----------------------------------- lucaspa Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:53 am Re: Just Picking ----------------------------------- Lucaspa seem to have a very fine scientific mind and clear thinking. No offence, but it seem he has neglected his gift/training or reduced his efforts sometimes. Well, I am a scientist. However, you need to document where I have neglected my "gift/training" rather than assert it. This is attacking me, not my arguments. Remember, ad hominem is not a valid form of argument. There are some 4 or 5 possible explanations available (for the genealogies) and to simply conclude that this "contradict" is premature to say the least. Since you never gave the 4 or 5 possible explanations, we can't evaluate them. Simply because they exist doesn't mean they are valid, does it? I can't find any valid explanation for the contradictions in the geneology. Now where are those men who selected these two books? if they are not guilty of compiling unity, then contradictions! As you said in a later post, the Bible isn't required to be consistent in every detail. In fact, if it were we would be suspicious of its authenticity on the points that matter -- the theology. The people who chose the books of the Canon were looking for books that matched their theology, not ones that were consistent in every detail. In particular in choosing the gospels, they wanted books that 1) were consistent with Trinity, 2) did not have childhood miracles, and 3) did not have Gnostic or Manichean influence. It was the latter that got the Gospel of Thomas excluded. The Quran claims to be dictated entirely by Allah. As I noted above, the Bible claims that Jesus is the Word. Well, what ever the romantic notions of some, the Quran was not dictated at all by Allah. Allah sent his message via an angel who called himself Jibril (Gabriel) who then "dictated" to the revered prophet, who did not write it down (he was illiterate afterall) but memorised and then recited the words from Allah. 1. You and I believe the Quran was not dictated by Allah. My point was that the Quran can make a claim similar to the Bible, so that particular "proof" isn't valid. You claim "mostly they were the recitation dictated by his followers to scribes. The sources were then compiled into a book from various pieces of written material from leaf, stone, leather and what ever else", but that claim also applies to the Bible. Therefore that particular "proof" isn't valid. 2. Mohammed wasn't illiterate. The claim is that Mohammed was not versed or trained in the particular flowery and ornamental style found in the Quran. His education was insufficient to allow Mohammed to write like this. You got your information from this site: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/religion-islam-muslim-islamic-quran.htm It uses the same words you did. "When reading the Qur'an , you should realize that, for all Muslims, the text you are reading is quite literally the voice of God; because the Qur'an is the direct speech of God in Arabic," http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ISLAM/QURAN.HTM This is what I was referring to. You, I, and Western scholars may disagree with this, but it is the claim of Muslims. It is, quite literally, the same claim made in the OP and by Biblical literalists and matches the claim made by Luther you posted. So, regarding "proofs", since other scriptures make the same claim as made for the Bible, this can't be a "proof" the Bible is inspired, since we don't think the Quran or the Book of Mormon were inspired (same claim). Remember, we are discussing not the validity of the Bible, but the validity of the "proofs".