Validity of differing eyewitness accounts in religious texts

In another thread, it was asked how the eyewitness accounts in the bible were more "valid" than similar content in other religious texts.What is the criteria that we should (or do) use to make an assumption of validity?

quote:

---

Such was Jesus, son of Mary: (this is) a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt. It befits not Allh that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him! When He decrees a thing, He says unto it only: ‘Be!’ and it is. (Maryam 19:34-35)

---

quote:

---

" truly the likeness of Jesus, in God's sight is as Adam's likeness; He created him of dust, then He said upon him, 'Be' and he was. (Al-Imran 3:59)

---

How would we decide if those accounts from the Koran are less valid than the accounts presented in the bible?This message has been edited by General Krull, 24-Apr-2005 04:59 PM

and moved here from PNT.

You may need to define "valid." A teaching may be "valid" by a different process of reasoning than an eyewitness account is "valid." But I'll proceed as if we could all figure out what we all mean, a very risky assumption of course.1. The first quote from the Koran is a teaching, a teaching about the character of Allah not a witness report of an event but a "statement of the truth". The Bible contains such teachings also. The criteria for their validity could include: 2. The second quote from the Koran appears to be more of a witness report, that is a statement about something "Allah" supposedly did: " truly the likeness of Jesus, in God's sight is as Adam's likeness; He created him of dust, then He said upon him, 'Be' and he was." (Al-Imran 3:59)This may not be all that different from the first quote actually, though it struck me as different at first read. All the same criteria apply in any case: 3. Concern with the importance of witness authority and authenticity: 4. Direct assertions of having the status of eyewitnesses to the important events: ===================
Some afterthoughts:1. I apologize for using the King James with its archaic language. I'd rather use the New King James, but the AV is easier to copy from the Blue Letter Bible site.2. I apologize if my outline structure is out of whack. I think it is but not seriously, and I'm not up to correcting it.3. I would like to comment that the Koran in many ways seems to me to have less claim to any kind of "validity" than even the Mahabharata, which was discussed on the previous thread. While the Mahabharata makes no claims to being authentic history, as teaching it appears at least to have context and coherence, which can't be said for the Koran IMO.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2005 07:50 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2005 08:13 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2005 10:38 PM

Faith, as far as I know there is plenty of documentary historical evidence establishing exactly who Mohammed (peace be upon him) was, when he lived, and what he did. To say that the life and acts of Mohammed (peace be upon him) are uncertain, is obfuscation. Again, I am at a loss to see how Mohammed (peace be upon him), as a real historical personage, has less "credentials" as an eye witness than Moses. A moot point, given that it wasn't written in English Faith, that is just factually incorrect. There is a long tradition of Muslim scholarship that provides context to the Koran, including writings by near-contemporaneous authors.I wonder if you are going to focus on the Koran, whether I should contact a Muslim scholar to take part in this debate. I am not able to provide any documentary evidence against the clear ignorance of your post. But maybe if I contacted the editor of a Muslim talkboard or something, you could be thoroughly proven wrong.Would you like me to do it?MickThis message has been edited by mick, 04-24-2005 09:17 PM

It would be great if we had some muslim scholars or imams contributing here. It would also be great if we could get input from Hindu and Buddhist sources.And of course you're right. The Koran does have the same Authority as the Bible.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

The Koran fails the validity test on its paucity of authenticated authority for its authorship, that's for sure.
=====
Faith, as far as I know there is plenty of documentary historical evidence establishing exactly who Mohammed (peace be upon him) was, when he lived, and what he did. To say that the life and acts of Mohammed (peace be upon him) are uncertain, is obfuscation.

---

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.

quote:

---

To validate a witness report of an event of this sort, that purports to "see" the actions of Allah in the creation of Jesus, would need at least all the credentials of a Moses, but none are given of any sort at all.
=====
Again, I am at a loss to see how Mohammed (peace be upon him), as a real historical personage, has less "credentials" as an eye witness than Moses.

---

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.

quote:

---

There are 135 uses of the word "witness" in the Bible in the English language
======
A moot point, given that it wasn't written in English

---

That's why I stuck to the English, as there may be other Hebrew or Greek words that could have been translated "witness" as well, and many that have other shades of meaning in the original but the English translations are quite reliable. If you don't like the point, show me that any of the words is wrongly translated isntead of just making a contentless complaint about it.

quote:

---

The Koran is all writings in a complete vacuum of context
=====
Faith, that is just factually incorrect. There is a long tradition of Muslim scholarship that provides context to the Koran, including writings by near-contemporaneous authors.

---

PROVIDING context *TO* the Koran is another subject. 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:

---

I wonder if you are going to focus on the Koran, whether I should contact a Muslim scholar to take part in this debate. I am not able to provide any documentary evidence against the clear ignorance of your post. But maybe if I contacted the editor of a Muslim talkboard or something, you could be thoroughly proven wrong.
=====
Would you like me to do it?

---

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.

Isn't it against the rules to make a bald assertion without any attempt to provide evidence, especially in the teeth of the documentation in my post? Just love the double standard.

Okay, I've asked some Muslim folks to come along to this thread and take Faith apart.Mick

What authority does Genesis have?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The goal is not to take Faith apart, that's both foolish and counter productive. The idea is to learn from them, to see their viewpoints and their prespective on GOD and on the machine called religion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That's off topic.It has Moses' EXTREMELY well established spiritual, legal and executive authority at the very least.Funny how everybody here attacks the Bible with impunity to say the least, but let someone give facts and nothing but facts in favor of the Bible and against the Koran, and the site authorities suddenly lose all their enthusiasm for intelligent debate and even the forum guidelines, make flat unsubstantiated assertions about a religious authority that has just been factually well challenged, and then change the subject. This truly is the Gulag.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2005 10:42 PM

IMHO it's not off topic at all. We are trying to determine the validity of various eywitness accounts.So once again, what authority does Genesis have?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

yes, sorry.I mean to say that I would like to correct some of the errors in Faith's post, and I have approached some muslim folks with a request that they take part in the debate.Sorry faith, I don't mean to attack you. I apologise if that's the impression I gave.Mickadded in edit: I do think, though, that it would be great to see people from religions other than Christianity, and places other than the UK and US, posting here. It would lead us away from those tired arguments about the US religious right, which seems to be a pretty parochial but consistent feature here... But I'm sure I'm as guilty as any.This message has been edited by mick, 04-24-2005 10:20 PM

I've answered you! And this is a change in subject I absolutely refuse to address further until somebody addresses the points I've already made in my first post.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-24-2005 10:43 PM

As a general response not directed toward anyone in particular, I think a religious work at least conveys some sense of reliability when it portrays certain historical events, people or perhaps even places that are not immediately corroborated by archeological evidence -- but are later found to be fairly accurate after much criticism is leveled against the work for talking about "imaginary things" that many skeptics assumed did not actually exist.For example, over the past hundred years, skeptics of the Scriptures have posed all kinds of challenges to the Scriptural narrative only to have a discovery show that the Scriptures were correct.Prior to 1947 it was easy to build a case for a charlatan origin for manuscripts like the messianic prophecies of Isaiah for example. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947, with the messianic prophecies in tact scholars now had documents much older than the claims of the skeptics.Simiarly, the Hitite nation described in the Old Testament was claimed by some scholars to have never existed, and was used to ridicule those who claimed that the Scriptural manuscripts were accurate and true. Today archeological evidence has totally vindicated the Scriptures on this issue.Recently, according to some, evidence has been found verifying the Scriptural records of King David's rule.Closer to David's purported time, excavations directed by the late Prof. Yigal Shiloh, uncovered a monumental 20 metre stepped structure, and dated it to the 12th-10th century bce. This could have been the foundation of the Jebusite stronghold, captured and subsequently expanded by David.More importantly, Until very recently, there was no evidence outside the Bible for the existence of King David. There are no references to him in Egyptian, Syrian or Assyrian documents of the time, and the many archaeological digs in the City of David failed to turn up so much as a mention of his name. Then, on July 21, 1993, a team of archaeologists led by Prof. Avraham Biran, excavating Tel Dan in the northern Galilee, found a triangular piece of basalt rock, measuring 23 x 36 cm. inscribed in Aramaic. It was subsequently identified as part of a victory pillar erected by the king of Syria and later smashed by an Israelite ruler. The inscription, which dates to the ninth century bce, that is to say, about a century after David was thought to have ruled Israel, includes the words Beit David ("House" or "Dynasty" of David"). It is the first near-contemporaneous reference to David ever found. It is not conclusive; but it does strongly indicate that a king called David established a dynasty in Israel during the relevant period.In addition to this, many new digs and examinations of documents like the remainder of the Dead Sea Scrolls will most likely offer new data in other areas unrelated to King David.According to some, an ancient Jewish parody that quotes the Christian Scriptures gospel of Matthew may refute a major argument by Scriptural scholars who challenge the credibility of the Scriptures themselves.For more than a century, some scholars have contended that the Christian gospels are unreliable, second-hand accounts of Christ's ministry that weren't put on paper until 70 to 135 A.D. or later generations after those who witnessed the events of Christ's ministry were dead.Today some scholars say the Gospel of Matthew may have been aimed at Jews but it was written in Greek, not Hebrew.They also believe that the Book of Mark, written in Greek, was the original gospel, despite the traditional order of the gospels in the Scriptures, putting Matthew first.But a literary tale dated by some scholars at 72 A.D. or earlier, which comes from an ancient collection of Jewish writings known as the Talmud, quotes brief passages that appear only in the Gospel of Matthew.In his 1999 book, Passover And Easter: Origin And History To Modern Times, Israel Yuval of Jerusalem's Hebrew University says that Rabban Gamaliel, a leader of rabbinical scholars in about 70 A.D., is "considered to have authored a sophisticated parody of the Gospel according to Matthew."When things like this happen, it makes me take notice.Consequently, I suspect that other religious works around the world that are not Christian per se (such as the Koran for example) probably experience the same sort of vindication from skeptics.I'm not teribly familiar with other religious works, but, in the sense that they've captured some historical background, it seems totally possible to me that their accounts are very historical to some extent.This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-24-2005 10:50 PMThis message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-24-2005 10:52 PMThis message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-24-2005 11:36 PM