- {EDIT: or perhaps more accurately, to be weighed AGAINST witness validity}.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-25-2005 03:25 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 04-25-2005 03:26 PM

I guess this is a different meaning of witness, having to do with witnessing a document, its source or something. The term "eyewitness" doesn't apply except to events, not documents, at least that is how I have been using it.Many meanings of witness pertain to the Bible, but the main one is witness to historical events, not to the writing of documents. The documents in themselves ARE a witness to the events, as they record those events.The Eastern documents only record philosophical discussions, and their religious import is in their wisdom, the wisdom of their author or authors. The Koran is more like these except it seems to focus heavily on commands and threats of dire consequences, not to the believers, but to the unbelievers.The Bible's religious import, however, is maybe 80% in the historical events, or to be conservative, at least 50%, and most of the teaching passages refer back to those events anyway, such as in the psalms and the prophets. Events such as God's calling Abraham out of Ur. That's an event, not a teaching. The writing about it is a witnessing to it, just as the oral telling of it was previously a witnessing to it. Also everything recounted about Abraham's sojourns. Events such as his pre-empting God's plan by having a child with Hagar. Events such as his going to sacrifice Isaac on God's command. All the events of Isaac's and Jacob's lives, and Israel's twelve sons' lives. Events such as Moses' leading the Israelites out of Egypt. Events such as Moses' getting the Law straight from God on Sinai, not just sitting down and thinking and discussing it out as the Eastern wise men do. Events such as all the miracles.ALL these things have SPECIFIC application to the meaning of Biblical religion. They ARE the message. They are not just stories about a people, they teach about the character of God and His doings with His people, and their fidelities and infidelities and how God deals with those things. The events are central to the religion, they reveal the character of God and His interactions with humanity and what we can expect of Him as we trust Him and follow Him.All of Genesis is events. Half of Exodus is events. Most of the rest of the Pentateuch is moral and ceremonial instruction but there are events recorded there as well. From Judges all the way through Ezra and Nehemiah the Bible is nothing but historical events, all of which are plumbed by theologians for revelations of God's character and plans.The prophets usually pronounce God's judgment on events, on the misdeeds of the people of God and His judgment for their misdeeds, as well as those of neighboring nations, and His promises of renewal and restoration, especially the promise of an ultimate Savior. Many of these prophecies have been fulfilled in history. Biblical religion OCCURS in history. That's why eyewitness testimony is central to it.Then of course the Messiah came and the gospels are predominantly accounts of the events of His life and ministry. The Book of Acts is a historical account of how God moved His testimony from Israel to the Gentiles and the entire world.So this is what I mean by witness accounts. The Bible is full of them, accounts of historical events that are not just backdrops as they might be in a novel, but the plot itself, the message itself.There is nothing like this in any other religion.

YOu can't even prove the existence of your great grandfather. Same problemThis message has been edited by Faith, 04-25-2005 04:20 PM

I've answered this on this site already. One creation account is chronological, the other is a focusing on specific elements of it. They are not two different accounts. As with all such things in the Bible they either enhance one another or complement one another. There are not two different accounts of the Flood. One has Noah and his family entering the ark just as the rain starts and the fountains and heaven open up. The other says it took seven days for the flood to accumulate to covering the earth. If you look for contradictions you will of course find them by not being careful about the writer's meaning. That can be done with any piece of writing (and in fact is done with people's posts here too). But if you try in good faith to realize there are no real contradictions in the Bible you could yourself begin to read carefully enough to figure these things out. Yes, Genesis is a witness account. It is not a myth. Moses spoke to God. Moses had access to all the knowledge of His day. The stories had come down intact from Noah through the line of Shem to Abraham and Moses, and again, God spoke with Moses directly. Also it's a character issue: Moses would not dare to make something up. God punished him with not getting to see the Promised Land simply because he had a tantrum at the people for their stubbornness and disobeyed God's instruction. You think God would let him get away with making up lies that became scripture? There IS no other such document. I just clearly showed you the uniqueness of the Bible. And its greater authority is obvious: God Himself speaks in it. He speaks in that direct fashion NOWHERE outside the Bible, and nobody else has EVER claimed to speak directly with God in any of the other religions (up until very recently). Do you believe anything just because you believe it, or do you believe it because you think you have reason to consider it the truth? Same with me.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-25-2005 04:58 PM

OK, I'll concede this or we'll be at it for days. Call it an authoritative account that has plenty of evidence of trustworthiness from Moses' credentials as testified to by other Biblical writers at the absolute minimum. There is witness evidence to Moses that establishes his credentials for writing such an account.

They do not occur within a historical framework but are just stuck in here and there, which I already pointed out, and many of them are lifted from the Bible and rewritten to suit Muslim prejudices and deny the original Biblical record. They teach nothing about the character of God and His relation to humanity, as the Bible history does, they are just there to convince Muslims the Bible is wrong and they are right.

Yeah, some of them are. They plagiarized them and rewrote them.