AdamRang wrote:
Oh joy! An Islamic prosletysing site! Browse it at your peril, very convincing and you might end up a convert to Islam
Apart from the prosletysing (don't we get enough of this already from Jehovah's Witnesses etc?), there's the usual boring ream of "contadictions" (sic) from the bible.
It has thousands of 'errors' you know, literally thousands! For example, look at Romans 1.21. Two errors in one verse. Those Christians can't even decide on whether one word is "all'" or "alla" (translated 'but'; we're talking in the original Greek here, the text of which ain't supported on the message board). Another word they can't decide on is "eucharisteesan". Some manuscripts say "eeucharisteesan". Both words are translated 'were thankful' it's like being unable to decide between "can't" and "cannot" - but an error is an error is an error! And that's just one verse! I'm off to the mosque!
I ain't got the time nor the inclination to go through all the "errors" at
http://www.islamicresources.com/comparative_religions/contradictions.htm. I am not a believer in verbal plenary inspiration of the Judaeo-Christian (apologies to the Rabbi) scriptures myself, but people talking s**te about any ancient texts about which they know f**k all in order to promote THEIR world view really gets up my nose.
As a non-practising Roman Catholic I don't suggest you convert to anything nor believe in anything other than what you honestly can trust as true, and if the Christian worldview is true then (by my humble reckoning of the facts of that creed) that ain't anyone's concern but yours anyway (sorry you Evangelical readers!).
I enjoyed looking at the first "contadiction". Suppose you can't blame some devout Muslim who's into it enough to put up a website for not attempting to get to the bottom of this one. It being a matter of faith, he probably didn't really want to think about it. I on the other hand, did.
"Matthew 2:1 Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king
(So Jesus was born between the years 37 B.C. and 4 B.C..)
Luke 2:1-7And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. ([And] this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)... And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
(so Jesus was born about the year 7 C.E. More than ten years later)"
First of all he uses the notoriously unreliable KJV. Had he cared to look at a good translation of the Greek text, we would be reading "This registration first occured under the governing of Syria by Quirinius" ('under' and 'by' are inserted to make sense of the Greek)
"Cyrenius" is the KJV translation of "Quirinius" (they 'latinised' the Greek, detailed explanantion available but I trust you'll all trust me on that). He is mentioned by the historians Tacitus and Suetonius, appearing to have rose through the military ranks from a humble birth to his attain great position on merit.
Quirinius - who ten years later was certainly governor (legatus) of Syria - at the time of the birth of Jesus held high office in Syria, either as praeses (governor) or quaestor (imperial commissioner). The Greek word rendered "governing" (eegemoneuotos) by the English translation would have been used for either of these (not to mention a few other)important offices.
Also, none of the early opponents of the Christians (i.e., Celsus, Porphyry) impugn the accuracy of Luke on this point, which would be odd given their living so close to the time in question.
What really gets me though is how people can quip about the church councils editing the scriptures in one breath and denounce the "errors" within in the next. Surely the councils wouldn't have overlooked the leaving in of such "contradictions" - or maybe people think they were REALLY thick
Not to say you won't find errors and contradictions in there if you look hard and long enough (especially at the KJV), and read the literature as you would a 20th century textbook - which it patently is not. Besides its such a waste of time to read to support what you already "know", not to mention a narrow-minded way to approach ancient literature!