Is this inconsistency in the Quran evidence that it is man made?

[Fawlty]

I'd say the best evidence that it's man-made is that we're the only species that has books.

 

[Thurisaz]

But how do you convince a believer?

I happen to think that no believer who has thought about it thinks either God or Allah wrote books. Koran was written from Muhammad's oral recitation by human hands, and the Bible, with myriad hands by men who had had contact of aome sort with God. Neither of these things are controversial.

 

[Big_Chief_Stove]

They might reply that allah determines what is right or wrong. Remember that these people would behead and murder women and children for mohammed. You need more than that.

If they say that, I'd ask them if that meant child rape was ok? That everyone should do it to emulate the behavior of the prophet?

Ultimately there will be no convincing a believer to leave Islam, but that's because the punishment for apostasy is death. That's another something you can bring up.

 

[Sixpounder]

All "holy books" were written by men to control and brain wash others.

Who had the knowledge back then, how to brain wash million's of people,
and continue to do so, thousand's of years after them?

 

[Rod1]

How do you define evidence? I hope it is more than a video on youtube or a magic trick witnessed by millions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

[meauneau]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Where do I find the definition of evidence in this link?

 

[punkmother]

I'm no Muslim apologist, but if contradictions in the holy books are suddenly a dealbreaker, then every religion is gonna need to close up shop. Not just the snack bar.

deal.

 

[meauneau]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Also, god isn't an observable thing which you can measure or test experimentally. God is outside of nature, the domain of science, and therefore outside the boundaries of science.

 

[Rod1]

Also, god isn't an observable thing which you can measure or test experimentally. God is outside of nature, the domain of science, and therefore outside the boundaries of science.

And thus his existence can be proven to man, so the Bible couldnt possibly be written by God.

 

[dontsnitch]

MT 20:29-34 Jesus heals two blind men on the way to Jericho.
MK 10:46-52 He heals one blind man.

You may think this is actually proof against Christianity, but it's actually proof for Christianity. Think about it.

 

[Thurisaz]

You may think this is actually proof against Christianity, but it's actually proof for Christianity. Think about it.

The thought behind your words is correct, but the word you're looking for is evidence, not proof. Evidence tends to indicate something, proof leaves no doubt.

I think the truth of Christianity is beyond reasonable thought, but then again it's not reason we're dealing with.

 

[dontsnitch]

The thought behind your words is correct, but the word you're looking for is evidence, not proof. Evidence tends to indicate something, proof leaves no doubt.

I think the truth of Christianity is beyond reasonable thought, but then again it's not reason we're dealing with.

You're 100% correct, and I caught it after I posted it but I actually thought nobody would notice. This is why you're one of my favs in this place.

 

[meauneau]

The thought behind your words is correct, but the word you're looking for is evidence, not proof. Evidence tends to indicate something, proof leaves no doubt.

I think the truth of Christianity is beyond reasonable thought, but then again it's not reason we're dealing with.

So the claims in the bible are evidence for the truth of the bible?

 

[Thurisaz]

So the claims in the bible are evidence for the truth of the bible?

Sure, but that wasn't the point. He meant that when historical documents have different accounts about some details, that tends to indicate that while the truth about that detail isn't reasonably clear, the general thing described is. That the Gospels include parts that are not perfectly aligned with each other is a sign of reliability precisely because a fabrication or propaganda pamphlet would have those inconsistencies scrubbed away. Leaving them in there is a sign of honesty, which tends to escape non-Christians.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

Who else writes books? Women? Ok, so maybe it was a woman.

 

[meauneau]

Sure, but that wasn't the point. He meant that when historical documents have different accounts about some details, that tends to indicate that while the truth about that detail isn't reasonably clear, the general thing described is. That the Gospels include parts that are not perfectly aligned with each other is a sign of reliability precisely because a fabrication or propaganda pamphlet would have those inconsistencies scrubbed away. Leaving them in there is a sign of honesty, which tends to escape non-Christians.

A sign of honesty or bad memory. I thought the bible was inerrant.

Also, if all the accounts given are from one source then this is no good. It would have to be independent sources.

 

[mrbaapt]

sometimes printing errors happen in your favor

from 1631 Bible print, famously known as the wicked/adulterous bible

1632 must have had record birth rates by the bible thumpers of the times.

 

[Thurisaz]

A sign of honesty or bad memory. I thought the bible was inerrant.

What do you mean by inerrant?

Also, if all the accounts given are from one source then this is no good. It would have to be independent sources.

The Gospels are accounts of four different men.

 

[meauneau]

What do you mean by inerrant?

That it is without error.

The Gospels are accounts of four different men.

But they all got their accounts from each Mark right? This isn't multiple independent sources.

 

[Thurisaz]

That it is without error.

That does not answer what you think an error is.

But they all got their accounts from each Mark right?

No.