TrPrado,

Forgive me if I've just missed it -- you said that the Qu'ran included many scientific statements that would not have been known to the ancient Arabs, but are now known to be true. What is an example of one of these? (Feel free to just point me back to a point in an earlier post if you've already given one). Thanks!

I've seen the same argument made about the Bible, by the way, and I don't find it convincing. People will say that the Psalms talking about "paths of the sea" was prescient knowledge of ocean currents, or that "the life is in the blood" anticipated William Harvey's work. I don't buy either, anymore than I buy that the Bible referring to "the four corners of the earth" is saying the world is a square and thus constitutes an error. All are poetic imagery, and you can't have it both ways (on either side).

Not that I'm saying that's the case with the Quran's examples. The above is just an aside.

@semck I actually suggest you to read these links and feel free to browse across the page. Unintentionally, did quite some elaboration where the koran reports scientific knowledge (in the words and allegories of its time, ofc., but still readable).

Ofc, you'll find some stuff that is plain wrong from today's scientific stance. The main difference between the koran and the bible is that at the time when the koran was written, all of the scientific facts I found in the list were available (even if not common knowledge to the populace). And even in the bible there are references to scientific facts.

Where you're argument against TrPrado and the bible falls short is the following (highly simplified):

"This line is wrong. Hence the bible/koran is not trustworthy."

This way you'll get into mere semantic debate over a very unimportant point. Isaac Newton thought that the air was filled by corpuscularii that produced everything through bumping into each other. You could argue that molecules are exactly that. But he thought of it as something like billiard balls.

@TrPrado

I don't know if he did. I suppose not everything (mathematicians are no magicians :) ) and certainly not just by himself.

@X3n0n,

Which links?

In any event, I would still like an answer to my question from TrPrado. I have already read links in the past that discuss scientific information from the Qu'ran and what was known, but unless I know which claims TrPrado was referring to, I can't possibly know if I understand his claims.

"Where you're argument against TrPrado and the bible falls short is the following (highly simplified):

'This line is wrong. Hence the bible/koran is not trustworthy.'"

You're putting words in my mouth, though. Not only would my argument fall short there, I didn't make that argument. I'm a Christian who accepts the Bible. I was merely rejecting one particular argument *for* the Bible.

The ones I posted in my second ( now third) last comment. sry for not recopying them.

Damn connection.

True. We were saying them thing here. I misread your point. (I'm referring to the argument, not the bible).

Q: Why does God punish people for not loving him? (Why did God order the Israelites to commit genocide in the Old Testament?)

A: Because God is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. God always seeks these things for his children, and works so that these things will ultimately be made manifest in his creation. By disobeying God, we show that we don’t love him. By not loving him, we also show that we don’t love the things he stands for. Since God stands for love, God punishes people who don’t love him because people who don’t love him don’t love love itself. God ordered the genocides of certain people groups in the Old Testament because of those people groups’ sins. By sinning, these people spread evil and encouraged other people to do the same. God gave them the opportunity to change their ways by sending prophets to them and performing miraculous signs, but they refused to change their ways. So in order to protect those who would listen, obey, and love him, God eradicated these people.

I know this answer may raise further questions, so please ask them. I’m only going to respond to questions as they are asked this time though, unlike my last response. For those of you that did read my last response, did you find it helpful? I was wondering if that was a good format to answer future questions in.

By not loving him, we also show that we don’t love the things he stands for. This is a huge leap in logic. First counterexample that comes to mind: assuming that god exists, and someone does not know this, and as a consequence they do not love him, they do not automatically not love the things he stands for.

@slyguy: just one question: how did the amalekite babies sin?

@kas:
Here's a truth for you. When Saul was ordered to kill the Amalekites, he chose not to and instead kept the choice livestock, gold and silver for himself. He also kept their king alive (Agag) and others. Because he refused to do what God commanded, Saul was stripped of his crown and it passed on to another.

Centuries later, a descendant of King Agag (an agagite) named Haman attempted to issue an order that all of the Jews would be killed, from the oldest to the youngest (read the book of Esther for this reference).

finally, to fill you in, when the Amalekites attacked the Israelite in the wilderness, they attacked the rear of the group. The soldiers and healthy men would have been in the front of the company because they can move faster and go before the people to protect their coming. The elderly, young and mothers were in the rear as the slow moving group along with the livestock. The Amalekites first attacked killing women and children.

While you may not understand a verse, it doesn't mean that there isn't a reason for it. Had Saul destroyed the enemy in their entirety, then the Israelite nation wouldn't have faced a possible similar fate.

What happens is that we question God, saying "it doesn't make sense to my understanding, so I'm going to do what I think I should.

@ Aereaux
Fair point, assuming that the people had no evidence of God’s existence. The only problem is that they did. God revealed himself to those ancient people groups time and time again through the prophets and through various miracles. He was also very clear of who he was and what he expected of them, but they refused to listen to him.

@Kasimax
They didn’t. This is a hard question to answer. Keep in mind though that this was a very different time period. People were viewed less as individuals and more as one people group. Therefore it was seen as just to punish the children for their parents’ deeds. It was a very harsh and brutal time period and I think it’s incredibly self-righteous of us to try and look back on history through a lens of moral superiority and expect that the same options available to us today were viable back then. Try and put yourself in the Israelites’ shoes for a moment. You have a violent, immoral, brutal, and aggressive neighbor that poses a significant threat to your nation’s well-being. What do you do? Even from a purely human standpoint I could almost understand how it would have been morally acceptable in that day and age. But you also have to take into account the importance of the nation of Israel. It was through them that God planned to bless the world with the gift of salvation. If they had become led astray by their evil neighbors or annihilated by them, it’s quite possible none of us today would know who God is. God told them to destroy their violent, evil, aggressive neighbor in order that the Israelite nation might survive and spread the message of God’s salvation to the world.

Now this brings us to a hard, unavoidable question: What about those individuals among the slaughtered that were truly innocent of any wrongdoing, (the babies and young children). It is my belief that they went to heaven. Support of this is found in Matthew 19:14 “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” This is just one verse of many in the Bible that I draw this view from. God might have judged whole people groups as one during this time period, but in the end we are all judged as individuals.

Boom. Well said Tru Ninja. :)

My point is that in general, just because you don't approve of something, doesn't mean that you disapprove of everything about it.

And guys I'm sorry, but I really don't have all the answers. All I know is that there is no way the Bible would make so much sense if it wasn't God's word. How did 66 books written over thousands of years by nearly 40 authors, (most of whom never knew each other), just happen to survive throughout history, get compiled together, and explain all the deep questions of life in a way that is actually able to be logically backed up? And that's not even mentioning a certain remarkable person:

He was born in an obscure village
The child of a peasant woman
He grew up in another obscure village
Where he worked in a carpenter shop
Until he was thirty when public opinion turned against him

He never wrote a book
He never held an office
He never went to college
He never visited a big city
He never travelled more than two hundred miles
From the place where he was born
He did none of the things
Usually associated with greatness
He had no credentials but himself

He was only thirty three

His friends ran away
One of them denied him
He was turned over to his enemies
And went through the mockery of a trial
He was nailed to a cross between two thieves
While dying, his executioners gambled for his clothing
The only property he had on earth

When he was dead
He was laid in a borrowed grave
Through the pity of a friend

Nineteen centuries have come and gone
And today Jesus is the central figure of the human race
And the leader of mankind's progress
All the armies that have ever marched
All the navies that have ever sailed
All the parliaments that have ever sat
All the kings that ever reigned put together
Have not affected the life of mankind on earth
As powerfully as that one solitary life

Dr James Allan Francis © 1926. "One solitary life"

Just ftr.

Very poetic, but no offense, I don't think it proves anything. The greatest of modern day (at least compared to biblical times) literature have managed to stick around for a while.

@Aereaux: you might find this an interesting read, then.

http://thewritejourney.blogspot.com/2008/05/how-did-bible-survive.html?m=1

Just because a book has survived does not mean that it is true. Also, there were many times where it was spread by force, as with the crusades, the inquisition, and the forced conversion of people native to the Americas.

@so truninja, just to repeat, you think that genocide can be a justifiable measure against an enemy?

and also, "Had Saul destroyed the enemy in their entirety, then the Israelite nation wouldn't have faced a possible similar fate."

so you don't think that if they kept their children alive and taught them to love the israelite nation, this would've had a similar effect? do you think that killing every living human being was necessary?

and @slyguy: "Keep in mind though that this was a very different time period."

so god's idea of "just" evolves with humanity? that's absurd. do you really think that god would say: "yeah, genocide was a good idea at the time (the times were different, you know), but now i think that killing innocent children is not such a good idea." don't you think that god would have the same standards for his superior morality from the very beginning of creation?

in my mind, this humanisation of god (his standards of morality evolve over time) just shows that god is a human concept. sorry if that sounds offensive to you, i urge you to correct me if i'm wrong.

@kas: I don't presume anything. I'm simply filling you in on the history of the verse that was taken out of context--that God commanded others to perpetrate evil--namely the killing of 'innocents' (if anyone can be called that).

"so you don't think that if they kept their children alive and taught them to love the israelite nation, this would've had a similar effect? do you think that killing every living human being was necessary?"

Do you somehow think it possible to raise the children of your enemy and somehow they'll love you? I think history explains the possibility of this one. I cannot think of one nation that invaded another, left members alive, and didn't have animosity from that people group in the future.


Ultimately, what I'm saying is that there's a reason for everything in Scripture. You may not understand it, and I may not understand it. In some points, Israel was commanded to wage war. Other times they were commanded to do something strange that resulted in them not having to lift a sword, in other scenarios, people were simply sent away. Others, on an individual scale, were welcomed into the nation.

I believe that if it were possible to spare lives, it would have been done. God is the same yesterday, today and forever. He works by grace, calling both Jews and Gentiles into His kingdom. This was true even in the Old Testament. By the time of Christ's birth, Jewish temples had a Court of the Gentiles that permitted non-Jews to worship God. We see other examples of this in the OT as well, going back to people like Ruth (a moabitess who was part of the lineage of Christ) and Rahab among others.

People say that God works in mysterious ways, but I think instead that God has shown who He is very plainly in Scripture. It comes down to us to seek Him. If we instead look at the Bible and say "I think this is wrong" then we discount something even before we take the opportunity to study it and look at the full scope of things.


The same is true for people. You cannot come to know someone you refuse to allow open themselves up to you.

i still want a definite answer to this, if you don't mind: "do you think that genocide can be a justifiable measure against an enemy?"