Bible and Quran (to John) ...

Submitted by The Scholar (United States), Nov 28, 2005 at 18:05

So the old Testament is a history book? It is not very good at it! It seems to me that was not Jesus's opinion when he said:

"Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law (the Old Testament) until everything is accomplished."(Matthew 5:17-18)"

"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 'The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.' (Matthew 23:1-3)"

You distance yourself from the old testament and say it is a history book, you distance yourself from your own history and say there are Church laws and divine laws! And then you claim that Islam is all about violence and aggression. You choose the verses you like and reject the ones you do not like:

The rule in Islam as I said before is:

[2:190-192] "And fight in the cause of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits. And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque (in Makkah) until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the reward of the unbelievers. But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight with them until there is no persecution, and religion should be only for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors."

[17:33] "Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand retaliation or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life, for he is helped (by the Law)."

[22:39] "Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them."

[42:40-43] "The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree): but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah: for (Allah) loves not those who do wrong. But indeed if any do help and defend themselves after a wrong (done) to them, against such there is no cause of blame. The blame is only against those who oppress men and insolently transgress beyond bounds through the land, defying right and justice: for such there will be a grievous penalty. And whoever is patient and forgiving, these most surely are actions due to courage."


You are comparing between the bible and the Quran in terms of accuracy?? You must be kidding! You say that the Quran made historical mistakes! and I guess you are assuming that these Quranic facts are wrong because of what you find in the bible, right? well, if you have a book that does not know that a man can not give birth two years before he is born, then you can not use it as a reference!

Anyway, I guess that's normal when you have a god that forgets, feels remorse and repents!!


Oh, by the way, read the following section about the famous adultress story in the bible (http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/bible/historical-construction/catholic-distortions/):
"
Take, for example, the popular story (John 7:53-8:11) in which Jesus saves a woman from being stoned as an adulteress. It is from this passage that Christianity draws the oft-paraphrased advice, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."
Interestingly enough, this entire story (or periscope) is missing from the earliest version of John. It is also missing from early Latin translations of the text, missing from older versions used in the Holy Land and in fact, according to the 12th century Byzantine scholar Euthymius Zigabenus (the earliest church father to comment on the passage), accurate copies of the Gospel of John do not and should not contain it. Furthermore, if one blocks out the entire little story, John 7:52 flows just fine into John 8:12, lending further credence to the idea that the passage was simply inserted after the fact. Who inserted it, and why, remains a mystery.
"
Should we still take the bible as a historic reference?

It is weird that the illiterate man ...was able to come up with a book that 1400 years later all you can come up with are only a few silly arguments!

Regarding science, while the Quran starts with the word "read" and the order to contemplate has been repeated multiple times, the bible informs us that the Earth is less than 6000 years old!!...

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".