Validity of differing eyewitness accounts in religious texts

quote:

---

Jar - according to this site it was a message sent by the Prophet to the monks of Saint Catherine in Mount Sinai.
PE

---

Hi PENot that I am against what was in the message posted by "jar" asking me question. Because main theme is completely according to Islaamic aqeedah.However, I would not trust Internet and even many Muslims and/or Islaamic websites. I have found too many errors and wrote them to have it corrected and/or got them corrected. That one point of my life I became a freebee (proof readers) for these websites. One day, I just, said, hack to them and quit helping them out. Because, it is they; who should get their act together.The link you have provided in another example to concocting a story by putting two seperate things together. Needless yto say there are many websites they claim to be Muslim and/or Islaamic, but they are not.The theme, background, meaning and message of Ayaat 22:39-40 is not what that website is professing to be. I would say that they are way off and have grossly misinterpreted the Qur'aanic Ayaat. Again, if people don't mind here and things like this come up, I will be more than willing to post facts and/or correct teachings of Islaam and/or Qur'aan that can be verified from anywhere using authentic Islaamic sources and/or scholars.Note: I wrote to "jar" that I have my reservations about the entirty of the text. The very opening sentence is highly questionable for a starter. There are few more things, but the theme is correct. What is wrong in the opening senstense" It does not begins with: Muhammad Rasool Allaah, not Muhammad bin Abdullah. The his entire life it happened only once where "Muhammad bin Abdallah" was used, but that wasn't with any monks.RegerdsThis message has been edited by Checkmate, 04-26-2005 03:13 PM

---

"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 would be willing to as well, however. i have not yet read the quran. it's on my reading list, though. so right now, i am neither qualified to debate on the subject, nor do i have any points one way or the other.

---

אָרַח

I gave facts about the Koran with reference to witness only, and very very few. You came on with a deluge of nasty irrelevant completely off-topic rejoinders. I am simply not having a discussion with you. Period.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-26-2005 03:11 PM

if i had wanted you to shut up, i would have said "shut up, faith."but i didn't.

---

אָרַח

Why in the 4th Gospel it is Andrew who makes a confessional statement (1:41), following the initiative of John the Baptist (1:29-34), while in the Synoptic Gospels it is Peter who identities Jesus as the anointed (See Mark 8:29; Matt 16:16 & Luke 9:20)? However, Peter is also credited with confession in different terms, and in different context, later on in the Gospel of John (6:68-69). Both the 4th Gospel (1:41-42) and Matthew (16:16-19) link the confession with the change in name; the other gospels merely note the change in passing.So the question is, why, if the God took such pains to preserve an inerrant text for prosperity, did the spirit not provide for the preservation of original copies of the gospels to prevent such blunders?Can we call is reliable eyewitness account?Note: This is exhibit 1 out of more coming soon.

---

"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:

---

Thanks. I was not putting something up for dispute so no rebuttal was needed.
Looking at the history of Islam, for most of the period and in most circumstances, it has been a religion (and politic) of great tolerance.

​

Would you say though that the statement was a resonable reflection of general attitudes of Islam towards other religions through most of its history?

---

Hi jarYou are welcome and I know you weren't. And I don't mind any question about Islaam and Qur'aan. So feel free to ask Regards

Sorry if I was merely being abrupt. The problem is that you have views that are SO completely somewhere else from mine, I don't even know where to begin to discuss them with you, and you do seem to have your mind made up, which makes my comments in the previous post useless, AND the topic of this thread is ONLY the validity of witness reports -- which I admit I transgressed with my post to you.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-26-2005 03:46 PM

well, i'm trying to keep it sort of on track. for instance, i'm talking about the historical validity of the bible, i specifically indicated, originally, that genesis and deuteronomy could not have been written by eyewitnesses.but i'll take this a positive direction, if it'll make everyone feel better. i'd like to suggest the following proposal: i think the books of the prophets (or at least their source QUOTE material) was recorded by eyewitnesses. this would, btw, include at least 3 of the gospels.although i'm not sure if there's proof of that anywhere. only mostly. it's confirmed by a lot of stuff, but occasionally denied by others. i'm always willing to listen to a good, logic case, however.

---

אָרַח

quote:

---

I gave facts about the Koran with reference to witness only, and very very few. You came on with a deluge of nasty irrelevant completely off-topic rejoinders. I am simply not having a discussion with you. Period.

---

That is fine with me, if you mind your own business you wouldn't be minding mine. As far as facts are concerned, you don't even know the abc and/or definition of facts. Rest of your statement about me, is nothing more than a gas bubble of an old meal.

---

"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."

Nobody ever said Peter was the ONLY one who understood Jesus to be the Messiah. All his disciples were following Him because that was their belief. It isn't a matter of "crediting" one over another. But Peter's confession at least as reported in Matthew, contained the further insight, not generally understood by the Jews of the time, that Jesus was not only the prophesied Anointed One of God, but the actual Son of the Living God.Anyone can pick any text apart and find contradictions of their own invention if they have a mind to. It's the easiest game in the world for a hostile reader, and with the Bible it is especially easy as you have no understanding of the theological context of the literal words you are finding fault with.I would also point out that the way you are approaching the topic of witness validity far exceeds the limits I understood to be the intent of this thread, which was to establish the validity of witness reports in relation to physical evidence and possibly other forms of authentication of religious claims, and discuss general ideas of what constitutes evidence.The Bible is involved exclusively with witness reports. The task to you is to show that the Koran has witness reports of any kind whatever. You conceded that it does not have witness reports. Then you must show some other kind of authentication for it.Then the task is to others to show that other religions are similarly based on witness reports or have some other kind of authentication. Apparently there are no representatives of these religions here. I would expect Mormons to have something to say on the subject as their Book of Mormon purports to be reports of a journey from Israel to South America and subsequent events there, but none have joined us.But you have wanted from the beginning to make this a general battle between the Koran and the Bible, which is far beyond the topic. If you are nominally using the validity OF witness reports as your takeoff point, that makes an enormous topic that involves arguing every verse of the Bible. I can see you are intent upon nitpicking every bit of it to death and wearing me out and I really have no interest in engaging you on that level. I may have no choice to some extent the way things are stacking up but I am here registering my complaint that this is beyond the limits of the topic.Very sorry, I do keep editing this post as I see a need to make statements clearer. I hope it isn't going to be a problem.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-26-2005 04:14 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 04-26-2005 04:16 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 04-26-2005 04:16 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 04-26-2005 04:17 PM

Salaams CheckmateWelcome to EvC - its good to have a Muslim here, even if there are many things we disagree upon (I was brought up as one). I hope you'll stick around.About that website, I don't know anything about it, but I looked up the quote and thats where it led me, so I'm not going to comment on its accuracy. I did try to find the original source of the quote but couldn't, so maybe the entire quote is a fabrication. In particular, the line: seems to imply that you can force non-Christian women to marry against their wish, but perhaps thats something lost in translation.Interesting that you can see mistakes on the web for Islamic websites - is this because you have a very particular view of what Islam should be, or that you see some factual errors (rather than errors of judgement or interpretation)? From your posts, I'm guessing that you're probably a Sunni, who holds some ahadith (the sahih ones) as authentic. Am I right? (Btw which side of the EvC debate are you on?)The mods don't like topics losing focus here so maybe meet you in another thread?PEThis message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 04-26-2005 04:23 PM

The ENTIRE Bible is not presented as witness accounts. I went through it in one post or other back there somewhere showing that Genesis, HALF of Exodus and BITS of the rest of the Pentateuch contain witness reports of historical EVENTS. From then on through Ezra and Nehemiah the Bible is nothing BUT historical accounts, and again the four Gospels and Acts are predominantly historical accounts as well.Then because others pointed out that of course Moses wasn't present at the Creation or the FLood I conceded that, although I believe his accounts have witness value in a sense, it is a different sense than direct witness accounts of historical events.I think it is becoming clear that this topic is hard to pin down after all. It came off my pointing out on other threads in endless arguments disputing the Bible on grounds that there is no PHYSICAL evidence for any of its claims, that the Bible does not appeal to physical evidence for its authentication at all, but that it DOES certainly appeal to evidence, as most of it is historical reports of actual events. This kind of evidence is witness evidence. Testimony. And the criteria for determing its validity is different than for physical evidence.This sets it apart from just about all other religions, which are mostly compilations of wisdom teachings by those most knowledgeable and revered in their practice. That being the case physical evidence is irrelevant to their claims to authenticity, and so is witness evidence. Some other criterion must pertain then. Of course, if they make claims to miracles as validating the truth of the religion then I suppose at least witness evidence would apply.In fact the only other religion that has a historical account at its center that I can think of is Mormonism with its saga of the journey of Jews to the Americas in 600 BC.But again, I am really not sure of the scope of this topic and I am really not interested in just another pick-the-Bible-apart-comma-by-semi-colon kind of discussion.

ok. did the author of genesis witness adam's death? did he also witness methusalah's death? but it nowhere claims that moses wrote genesis, nor does it claim that the person who did witnessed every event in the book. this makes this claim a matter strictly of faith -- i could easily say the same thing about anything in the quran or book of mormon. or diantetics. anything supposedly revealed by divine revelation. (i dunno about dianetics...) i didn't bring up physical evidence. frankly, i don't actually care. i do believe some of it's based on real events. i think kings is even a reasonably accurate attempt at a history the divided kingdom period. as for it always going down EXACTLY how the bible said, i dunno. a lot of it there is simply no proof for. we've got nothing on the exodus, for instance. and that's rather important -- the mosaic covenant [and therefor the entire torah] depends on it. but it's the next case i really disagree with: see, the bible is not trying to convince us that this stuff happened. it's trying to put across philosophies, traditions, explanations, and theology. if you read it, they're not saying "see this stuff? it happened and you should believe it." the stuff that *IS* history, like samuel and kings, everybody knew happened for the most part. towards the ends of the books, the people writing it were probably even there. it shows a main authorship date just before exile, and a few edits during and after. which means the people writing it probably KNEW the last king of judah.but compare kings to genesis. in genesis, they're dealing with ancient traditions. some of them spawned by real events, sure. there probably was a sodom and gomorrah, for instance. but mostly, they're recording the traditions from their ancient history. they didn't know abraham and isaac. the book of mormon has signed witness statements in the first pages. i've read 'em. but i still don't believe them. there's a lot of that too. but this is because the bible does not just record that, but alot of other jewish lit too. because for a long time, they were a theocracy. see above. i don't suspect you're a mormon. but the mormon historical account is so full of holes it makes the bible look divine.

---

אָרַח

quote:

---

Salaams Checkmate
Welcome to EvC - its good to have a Muslim here, even if there are many things we disagree upon (I was brought up as one). I hope you'll stick around.

---

Wa'Alaikum Us'Salaam PEThank you and i hope that I will be around, inSha Allaah. Disagreement is fine with me, if some one does not agree with Islaam and/or with me,; it is OK.

quote:

---

About that website, I don't know anything about it, but I looked up the quote and thats where it led me, so I'm not going to comment on its accuracy. I did try to find the original source of the quote but couldn't, so maybe the entire quote is a fabrication. In particular, the line:

---

I am exploring what is on that website, to me it is questionable, not that it is wrong. But they have grossly misquoted the Qur'aan contary to its theme, meaning and message.

quote:

---

If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, this is not to take place without her own wish

​

seems to imply that you can force non-Christian women to marry against their wish, but perhaps thats something lost in translation.

---

As a general rule, marriage in Islaam is void if the bride and/or girl does not agree or consent. it is an automatic cause of annulment.

quote:

---

Interesting that you can see mistakes on the web for Islamic websites - is this because you have a very particular view of what Islam should be, or that you see some factual errors (rather than errors of judgement or interpretation)? From your posts, I'm guessing that you're probably a Sunni, who holds some ahadith (the sahih ones) as authentic. Am I right? (Btw which side of the EvC debate are you on?)

---

There are some simple reasons for that, such as:1. There is a plethora of information that these websites scan and upload and there are always errors, oversights and lost text etc. That has not been detected and corrected accordingly.2. Often these websites use the sources that are notoriously fallacious and then they add their own material; resulting in doble trouble.3. Majority of Islaamic websites are not owned and/or managed and/or maintained by Muslims who have expertise in Islaamic and/or Qur'aanic sciences. They are everyday layMuslims, who want to do a good job, but some times ends up getting distorted and/or erroneous information, which they pass it on. About me.I don't want to chirp my own horns, so let us say that I possess well above average education, knowledge, and understanding of Islaamic sciences and Qur'aan sciences than most Muslims. I am the real deal, means: I strictly adhere to Glorious Qur'aan, Sunnah and Ahadeeth. I can Al-Hamdu-Lillah detect factual error (and not the way I want Islaam to be) also the errors in the translations and/or interpretations etc. I can also present the authentic correct view that would be vouched from all Muslims in the world. I check and verify everything that I am interested in. There are two things that play a major role in my scrutiny. (1) Either I already have the knowledge and can speak my mind while maintaining the accuracy of the information (2) or I don't know about that at all or know a little or know it vaguely. But no sweat, because I have my own Database of information and I also own my own Islaamic library full of books that most people including Muslims have not even seen them, let alone reading them. Thus, I can verify everything what I read or see on Internet (like on forums like this) instantly. Thereafter, if I am responding to a Muslim or a non-Muslim his/her disagreement with me is irrelevant. Because they can disagree but can't prove me wrong, as I have already used and/or quoted the most authentic sources of Islaam. My job is finished then.

quote:

---

(Btw which side of the EvC debate are you on?)

---

I am lost here, can you please elaborate this, what you mean by which side I am on? That would enable me to asnwer it appropriately.

quote:

---

The mods don't like topics losing focus here so maybe meet you in another thread?

---

That is why I asked earlier if you want me I can post the responses here.*** BTW, I did some initial checking and in my database and in my library I didn't find any letter sent to monks in Egypt by the Prophet of Islaam (SAW). In fact, during his lifetime, Egypt was not part of Muslims' territory. The only letter Rasool Allaah (SAW) sent to to Ruler of Egypt, which is as follows (English translation):LETTER TO THE VICEGERENT OF EGYPTIn the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.*From Muhammad Servant of Allah and His ProphetTo Muqawqis, Vicegerent of EgyptPeace be on him who has taken the right course. Thereafter, I invite you to accept Islam. Therefore, if you want security, accept Islam. If you accept Islam, Allah, the Sublime, shall reward you doubly. But if you refuse to do so, responsibility for the transgression of the entire nation shall be yours.0 people of the Book! leaving aside all matters of difference and dispute, agree on a matter which is equally consistent between you and us and it is that we should not worship anyone except Allah and that we should neither associate anyone with Him, nor make anyone else as our god.If you refuse it, you must know that we, in all circumstances, believe in Oneness of Allah.Seal: Allah's Prophet MuhammadNote: Muqawqis who was appointed as vicegerent of Egypt by the Roman Empire. He was a great scholar of his religion. Egypt had always been a great centre of civilisation and made great advances in various branches of art and astrology. It was also a commercial link between East and West.* The red text (opening) above in not found in that alleged letters opening sentence to Egyptian monks, which is a telltale sign of some questionable source and/or motives etc., beside few other things. Also it does not show the "Seal" of Rasool Allaah (SAW). That is always used in every letter and decree.Regards

---

"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."

We are told by Faith that God requires two testimonies for every thing that is said to be in the Bible (or something to this effect).so my two cents are addendum to what said:

quote:

---

ok. did the author of genesis witness adam's death? did he also witness methusalah's death?

---

1. Does the Bible has eyewitness acount for God creating Adam and them Eve?2. Does the Bible has eyewitness account God is teaching the names of everything to Adam?3? Deso the Bible has eyewitness acount God is talking to Adam in Paradise and calling Adam 'where are you?' [The allknowing and allsesing God of Bible does not know where Adam is?]4. Does the Bible has eyewitness account of eyewitnesses before Genesis was written, of what they knew of thought. After all we are talking about Adam to Moses. Why until then the mankid was kep in dark and knew nothing? How they will acheive salvation who died before Moses came along in darkness of ignorance?The JUICY one.OK, we know that while Moses was alive and went to Mount Sinai, allegedly see God and stayed there for forty days, instead of thirty (initially intended). What the Moses people did????They party, got drunk and tossed the Torah in trash and built or made a "Golden Calf" and began worshipping it.Are we supposed to believe that Bible and/or OT is a true word of God and unadulterated. (LOL). The people didn't give a hoot while Moses was among them and left for few days. But Aaron was still with them right? Moses' people abandonded Torah in his lifetime.The Torah was completely destoyed with the 1st temple, thereafter. If that wasn't the case than there was no need for other prophtets coming with their scripture, especially Jesus. Who came with a complete new idea of "Father/Son/HG." That is a complete departure from the message Moses brought and preached.This message has been edited by Checkmate, 04-26-2005 05:44 PM

---

"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."