yahya515 Posted September 2, 2014 Posted September 2, 2014 (edited) was the Bible able to prove that Jesus is the son of David? Edited September 9, 2014 by ydoaPs video removed
John Cuthber Posted September 2, 2014 Posted September 2, 2014 The Bible is just words written on paper. It can't prove anything, because they could have chosen to write different words.. There are many mistakes in the Bible.
Ophiolite Posted September 2, 2014 Posted September 2, 2014 You say that even if Mohamed is a false prophet he should be mentioned in the Gospels. How do you feel this can be achieved, given that the Gospels were written several hundred years before Mohamed lived?
ajb Posted September 2, 2014 Posted September 2, 2014 What do you mean by mistakes? There will be for sure some mistakes and mistranslations. Some of the meaning will change. You will also have historical inaccuracies. And then great parts of the Bible are just fairy stories. 2
Phi for All Posted September 2, 2014 Posted September 2, 2014 The title and the OP seem aimed differently. Are we talking about accuracy overall or specifically regarding history? The Bible has many technical errors, such as creating plants that need the sun to survive before creating the sun. There are also many contradictions, like Genesis 32:30, "For I have seen God face-to-face, and my life is preserved", and John 1:18, "No man hath seen God at any time...." Both of these statements can't be true.
yahya515 Posted September 20, 2014 Author Posted September 20, 2014 (edited) was the Bible able to prove that Jesus is the son of David? Gospel of Matthew chapter 1 " The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; (Mt:1:2: ) the verses continue to "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ" (KJV) my question is how Jesus Could be the son of David and he is not the son of Joseph. Jesus was born from the Holy Spirit , he is not the son of Joseph the husband of Mary, even if Joseph is the son of David, what is the connection between Joseph (a son of David) and Jesus. You say that even if Mohamed is a false prophet he should be mentioned in the Gospels. How do you feel this can be achieved, given that the Gospels were written several hundred years before Mohamed lived? as I said Mohammed should be mentioned in the Bible even if he is a false prophet, he should be mentioned as a famous false prophet who will convince many christians to leave christianity and to believe in Islam....., this can be achieved because according to the Gospel Jesus is a son of God, and certainly he is able to present a prophecy about famous false prophet Mohammed.to warn his followers of him. Edited September 20, 2014 by yahya515
Sensei Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 my question is how Jesus Could be the son of David and he is not the son of Joseph. Jesus was born from the Holy Spirit , he is not the son of Joseph the husband of Mary, even if Joseph is the son of David, what is the connection between Joseph (a son of David) and Jesus. You're treating word "son" quite literally. These statements are perfectly fine (according to science): "We're sons and daughters of the Sun" "We're children of the Milky Way galaxy" Our bodies are ashes of dead supernova star. "We're children of the God" (if we treat God = Universe = Energy of the all particles)
yahya515 Posted September 20, 2014 Author Posted September 20, 2014 You're treating word "son" quite literally. These statements are perfectly fine (according to science): "We're sons and daughters of the Sun" "We're children of the Milky Way galaxy" Our bodies are ashes of dead supernova star. "We're children of the God" (if we treat God = Universe = Energy of the all particles) unfortunately, for a person who does not believe in the Bible and would like to investigate it to know whether it is true or false, he should take it literally. Because it is the original text of what prophets said(if it is true) including Jesus, if it is taken figuaratively, this means we change the speech of these prophets.and we do that only if it is wrong, and we hide it from being understood as it is. so only people who believe in it should take it figuaratively. metaphors should be understood according to language rules and its environment, these metaphors are phrases that should be understood figuaratively , but for the general meaning it should be understood literally. for example if I say, this person has a heart of stones, this means he does not show sympathy to others, people are used to understanding it like this, it is part of language,but if I say he is brave and he was able to kill a lion with his bare hands. nobody is allowed to explain this as, he is just brave, he did not do that but he is very brave, the truth is the speaker is lying.
studiot Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 (edited) unfortunately, for a person who does not believe in the Bible and would like to investigate it to know whether it is true or false, he should take it literally. I do not normally participate in religous discussions, but I guess that in Khartoum you may find background material more difficult to find than someone in the West, so I would like to offer a few comments. These are meant as pointers to help: I do not want to enter a protracted argument about them. To understand the Bible you need to know some things about it. It was not written all at once but is a collection of documents that were 'written' over a period of at least a thousand years. Individual parts were generally written up to several hundred years after a particular event and not generally by the persons themselves to whom the particular story is attributed. It was written in more than one language and on several occasions contains two quite different accounts of the same event. For instance many accounts in the Book of Kings (Ancient Greek) and the Book of Jeremiah (Hebrew). This is because when these were written there were two jewish communities separated by considerable distance. One was at Alexandria and spoke Greek, the other was in Jerusalem and spoke Hebrew. Jesus would have spoken Aramaeic. You are probably reading an English translation of one of these, which may have come from other languages before. So the bottom line is to try to determine for yourself (it is a very personal thing) what you think is 'true' and what has been changed in translation. London University offers Msc courses in something called Bible Study, by which they mean the study of the Bible as a collection of pieces of writing and how they came about, changed over the years, were inaccurate to start with or whatever. It was not the study of the religous content of that writing. Edited September 20, 2014 by studiot 1
yahya515 Posted September 20, 2014 Author Posted September 20, 2014 I do not normally participate in religous discussions, but I guess that in Khartoum you may find background material more diffiult to find than someone in the West so I would like to offer a few comments. These are meant as pointers to help: I do not want to enter a protracte argument about them. To understand the Bible you need to know some things about it. It was not written all at once but is a collection of documents that were 'written' over a period of at least a thousand years. Individual parts were generally written up to several hundred years after a particular event and not generally by the persons themselves to whom the particular story is attributed. It was written in more than one language and on several occasions contains two quite different accounts of the same event. For instance many accounts in the Book of Kings (Ancient Greek) and the Book of Jeremiah (Hebrew). This is because when these were written there were two jewish communities separated by considerable distance. One was at Alexandria and spoke Greek, the other was in Jerusalem and spoke Hebrew. Jesus would have spoken Aramaeic. You are probably reading an English translation of one of these, which may have come from other languages before. So the bottom line is to try to determine for yourself (it is a very personal thing) what you think is 'true' and what has been changed in translation. London University offers Msc courses in something called Bible Study, by which they mean the study of the Bible as a collection of pieces of writing and how it came about changed over the years, been inaccurate to start with or whatever, not the study of the religous content of that writing. If I am wrong in my claim about this particular mistake in the Gospel of Matthew correct me, however telling me that I need scientific background in order to judge the Bible, that will not help.
Hendrick Laursen Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 Certainly Bible has mistakes: The OT is over 30 books, neither Pentateuch are what is considered as be the real "Torah" (Books revealed to Moses) nor the Joshua, nor the Judges, ... . We happen to have a Bible with lot's of Paradoxes. The same story goes for the NT; Gospel of Matthew is less than %30 accurate comparing with Gospel of Saint John, however its %86 accurate comparing with the other two. (St Luke, St Mark) Gospel of St. John is > %80 accurate comparing with the mysterious gospel of St. Barnabas.
iNow Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 Would an internal contradiction or inconsistency be considered a mistake?
Moontanman Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 was the Bible able to prove that Jesus is the son of David? No, in fact if taken literally Jesus was the son of the holy ghost, the decent of women wasn't important so we don't know much about Mary's blood line... Is that the only mistake you are concerned with? There are quite a few huge "mistakes" in the bible not the least of which is assuming is was all written as a book....
studiot Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 These are meant as pointers to help: I do not want to enter a protracted argument about them. Jesus also refers to himself as the Son of Man and in other ways, in the Bible. http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/son-of-man.html As to the "son of the holy ghost", there is substantial argument that the whole trinity doctrine was a later invention. https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&q=when+was+the+holy+ghost+invented&gbv=2&oq=when+was+the+holy+ghost&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.0.0i22i30l10.1625.6047.0.8890.23.18.0.5.5.1.219.2185.2j14j2.18.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..1.22.2155.8g-JZELoY8A
dimreepr Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 If all the books we consider to be factual now, were read in 2 millennia almost none of it would be factual.
Moontanman Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 If all the books we consider to be factual now, were read in 2 millennia almost none of it would be factual. I'll take that bet but the difference is that religion is true no matter what reality says, I'm betting physics books of today will not be worshiped as the word of god...
Hendrick Laursen Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 as I said Mohammed should be mentioned in the Bible even if he is a false prophet, he should be mentioned as a famous false prophet who will convince many christians to leave christianity and to believe in Islam....., this can be achieved because according to the Gospel Jesus is a son of God, and certainly he is able to present a prophecy about famous false prophet Mohammed.to warn his followers of him. Hi yahya, Your above quote could be taken as a disrespect to Muslims. Also, it seems that David (Father of King Solomon) was one of the greatn grandfathers of Mary. So, calling Jesus Christus son of David is not wrong at all.
dimreepr Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 I'll take that bet but the difference is that religion is true no matter what reality says, I'm betting physics books of today will not be worshiped as the word of god... Yes that bet would be valid as of now, but if the knowledge as we know it now was translated, from a foreign language, and miss-interpreted as is the bible; could you really be so sure?
Endy0816 Posted September 20, 2014 Posted September 20, 2014 (edited) The record such as it is, is pretty confused for Jesus's genealogy. There are actually two different records listed. Explanations floating around: Each record was his relation back via a different parent, and this fact was missed at some point. That the original record did not record all the details and is off due to that. That Mary had totally different parents altogether who still had a relation back to David. Then there is the fact that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. Ismail Ibn Sharif with a mere 4 wives and 500 concubines is said to have fathered 888 children. If we use the formula: (Wives + Concubines) / Children The result is a ratio of about 0.57 for Ismail Ibn Sharif. Assuming Solomon had a similar ratio, plugging back into the formula: (700 + 300) / 0.57 = 1754 children. Now note, we only know the number of Solomon's wives of "royal birth". In fact he may have had yet more wives and thus more children. Due to this it is possible that Jesus was a descendent of Solomon in any case and via Solomon a descendent of King David. Edited September 20, 2014 by Endy0816
yahya515 Posted September 21, 2014 Author Posted September 21, 2014 (edited) Hi yahya, Your above quote could be taken as a disrespect to Muslims. Also, it seems that David (Father of King Solomon) was one of the greatn grandfathers of Mary. So, calling Jesus Christus son of David is not wrong at all. I said if Mohammed were a false prophet, he would be mentioned as a famous false prophet.......however because he was not mentioned whether as a true prophet or a false prophet, it means he was mentioned as a true prophet and his name was deleted. I did not mean to show disrespect. but the Bible did not say that Jesus is son of David through Mary blood line, instead the Bible tried to count Joseph descendants to prove that Jesus is the son of David, but it failed. and also kingdom is traced through male descendants. Edited September 21, 2014 by yahya515
Ophiolite Posted September 21, 2014 Posted September 21, 2014 as I said Mohammed should be mentioned in the Bible even if he is a false prophet, he should be mentioned as a famous false prophet who will convince many christians to leave christianity and to believe in Islam....., this can be achieved because according to the Gospel Jesus is a son of God, and certainly he is able to present a prophecy about famous false prophet Mohammed.to warn his followers of him. I suppose if you choose to believe in prophecy then you can believe many other unlikely things. There is no sound evidence for prophecy and so I am not convinced by your reasoning.
ajb Posted September 21, 2014 Posted September 21, 2014 I said if Mohammed were a false prophet, he would be mentioned as a famous false prophet.......however because he was not mentioned whether as a true prophet or a false prophet, it means he was mentioned as a true prophet and his name was deleted. I did not mean to show disrespect. So, because Mohammed was not explicitly mentioned in the bible, he must be a true prophet? Some people have interpreted the antichrist(s) that are written about in the bible to be Mohammed.
Moontanman Posted September 21, 2014 Posted September 21, 2014 Yes that bet would be valid as of now, but if the knowledge as we know it now was translated, from a foreign language, and miss-interpreted as is the bible; could you really be so sure? If civilization falls humans might all worship an atomic bomb, there is a distinct different between modern science and religion, religion has never been true, it's wasn't an accurate representation of reality then and it was known not to be then. Point of fact the bible explicitly states the earth is a flat disc under a Chrystal dome floating in and surrounded by water. The Greeks knew better and estimated the diameter of the earth with reasonable accuracy before the bible was written... There are other examples...
yahya515 Posted September 21, 2014 Author Posted September 21, 2014 So, because Mohammed was not explicitly mentioned in the bible, he must be a true prophet? Some people have interpreted the antichrist(s) that are written about in the bible to be Mohammed. the Bible mentioned antichrists in general, those antichrists came and no one achieved what Mohammed did, I do not see a particular antichrist in the Bible, specially that one who has Mohammed's charactaristics. Gospel of Matthew chapter 24 verse 5"For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many"
dimreepr Posted September 21, 2014 Posted September 21, 2014 If civilization falls humans might all worship an atomic bomb, there is a distinct different between modern science and religion, religion has never been true, it's wasn't an accurate representation of reality then and it was known not to be then. Point of fact the bible explicitly states the earth is a flat disc under a Chrystal dome floating in and surrounded by water. The Greeks knew better and estimated the diameter of the earth with reasonable accuracy before the bible was written... There are other examples... I’m not suggesting otherwise; I am suggesting time, on the millennial scale, distorts understanding when written down. Language evolves, meanings change and facts change; a large percentage of what we know now will change with further investigation. BTW the Greeks also, at one point, thought the earth was flat.
Recommended Posts