Thanks for the clarification. I wonder how they get around the 9 year old girl thing...I would have serious doubts about Jesus if the same were in the bible. I mean 9 years old....consumated, and this is the man that their whole religion is based upon. How can they follow the teachings of an admitted Pedophile? DD
comparisons of Bible translations are interesting...my understanding is that the King James is probably the least accurate of translations because he was attempting to flower it up with ornate language... the difficulty is literal translation next to translation of sentences..do you go piece by piece and translate each word...or do you capture the meaning of an entire sentence and translate that? that's where translation gets difficult. my pastor always says that with these translations, you're getting about 90% of the message...there are some words out there that you can't translate real well...but they very rarely pose material changes in the way the story is told. one significant translation problem is in the Lord's Prayer, however. when Jesus said, "deliver us from Evil."...that evil, according to the Septuagint, had a masculine connotation to it meaning that it was personified...he was saying deliver us from the Evil One...kinda interesting, I think.
The bible has changed a lot in my 35 years. I can only imagine how much it has changed over the centuries.
the Bible hasn't changed at all...different translations don't necessarily change the meaning... i've read account after account from archaelogists saying the Bible is the most reliable ancient text we have...they've found multiple copies of books from the Bible...all written at different points...and found in different regions...over the course of centuries...and they all are the same. that was the significance of the Q stuff and the Dead Sea Scrolls...here was an entirely different tribe...and their copies of Isiah (I think it was Isiah) read EXACTLY like the ones the people had in the church pews at the time.
uh no, I think he calls himself the walking bible... The Walking Bible €€In the minds of millions, Jack Van Impe has become "The Walking Bible,"... while memorizing th Bible is certainly a skill I'd like ot have, it doesn't mean you are holy. According to the Bible Satan knows the Bible by heart as well.
The thing is that the dates are all messed up. I have a long explanation for this, but I have to look for it. If you actually calculate the whole thing out,she was more like 17 when married, 19 when it happenned. It's just that everyone hears 9, and decides to go with it. Not even most muslims want to challenge it in fear of being told off. I'll post the full explanation after I get home. It explains it pretty well.
thought you might find this interesting. admittedly from a Christian website...one I frequent quite often, actually. http://www.equip.org/free/DB011.htm Manuscripts Manuscripts relates to the tests used to determine the reliability of the extant manuscript copies of the original documents penned by the Scripture writers (we do not possess these originals). In determining manuscript reliability, we deal with the question: How can we test to see that the text we possess in the manuscript copies is an accurate rendition of the original? There are three main manuscript tests: the Bibliographic, Eyewitness, and External (a second acronym — BEE — will help you remember these). The bibliographic test considers the quantity of manuscripts and manuscript fragments, and also the time span between the original documents and our earliest copies. The more copies, the better able we are to work back to the original. The closer the time span between the copies and the original, the less likely it is that serious textual error would creep in. The Bible has stronger bibliographic support than any classical literature — including Homer, Tacitus, Pliny, and Aristotle. We have more than 14,000 manuscripts and fragments of the Old Testament of three main types: (a) approximately 10,000 from the Cairo Geniza (storeroom) find of 1897, dating back as far as about AD. 800; (b) about 190 from the Dead Sea Scrolls find of 1947-1955, the oldest dating back to 250-200 B.C.; and (c) at least 4,314 assorted other copies. The short time between the original Old Testament manuscripts (completed around 400 B.C.) and the first extensive copies (about 250 B.C.) — coupled with the more than 14,000 copies that have been discovered — ensures the trustworthiness of the Old Testament text. The earliest quoted verses (Num. 6:24-26) date from 800-700 B.C. The same is true of the New Testament text. The abundance of textual witnesses is amazing. We possess over 5,300 manuscripts or portions of the (Greek) New Testament — almost 800 copied before A.D. 1000. The time between the original composition and our earliest copies is an unbelievably short 60 years or so. The overwhelming bibliographic reliability of the Bible is clearly evident. The eyewitness document test (“E”), sometimes referred to as the internal test, focuses on the eyewitness credentials of the authors. The Old and New Testament authors were eyewitnesses of — or interviewed eyewitnesses of — the majority of the events they described. Moses participated in and was an eyewitness of the remarkable events of the Egyptian captivity, the Exodus, the forty years in the desert, and Israel’s final encampment before entering the Promised Land. These events he chronicled in the first five books of the Old Testament. The New Testament writers had the same eyewitness authenticity. Luke, who wrote the Books of Luke and Acts, says that he gathered eyewitness testimony and “carefully investigated everything” (Luke 1:1-3). Peter reminded his readers that the disciples “were eyewitnesses of [Jesus’] majesty” and “did not follow cleverly invented stories” (2 Pet. 1:16). Truly, the Bible affirms the eyewitness credibility of its writers. The external evidence test looks outside the texts themselves to ascertain the historical reliability of the historical events, geographical locations, and cultural consistency of the biblical texts. Unlike writings from other world religions which make no historical references or which fabricate histories, the Bible refers to historical events and assumes its historical accuracy. The Bible is not only the inspired Word of God, it is also a history book — and the historical assertions it makes have been proven time and again. Many of the events, people, places, and customs in the New Testament are confirmed by secular historians who were almost contemporaries with New Testament writers. Secular historians like the Jewish Josephus (before A.D. 100), the Roman Tacitus (around A.D. 120), the Roman Suetonius (A.D. 110), and the Roman governor Pliny Secundus (A.D. 100-110) make direct reference to Jesus or affirm one or more historical New Testament references. Early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Julius Africanus, and Clement of Rome — all writing before A.D. 250 — shed light on New Testament historical accuracy. Even skeptical historians agree that the New Testament is a remarkable historical document. Hence, it is clear that there is strong external evidence to support the Bible’s manuscript reliability.
Dada, I think the tendency might be to not think pedophilia is quite so bad. When people argue with Baptists about alcohol, they point out that Jesus drank it and even created it for the wedding at Cana to show it isn't bad (with Jesus being sinless and all that). In fact, I think there are several things in the Bible I've heard Christians quibble with but will accept on the Bible's authority. I'm not sure pedophilia would be different. But, all the same, I think we're comparing apples and oranges. Christians claim that Jesus was wholly without sin. So you know everything he did was morally justified. Being fairly ignorant of Islam, I'm on shaky ground. But, I don't think they claim Mohammed was sinless. Also, having not even seen the applicable passages (someone care to post from the Koran for me?) I don't even know if it is presented as a righteous or unrighteous thing.
wow..really? this is the first time i've heard anyone say this. and i've heard muslims address it time and time again.
The thing is, different cultures, times, etc. all have different practices, different standards of what is right and wrong...One of the most common errors in historical interpretation is to apply contemporary geo-centric moral standards to people who lived in other times and in other places. Looked at from our way of doing things now, many 'great' men of history would be seen today as monsters; sllave owners, abusive fathers/husbands, pedophiles, etc. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves...should we re-think our country because it could be argued that our entire political system is based on his writings? Another point is that child betrothals, especially for aristocratic families, were incredibly common in virtually every culture, and their definition/standard of what constituted 'consumation' may have not been what ours is todat, so the whole point may open to interpretation, and therefore moot. Last point...Let's say for argument that Mohammed was a pedophile even by the standards of his place and time...Martin Luther King cheated on his wife 3 days a week and 7 times on Sunday while, as a minister, preaching the sanctity of marriage....does that refute his statements on Civil Rights? I actually am not decided about this, this is an open question...Evn if Mohammed's actions would have been considered immoral at the time, would that invalidate his teacjing? Both Mohammed and MLK based their positions on morality, does their own relative immorality ( in one area) call their works into question? I honestly don't know..
If Mohammed consumated his marriage when his wife was 9 years old, then my cousin Buford in Arkansas must be a prophet!
i think you make some great points...but i disagree with you on this last one. Mohammed based his position on revelation from God (Allah)...direct revelation from God as a prophet. As THE prophet.
He's also not a father 1,800 or however many years ago that happened. Hell, as recently as the 1800's women got married at age 14. Dude you can't look at this through your 21'st western civilization glasses.
I wouldn't condemn his teachings because his relations with a young girl. At least they were married. Besides, according to the bible we all came from Adam and Eve. I'm guessing incest played a part in the build-up of humanity. And wouldn't it have happened again after Noah and crew finally found dry land?
