Error in bible

[islamis4u]

It is mentioned in the book of Leveticus, Ch. No.12, Verse No.1 to 5, and we know medically, that after a mother gives birth to a child, the post-partal period, it is unhygienic. To say it is ‘unclean’, Religiously - I have got no objection. But Leviticus, Ch. No.12 Verse No.1 to 5, says that… ‘After a woman gives birth to a male child, she will be unclean for 7 days, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 33 days more. It she give birth to a female child, she will be unclean for two weeks, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 66 days. In short, if a woman gives birth to a male child… ‘a son’, she is unclean for 40 days. If she gives birth to a female child… ‘a daughter’, she is unclean for 80 days. I would like Dr. William Campbell to explain to me scientifically, how come a woman remains unclean for double the period, if she gives birth to a female child, as compared to a male child. The Bible also has a very good test for adultery - How to come to know a woman has committed adultery, in the book of Numbers, Ch. no.5 Verse No..11 to 31. I’ll just say in brief. It says that… ‘The priest should take holy water in a vessel, take dust from the floor, and put it into the vessel - And that is the bitter water ‘And after cursing it, give it to the woman And if the woman has committed adultery, after she drinks it, the curse will enter her body, the stomach will swell, the thigh will rot, and she shall be cursed by the people. If the woman has not committed adultery, she will remain clean and she will bear the seed. A novel method of identifying whether a woman has committed adultery or not. You know today in the world, there are thousands of cases pending in different parts of the world, in different courts of law - only on the assumption that someone has alleged that a woman has committed adultery. I had read in the newspapers, and I came to know from the media, that the President of this great country Mr. Bill Clinton, he was involved in a sex scandal about 2 years back. I wonder, that why did not the American court use this ‘bitter water test’ for adultery? He would have gone scot-free immediately. Why did not the Christian missionaries of this great country, specially those who are in the medical field like my respected Dr. William Campbell, use this bitter water test to bail out their President, immediately.

 

[BlaznFattyz]

although this is part of the bible and is important to christians, you might get a better explanation since it is part of the torah and has to do with laws of the jewish people.

 

[path_of_one]

Yeah, I'm not really understanding what it has to do specifically with Christianity, modern science, or modern politics.

First, most Christians don't follow the Jewish laws.

Second, neither of those statutes really have much to do with modern medicine or science.

Third, in the US adultery is generally seen as a sin, but a private thing. We don't haul people into court for adultery generally, and many states have a no-fault divorce law which basically means that whether or not there was adultery doesn't matter in the case of ending a marriage. We don't really have a bunch of cases pending proof of adultery.

Fourth, the only reason it really mattered with Clinton is that he was getting sexual favors from his subordinate, while on the job. That's considered not only a sin by most Christians, but also goes against our cultural norms about work behavior. It didn't matter that Clinton didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky- what mattered was that he had sexual contact with her of any sort.

Fifth, most Americans classify anything remotely sexual as adultery, so the "scientific" argument you propose from the Bible wouldn't work for our definition of adultery, which is also influenced by Jesus' teaching that even lustful thoughts for people other than your spouse are sinful.

Sixth, I have no idea who Dr. William Campbell is.

Hope that helps. I don't know if this should remain in the Christianity forum or not, since I doubt any of us will have any answers, but I'll leave that to the Christian mods to decide.

 

[juantoo3]

I don't have any issues with this being here for talking points...

Of course, if the reason this was presented is an attempt at seeking converts, then I would begin to have some issues with it being here.

 

[Bruce Michael]

It is mentioned in the book of Leveticus, Ch. No.12, Verse No.1 to 5, Why did not the Christian missionaries of this great country, specially those who are in the medical field like my respected Dr. William Campbell, use this bitter water test to bail out their President, immediately.

Hello Br.islamis4u,

You don't appear to have a good working knowledge of Christianity- but that is fine- you are here to learn.

Christians don't follow the laws of Leviticus- they were replaced with Christ Jesus' Law of Love.
adultery

Adultery has its origin within (Mat.15:19), and in the Law of Love of Jesus, adultery is committed even with the mind, and lust is as much a violation of the law's intent as is illicit sexual intercourse, as Jesus says: "You have heard that it was said, "you shall not commit adultery". But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Mt.5:27-28).

Adulterers can be forgiven, as the adulteress was forgiven by Jesus in Jn.8:3-11, and once sanctified by Confessing the sin with repentance, faith, and God's grace, they are included among God's people (1Cor.6:9-11).

Leviticus might have some interesting things in it, but for most these days it is a historical curiosity. I suppose most Christians would find it boring.

Why don't you write to that nice man Dr. Bill Campbell?- I don't think he reads this forum.

Lecture: Preparing for the Sixth Epoch

Soloviev's view:
For in God there can be no evil, no wickedness, above all, not the arch-evil death. In God there cannot be death. If, therefore, God were to come into the world (I am repeating what Soloviev says practically word for
word) — if God were to appear, should we be able immediately to believe him to be God? No, we should not! He would have to establish his identity first. If a being claiming to be God were to appear, we should not believe him. He would have to prove his identity by producing something of the nature of a world document that would enable us to recognize him as God!
Nothing of the kind exists in the world. God cannot prove his identity through what is in the world, for everything in the world contradicts the divine nature.



By what means, then, can he prove his identity? Only by showing, when he comes into the world, that he has conquered death, that death can have no power over him. We should never believe Christ to be God if He
did not prove his identity. But Christ did so, inasmuch as He has risen, inasmuch as He has shown that the arch-evil, death, is not in Him.

This is what Soloviev says. It is a consciousness of the divine that is based solely upon the actual, historical resurrection of Christ, Who, as God, proves
His identity. Soloviev goes on to say: Nothing in the world, with the single exception of the Resurrection, enables us to realize that a God exists. If Christ had not risen, all our belief would be vain, and everything we could say about a divine nature in the world, this too would be vain. Soloviev quotes these words of St. Paul again and again.

This, then, is the fundamental outlook of Soloviev. If we look at the world we see therein only evil, wickedness, degeneration, senselessness. If Christ had not risen, the world would be meaningless, therefore Christ has risen! Note this sentence well, for it is a cardinal saying of one of the greatest thinkers of Eastern Europe: “If Christ had not risen the world would be senseless, therefore Christ has risen.”
Soloviev has said: “There may be people who think it illogical when I say, if Christ had not risen the world would be senseless; therefore Christ has risen — but this is far better logic than any you can adduce against me.”

Cheers,
Br.Bruce

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

The legal problem with Pres. Clinton wasn't the sex, it was that he lied about the sex in a sworn legal deposition.

It's interesting that these folk methods of divining truth still persist. I saw a video of a Pakistani woman having to lick a hot spoon to prove she hadn't committed adultery. If her tongue blistered she was presumed guilty. It's never the men who have to drink cursed water or lick the flamin' hot spoon. Kinda funny that way.

Chris

 

[islamis4u]

The legal problem with Pres. Clinton wasn't the sex, it was that he lied about the sex in a sworn legal deposition.

It's interesting that these folk methods of divining truth still persist. I saw a video of a Pakistani woman having to lick a hot spoon to prove she hadn't committed adultery. If her tongue blistered she was presumed guilty. It's never the men who have to drink cursed water or lick the flamin' hot spoon. Kinda funny that way.

Chris

I havnt heard of that video yet.

 

[islamis4u]

First thing i do not want to hurt feelings or try to put one after one points but the thing is my Azure brother wanted to paste it here in Christian forums (in my view he said so that he could have some support)

If there are scientific points mentioned in the Bible - there are possibilities - why not? It may be part of the word of God, in the Bible. But what about the scientific errors ? - What about the unscientific portions? - Can you attribute this to God ? want to make it very clear to my Christian brothers and sisters - The purpose of my presentation on ‘Bible and science’ is not to hurt any Christian’s feeling. If while presenting, if I hurt your feelings, I do apologize in advance. The purpose is only to point out, that a God’s Revelation cannot contain scientific errors. As Jesus Christ, peace be upon him said… ‘Search ye the truth, and the truth shall free you.’ We have the Old Testament, we have the New Testament - Now you should follow the Last and Final Testament, which is the Glorious Qur’an.

. Let us analyse what the Bible says about modern science - First we deal with Astronomy., The Bible speaks about the creation of the universe. In the beginning, 1st Book, Book of Genesis, 1st Ch., it is mentioned - It says… ‘Almighty God created the Heavens and the Earth, in six days and talks about a evening and a morning, referring to a 24 - hour day. Today scientists tell us, that the universe cannot be created in a 24 hour period of six days. Qur’an too speaks about six ‘ayyams’. The Arabic word singular is ‘yaum’ plural is ‘ayyam’. It can either mean a day of 24 hours, or it is a very long period, an ‘yaum’, an epoch. Scientists say we have no objection in agreeing that the universe - it could have been created in 6 very long periods. Point No.2 - Bible says in Genesis Ch. No. 1 Verses No. 3 and 5,…‘Light was created on the first day.’ enesis, Ch., 1 Verses, 14 to 19… ‘The cause of light - stars and the sun, etc. was created on the fourth day’. How can the cause of light be created on the 4th day - later than the light which came into existence on the first day? - It is unscientific. Further, the, Bible says Genesis, Ch. 1, Verses 9 to 13… ‘Earth was created on the 3rd day. How can you have a night and day without the earth ? The day depends upon the rotation of the Earth Without the earth created, how can you have a night and day? Point No..4, Genesis, Ch. No. 1 Verses 9 to 13 says… ‘Earth was created on the third day.’ Genesis Ch. No. 1 Verses 14 to 19 says…‘The Sun and the Moon were created on the fourth day.’ Today science tells us… ‘Earth is part of the parent body… the sun.’ It cannot come into existence before the sun – It is unscientific. Point No. 5, the Bible says in Genesis, Ch. No.1, Verse No. 11 to 13…‘The vegetation, the herbs the shrubs, the trees - they were created on the 3rd day And the Sun, Genesis, Ch. No. 1, Verses. 14 to 19, was created on the 4th day.How can the vegetation come into existence without sunlight, and how can they survive without sunlight ? Point No.6, that the Bible says in Genesis, Ch. 1, Verses No.16, that…‘God created two lights the greater light, the Sun to rule the day, and the lesser light the Moon, to rule the night. The actual translation, if you go to the Hebrew text, it is ‘lamps’…‘Lamps having lights of its own.’ And that you will come to know better, if you read both the Verses – Genesis, Ch. No.1, Verse. 16, as well as 17. Verse No.17 says…‘And Almighty God placed them in the firmament, to give light to the earth… To give light to the earth.’ Indicating, that Sun and the Moon has its own light - which is in contradiction with established scientific knowledge that we have. There are certain people who try and reconciliate, and say that the six days mentioned in the Bible, it actually refers to epocs - like the Qur’an long periods - not six, 24 hour day. It is illogical - you read in the Bible, evening, morning - It clearly states 24 hours, it indicates. But even if I use the concordance approach - no problem. I agree with your illogical argument - Yet they will only be able to solve the 1st scientific error of 6 days creation, and second, of first day ‘light’ and 3rd day ‘earth.’ The remaining four, yet they cannot solve. Some further say that… ‘If it is a 24-hour period, why cannot the vegetables survive for one 24 hour day without sunlight?’ I say ‘Fine - If you say that the vegetables were created before the sun, and can survive for one 24-hour day, I have got no objection. But you cannot say the days mentioned are 24 hours as well as epochs - You cannot have the cake and eat it, both. If you say it is long period, you solve Point No.1 and 3, the remaining 4 are yet there. If you say the days are 24 hours day, you solve only Point No.5 - the remaining 5 are yet there - It becomes unscientific.

this is only one error i produce right now for you but their are so many.

 

[wil]

First thing i do not want to hurt feelings.... Let us analyse what the Bible says about modern science - First we deal with Astronomy., The Bible speaks about the creation of the universe. In the beginning, 1st Book, Book of Genesis, 1st Ch., it is mentioned - It says… ‘Almighty God created the Heavens and the Earth, in six days and talks about a evening and a morning, referring to a 24 - hour day. Today scientists tell us, that the universe cannot be created in a 24 hour period of six days. Qur’an too speaks about six ‘ayyams’. The Arabic word singular is ‘yaum’ plural is ‘ayyam’. .

this is only one error i produce right now for you but their are so many.

Namaste islamis4u,

Islam may be for you, but reading and interpretting Christian and Judaic texts appears not to be for you.

Day could mean age in the english language as well, if one were to interpret/read Genesis litterally. Many maybe even most of us don't. Genesis is metaphor, allegory, a creation story. One that your Quran adopted and repeated and interpretted. You may believe that your story which was taken from our story which was taken from the Jewish allegory of creation is true, but that is for you.

Tis a miracle that you can take metaphor and make it scientifically true. Me, I'm not trying to, I thoroughly enjoy the nature and metaphysics and morals contained within the allegory.

You are correct though, it is as wrong for you to come here and try to tear apart our scripture as it would be for us to go to the Islam section and argue yours.

 

[islamis4u]

Namaste islamis4u,

Islam may be for you, but reading and interpretting Christian and Judaic texts appears not to be for you.

Day could mean age in the english language as well, if one were to interpret/read Genesis litterally. Many maybe even most of us don't. Genesis is metaphor, allegory, a creation story. One that your Quran adopted and repeated and interpretted. You may believe that your story which was taken from our story which was taken from the Jewish allegory of creation is true, but that is for you.

Tis a miracle that you can take metaphor and make it scientifically true. Me, I'm not trying to, I thoroughly enjoy the nature and metaphysics and morals contained within the allegory.

You are correct though, it is as wrong for you to come here and try to tear apart our scripture as it would be for us to go to the Islam section and argue yours.

It is little off-topic but i just want to ask you that of which religion you belong in my studies nameste is from Hindu religion?
Secondly you are one of many few here who just respect other and do reply nicely i would their are many including some Mod who just say that it is ridiculous post Your country is that and this.

Now comminy to your the thing is brother i may agree with you that it is metphor, allegory or creation story, but the thing is it is said to be a word of GOD it should be easy for you to understand because you you go to a shop buy a tv with it manual comes what will you do with and from whom it will be from it will be from the maker of the tv and will as explanatory and as easy that a common man can understand it. In this way with man a manual comes which is said to be a word of God, so it should be easy to be understand and not so complexed, brother sorry but i have to differ a bit again You can not show me any verse of Quran, by which you can put Quran in same perspective in of which you have explained.

 

[Bruce Michael]

Now comminy to your the thing is brother i may agree with you that it is metphor, allegory or creation story, but the thing is it is said to be a word of GOD it should be easy for you to understand because you you go to a shop buy a tv with it manual comes what will you do with and from whom it will be from it will be from the maker of the tv and will as explanatory and as easy that a common man can understand it. In this way with man a manual comes which is said to be a word of God, so it should be easy to be understand and not so complexed, brother sorry but i have to differ a bit again You can not show me any verse of Quran, by which you can put Quran in same perspective in of which you have explained.

Hi Br. islamis4u,

Some people say it is the "Word of God" but it's not really- it's just a book, albeit a holy one.

The manual is in your soul- if it wasn't what use would any other outer manual be?

The Foundation of Christianity is Christ Jesus - not the Bible or any other book. All books are of the world. God is a Spirit.

Without Christ the Bible is a bunch of dusty pages with a little ink- no more.

Christianity only began as a religion, but it is greater than all religions.

If a being claiming to be God were to appear, we should not believe him. He would have to prove his identity by producing something of the nature of a world document that would enable us to recognize him as God!
Nothing of the kind exists in the world. God cannot prove his identity through what is in the world, for everything in the world contradicts the divine nature.

-Soloviev

Salaam,
Br.Bruce

 

[Azure24]

islamis4u the Bible being complex is your opinion, it is not fact.

...God cannot prove his identity through what is in the world, for everything in the world contradicts the divine nature.

Maybe, but it would also destroy faith.

"...blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29)

 

[bob x]

You can not show me any verse of Quran, by which you can put Quran in same perspective in of which you have explained.

The Qur'an uses the EXACT SAME WORD yowm in the EXACT SAME metaphorical way. There is no difference whatever.

 

[bananabrain]

the thing is it is said to be a word of GOD it should be easy for you to understand

really? we've never said that. why should G!D's Will be easy to understand? why on earth should that be true?

You can not show me any verse of Quran, by which you can put Quran in same perspective in of which you have explained.

how about this one? it's not exactly clear.

"And abasement and poverty were pitched upon them, and they were laden with the burden of G!D's anger; that, because they had disbelieved the signs of G!D and slain the Prophets unrightfully; that, because they disobeyed, and were transgressors." - Qur'an, 2:61

here, it's mightily unclear what the Qur'an is saying. who are "they"? what "signs of G!D" did they disobey? which prophets did they "slay unrightfully"? and, more importantly, what did the "burden of G!D's anger" involve and is G!D still angry? these things are surely unclear in both the arabic and the translation. perhaps you'd like to enlighten us?

It is mentioned in the book of Leveticus, Ch. No.12, Verse No.1 to 5, and we know medically, that after a mother gives birth to a child, the post-partal period, it is unhygienic. To say it is ‘unclean’, Religiously - I have got no objection. But Leviticus, Ch. No.12 Verse No.1 to 5, says that… ‘After a woman gives birth to a male child, she will be unclean for 7 days, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 33 days more. It she give birth to a female child, she will be unclean for two weeks, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 66 days. In short, if a woman gives birth to a male child… ‘a son’, she is unclean for 40 days. If she gives birth to a female child… ‘a daughter’, she is unclean for 80 days.

because leviticus isn't talking about hygiene here. the word translated as "unclean" is rendered incorrectly. the concepts of tuma and tahara are highly complicated and are better compared to positive/negative polarity in electricity, or north/south polarity in magnetism. it's not about how clean pr dirty someone may be. you seem insistent on interpreting Torah literally in order to wilfully distort what it means. in this you are actually using a favourite tack of atheist fundamentalists such as christopher hitchens or richard dawkins - and one could do exactly the same to the Qur'an.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[bob x]

"Last edited by bananabrain : 02-05-2008 at 10:34 AM. Reason: clarity "
a word of BANANABRAIN should be easy for you to understand

 

[islamis4u]

really? we've never said that. why should G!D's Will be easy to understand? why on earth should that be true?

Then you say it is not the God's Word???

how about this one? it's not exactly clear.

here, it's mightily unclear what the Qur'an is saying. who are "they"? what "signs of G!D" did they disobey? which prophets did they "slay unrightfully"? and, more importantly, what did the "burden of G!D's anger" involve and is G!D still angry? these things are surely unclear in both the arabic and the translation. perhaps you'd like to enlighten us?

Why you try to mislead us you Qouted out of Quran out of context okay!!!

Th e whole is like this and this will clear it i do not have to put points to clear any thing Quran clear it ownself by it Self:

002.059 But the transgressors changed the word from that which had been given them; so We sent on the transgressors a plague from heaven, for that they infringed (Our command) repeatedly.
002.060 And remember Moses prayed for water for his people; We said: "Strike the rock with thy staff." Then gushed forth therefrom twelve springs. Each group knew its own place for water. So eat and drink of the sustenance provided by Allah, and do no evil nor mischief on the (face of the) earth.
002.061 And remember ye said: "O Moses! we cannot endure one kind of food (always); so beseech thy Lord for us to produce for us of what the earth groweth, -its pot-herbs, and cucumbers, Its garlic, lentils, and onions." He said: "Will ye exchange the better for the worse? Go ye down to any town, and ye shall find what ye want!" They were covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of Allah. This because they went on rejecting the Signs of Allah and slaying His Messengers without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing.
002.062 Those who believe (in the Qur’an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

because leviticus isn't talking about hygiene here. the word translated as "unclean" is rendered incorrectly. the concepts of tuma and tahara are highly complicated and are better compared to positive/negative polarity in electricity, or north/south polarity in magnetism. it's not about how clean pr dirty someone may be. you seem insistent on interpreting Torah literally in order to wilfully distort what it means. in this you are actually using a favourite tack of atheist fundamentalists such as christopher hitchens or richard dawkins - and one could do exactly the same to the Qur'an.

It is clear in their it is nothing like what you say and Quran do not have like that okay i qoute you whole Leviticus her:

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding. 6 " 'When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. 7 He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood.
" 'These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.' "

Its clear it do not need your own interpretation.

 

[Quahom1]

It is mentioned in the book of Leveticus, Ch. No.12, Verse No.1 to 5, and we know medically, that after a mother gives birth to a child, the post-partal period, it is unhygienic. To say it is ‘unclean’, Religiously - I have got no objection. But Leviticus, Ch. No.12 Verse No.1 to 5, says that… ‘After a woman gives birth to a male child, she will be unclean for 7 days, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 33 days more. It she give birth to a female child, she will be unclean for two weeks, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 66 days. In short, if a woman gives birth to a male child… ‘a son’, she is unclean for 40 days. If she gives birth to a female child… ‘a daughter’, she is unclean for 80 days. I would like Dr. William Campbell to explain to me scientifically, how come a woman remains unclean for double the period, if she gives birth to a female child, as compared to a male child. The Bible also has a very good test for adultery - How to come to know a woman has committed adultery, in the book of Numbers, Ch. no.5 Verse No..11 to 31. I’ll just say in brief. It says that… ‘The priest should take holy water in a vessel, take dust from the floor, and put it into the vessel - And that is the bitter water ‘And after cursing it, give it to the woman And if the woman has committed adultery, after she drinks it, the curse will enter her body, the stomach will swell, the thigh will rot, and she shall be cursed by the people. If the woman has not committed adultery, she will remain clean and she will bear the seed. A novel method of identifying whether a woman has committed adultery or not. You know today in the world, there are thousands of cases pending in different parts of the world, in different courts of law - only on the assumption that someone has alleged that a woman has committed adultery. I had read in the newspapers, and I came to know from the media, that the President of this great country Mr. Bill Clinton, he was involved in a sex scandal about 2 years back. I wonder, that why did not the American court use this ‘bitter water test’ for adultery? He would have gone scot-free immediately. Why did not the Christian missionaries of this great country, specially those who are in the medical field like my respected Dr. William Campbell, use this bitter water test to bail out their President, immediately.

We do not know exactly what "bitter water is". It could have been a solution that forced the body to reject as a foreign body the DNA from the semen of a male that the woman's body had not become accustomed to (e.g. that of her husband). A lot of knowledge has be lost to us through the millenia. But we do understand that the body of a wife of a man, becomes accustomed to his DNA (seed) as time goes by. And more often than not, if she suddenly has foreign DNA in her, she can develop rashes or infections. Like wise a man's body becomes accustomed to his wife's DNA, and if he suddenly encounters foreign DNA, he too develops irritation where contact was made, for a time. Bitter water, may have been capable of exacerbating the irritation.

As far as the American court not using the bitter water test, American law is not Sharia law. It is based on English common law, with judeao/christian priciples as a base, however the justice system in the US is "blind" in that evidence of fact determines the judgement, not personal or religious opinion. In short, all are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. The other point you forget is that, back then, only the woman could be found guilty of adultery. Men were not. Hence President Clinton would not have ever been considered as an adulterer.

And as an after thought, the bitter water test sounds alot like a culture swab, which is used to identify the rape victim's perpetrator. But that can only be used in criminal court, and here, adultery is a civil matter, where the right to privacy is sacresanct.

 

[17th Angel]

It is little off-topic but i just want to ask you that of which religion you belong

That shouldn't matter my brother.

Ma salama.

 

[Thomas]

If there are scientific points mentioned in the Bible

I think this is probably the source of your error. The Bible is not, nor does it claim to be, a scientific text, nor was it written by scientists. Nor was it composed under the rigorous procedures that govern scientific texts.

The Bible is far more than something as mundane as that.

The purpose of my presentation on ‘Bible and science’ is not to hurt any Christian’s feeling.

OK. I hope you see it is not my intention to hurt your feelings, when I say you've got this wrong.

The purpose is only to point out, that a God’s Revelation cannot contain scientific errors.

No it cannot ... but then God's Revelation transcends science ... so where the two are in dispute, I suggest the scientist is probably more inclined to error than God.

As Jesus Christ, peace be upon him said… ‘Search ye the truth, and the truth shall free you.’

Indeed it does ... and often from the restrictions of science ...

We have the Old Testament, we have the New Testament -

Ah ... an error of emphasis here. We Christians have the Covenant with Israel, and the New Covenant in Christ, to which the Scriptures testify ... so you have missed the point and the object of the Christian sacra doctrina.

Now you should follow the Last and Final Testament, which is the Glorious Qur’an.

We need no further testimony to the Love of God, nor is there any testimony in the Qur'an that contains anything that matches the Redemptive Sacrifice of the Son ... nor is there a Covenant in the Qur'an superior to the Covenant in Christ ... sorry.

Let us analyse what the Bible says ... this is only one error i produce right now for you but their are so many.

Indeed. Th errors are yours my friend.

I would have thought, as Mohammed (pbuh) seemed to hold 'the people of the Book' in no little regard, that he, at least, displayed some reverence towards the sacra doctrina of the Jews and the Christians — even if he did not see eye-to-eye with them. Frankly I am surprised that you do not follow the example of your master.

For my part, I could identify teachings of Islam that attribute certain miraculous events to the life of Our Lord that are not only 'not scientific' (the turning of clay models into birds, for example), but furthermore that we Christians had identified as spurious and apocryphal long before Mohammed (pbuh) was born ... so let's not engage in this kind of exchange.

Thomas

 

[islamis4u]

I think this is probably the source of your error. The Bible is not, nor does it claim to be, a scientific text, nor was it written by scientists. Nor was it composed under the rigorous procedures that govern scientific texts.

The Bible is far more than something as mundane as that.


OK. I hope you see it is not my intention to hurt your feelings, when I say you've got this wrong.


No it cannot ... but then God's Revelation transcends science ... so where the two are in dispute, I suggest the scientist is probably more inclined to error than God.


Indeed it does ... and often from the restrictions of science ...


Ah ... an error of emphasis here. We Christians have the Covenant with Israel, and the New Covenant in Christ, to which the Scriptures testify ... so you have missed the point and the object of the Christian sacra doctrina.


We need no further testimony to the Love of God, nor is there any testimony in the Qur'an that contains anything that matches the Redemptive Sacrifice of the Son ... nor is there a Covenant in the Qur'an superior to the Covenant in Christ ... sorry.


Indeed. Th errors are yours my friend.

I would have thought, as Mohammed (pbuh) seemed to hold 'the people of the Book' in no little regard, that he, at least, displayed some reverence towards the sacra doctrina of the Jews and the Christians — even if he did not see eye-to-eye with them. Frankly I am surprised that you do not follow the example of your master.

For my part, I could identify teachings of Islam that attribute certain miraculous events to the life of Our Lord that are not only 'not scientific' (the turning of clay models into birds, for example), but furthermore that we Christians had identified as spurious and apocryphal long before Mohammed (pbuh) was born ... so let's not engage in this kind of exchange.

Thomas

Of all your explanation you havn't given me answer that not it speaks like this, i never said its book of science but this came here to deal with the people on this world okay, so it As you say bible is from God then God should know look i created the earth and everything and if their is something in the book regarding earth it should be correct, either science is correct or either your book simple. It does not say that its book of science but things which are related to earth should be correct. And that you did not answered me.