Armed Conflict, Violence, and the Quran

arnoldyasin

We can discuss and keep throwing mud, but the best thing is to compare the Bible, the Quran and Christian dogma side by side. WITHOUT ANY COMMENTS, LET THE THE TRUTH SHOW ITSELF WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT IS WRONG, the only thing i see here, are people throwing mud, we call ourselves followers of the truth, lets behave like so. That means, we have to let the truth talk for itself. THE QURAN DOESN'T NEED US TO PROVE ITSELF WITH OUR EXTRA BACKIBITING COMMENTS.

If we put the Bible, Quran and Christian dogma next to each other, we can see the comparisons and differences, that is science, and the Quranic way. So just put up all the verses of the Bible and Quran about certain violence subjects next to another, and we will see who's promoting violence. And because the Christian doctrine condemns violence, let's see how the first Christians handled it, and why. Because most Christian non-violence comes from the Stoicins-philosophers that influenced also the Buddhist and Hindu monks. So this is not Christ's teachings, but a greek-roman teaching that influenced his followers.

This is science and the most friendly and professionel way to show the truth. The Quranic way.......

Peace

unknownuser

peace arnold

i agree with you

but you know how people are 'my way or the highway' thing. Blind faith, added w/ human stubbornness, and seeing what they want to see. For instance read what the site that oneway got the article from, is about

http//www.apologeticspress.org/apinfo/aboutap

So a definite BIASED source.

I wish we could all be unbiased in our way to the truth, but most people only see what they want to see.

What you are saying is right, but most people don't like the truth, they like what they WANT to like.

arnoldyasin

That is no excuse to do the same as them. Just let the books and information talk for itself, and if the persons don't want to see it, why be bothered by it? A psychologist examined why people lied and believe lies, he said

"It seems that most people on earth, rather follow and tell lies, follow ignorance and just baseless information, this is from science to religion to how they handle their daily lives. It seems they are scared of the truth, because it brings responsibillity, with lies they can keep doing what they want....."

So it doesn't matter how and with what people come to prove their ideas, our behaviour should never be influenced by this. We follow the truth, and are not pushed of that track by some stubborn people. Drop the throwing mud, or just as worse as them. Let the truth speak for itself, only Bible, Quran and Christian dogma texts, no comments from us next to it. The truth will say more then we can ever do...

Peace

unknownuser

I think their 'plant' consumption at the time was at an all time 'high'.

I believe you mean the hemp plant? wink

unknownuser

That is no excuse to do the same as them. Just let the books and information talk for itself, and if the persons don't want to see it, why be bothered by it? A psychologist examined why people lied and believe lies, he said

"It seems that most people on earth, rather follow and tell lies, follow ignorance and just baseless information, this is from science to religion to how they handle their daily lives. It seems they are scared of the truth, because it brings responsibillity, with lies they can keep doing what they want....."

So it doesn't matter how and with what people come to prove their ideas, our behaviour should never be influenced by this. We follow the truth, and are not pushed of that track by some stubborn people. Drop the throwing mud, or just as worse as them. Let the truth speak for itself, only Bible, Quran and Christian dogma texts, no comments from us next to it. The truth will say more then we can ever do...

Peace

peace arnoldyasin

i tried to convey the truth, I just object to anyone who says 'Quran is violent!' while taking some verses out of context and not reading the whole Quran thoroughly, which is what the truth should be.

I completely agree with you. I am just saying, in my experience, MOST people are biased. I am blessed by the Lord that I am not so. To most people the truth is what they want it to be. My intention is not at all to throw mud or backbite, if I did so, i would surely like to know how, as I don't want to do such.

peace

arnoldyasin

My post was meant for everybody, it was not directed at you specific, i just said it, to make myself clear as what i believe is the best way. Of course we must defend the truth....

peace

savage_carrot

Peace,

savage carot, sorry for mis-understanding your reply at first

Np

I believe you mean the hemp plant?

Indeed, the quality would have had to be out of this world wink

Of course we must defend the truth....

I agree, in a debate which is a mish mash of previous biases and religion, politics, socio-culture etc all rolled into one, it helps to know where a person is coming from so that it's easier to get through to them.

unknownuser

peace

oh ok no worries

I totally agree with your concept though, I wish everybody received all the information before they started judging everything.

You shall not accept any information, unless you verify it for yourself. I have given you the hearing, the eyesight, and the brain, and you are responsible for using them.

oneway

Good morning, All,

Thanks for the good debate on this topic. I'm short on time so I'll offer an overview of my position here and try to touch points raised by all of you since my last post. I don't think we're going to reach further consensus here on 434, so I'll stop being a pest to you all on this topic after this post. I do appreciate your patience in indulging my inquiries here given my Christian biases, etc.

We reached consensus here that the Quran endorses violence under qualified circumstances
We moved from there to discuss the "Koranic rules of fighting" and their general applicability in explaining the qualified circumstances under which the Quran endorses violence
That took us to a discussion of 434 which can be interpreted as endorsing domestic violence

Picking up there where I left off, Arnold posted an article by Edip Yuksel regarding 434 that was well reasoned. The core of that article, and a point echoed by others in reply, is that the Arabic word "daraba" has traditionally been mistranslated as "beat" or "hit" and should more correctly be translated as "get out" or "depart from", etc.

I have problems with this argument for a couple of reasons. First, it seems unlikely to me that so many translators over time would mistakenly choose the wrong translation for this important word in 434. Yuksel's argument and other modern discussions on the matter seem tailor made to adjust to modern sensibilities, particularly Western sensibilities, and require that we completely ignore the context of history both during Mohammed's time and the history of women's treatment in the Islamic world since. In light of that history, I think "beat" or "hit" is the correct translation and that is likely part of the reason why so many respected translators chose that meaning. Some of that line of thinking on my part certainly gets back into the issue of the reliability of the hadiths and other extra-Quranic sources, which I realize are generally not accepted here. That is one of the reasons we will not reach further consensus on this topic I feel that the correct way to develop a proper understanding of scripture must include understanding of the historical context of the writings, but that is generally off limits in this forum given the 'Quran only' consensus (even though many have no problem refuting the Bible here based on similar exegetical techniques).

Second, Yuksel's discussion includes some American English slang, the phrase "beat it", meaning "get out", to bolster his argument. This English slang phrase is of modern origin and certainly would not have been used that way centuries ago. Further, the phrase "beat it" essentially means "beat your feet on the street", where "beat" is being used in the physical sense to describe striking one's feet on the pavement as they depart. So I just don't agree with Yuksel's analysis there. This was by no means the key to his argument, I just found it interesting that he would see parallels to such a modern American phrase.

Third, since the Quran is believed to have been directly revealed to Mohammed and is considered error free by Muslims, the mere existence of such an ambiguity in the text is, for me, sufficient indication that this is the work of a man or men, not the directly revealed word of God. As discussed in other threads, I do not hold the Bible to the same standard of scrutiny because it is written and assembled by many men with divine inspiration and guidance but not direct divine revelation, with only a very few specific exceptions (e.g. the Ten Commandments and the book of Revelation).

Finally, moving away from the particular example of 434 and back to the more general issue of violence in the Quran on the whole, you have to understand that concepts like revenge (which is also endorsed in the Quran) and Mohammed's direct involvement in warfare seem particularly ungodly to people like me coming at this from a Christian background. To be sure, there is much violence in the Old Testament of the Bible and no doubt many Christians throughout history have wrongly used some of that to justify their misdeeds. However, part of the core distinction between the lessons of the historical accounts in the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament is that Jesus teaches to love our enemies, judge only ourselves, and practice forgiveness to the extreme. So Christians following Jesus do not look to those Old Testament stories for guidance regarding violence. We look to Christ. The Quran, on the other hand, is supposed to be direct guidance from God and the verses discussing violence and revenge therein are not just history lessons. They are instructions and they directly clash with the teachings of Jesus in the Bible.

Now, I obviously realize that none of you agree with my interpretation of the Bible and you believe it has been corrupted, and so on. This is of course a key distinction between Islam and Christianity, so we're certainly not going to persuade one another here.

In short, this ultimately becomes a debate about belief, where reason and logic are tools that cannot compete with faith. Nor should they. If we were able to completely reason our way to God and prove His existence and His message to non-believers, there would be no need for faith and, in a very real sense, our free will would be completely undercut. So perhaps God set it out this way on purpose, that through prayer, study, and debate, we can all do our best to seek the truth.

I sincerely thank you for indulging my own personal truth seeking here and for sharing your perspectives with me. At times our discussions in other recent threads became heated and I apologize for any offense I caused and appreciate the patience and tolerance I have been shown by many.

Even with our disagreements, if everyone could engage in such debates without fear of reprisal the world would certainly be a better place.

Peace to you all.

/oneway.

CavemanDoctor

Peace all.

I'd like to make a few points here in response to oneway. I think the most important thing here is the following quote

In short, this ultimately becomes a debate about belief, where reason and logic are tools that cannot compete with faith. Nor should they. If we were able to completely reason our way to God and prove His existence and His message to non-believers, there would be no need for faith and, in a very real sense, our free will would be completely undercut. So perhaps God set it out this way on purpose, that through prayer, study, and debate, we can all do our best to seek the truth.

I agree that one cannot reason our way to God in the sense that one cannot prove His existence like one could prove a geometrical theorem. As I'm sure you agree, we can however use our reason to make probabilistic arguments for His existence. That's not entirely important to our conversation, however. What I think is important is allowing faith to color our interpretations of things that can be approached with and verified by logic.

My point is this you can't say "the Qur'an endorses X" or "the Qur'an says this," then when someone posits an alternate explanation, respond with "oh, it's a matter of faith, agree to disagree." No, that is not a matter of faith. That is something that can be verified by logic. Any objective observer, for example, can read 434, look up the word "Daraba" in Arabic dictionaries and see a slew of different meanings. This has absolutely nothing to do with faith. It is mere logic and language. It goes back to imposing your own preconceptions (in this case, the Qur'an endorsing domestic violence) on the text and refusing to acknowledge that the text does not necessarily agree with you.

Now, in the case of 434, to be sure, many translators have imposed similar preconceptions so it's easy to use this verse as a sign of endorsing domestic violence. This begs a few responses

Like I mentioned in the other thread, you have come to a very unique site. Most of us here eschew hadith, as you well know. What you must realize about translation is that the vast majority of these translators did not subscribe to our beliefs. They were traditionalists who used hadith to color their interpretation of the Qur'an. Of course many of us here vehemently argue against doing such a thing. So why is that relevant? Well, the hadith were written by men and for men. Is it any surprise that man-made accounts from 8th-9th century Arabia and onward are infused with chauvinism and, dare I say it, misogyny? It is this context that traditionalist translators operate under.
The translators, like you and other Christian apologetics, approached the text assuming it has a certain chauvinist meaning since the hadith they operate under are seen through a similar male-driven framework. The problem is the Qur'an does not espouse itself as operating under a similar framework. I do not entirely fault you on this particular verse since so many translators have made such a huge blunder interpreting it. Fortunately, the Qur'an, like the Bible, teaches us to stray from the majority for they are almost always misled ("enter through the narrow gate, for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction," right?). At best, I think what you have shown is that traditionalists, and hence traditionalist translators, endorse domestic violence. This, I completely agree with. Surely one must not equate a man's interpretation with the text itself, however. I think something must be said about the very act of translation that many people take for granted. Translations are not the text. This is of utmost importance. All translations are interpretations. Not just translations of the Qur'an but of any book. This is a fact of human language and it is something we cannot deny. No translation is the Qur'an. A translation by Yusuf Ali is an interpretation of the Qur'an by Yusuf Ali. I think many fall into the trap of thinking that all words are neatly translated from one language to the next without failing to realize that no human language is that narrow in its scope.
You brought up Edip Yuksel's article about the various meanings of "Daraba" and proceeded to disagree with him. Again, that is no surprise as you (through your own admission) are biased. We can be honest with each other. You think the text is violent and will go to any length to give evidence for your already preconceived notion. That's human nature after all. Edip and others have written very cogent, logical articles showing why "Daraba" cannot be reasonably justified as "beating." They are hardly driven by "modern sensibilities" but rather were relying on the text itself. Using the text itself, and the meanings of the words in the Arabic language, it is clear that domestic violence is not the intended usage. At the very least, for the sake of being logical, you must agree that Edip's translation is a reasonable one.
You mentioned that the very existence of this "ambiguity" shows to you that the text is man-made. But again, surely you see how this is your own assumption. We all believe in God here. Most of us believe God is testing us to gauge the sincerity of our faith. Both the Qur'an and the Bible promote such a view. Why, then, would this "ambiguity" be incongruent with this view? Is it not possible, indeed plausible, that God used certain words that could be translated in different ways, thereby testing the true intentions of the people interpreting the text? Indeed, the Qur'an itself mentions this. It refers to those who approach the book without sincerity and says they are "deaf, dumb and blind" to the message. They will find in it whatever they want. You want to prove the Qur'an wrong and say it endorses domestic violence, voila God makes that easy for you. If, however, you want to approach with sincerity and to ascertain its veracity, things are not quite black and white. The more you study the text, the more you realize, "hey, you know what, maybe the text doesnt mean exactly what I thought it meant."
I think it's always best to approach a debate by relating to the other person's worldview. In our case, I'd like to point something out using the Bible. We can look at Mark 743-49. These are the famous verses where Jesus allegedly tells us to pluck out our eyes if they offend us, same with our legs and feet. Now, I can approach the text with insincerity and proclaim "aha, the Bible promotes self-mutilation, not even the Old Testament, Jesus himself promotes violence against oneself." But would you agree? Of course not. You would likely say something along the lines of this is not to be taken literally. Jesus was being metaphorical. He means here to root out sins by severing ourselves from their source. If our hands are committing sin, we must sever our hands from the sin itself so that we may repent, etc. I would agree with that interpretation. Why? Because I don't approach the Bible assuming it promotes violence. Even in spite of the many atrocities done in the name of Christianity, I still don't approach it that way. Even in spite of all the other verses in the Old Testament, for example, that clearly promote excessive violence, I still don't approach it that way. I give a text the benefit of the doubt. Why don't you afford the Qur'an the same luxury?

I wanted to make one final point about your post. I've already rambled long enough; I apologize. You said

Mohammed's direct involvement in warfare seem particularly ungodly to people like me coming at this from a Christian background. To be sure, there is much violence in the Old Testament of the Bible and no doubt many Christians throughout history have wrongly used some of that to justify their misdeeds. However, part of the core distinction between the lessons of the historical accounts in the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament is that Jesus teaches to love our enemies, judge only ourselves, and practice forgiveness to the extreme. So Christians following Jesus do not look to those Old Testament stories for guidance regarding violence. We look to Christ

You can't have it both ways. You say you don't look to the OT for guidance regarding violence. I want to make two points about this

You say that violence is but one topic you don't seek guidance in the OT for, implying there are certain issues you do seek guidance for in the OT. And of course that is the case. Every Christian I have spoken to still looks for general guidance in the OT. But that begs the question why do you get to pick and choose? Why do you get to say "I won't seek guidance regarding X topic in the OT." Why not? Why isn't it all or none? Is that being intellectually honest? You bring up modern sensibilities. It seems to me that refusing to go the OT for guidance on certain "touchy" issues that the OT seems excessive on reeks of picking-and-choosing based on modern sensibilities. You don't like the image the OT paints of excessive violence so you shy from it altogether instead relying on the "We look to Christ" panacea.
Even assuming it's reasonable to not look to the OT for guidance, through your own words you do believe it to be divinely inspired. Now, the question becomes, if the OT endorses such excessive violence, why do you not see it as something that is just as "ungodly" as "Mohammed's direct involvement in warfare"? How are the two different? Why don't you give the Qur'an the same flexible treatment you afford to the OT? It's one thing to be biased. It's another to selectively treat texts differently.

Peace.

savage_carrot

Peace CavemanDr,

Excellent post, touches on all the things I've been thinking as well. Thanks for taking the time to put it across in such a comprehensive way.

oneway

Hi, CavemanDoctor,

As usual, an excellent post. I'll try to be brief in my replies as I promised to stop pestering smile

Peace all.

I'd like to make a few points here in response to oneway. I think the most important thing here is the following quote

In short, this ultimately becomes a debate about belief, where reason and logic are tools that cannot compete with faith. Nor should they. If we were able to completely reason our way to God and prove His existence and His message to non-believers, there would be no need for faith and, in a very real sense, our free will would be completely undercut. So perhaps God set it out this way on purpose, that through prayer, study, and debate, we can all do our best to seek the truth.

I agree that one cannot reason our way to God in the sense that one cannot prove His existence like one could prove a geometrical theorem. As I'm sure you agree, we can however use our reason to make probabilistic arguments for His existence. That's not entirely important to our conversation, however. What I think is important is allowing faith to color our interpretations of things that can be approached with and verified by logic.

My point is this you can't say "the Qur'an endorses X" or "the Qur'an says this," then when someone posits an alternate explanation, respond with "oh, it's a matter of faith, agree to disagree."

I agree with you, but that is not what I am trying to say. That an argument is reasonable, as Yuksel's certainly is regarding 434, does not mean I have to find it persuasive. I have biases to be sure, as do you, but I'm not just ruling out reasonable arguments presented here based on my biases. I am ruling them out because the logic I am applying is different and stems from a different exegetical process than the "Quran only" view. That is the basis for me saying its a matter of faith. When we disagree on the correct methods to be used for finding the correct interpretation the discussion ceases to be about the main topic and is then only about which study procedures are the right ones and why. The "why" has much to do with faith Quran only vs Quran + history vs Quran + hadith, etc.

So when we get to that point I think we can either agree to disagree or spend forever trying to persuade one another that our favored approach is the right one, likely to no avail.

No, that is not a matter of faith. That is something that can be verified by logic. Any objective observer, for example, can read 434, look up the word "Daraba" in Arabic dictionaries and see a slew of different meanings. This has absolutely nothing to do with faith. It is mere logic and language. It goes back to imposing your own preconceptions (in this case, the Qur'an endorsing domestic violence) on the text and refusing to acknowledge that the text does not necessarily agree with you.

The paragraph above is a good example of my point here. Yes, anyone can go to a dictionary and find that "Daraba" has many meanings, but getting from there to choosing the right meaning falls squarely into the debate about which are the correct exegetical techniques and, as described above, that decision is inexorably intertwined with faith.

This is not unique to discussions between Christians and Muslims. I'm sure if you tried to argue against the hadiths with ultra conservative Muslims you would have similar issues and I have certainly experienced this when debating ultra conservative Christians over things like strict literal interpretation of the Bible.

Now, in the case of 434, to be sure, many translators have imposed similar preconceptions so it's easy to use this verse as a sign of endorsing domestic violence. This begs a few responses

Like I mentioned in the other thread, you have come to a very unique site. Most of us here eschew hadith, as you well know. What you must realize about translation is that the vast majority of these translators did not subscribe to our beliefs. They were traditionalists who used hadith to color their interpretation of the Qur'an. Of course many of us here vehemently argue against doing such a thing. So why is that relevant? Well, the hadith were written by men and for men. Is it any surprise that man-made accounts from 8th-9th century Arabia and onward are infused with chauvinism and, dare I say it, misogyny? It is this context that traditionalist translators operate under.
The translators, like you and other Christian apologetics, approached the text assuming it has a certain chauvinist meaning since the hadith they operate under are seen through a similar male-driven framework. The problem is the Qur'an does not espouse itself as operating under a similar framework. I do not entirely fault you on this particular verse since so many translators have made such a huge blunder interpreting it. Fortunately, the Qur'an, like the Bible, teaches us to stray from the majority for they are almost always misled ("enter through the narrow gate, for the gate is wide and the road broad that leads to destruction," right?). At best, I think what you have shown is that traditionalists, and hence traditionalist translators, endorse domestic violence. This, I completely agree with. Surely one must not equate a man's interpretation with the text itself, however. I think something must be said about the very act of translation that many people take for granted. Translations are not the text. This is of utmost importance. All translations are interpretations. Not just translations of the Qur'an but of any book. This is a fact of human language and it is something we cannot deny. No translation is the Qur'an. A translation by Yusuf Ali is an interpretation of the Qur'an by Yusuf Ali. I think many fall into the trap of thinking that all words are neatly translated from one language to the next without failing to realize that no human language is that narrow in its scope.

I appreciate your view here. It is a reasonable one to be sure, just not a persuasive one to me. As I said above, the underlying assumption you bring to the discussion is that "Quran only" is the best way to go. I fundamentally don't agree with that, not because of preconceived biases against the Quran, but because I don't believe in that exegetical method for the Bible either. What feels logical to me is that God would communicate with us in ways that do not require complete rejection of recorded history, or of scientific discovery, etc. So I think my position here is logically consistent in that context. That just means mine is a reasonable argument. For all the same reasons, it is obviously not a persuasive argument to you.

You brought up Edip Yuksel's article about the various meanings of "Daraba" and proceeded to disagree with him. Again, that is no surprise as you (through your own admission) are biased. We can be honest with each other. You think the text is violent and will go to any length to give evidence for your already preconceived notion. That's human nature after all. Edip and others have written very cogent, logical articles showing why "Daraba" cannot be reasonably justified as "beating." They are hardly driven by "modern sensibilities" but rather were relying on the text itself. Using the text itself, and the meanings of the words in the Arabic language, it is clear that domestic violence is not the intended usage. At the very least, for the sake of being logical, you must agree that Edip's translation is a reasonable one.

Yuksel's translation is absolutely a reasonable one. I want to be crystal clear on that. That I do not find his argument persuasive is because I disagree with the notion of ignoring objective history and the hadith, which can inform the interpretation in my view. That is where modern sensibilities come in. Had you lived in Mohammed's time it might seem completely reasonable to you to translate "Daraba" as "beat" just as today it seems completely reasonable to translate it differently. I cannot prove you wrong. I can only express that I think the context of the history at the time it was first written down is critical to understanding it, even if we have to go to extra-Quranic sources to learn about that history.

You mentioned that the very existence of this "ambiguity" shows to you that the text is man-made. But again, surely you see how this is your own assumption. We all believe in God here. Most of us believe God is testing us to gauge the sincerity of our faith. Both the Qur'an and the Bible promote such a view. Why, then, would this "ambiguity" be incongruent with this view? Is it not possible, indeed plausible, that God used certain words that could be translated in different ways, thereby testing the true intentions of the people interpreting the text? Indeed, the Qur'an itself mentions this. It refers to those who approach the book without sincerity and says they are "deaf, dumb and blind" to the message. They will find in it whatever they want.

Of course that's plausible. Absolutely. But, again, you bring an assumption to the table that the the Quran is God's directly revealed truth even before this discussion begins. Then you justify your chosen analytical methods using the Quran itself, which goes right back to being a matter of faith, not reason alone. To be clear - I am not suggesting that we should not use reason to sharpen our faith. If I believed that I wouldn't be here. I'm just saying that our respective faiths are more deeply intertwined in these discussions of logic than is initially apparent. That's a big part of what these discussions have clarified for me.

You want to prove the Qur'an wrong and say it endorses domestic violence, voila God makes that easy for you. If, however, you want to approach with sincerity and to ascertain its veracity, things are not quite black and white. The more you study the text, the more you realize, "hey, you know what, maybe the text doesnt mean exactly what I thought it meant."

True, things are rarely black and white. I'm not arguing that I've proved the Quran wrong, only that my arguments are equally reasonable and plausible based on my chosen exegetical method which is derived from my view of God and how He communicates with us. And I agree that your view and the others presented here are also reasonable and plausible based on your respective choices in exegetical method which derive from your view of God and how He communicates with us.

I think it's always best to approach a debate by relating to the other person's worldview. In our case, I'd like to point something out using the Bible. We can look at Mark 743-49. These are the famous verses where Jesus allegedly tells us to pluck out our eyes if they offend us, same with our legs and feet. Now, I can approach the text with insincerity and proclaim "aha, the Bible promotes self-mutilation, not even the Old Testament, Jesus himself promotes violence against oneself." But would you agree? Of course not. You would likely say something along the lines of this is not to be taken literally. Jesus was being metaphorical. He means here to root out sins by severing ourselves from their source. If our hands are committing sin, we must sever our hands from the sin itself so that we may repent, etc. I would agree with that interpretation. Why? Because I don't approach the Bible assuming it promotes violence. Even in spite of the many atrocities done in the name of Christianity, I still don't approach it that way. Even in spite of all the other verses in the Old Testament, for example, that clearly promote excessive violence, I still don't approach it that way. I give a text the benefit of the doubt. Why don't you afford the Qur'an the same luxury?

I don't afford the Quran the same luxury for two reasons. First, the Quran is supposed to be a direct revelation from God to Mohammed. As a direct revelation, to me (and this also goes back to this whole faith discussion we're having here), the Quran should not suffer from ambiguity or openness to interpretation to the same anywhere near the same degree as the Bible for the simple reason that lots of fallible men were involved in producing the Bible with God's guidance, while the Quran was supposedly produced by one man not just with God's guidance but through God's direct revelation.

I realize you don't agree with that approach, but I think you could agree it is not an unreasonable one, even if you find it unpersuasive.

I wanted to make one final point about your post. I've already rambled long enough; I apologize. You said

Mohammed's direct involvement in warfare seem particularly ungodly to people like me coming at this from a Christian background. To be sure, there is much violence in the Old Testament of the Bible and no doubt many Christians throughout history have wrongly used some of that to justify their misdeeds. However, part of the core distinction between the lessons of the historical accounts in the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament is that Jesus teaches to love our enemies, judge only ourselves, and practice forgiveness to the extreme. So Christians following Jesus do not look to those Old Testament stories for guidance regarding violence. We look to Christ

You can't have it both ways. You say you don't look to the OT for guidance regarding violence. I want to make two points about this

You say that violence is but one topic you don't seek guidance in the OT for, implying there are certain issues you do seek guidance for in the OT. And of course that is the case. Every Christian I have spoken to still looks for general guidance in the OT.

This isn't entirely accurate. Christians view the OT as guidance in the sense of the lessons to be learned from history, poetry, and wisdom contained therein, but, and this is crucial, Christians by definition believe that Christ's teachings supercede the OT content, just as Muslims believe the Quran supercedes the Bible.

But that begs the question why do you get to pick and choose? Why do you get to say "I won't seek guidance regarding X topic in the OT." Why not? Why isn't it all or none? Is that being intellectually honest?

Yes, it is intellectually honest when you realize that Christians follow the teachings of Christ. The OT informs those teachings, but where it contradicts with them we are obliged to follow Christ. Much of Christ's message was about moving away from the emphasis on OT Mosaic Law and accepting God's grace. So this is not just picking and choosing for convenience, it is at the core of Christianity.

You bring up modern sensibilities. It seems to me that refusing to go the OT for guidance on certain "touchy" issues that the OT seems excessive on reeks of picking-and-choosing based on modern sensibilities. You don't like the image the OT paints of excessive violence so you shy from it altogether instead relying on the "We look to Christ" panacea.

As described above, the OT is called "Old" for a reason. Christ's message in the New Testament supercedes it.

Even assuming it's reasonable to not look to the OT for guidance, through your own words you do believe it to be divinely inspired. Now, the question becomes, if the OT endorses such excessive violence, why do you not see it as something that is just as "ungodly" as "Mohammed's direct involvement in warfare"? How are the two different? Why don't you give the Qur'an the same flexible treatment you afford to the OT? It's one thing to be biased. It's another to selectively treat texts differently.

OT violence is typically about God instructing chosen men to eliminate evil at His command. I don't presume to understand God's methods in all those stories by any means, but they are not stories that condone violence carried out by anyone other than the specific men God guided in those specific instances. This is confirmed by Christ's teachings which do not condone violence but command love and forgiveness.

Where an OT testament passage is more generally instructive vs historical, we apply the filter of Christ. The OT says "an eye for an eye", but that is not Christ's teaching, so we understand that the old teachings in the Old Testament provide background that is important, but that the new teaching of Jesus in the New Testament are what we are supposed to follow.

Just as none of us interpret the story of Noah to mean we should all begin building our own arks, we interpret the OT stories of God's wrath as history with lessons regarding the consequences of mans disobedience to God, but not as direct guidance for everyday living. For that we look to Christ.

The Quran, on the other hand, is generally accepted by Muslims to be directly instructive for Muslims, just as Christians interpret Christ's teachings in the New Testament. So when it talks about how to deal with your wife, it isn't just providing a history lesson. It is understood by Muslims to apply to all of us today.

So, as you can see, it isn't as simple as failure to be objective and cherry picking scriptures. It really does ultimately boil down to our respective faith in how we believe God operates, and that influences our respective methods in seeking truth.

I think I failed miserably at keeping my replies brief, so thanks again for your patience.

Regards,
oneway

arnoldyasin

Peace Oneway,

Quote
I don't afford the Quran the same luxury for two reasons. First, the Quran is supposed to be a direct revelation from God to Mohammed. As a direct revelation, to me (and this also goes back to this whole faith discussion we're having here), the Quran should not suffer from ambiguity or openness to interpretation to the same anywhere near the same degree as the Bible for the simple reason that lots of fallible men were involved in producing the Bible with God's guidance, while the Quran was supposedly produced by one man not just with God's guidance but through God's direct revelation.

In this you bite your own tail a bit from my point of view, for one, all revelations in the Bible, used to be revelations written down immediatly, or passed oraly. But they were all direct revelations from God to the prophets. That after centuries fallible men, gathered the copies into one collection is a different story.

So or you have a real different way at looking at revelation, or you see you contradict yourself here. If the ancient prophets got direct revelations, like the Bible shows, then also Mohammed cannot be left out, in the possibility.

And i can see, this is turning out to be more 'political' then logical. You still want to keep on hanging on things, so it can serve your view. It has nothing to do with proof or logic. It has to do with conviction, and pre-programmed concepts that will determine a persons view.

Peace

oneway

Peace Oneway,
...
But they were all direct revelations from God to the prophets. That after centuries fallible men, gathered the copies into one collection is a different story.

So or you have a real different way at looking at revelation, or you see you contradict yourself here. If the ancient prophets got direct revelations, like the Bible shows, then also Mohammed cannot be left out, in the possibility.

Where does the Bible show that all of the books of the Bible were directly revealed to their authors by God? Or am I misunderstanding what you are trying to say?

Regards,
oneway

arnoldyasin

Joh 828 Then3767 said2036 Jesus2424 unto them,846 When3752 ye have lifted up5312 the3588 Son5207 of man,444 then5119 shall ye know1097 that3754 I1473 am1510 he, and2532 that I do4160 nothing3762 of575 myself;1683 but235 as2531 my3450 Father3962 hath taught1321 me,3165 I speak2980 these things.5023

2Sa 727 For3588 thou,859 O LORD3068 of hosts,6635 God430 of Israel,3478 hast revealed1540, 241 to thy servant,5650 saying,559 I will build1129 thee a house1004 therefore5921, 3651 hath thy servant5650 found4672 in (853) his heart3820 to pray6419 (853) this2063 prayer8605 unto413 thee.

Isa 2214 And it was revealed1540 in mine ears241 by the LORD3068 of hosts,6635 Surely518 this2088 iniquity5771 shall not be purged3722 from you till5704 ye die,4191 saith559 the Lord136 GOD3069 of hosts.6635

Gen 46 And the LORD3068 said559 unto413 Cain,7014 Why4100 art thou wroth?2734 and why4100 is thy countenance6440 fallen?5307
Gen 49 And the LORD3068 said559 unto413 Cain,7014 Where335 is Abel1893 thy brother?251 And he said,559 I know3045 not3808 Am I595 my brother's251 keeper?8104

As can be seen, God spoke to these people directly, these are just some little samples. On this you will agree of course, you want proof of revelation being given, not just some orders of conversation.

If you look at Isaiah, he saw his words in a vision, he saw images but also direct words he spoke in the name of God.

Isa 11 The vision2377 of Isaiah3470 the son1121 of Amoz,531 which834 he saw2372 concerning5921 Judah3063 and Jerusalem3389 in the days3117 of Uzziah,5818 Jotham,3147 Ahaz,271 and Hezekiah,3169 kings4428 of Judah.3063
Isa 12 Hear,8085 O heavens,8064 and give ear,238 O earth776 for3588 the LORD3068 hath spoken,1696 I have nourished1431 and brought up7311 children,1121 and they1992 have rebelled6586 against me.
Isa 13 The ox7794 knoweth3045 his owner,7069 and the ass2543 his master's1167 crib18 but Israel3478 doth not3808 know,3045 my people5971 doth not3808 consider.995
Isa 14 Ah1945 sinful2398 nation,1471 a people5971 laden3515 with iniquity,5771 a seed2233 of evildoers,7489 children1121 that are corrupters7843 they have forsaken5800 (853) the LORD,3068 they have provoked5006 (853) the Holy One6918 of Israel3478 unto anger, they are gone away2114 backward.268...............

This goes on throughout the book about Isaiah. Also in Jeremiah.

Jer 71 The word1697 that834 came1961 to413 Jeremiah3414 from4480, 854 the LORD,3068 saying,559
Jer 72 Stand5975 in the gate8179 of the LORD's3068 house,1004 and proclaim7121 there8033 (853) this2088 word,1697 and say,559 Hear8085 the word1697 of the LORD,3068 all3605 ye of Judah,3063 that enter935 in at these428 gates8179 to worship7812 the LORD.3068
Jer 73 Thus3541 saith559 the LORD3068 of hosts,6635 the God430 of Israel,3478 Amend3190 your ways1870 and your doings,4611 and I will cause you to dwell7931 in this2088 place.4725
Jer 74 Trust982 ye not408 in413 lying8267 words,1697 saying,559 The temple1964 of the LORD,3068 The temple1964 of the LORD,3068 The temple1964 of the LORD,3068 are these.1992

It was directly revealed to them. We can compare this perfectly with the commandments given to Mohammed

Say "O men, I am verily the apostle of God to you all. His whose kingdom extends over the heavens and the earth. There is no god but He, the giver of life and death. So believe in God and the messenger, the gentile Prophet, sent by Him, who believes in God and His messages. Obey him; you may haply be guided aright."

Ezekiel also gets the same commandment, starting with say..

Eze 301 The word1697 of the LORD3068 came1961 again unto413 me, saying,559
Eze 302 Son1121 of man,120 prophesy5012 and say,559 Thus3541 saith559 the Lord136 GOD;3069 Howl3213 ye, Woe1929 worth the day!3117
Eze 303 For3588 the day3117 is near,7138 even the day3117 of the LORD3068 is near,7138 a cloudy6051 day;3117 it shall be1961 the time6256 of the heathen.1471

Hos 11 The word1697 of the LORD3068 that834 came1961 unto413 Hosea,1954 the son1121 of Beeri,882 in the days3117 of Uzziah,5818 Jotham,3147 Ahaz,271 and Hezekiah,3169 kings4428 of Judah,3063 and in the days3117 of Jeroboam3379 the son1121 of Joash,3101 king4428 of Israel.3478
Hos 12 The beginning8462 of the word1696 of the LORD3068 by Hosea.1954 And the LORD3068 said559 to413 Hosea,1954 Go,1980 take39

Amo 915 And I will plant5193 them upon5921 their land,127 and they shall no3808 more5750 be pulled up5428 out of4480, 5921 their land127 which834 I have given5414 them, saith559 the LORD3068 thy God.430

Looks like direct revelations to me, and just like with Mohammed, it was or written down or passed oraly till it was written down.

Mic 11 The word1697 of the LORD3068 that834 came1961 to413 Micah4318 the Morasthite4183 in the days3117 of Jotham,3147 Ahaz,271 and Hezekiah,3169 kings4428 of Judah,3063 which834 he saw2372 concerning5921 Samaria8111 and Jerusalem.338

The word of the Lord that came..........

Zep 11 The word1697 of the LORD3068 which834 came1961 unto413 Zephaniah6846 the son1121 of

Mal 11 The burden4853 of the word1697 of the LORD3068 to413 Israel3478 by3027 Malachi.4401

And about writing it down

Rev 11 The Revelation602 of Jesus2424 Christ,5547 which3739 God2316 gave1325 unto him,846 to show1166 unto his848 servants1401 things which3739 must1163 shortly1722, 5034 come to pass;1096 and2532 he sent649 and signified4591 it by1223 his848 angel32 unto his848 servant1401 John2491
Rev 12 Who3739 bare record3140 of the3588 word3056 of God,2316 and2532 of the3588 testimony3141 of Jesus2424 Christ,5547 and5037 of all things that3745 he saw.1492

by the messenger himself

will,2309 let him take2983 the3588 water5204 of life2222 freely.1432
Rev 2218 For1063 I testify4828 unto every man3956 that heareth191 the3588 words3056 of the3588 prophecy4394 of this5127 book,975 If1437 any man5100 shall add2007 unto4314 these things,5023 God2316 shall add2007 unto1909 him846 the3588 plagues4127 that are written1125 in1722 this5129 book975
Rev 2219 And2532 if1437 any man5100 shall take away851 from575 the3588 words3056 of the book976 of this5026 prophecy,4394 God2316 shall take away851 his846 part3313 out of575 the book976 of life,2222 and2532 out of1537 the3588 holy40 city,4172 and2532 from the things which are written1125 in1722 this5129 book.975

So yes, direct revelation to messengers, ordered by God to reveal it to their people, exactly as Mohammed. Written the revelation down, just as John did with his revelation, just like Mohammed did.

Say "Observe all there is in the heavens and the earth." But signs or warnings will be of no avail to those who do not believe.
Can they expect anything but what the people before them had known? Say "Then wait. I am waiting with you."
Thus do We deliver our apostles and those who believe. As a matter of duty We save the believers. Say "O men, if you have doubt about my faith, then (know) I do not worship those you worship apart from God, but I worship God who makes you die; and I am commanded to be a believer
Who believe in what has been revealed to you and what was revealed to those before you, and are certain of the Hereafter
Say "Whosoever is the enemy of Gabriel who revealed the word of God to you by the dispensation of God, reaffirming what had been revealed before, and is a guidance and good news for those who believe, --

This is what i meant. I hope the numbers don't disturb that much, it is from a Bible search program, that also gives the meaning in greek, represented by the number of the word in a dictionary inside the program. I can recommend it, go to google and type in e-sword, it is free and a real good Bible program.

Peace

oneway

Peace, Arnold,

replies inline...

Joh 828 Then3767 said2036 Jesus2424 unto them,846 When3752 ye have lifted up5312 the3588 Son5207 of man,444 then5119 shall ye know1097 that3754 I1473 am1510 he, and2532 that I do4160 nothing3762 of575 myself;1683 but235 as2531 my3450 Father3962 hath taught1321 me,3165 I speak2980 these things.5023

2Sa 727 For3588 thou,859 O LORD3068 of hosts,6635 God430 of Israel,3478 hast revealed1540, 241 to thy servant,5650 saying,559 I will build1129 thee a house1004 therefore5921, 3651 hath thy servant5650 found4672 in (853) his heart3820 to pray6419 (853) this2063 prayer8605 unto413 thee.

Isa 2214 And it was revealed1540 in mine ears241 by the LORD3068 of hosts,6635 Surely518 this2088 iniquity5771 shall not be purged3722 from you till5704 ye die,4191 saith559 the Lord136 GOD3069 of hosts.6635

Gen 46 And the LORD3068 said559 unto413 Cain,7014 Why4100 art thou wroth?2734 and why4100 is thy countenance6440 fallen?5307
Gen 49 And the LORD3068 said559 unto413 Cain,7014 Where335 is Abel1893 thy brother?251 And he said,559 I know3045 not3808 Am I595 my brother's251 keeper?8104

As can be seen, God spoke to these people directly, these are just some little samples. On this you will agree of course, you want proof of revelation being given, not just some orders of conversation.

Ok, but the book of Genesis and generally the first five books of the Bible are attributed to Moses. Moses spoke to God too, but that does not mean the first five books of the Bible were directly revealed to Moses by God.

If you look at Isaiah, he saw his words in a vision, he saw images but also direct words he spoke in the name of God.

Isa 11 The vision2377 of Isaiah3470 the son1121 of Amoz,531 which834 he saw2372 concerning5921 Judah3063 and Jerusalem3389 in the days3117 of Uzziah,5818 Jotham,3147 Ahaz,271 and Hezekiah,3169 kings4428 of Judah.3063
Isa 12 Hear,8085 O heavens,8064 and give ear,238 O earth776 for3588 the LORD3068 hath spoken,1696 I have nourished1431 and brought up7311 children,1121 and they1992 have rebelled6586 against me.
Isa 13 The ox7794 knoweth3045 his owner,7069 and the ass2543 his master's1167 crib18 but Israel3478 doth not3808 know,3045 my people5971 doth not3808 consider.995
Isa 14 Ah1945 sinful2398 nation,1471 a people5971 laden3515 with iniquity,5771 a seed2233 of evildoers,7489 children1121 that are corrupters7843 they have forsaken5800 (853) the LORD,3068 they have provoked5006 (853) the Holy One6918 of Israel3478 unto anger, they are gone away2114 backward.268...............

This goes on throughout the book about Isaiah. Also in Jeremiah.

Jer 71 The word1697 that834 came1961 to413 Jeremiah3414 from4480, 854 the LORD,3068 saying,559
Jer 72 Stand5975 in the gate8179 of the LORD's3068 house,1004 and proclaim7121 there8033 (853) this2088 word,1697 and say,559 Hear8085 the word1697 of the LORD,3068 all3605 ye of Judah,3063 that enter935 in at these428 gates8179 to worship7812 the LORD.3068
Jer 73 Thus3541 saith559 the LORD3068 of hosts,6635 the God430 of Israel,3478 Amend3190 your ways1870 and your doings,4611 and I will cause you to dwell7931 in this2088 place.4725
Jer 74 Trust982 ye not408 in413 lying8267 words,1697 saying,559 The temple1964 of the LORD,3068 The temple1964 of the LORD,3068 The temple1964 of the LORD,3068 are these.1992

It was directly revealed to them. We can compare this perfectly with the commandments given to Mohammed

Say "O men, I am verily the apostle of God to you all. His whose kingdom extends over the heavens and the earth. There is no god but He, the giver of life and death. So believe in God and the messenger, the gentile Prophet, sent by Him, who believes in God and His messages. Obey him; you may haply be guided aright."

Ezekiel also gets the same commandment, starting with say..

Eze 301 The word1697 of the LORD3068 came1961 again unto413 me, saying,559
Eze 302 Son1121 of man,120 prophesy5012 and say,559 Thus3541 saith559 the Lord136 GOD;3069 Howl3213 ye, Woe1929 worth the day!3117
Eze 303 For3588 the day3117 is near,7138 even the day3117 of the LORD3068 is near,7138 a cloudy6051 day;3117 it shall be1961 the time6256 of the heathen.1471

Hos 11 The word1697 of the LORD3068 that834 came1961 unto413 Hosea,1954 the son1121 of Beeri,882 in the days3117 of Uzziah,5818 Jotham,3147 Ahaz,271 and Hezekiah,3169 kings4428 of Judah,3063 and in the days3117 of Jeroboam3379 the son1121 of Joash,3101 king4428 of Israel.3478
Hos 12 The beginning8462 of the word1696 of the LORD3068 by Hosea.1954 And the LORD3068 said559 to413 Hosea,1954 Go,1980 take39

Amo 915 And I will plant5193 them upon5921 their land,127 and they shall no3808 more5750 be pulled up5428 out of4480, 5921 their land127 which834 I have given5414 them, saith559 the LORD3068 thy God.430

Looks like direct revelations to me, and just like with Mohammed, it was or written down or passed oraly till it was written down.

Not by my reckoning The books authored by the OT prophets in the Bible include the words those prophets recorded as being from God, but they are included in a broader narrative authored by the prophets themselves, not by God directly, so you can't say, for example, that the book of Hosea is a direct revelation from God in the same way that Muslims believe that about the Quran, where God is speaking in the first person through Mohammed.

And in many cases the precise authorship of OT prophetic books is in dispute, with some chapters believed to have been written directly by the prophet in question and others by his aids or companions.

Mic 11 The word1697 of the LORD3068 that834 came1961 to413 Micah4318 the Morasthite4183 in the days3117 of Jotham,3147 Ahaz,271 and Hezekiah,3169 kings4428 of Judah,3063 which834 he saw2372 concerning5921 Samaria8111 and Jerusalem.338

The word of the Lord that came..........

Zep 11 The word1697 of the LORD3068 which834 came1961 unto413 Zephaniah6846 the son1121 of

Mal 11 The burden4853 of the word1697 of the LORD3068 to413 Israel3478 by3027 Malachi.4401

And about writing it down

Rev 11 The Revelation602 of Jesus2424 Christ,5547 which3739 God2316 gave1325 unto him,846 to show1166 unto his848 servants1401 things which3739 must1163 shortly1722, 5034 come to pass;1096 and2532 he sent649 and signified4591 it by1223 his848 angel32 unto his848 servant1401 John2491
Rev 12 Who3739 bare record3140 of the3588 word3056 of God,2316 and2532 of the3588 testimony3141 of Jesus2424 Christ,5547 and5037 of all things that3745 he saw.1492

by the messenger himself

will,2309 let him take2983 the3588 water5204 of life2222 freely.1432
Rev 2218 For1063 I testify4828 unto every man3956 that heareth191 the3588 words3056 of the3588 prophecy4394 of this5127 book,975 If1437 any man5100 shall add2007 unto4314 these things,5023 God2316 shall add2007 unto1909 him846 the3588 plagues4127 that are written1125 in1722 this5129 book975
Rev 2219 And2532 if1437 any man5100 shall take away851 from575 the3588 words3056 of the book976 of this5026 prophecy,4394 God2316 shall take away851 his846 part3313 out of575 the book976 of life,2222 and2532 out of1537 the3588 holy40 city,4172 and2532 from the things which are written1125 in1722 this5129 book.975

So yes, direct revelation to messengers, ordered by God to reveal it to their people, exactly as Mohammed. Written the revelation down, just as John did with his revelation, just like Mohammed did.

I already mentioned the book of Revelation as an exception to the "not directly revealed" rule, so we are not in disagreement on the origin of that book.

This is what i meant. I hope the numbers don't disturb that much, it is from a Bible search program, that also gives the meaning in greek, represented by the number of the word in a dictionary inside the program. I can recommend it, go to google and type in e-sword, it is free and a real good Bible program.

Peace

I understand what you're saying, but hopefully you see that books written by prophets about their experiences and what God told them are not the same as the actual book itself and every word in it being directly revealed by God to the prophet, as is claimed for the Quran.

Thanks for the pointer to the software. I'll check it out.

Regards,
oneway

zenje

Peace be with you oneway,

When we disagree on the correct methods to be used for finding the correct interpretation the discussion ceases to be about the main topic and is then only about which study procedures are the right ones and why. The "why" has much to do with faith Quran only vs Quran + history vs Quran + hadith, etc.

Just out of curiousity, do you have any reference(s) for the "history" you speak of?

Also, it seems you insist that we should include traditional hadith for us to make a "reasonable" argument, even though we reject it in the first place and you knew this from the offset. Does this mean that your arguments are stumped if we discount hadith? Or was there something I missed?

Thanks

stillearning

Hello all

I dont wish to divert the discussion between arnoldyasin & oneway as there are intersting issues being raised, however one simple point oneway
You acknowldge that violence mentioned in the OT but then suggest this is overuled in the NT. So do you think God was little confused in the time of Moses and became enlightened when he became his own son (although I dont wish to diversify the discussion even further-Curious why God wanted to be his own son, why not simply i am Jesus the God and also why God seems to talk to himselfFather forgive them...... etc but then I suppose according to your logic God was already confused a he overuled his previous revelations regarding violence)

regards

arnoldyasin

As can be seen, God spoke to these people directly, these are just some little samples. On this you will agree of course, you want proof of revelation being given, not just some orders of conversation.

Ok, but the book of Genesis and generally the first five books of the Bible are attributed to Moses. Moses spoke to God too, but that does not mean the first five books of the Bible were directly revealed to Moses by God.

I'm not talking about who wrote this down, if you read again carefully, i only use this to point out, that God spoke directly to these people, i don't use this as written down revelation, only to show there is recording of direct contact between God and humans.

If you look at Isaiah, he saw his words in a vision, he saw images but also direct words he spoke in the name of God.

Isa 11 The vision2377 of Isaiah3470 the son1121 of Amoz,531 which834 he saw2372 concerning5921 Judah3063 and Jerusalem3389 in the days3117 of Uzziah,5818 Jotham,3147 Ahaz,271 and Hezekiah,3169 kings4428 of Judah.3063
Isa 12 Hear,8085 O heavens,8064 and give ear,238 O earth776 for3588 the LORD3068 hath spoken,1696 I have nourished1431 and brought up7311 children,1121 and they1992 have rebelled6586 against me.
Isa 13 The ox7794 knoweth3045 his owner,7069 and the ass2543 his master's1167 crib18 but Israel3478 doth not3808 know,3045 my people5971 doth not3808 consider.995
Isa 14 Ah1945 sinful2398 nation,1471 a people5971 laden3515 with iniquity,5771 a seed2233 of evildoers,7489 children1121 that are corrupters7843 they have forsaken5800 (853) the LORD,3068 they have provoked5006 (853) the Holy One6918 of Israel3478 unto anger, they are gone away2114 backward.268...............

This goes on throughout the book about Isaiah. Also in Jeremiah.

Jer 71 The word1697 that834 came1961 to413 Jeremiah3414 from4480, 854 the LORD,3068 saying,559
Jer 72 Stand5975 in the gate8179 of the LORD's3068 house,1004 and proclaim7121 there8033 (853) this2088 word,1697 and say,559 Hear8085 the word1697 of the LORD,3068 all3605 ye of Judah,3063 that enter935 in at these428 gates8179 to worship7812 the LORD.3068
Jer 73 Thus3541 saith559 the LORD3068 of hosts,6635 the God430 of Israel,3478 Amend3190 your ways1870 and your doings,4611 and I will cause you to dwell7931 in this2088 place.4725
Jer 74 Trust982 ye not408 in413 lying8267 words,1697 saying,559 The temple1964 of the LORD,3068 The temple1964 of the LORD,3068 The temple1964 of the LORD,3068 are these.1992

It was directly revealed to them. We can compare this perfectly with the commandments given to Mohammed

Say "O men, I am verily the apostle of God to you all. His whose kingdom extends over the heavens and the earth. There is no god but He, the giver of life and death. So believe in God and the messenger, the gentile Prophet, sent by Him, who believes in God and His messages. Obey him; you may haply be guided aright."

Ezekiel also gets the same commandment, starting with say..

Eze 301 The word1697 of the LORD3068 came1961 again unto413 me, saying,559
Eze 302 Son1121 of man,120 prophesy5012 and say,559 Thus3541 saith559 the Lord136 GOD;3069 Howl3213 ye, Woe1929 worth the day!3117
Eze 303 For3588 the day3117 is near,7138 even the day3117 of the LORD3068 is near,7138 a cloudy6051 day;3117 it shall be1961 the time6256 of the heathen.1471

Hos 11 The word1697 of the LORD3068 that834 came1961 unto413 Hosea,1954 the son1121 of Beeri,882 in the days3117 of Uzziah,5818 Jotham,3147 Ahaz,271 and Hezekiah,3169 kings4428 of Judah,3063 and in the days3117 of Jeroboam3379 the son1121 of Joash,3101 king4428 of Israel.3478
Hos 12 The beginning8462 of the word1696 of the LORD3068 by Hosea.1954 And the LORD3068 said559 to413 Hosea,1954 Go,1980 take39

Amo 915 And I will plant5193 them upon5921 their land,127 and they shall no3808 more5750 be pulled up5428 out of4480, 5921 their land127 which834 I have given5414 them, saith559 the LORD3068 thy God.430

Looks like direct revelations to me, and just like with Mohammed, it was or written down or passed oraly till it was written down.

Not by my reckoning The books authored by the OT prophets in the Bible include the words those prophets recorded as being from God, but they are included in a broader narrative authored by the prophets themselves, not by God directly, so you can't say, for example, that the book of Hosea is a direct revelation from God in the same way that Muslims believe that about the Quran, where God is speaking in the first person through Mohammed.

Not by God directly? The word say this to the people is clear enough commandment to me.

And I will plant

Sounds like first person to me.....

And in many cases the precise authorship of OT prophetic books is in dispute, with some chapters believed to have been written directly by the prophet in question and others by his aids or companions.

This is exactly with the case with Mohammed, he himself and his companions wrote it down directly. I don't see the difference. Only yes, the Quran was not mixed later on with the history about the Revelation, they kept seperated those hearsay reports from the Quran. Some Books in the Bible are clearly direct Revelations and mixed history about that prophet. But still what are you trying to say? Because you're only giving the exact conclusions that can be made about Mohammed and the Quran.

And about writing it down

Rev 11 The Revelation602 of Jesus2424 Christ,5547 which3739 God2316 gave1325 unto him,846 to show1166 unto his848 servants1401 things which3739 must1163 shortly1722, 5034 come to pass;1096 and2532 he sent649 and signified4591 it by1223 his848 angel32 unto his848 servant1401 John2491
Rev 12 Who3739 bare record3140 of the3588 word3056 of God,2316 and2532 of the3588 testimony3141 of Jesus2424 Christ,5547 and5037 of all things that3745 he saw.1492

by the messenger himself

will,2309 let him take2983 the3588 water5204 of life2222 freely.1432
Rev 2218 For1063 I testify4828 unto every man3956 that heareth191 the3588 words3056 of the3588 prophecy4394 of this5127 book,975 If1437 any man5100 shall add2007 unto4314 these things,5023 God2316 shall add2007 unto1909 him846 the3588 plagues4127 that are written1125 in1722 this5129 book975
Rev 2219 And2532 if1437 any man5100 shall take away851 from575 the3588 words3056 of the book976 of this5026 prophecy,4394 God2316 shall take away851 his846 part3313 out of575 the book976 of life,2222 and2532 out of1537 the3588 holy40 city,4172 and2532 from the things which are written1125 in1722 this5129 book.975

So yes, direct revelation to messengers, ordered by God to reveal it to their people, exactly as Mohammed. Written the revelation down, just as John did with his revelation, just like Mohammed did.

I already mentioned the book of Revelation as an exception to the "not directly revealed" rule, so we are not in disagreement on the origin of that book.

I hoped so.....otherwise the discussion would be pointless to proceed.
But what is the exact difference between this Book and the others you mention above? Except that it was written down in total by the same author?

I understand what you're saying, but hopefully you see that books written by prophets about their experiences and what God told them are not the same as the actual book itself and every word in it being directly revealed by God to the prophet, as is claimed for the Quran.

Experiences? Books as Isaiah, Hosea, Joel, Micah, Amos, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Malachi all tell direct words from God, or were shown things they had to say to their people by God. These are no 'experiences', but direct visions, revelations meant for the people. And were do you get your information from? That God told them not the same as was written down? That is not what i read. Now you make a lot of your own conclusions. And they do speak direct words from God, or give examples of what they have seen. This you can also read in the Quran.

How can you be so sure there is a difference? Because the Bible and the Quran contradict this concept.

Peace

oneway

Hello all

I dont wish to divert the discussion between arnoldyasin & oneway as there are intersting issues being raised, however one simple point oneway
You acknowldge that violence mentioned in the OT but then suggest this is overuled in the NT. So do you think God was little confused in the time of Moses and became enlightened when he became his own son (although I dont wish to diversify the discussion even further-Curious why God wanted to be his own son, why not simply i am Jesus the God and also why God seems to talk to himselfFather forgive them...... etc but then I suppose according to your logic God was already confused a he overuled his previous revelations regarding violence)

regards

Hi, stillearning,

I'll answer your first question, but I'm not taking the bait on the second part to get drawn into another "gang up on oneway as he tries to defend Christianity" session.

I think I've made my points pretty clear regarding the OT and NT

OT violence is typically historical in nature and not directly instructive as in the Quran. Its part of a broader narrative and not God telling us, today, that same violence is condoned, any more than the story of Noah is telling us to run out and build a boat.
Jesus did not overrule the history lessons in the OT, He fulfilled the prophecy of the OT and, in so doing through His ultimate sacrifice, established a new covenant between God and mankind. In light of the OT prophecies, Jesus teachings do not create the impression of a confused God, but one who keeps His promises.

Thanks,
oneway