Contradictions in the QURAN

[Valery]

I already replied to that. If you don't accept my point, fine, but at least acknowledge I've made it.

 

[tosca1]

I already replied to that. If you don't accept my point, fine, but at least acknowledge I've made it.

No, you have not given an answer!

Your responses were merely..........DEFLECTIONS!


Again:

WHO IS............................."WE?"

 

[OrphanSlug]

Any objective review by simply reading the Quran confirms where the OP was going with this, there are a series of contradictions and frankly conditional lessons so to speak throughout the text.

If we applied the grammatical and practical standard that one statement or conclusion from excludes the possibility of another statement or conclusion from then you can pick everything from the subjects of what man was created from, to who was the first Muslim, to how forgiveness and mercy is applied.

The elephant in the room guys is much of the text from the period was subject to this fault.

We do not get to ignore the reality of history here that up through the Bronze Age and into the time of Muhammad the overwhelming majority of the population could speak their native language but few had the skill set to read or write in a manner that these texts were generally spoken from. Some of course, but historians generally agree less than 5% of any population from these cultures could write in a manner that religious text was.

And this means contradiction and conditional applied lesson was easy to get away with, followers were just that. Very few were sitting there thinking 'well this conversation is opposite the one we had yesterday.' And those few that did present question or challenge most often faced a harsh fate, perhaps Islam being the most prone to those harsh results for nonbelievers. Then and now.

 

[Valery]

No, you have not given an answer!

Your responses were merely..........DEFLECTIONS!


Again:

WHO IS............................."WE?"

I linked a Wikipedia article that answers you thoroughly. Here it is a third time:

Royal we - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I could also cite you dozens of articles from knowledgeable Christians who have debated your point — not to mention many other articles regarding the grammatical side, but I imagine you are already aware of this issue and are well able to do your own research.

 

[stevecanuck]

Any objective review by simply reading the Quran confirms where the OP was going with this, there are a series of contradictions and frankly conditional lessons so to speak throughout the text.

If we applied the grammatical and practical standard that one statement or conclusion from excludes the possibility of another statement or conclusion from then you can pick everything from the subjects of what man was created from, to who was the first Muslim, to how forgiveness and mercy is applied.

The elephant in the room guys is much of the text from the period was subject to this fault.

We do not get to ignore the reality of history here that up through the Bronze Age and into the time of Muhammad the overwhelming majority of the population could speak their native language but few had the skill set to read or write in a manner that these texts were generally spoken from. Some of course, but historians generally agree less than 5% of any population from these cultures could write in a manner that religious text was.

And this means contradiction and conditional applied lesson was easy to get away with, followers were just that. Very few were sitting there thinking 'well this conversation is opposite the one we had yesterday.' And those few that did present question or challenge most often faced a harsh fate, perhaps Islam being the most prone to those harsh results for nonbelievers. Then and now.

Everything you say would apply to the qur'an if, and only if, it was authored by a human. But that's not what Muslims believe. They accept that every single word in the Qur'an came directly from allah. That's what makes them Muslims. Therefore there is exactly zero room for any contradiction or error because of course allah is perfect and would never utter anyone that could be disproved or misunderstood. When such is pointed out as clearly as was done in thread, the devout Muslim MUST make excuses for allah's errors. We see this happening here.

 

[stevecanuck]

I linked a Wikipedia article that answers you thoroughly. Here it is a third time:

Royal we - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I could also cite you dozens of articles from knowledgeable Christians who have debated your point — not to mention many other articles regarding the grammatical side, but I imagine you are already aware of this issue and are well able to do your own research.

Actually, I agree with you on this point. Allah does indeed employ the 'royal we'.

What you are dead wrong about is that Iblis is clearly considered an angel as Tosca proved. The contradiction comes when he's also called a jinn.

 

[tosca1]

I linked a Wikipedia article that answers you thoroughly. Here it is a third time:

Royal we - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I could also cite you dozens of articles from knowledgeable Christians who have debated your point — not to mention many other articles regarding the grammatical side, but I imagine you are already aware of this issue and are well able to do your own research.

Never mind the "knowledgeable Christians" who you said allegedly "debated" my point. They didn't debate!
They all ignored the numerous verses that support the fact that Jesus and God are One and the Same!
I don't think they've even bothered to read them!
You're doing the same thing.

GOD HIMSELF will be with them[W;105]

I've been quoting verses this past couple of days – verses that show Jesus is God Himself, incarnated, to dwell among the people and to save mankind. I thought I'd exhausted everything...... until this morning. I'm on the Book of Revelation these days, and I just finished reading Chapter 21...

debatepolitics.com

All they did was keep rehashing their lame argument, and butchering Scriptural verses, and taking them out of context!
Check out any so-called arguments given by anyone who challenged the fact Jesus being God in human form, and all you'll find are
mostly cherry-picked one-liners!


I understand what you mean by the "majestic we"......however, it isn't just a "royal we."

For one thing, the title ELOHIM (plural for God), was used 2,500 times in the Old Testament.
This repeated use of term to refer to God in plural, simply indicate His Triune nature. He wasn't using the "royal we."
He was referring to Himself - His plurality! His TRIUNE NATURE!

And, on top of that - the New Testament clearly presents God as a "Trinity" or the Triune God.





Since you claim to having the Abrahamic God as Allah.......and since you said that Allah had validated the Gospel of Jesus Christ to be true.........

.....that leaves you with only this choice: Islam is monotheistic because it believes in the TRIUNE NATURE of GOD.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Everything you say would apply to the qur'an if, and only if, it was authored by a human. But that's not what Muslims believe. They accept that every single word in the Qur'an came directly from allah. That's what makes them Muslims. Therefore there is exactly zero room for any contradiction or error because of course allah is perfect and would never utter anyone that could be disproved or misunderstood. When such is pointed out as clearly as was done in thread, the devout Muslim MUST make excuses for allah's errors. We see this happening here.

That only ends the debate for those that believe as Muslims do, for the rest of us this is a valid subject to discuss (just as we can for the other Abrahamic Religions no matter how they feel about it.)

 

[tosca1]

Any objective review by simply reading the Quran confirms where the OP was going with this, there are a series of contradictions and frankly conditional lessons so to speak throughout the text.

If we applied the grammatical and practical standard that one statement or conclusion from excludes the possibility of another statement or conclusion from then you can pick everything from the subjects of what man was created from, to who was the first Muslim, to how forgiveness and mercy is applied.

The elephant in the room guys is much of the text from the period was subject to this fault.

We do not get to ignore the reality of history here that up through the Bronze Age and into the time of Muhammad the overwhelming majority of the population could speak their native language but few had the skill set to read or write in a manner that these texts were generally spoken from. Some of course, but historians generally agree less than 5% of any population from these cultures could write in a manner that religious text was.

And this means contradiction and conditional applied lesson was easy to get away with, followers were just that. Very few were sitting there thinking 'well this conversation is opposite the one we had yesterday.' And those few that did present question or challenge most often faced a harsh fate, perhaps Islam being the most prone to those harsh results for nonbelievers. Then and now.

The Quran definitely smacks of being that. It was written simply on the basis of what one man had claimed. And, it took SUBSTANCE from the Bible.
Someone must've read the Bible to Mohammad - he learned it from someone.
It's nothing different from other Christian cult sects that made false claims about God.

When you look at both messages - there is no comparison between the Bible and the Quran.

 

[tosca1]

I linked a Wikipedia article that answers you thoroughly. Here it is a third time:

Royal we - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I could also cite you dozens of articles from knowledgeable Christians who have debated your point — not to mention many other articles regarding the grammatical side, but I imagine you are already aware of this issue and are well able to do your own research.

Okay, let me prove to you that God can't be using the royal we.
Let's go back to HAGAR!


Genesis 16

7 The angel of the Lord found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur.
8 And he said, “Hagar, slave of Sarai, where have you come from, and where are you going?”

“I’m running away from my mistress Sarai,” she answered.


9 Then the angel of the Lord told her, “Go back to your mistress and submit to her.”
10 The angel added, “I will increase your descendants so much that they will be too numerous to count.”


11 The angel of the Lord also said to her:

“You are now pregnant
and you will give birth to a son.
You shall name him Ishmael,
for the Lord has heard of your misery.
12 He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone’s hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward all his brothers.”

13 She gave this name to the Lord who spoke to her: “You are the God who sees me,” for she said, “I have now seen the One who sees me.”


See?

The "ANGEL" and GOD...............are ONE AND THE SAME!
Hagar had recognized that. Hagar knew that. Hagar spoke that!

Did God correct her when she referred to the angel as GOD? NO!




If the angel wasn't God Himself - then, we've got a serious problem, don't we?

 

[stevecanuck]

I have ignored you as a whole because you have strayed from appropriate language.

The answer is simple enough. Verse 18:50 says, "We said to the angels, 'Bow yourselves to Adam'; so they bowed themselves, save Iblis; he was one of the jinn".

The first part of that sentence clearly includes Iblis as one of the angels who were commanded to bow to Adam, while the second says he was a jinn. So, he was both. We are left to conclude that jinns are fallen angels. Words mean things.