Validity of differing eyewitness accounts in religious texts

You should. I'd also like to see a Mormon take part if possible, as this is a text of very recent origin.

Faith One question.Did moses write the Pentateuch?

Deleted to remove double postThis message has been edited by sidelined, Sun, 2005-04-24 10:02 PM

Moses AUTHORED the Pentateuch, he is RESPONSIBLE for the content of the Pentateuch and it does not matter whether he actually put pen to papyrus for the purpose or a scribe did, and it does not matter if a scribe or Joshua or other elder of the Israelites wrote the part about Moses' death. The Torah is the work of Moses according to tradition and to internal evidence and the quotations of others including Jesus.{EDIT to add: A few of the many internal references to Moses' authorship: Exodus 17:14; 2 Chronicles 33:8, 35:6; Ezra 6:18; 80 verses in Numbers starting "The LORD spoke unto Moses;" Mark 12:25:6; Luke 16:31, 24:44; John 1:17; 1 Cor. 9:9}This message has been edited by Faith, 04-25-2005 01:34 AM

There is extremely little in the way of anything historical in other religions, meaning historical narrative of events identified in terms of time and place and occasion. The Koran mentions a couple of battles as I recall, but not in the course of a larger historical narrative. As with literary productions such as the Iliad, there may certainly be some genuine historical background to some of it, but it is not presented as intrinsic to the spiritual message itself.Teachings are the point in other religions, moral rules, wisdom writings, instruction for meditation etc. ONLY Biblical religion is completely developed around history, the actual historical events of God's dealings with humanity from Adam through Abraham and Moses, and the whole history of Israel to the Savior Messiah Jesus.It will be interesting to see if anyone is interested in trying to challenge any of this with actual facts.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-25-2005 12:32 AM

FaithMay I ask how he witnessed the creation and any occurence up to his until he was old enough to write?

Moses "spoke face to face with God." That's enough for me to explain it, but others add the fact that Moses was also highly educated in all the knowledge of the day:From intro to Genesis in my KJV: "Trained in the 'wisdom of the Egyptians,' (Acts 7:22) Moses was providentially prepared to understand available records, manuscripts and oral narratives. As a prophet to whom was granted the unusual privilege of unhurried hours of communion with God on Sinai, he was well equipped to record for all generations the Lord's portrayal of his activity through the ages."

Hi Can you please tell us that how "Koran" relates to this topic?
How and where "Koran" has alleged "eyewitness" accounts? Well, there is no eyewitness accounts in the "Koran" (Period).

---

"An uninformed person cannot conceptualize the essence of knowledge nor its sublimity. One who fails to conceptualize something, its significance will never become rooted in the heart."

quote:

---

It would be great if we had some muslim scholars or imams contributing here.

---

Interesting thought. But do you really think that scholars and clergy wander around on Internet discussion forums?

You are right, there are none.

quote:

---

I've said nothing untrue. I'm talking about what the KORAN says, how it authenticates itself, not what external documents may say about Mohammed.

---

Have you read the Qur'aan? Because I want to take you on for that.

quote:

---

Being a real human being is not authentication of his qualifications to receive divine communication, especially as the lone recipient without a single other witness to corroborate his claim.

---

Please elaborate and present supporting evidence?[quote]PROVIDING context *TO* the Koran is another subject. [u]We're talking about how the Koran itself, read by itself, authenticates itself, as the Bible does. I've given plenty of evidence of the Bible's self-authentication, and to answer me you have to provide the same for the Koran, instead of just complaining about my points in this general way.[/quote]Let us discuss the alleged authentication and/or self-authentication of the Bible. I would also like to see your evidence that how Qur'aan doesn't? Facts are other way around and no the way you are twisting them , Faith.

quote:

---

It is your job to answer me with evidence but you have not provided a single fact in rebuttal, not one iota of substance to this conversation so far. You have simply complained about my well documented post, in which I said "Please correct me" regarding specific statements about the Koran. Obviously I was not in error as you give no facts in answer.

​

As I said: There IS no TEXTUAL authentication in the Koran in any of the areas I brought up as there is in abundance in the Bible. There is no reference to witness testimony, there is no reference to other authorities than Mohammed (the Bible says it takes at least two witnesses to establish the validity of any testimony and Mohammed has only himself), there is no concern whatever with athentication of the message. The Bible is full of historical accounts and MANY people who give personal credentials to validate their witness testimony. The Koran has NOTHING like that.

​

If you dispute this, it is your job to prove it. I worked hard on my post. You can do the same.

---

Let me help you Mick on this one. Faith please read the following three links with evideces and then we will discuss further.Is the Qur'an Miraculous?Preservation of Glorious Qur’aan & SunnahWere the Gospels Inspired?Take care!This message has been edited by Checkmate, 04-25-2005 01:50 AMThis message has been edited by Checkmate, 04-25-2005 01:51 AMThis message has been edited by Checkmate, 04-25-2005 01:51 AM

---

"An uninformed person cannot conceptualize the essence of knowledge nor its sublimity. One who fails to conceptualize something, its significance will never become rooted in the heart."

quote:

---

You are right, there are none.

---

Good, then we agree on one point. Let us move on to others.

---

"An uninformed person cannot conceptualize the essence of knowledge nor its sublimity. One who fails to conceptualize something, its significance will never become rooted in the heart."

I can't prove a negative. It is up to you to prove that it DOES self-authenticate ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES I LAID DOWN IN MY FIRST POST.I gave a ton of facts about the Bible and said the Koran does NOT share any of them. It is my opponents' job, not mine, to prove that they do, and not by just throwing links at me. You must argue the case and use the links for support.And some of what you are saying is just plain nonsensical. You challenge me to provide supporting evidence for the fact that being the single one-and-only recipient of a revelation from an "angel" leaves Mohammed and the Koran without corroborating authentication? That's almost funny except you probably don't see why which makes it anything but funny.Sorry, it's an obvious fact in itself that the Koran has none of the self-authenticating elements the Bible has. The Bible has multiple prophets and they agree with each other about the essential teachings of God, over 19 centuries up to Christ, and they were members of a community of prophets and elders who oversaw each other's work, and part of a long history of God's work with their people.Mohammed is just this one guy who came out of nowhere, had no religious community or other background to recommend him, and has no other witnesses to his experiences with the angel, and he wrote this book the Koran singlehandedly, with no corroborating witness. There is no comparison with the Bible at all. It's open and shut that his credentials are nonexistent.

actually, it's quite obvious to the educated reader that genesis could not have been written by moses. starting with the fact that it contains many (sometime contradictory) independent accounts. these accounts are named in part according their phrasing of the name of god. j- for the yahweh texts, e- for the elohym texts, and p- for the priestly (record keeping, genealogies) text. these are three independent accounts in genesis.the individual elements are also filled with anachronisms. camels. kings in israel. chaldeans. babylonian stuff. descriptions of metals moses would never have known how to control. it's clear that genesis was written WELL after moses, and collected sometimes during or even after the babylonian exile. it appears to be a collection of traditional histories, legend, and mythology. not factual history as in kings.so when jar asks "what authority does genesis have?" he's being totally serious, and completely on topic. the book has very, very little authority. it was not written by people who witnessed the events, even in the original separate forms. moses neither witness creation, nor wrote genesis -- this simply traditional dogma. i'm sure i could churn up about the same for the quran.similarly, we could compare the quran to the other judaic off-shoot, pauling christianity. we're currently discussing in another thread about how paul seems to have had nothing to do with judaism at all, but rather hellenistic greek mythology. what basis he does having in the "old testament" is blatantly out of context, and a misinterpretation of the faith. so paul is very similar out of context. and all we have to back up his authority is luke's account in acts. luke, admittedly was NOT an eyewitness either.and paul himself just speaks with some kind of authority to make decision for the christian church at the time -- even thought jesus left peter in charge. hm. use of the word does not mean it is valid. in fact, most of the uses are either of god ("let god be my witness") or inanimate objects, such a pillar or altar.added by edit:it should also be noted that i think the bible does have some more authenticity than the quran, and certainly the book of mormon. i don't believe any of either of those two, as a strictly a personal beliefs. but i also find much of the bible equally suspect for the same reasons.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-25-2005 02:30 AM

---

אָרַח

There are none to move onto. A major point in my first post was that "there are no eyewitness accounts in the Koran." Since you agree with me about this, then the Koran shouldn't even be discussed on this thread as it is titled The VALIDITY of DIFFERING eyewitness accounts in religious texts.Of course if you want to, you could discuss my other points, that not only does the Koran have no eyewitness accounts, it isn't interested in witness reports at all, and is therefore not interested in the authenticity of witness accounts either.All of which is in keeping with the fact that its author is himself without any authenticating authority or witness to his work.Rather like Joseph Smith. Which I guess will come up if any Mormons join us.