Qur'an is more accurate than the Bible
Hi, in this debate I will establish that the Qur'an is more accurate than the Bible, since the Bible contains many contradictions and inconsistencies, It cannot be used as accurate source, while the Qur'an on the other hand has no contradictions, or errors, therefore more accurate from the Qur'an, that is my resolution.
This is pure theological debate, you can just accept the first round or present your contention in the first round, you will have to show that the Qur'an has contradictions and errors or put as many holes as you can in my argument.
Events mentioned in the Bible and not the Qur'an(OR VICE VERSA) are ignored and not to be used in arguments!! breaking this rule will result in conduct point loss(when voters vote they vote conduct to Pro/Con depending on the case)
Good luck to Pro & Con.
I thank Con for accepting the debate.
King & Pharaoh:
The Bible uses the term 'Pharaoh' to describe soverigns of Egypt during Abraham, Moses, and Joseph's time(pbu them):
(I will be using the NASB for the verses)
In Genesis 12:17 the soverign of Egypt during Abraham's time is called Pharaoh "17 But the Lord struck Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai, Abram’s wife."
(It is also mentioned in verse 18 & 20, chapter 12)
Genesis 41:14 "14 Then Pharaoh sent and called for Joseph, and they hurriedly brought him out of the dungeon; and when he had shaved himself and changed his clothes, he came to Pharaoh."
Clearly he is called Pharaoh.
Exodus 2:15 "15 When Pharaoh heard of this matter, he tried to kill Moses. But Moses fled from the presence of Pharaoh and settled in the land of Midian, and he sat down by a well."
Whilst the Qur'an calls the soverign at the time of Joseph(pbuh) 'King' not 'Pharaoh':
"The king (of Egypt) said: "I do see (in a vision) seven fat cows, whom seven lean ones devour, and seven green ears of corn, and seven (others) withered. O ye chiefs! expound to me my vision, if it be that ye can interpret visions."
"They said: "We miss the great beaker of the king; for him who produces it, is (the reward of) a camel-load; I will be bound by it." [Qur'an 12:72]
Further examples of the usage of the word "King" during the time of Joseph can be found 12:43, 12:50, 12:54, 12:72, 12:76 .
"Then after them sent We Moses and Aaron to Pharaoh and his chiefs with Our Signs. But they were arrogant: they were a people in sin." [Qur'an 10:75]
"Moses said: "O Pharaoh! I am a messenger from the Lord of the Worlds." [Qur'an 7:104]
Now I will go to my main point let us see the timeline of ancient egypt:
In this section I will attempt to establish the Patriarchal age for Abraham, Joseph and Moses based on the theories of Jewish and Christians authorities and recent archaeological discoveries. The stories of the Patriarchs are largely to be found in the first two books of the Bible: Genesis and Exodus. These works contain a mixture of historical detail, later interpretations and legends. William Neil's One Volume Bible Commentary states:
"For we are faced in the book of Exodus, as in the book of Genesis, not with a factual historical record but with a narrative which is so entirely composed of a mixture of historical events, theological interpretation of these events and the legendary accretions that naturally accumulate around any dramatic occurrence, particularly one of such momentous significance (i.e., the Exodus), that it is no longer possible for us to disentangle them. "
When did Abraham enter Egypt?
"To place Abraham at the beginning of the 2d millennium B.C. is, therefore, sustainable."
According to the Dictionary Of Proper Names And Places In The Bible, under "Abraham", we read: "History of Abraham (ca. 1850 BC)..."
We understand that Abraham lived 2000-1700 BCE would place Abraham in a period compatible to the time between the Old Kingdom and the Middle Kingdom of ancient Egypt.(Review the Picture above!)
The Hyksos belonged to a group of mixed Semitic-Asiatics who infiltrated Egypt during the Middle Kingdom and became rulers of Lower Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period (c. 1674-1553 BCE). The view best supported by evidence and that of the majority of scholars appears to be that Joseph entered Egypt during the time of the Hyksos. The Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary explains that Joseph's rise to an important position could only have occurred under Hyksos rule:
"... Egypt's stability was weakening and that the second intermediate period of weakness (1750-1570 B.C.) was about to begin. During this time of weakness, many non-Egyptians entered the country. A group called the Hyksos ("ruler from a foreign land") took control of the nation. Joseph's rise to an important position in the house of Potiphar (Genesis 39) and his appointment to the task of collecting grain during the years of plenty (Genesis 41) were possible because other foreigners had significant places in the Hyksos government."
Similarly, The Lion Handbook To The Bible observes that:
Likewise, The Jewish Encyclopedia states that:
The placing of Moses in ancient Egyptian history is not as contentious as that of Abraham. Scholars have tried to find the period occupied by Moses in history and have placed him at various points within the New Kingdom, from Tuthmose II (c. 1493-1479 BCE) to Merenptah (c. 1212-1202 BCE). According to the Dictionary Of Proper Names And Places In The Bible, under "Moses":
Similarly, the Encyclopaedia Judaica describes Moses as a:
This date is also endorsed by The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia which says:
What do modern linguistic studies and Egyptology reveal about the word "Pharaoh" and its use in ancient Egypt? The best place to start the investigation is to look into the material which deals with ancient Egyptian civilization. Let us begin by looking at the entry "per-aa" or "Pharaoh" in Wörterbuch Der Aegyptischen Sprache, the most authoritative dictionary of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs.
Figure 1: Entry in "Wörterbuch Der Aegyptischen Sprache" showing the hieroglyph for "per-aa" or "Pharaoh".
Here the usage in the New Kingdom and Old Kingdom Periods for the word "per-aa" are underlined in red. In the New Kingdom Period, the word "per-aa" referred to Pharaoh, any Pharaoh, i.e., the king of Egypt. But in the Old Kingdom Period, the word meant "King's palace", "the great house", or denoted the large house of the king. Not surprisingly Lexikon Der Ägyptologie - an encyclopedia of Egyptology - under the entry "Pharao" says that this word was used to denote the person of the king from the New Kingdom Period onwards.
Gardiner also cites two possible earlier examples under Tuthmosis III (fl. c.1479 - 1425 BC) and Thumosis IV (fl. c.1401 - 1390 BC) (as mentioned in his footnote 10 above), while Hayes has published an ostracon from the joint reign of Hatshepsut (c.1478-1458 BC) and Tuthmosis III (c.1479-1425 BC) that twice refers to the latter simply as "Pharaoh".
In the book Egyptian Hieroglyphs, published by the British Museum, we find a decent introduction to the hieroglyphic characters that represent the words "King" and "Pharaoh". Once again we discover that the title Pharaoh was used to designate the king from the New Kingdom Period onward:
CONCLUSION, CITATIONS AND SOURCES WILL BE POSTED IN THE COMMENTS, I do not have enough space!
The Bible and the Qur'an are often compared to each other when Christians and Muslims are discussing issues. They are typically compared in the following ways:
a) Preservation of text
b) Formation of canon
c) Teaching about Jesus, women, warfare, etc.
d) Scientific accuracy
This type of comparison is something that I myself have done in the past. However, it is actually inaccurate and misleading to compare the Bible to the Qur'an. There are two reasons for this.
Reason 1. The Context of the Bible and Qur'an
The Qur'an revolves and evolves around Muhammad's life. Muhammad recited the words of the Qur'an in response to various situations in his life, but what these situations were is not recorded in the Qur'an. That is, the Qur'an does not provide its own context or chronology. Knowing the correct context and chronology is essential to understand the Qur'an. But to know this context and chronology you must go outside of the Qur'an to the Islamic traditions - books like the Hadith or Sira literature. These books provide the context for the Qur'an. The Islamic scholar Habib Ur Rahman Azami clearly states the Qur'an's dependence upon the Hadith and Sira.
(I)t is almost impossible to understand or explain the meaning of a large number of Qur'anic verses if the Traditions are rejected as useless and inauthentic. (Habib Ur Rahman Azami, The Sunnah in Islam, pp. 29-31.)
The Bible, however, is very different. It provides its own context and chronology. Its revelation begins with creation and tells the story of God, the world, his people, the prophets and the Messiah, right through to the age of the resurrection. When the Bible gives various commands or announces the gospel it does so within a context that it itself has revealed. Thus, to understand the Bible you only need the Bible. In fact, many of the stories which are only briefly retold in the Qur'an are told in full in the Bible. The Bible is self-sufficient, as the word of God should be. Therefore to compare the Bible to the Qur'an alone is misleading and inaccurate.
Reason 2. Practices and Beliefs
The Qur'an does not contain most of the basic practices or many of the beliefs of Islam.
The Sunnah (the example of Muhammad) is the crucial complement to the Koran; so much so, that there are in fact isolated instances where, in fact, the Sunnah appears to prevail over the Koran as, for example, when the Koran refers to three daily prayers (24:58, 11:116, 17:78-79, 20:130, 30:17-18), but the Sunnah sets five. On the other hand, there are cases from the earliest days of Islam of universal practices which appear to contradict express Sunnah. Moreover, the Koran does not make explicit all of its commands; not even all those which are fundamental. Thus it enjoins prayer, but not how it is to be performed: the form of canonical prayer (salah) is based entirely on Sunnah. (Cyril Glassé, "Sunnah", The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, pp. 381-382)
(T)he obligatory injunction to establish Salah (regular, formal worship) was revealed in the Qur’an as were some of the elements of Salah (like Qiyam, Ruku`, Sujud and Qira’ah). But the actual manner of offering Salah and the order in which the various acts connected with it were to be performed, were not described in the Qur’an. ... Similarly the Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca) was prescribed as a religious duty in the Qur'an but its method and formalities were not defined. The Prophet showed the correct way by performing the Hajj himself. (Habib Ur Rahman Azami, pp. 10-11)
Narrated Al-Irbad ibn Sariyah as-Sulami: ... They gathered and the Prophet (peace be upon him) led them in prayer, stood up and said: Does any of you, while reclining on his couch, imagine that Allah has prohibited only that which is to be found in this Qur'an? By Allah, I have preached, commanded and prohibited various matters as numerous as that which is found in the Qur'an, or more numerous. ... (Abu-Dawud: bk. 19, no. 3044, Hasan)
Islamic Shariah is complete only with recourse to both the Qur'an and the Sunnah. (Habib Ur Rahman Azami, p. 5)
How, when and what to pray, what to do on Hajj, circumcision, the signs of the hour, the story of Hagar, in fact most of the essential Islamic practices and beliefs come from the Sunnah (practices) of Muhammad. The Sunnah is essential to Islam but it does not come from the Qur'an but the Hadith and Sira. Again, this is not the case with the Bible. The Bible has everything a Christian needs. The Bible fully declares what God has done to save us and bring glory to himself and how we are to live. It is the basis for our wisdom and defines our liberty. Therefore to compare the Bible to the Qur'an alone is misleading and inaccurate.
A More Accurate Comparison
It should be clear now that to compare the Bible to the Qur'an is irrelevant because while the Bible is the foundation of Christianity, the Qur'an is not the foundation of Islam, rather Islam is founded on the Qur'an, Hadith and Sira. If you want an honest and accurate comparison between the books of Christianity and Islam then you must compare the essential books of both religions.
Some facts on the Hadith. The word "hadith" means an account or news about something. A hadith can vary in length from a sentence to a full page. In Islam the main subject of the Hadith is what Muhammad did and said, that is, the Hadith contain the Sunnah. There are many large collections of Hadith. Prof. Masud-ul-Hasan explains what the main collections are:
The collection of hadith
by Imam Muslim.
8 volumes in the
The collection of hadith
by Imam Bukhari.
9 volumes in the
The recognised collection of Hadith on the "Musannaf" pattern are the collections of:
Al-Bukhari (d. 870 C.E.) [A collection of 7658 hadiths (ahadith).]
Muslim (d. 875 C.E.) [A collection of 7748 hadiths.]
Abu Daud (d. 875 C.E.) [A collection of 5276 hadiths.]
Al-Tirmizi (d. 892 C.E.) [A collection of 4415 hadiths.]
Al-Nasai (d. 915 C.E.) [A collection of 5776 hadiths.]
Ibn Maja (d. 886 C.E.) [A collection of 4485 hadiths.]
... The collections of Al-Bukhari and Muslim rank high and are known as "Al-Sahihain" i.e. authentic and authoritative.
The best known collection on the "Musnad" pattern is the collection of Ahmad ibn Hanbal (d. 855 C.E.).
The Shia works on "Hadith", do not merely refer to what the Holy Prophet said or did, they also refer to what the Shia Imams said or did. The Shia works on Hadith are the collections of:
Muhammad ibn Yakub Al-Kulluni (d. 939 C.E.)
Muhammad Al-Hummi (d. 991 C.E.)
Tahir Al-Sharif Al-Murtaza (d. 1004 C.E.)
Muhammad Al-Tusi (d. 1067 C.E.) (Prof. Masud-ul-Hasan, History of Islam, vol. 1, p. 613)
There is also the important collection of the Muwatta of Malik.
The Hadith are part of the Islamic canon, yet Sunni and Shia disagree dramatically over which Hadith to accept. This means that within Islam there are very different canons that are used.
Ibn Sa'ad, Kitab
Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah
translated as 'The Life of Muhammad'
Some facts on the Sira. The Sira are the biographies of Muhammad's life. These provide the context and chronology of his life, and thus the context and chronology of the Qur'an. The two oldest Sira are:
Muhammad ibn Ishaq (d. 773 C.E.) via ibn Hisham's (d. 840 C.E.) recension, Sirat Rasul Allah. (English translation 798 pages.)
Muhammad ibn Sa'd (d. 852 C.E.), Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, (English translation, 1097 pages.)
As you can read and see, there are a lot of other essential books in Islam than just the Qur'an, and they are all much bigger than the Qur'an. Both Bukhari and Muslim contain more hadiths than the Qur'an's 6236 verses. I have been told by an ex-Muslim Islamic scholar that Islam is 10% Quran and 90% traditions (Hadith and Sira). The Quran is like the frame of a picture. It sets some boundaries, but the details of the picture are provided by the traditions.
I'll leave the references in the comments soon. I need to reference them properly first [http://www.harvardgenerator.com...]
(I extend my argument on the King & Pharaoh)
Thanks for presenting your arguments.
"The Qur'an revolves and evolves around Muhammad's life. Muhammad recited the words of the Qur'an in response to various situations in his life, but what these situations were is not recorded in the Qur'an. That is, the Qur'an does not provide its own context or chronology. Knowing the correct context and chronology is essential to understand the Qur'an. But to know this context and chronology you must go outside of the Qur'an to the Islamic traditions - books like the Hadith or Sira literature. These books provide the context for the Qur'an. The Islamic scholar Habib Ur Rahman Azami clearly states the Qur'an's dependence upon the Hadith and Sira."
This is wrong, the Qur'an contains teachings of God, stories of the Prophets, and many other events(on the Afterlife, hell, and heaven) and does not revolve and evolves around Muhammad(PBUH) only, actually many situations are said in the Qur'an as God tells Muhammad(PBUH) to say, to answer, as said for example in 18:110 "Say, "I am only a man like you, to whom has been revealed that your god is one God. So whoever would hope for the meeting with his Lord - let him do righteous work and not associate in the worship of his Lord anyone."
The hadith and the sirah is a must follow, as said in the Qur'an:
"O you who believe, obey Allah and His Messenger ... " [Al-Qur'an 8:20]
"Say: obey Allah and obey the Messenger ... " [Al-Qur'an 24:54]
He says, "Obey Allah and the Messenger and perhaps you will be shown mercy."[Al-Qur'an 3:132]
"If you obey him, you will be guided ... " [Al-Qur'an 24:54]
"Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah ... "[Al-Qur'an 4:79]
Therefore we consider anything that the Prophet(pbuh) allowed or banned it is Haram, even if it is said in the HADITH, the Qur'an and the Authentic Hadith is Islam's scripture, if you only follow the Qur'an not the hadith, it means you are not obeying God, Allah.
"The Bible, however, is very different. It provides its own context and chronology. Its revelation begins with creation and tells the story of God, the world, his people, the prophets and the Messiah, right through to the age of the resurrection. When the Bible gives various commands or announces the gospel it does so within a context that it itself has revealed. Thus, to understand the Bible you only need the Bible. In fact, many of the stories which are only briefly retold in the Qur'an are told in full in the Bible. The Bible is self-sufficient, as the word of God should be. Therefore to compare the Bible to the Qur'an alone is misleading and inaccurate."
I think I have provided that Hadith is part of the scripture, your argument is invalid, and I am yet awaiting proof of what is underlined, while it is true that in the Bible it presents Prophets as sinful, and Kings who do not follow the Law, even though they have been set as kings by God(i.e. David in the Bible):
2 Samuel 11:2-5 "2 Now when evening came David arose from his bed and walked around on the roof of the king’s house, and from the roof he saw a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful in appearance. 3 So David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, “Is this notBathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?” 4 David sent messengers and took her, and when she came to him, he lay with her; and when she had purified herself from her uncleanness, she returned to her house. 5 The woman conceived; and she sent and told David, and said, “I am pregnant.”
Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die. You must purge the evil from Israel."
Clearly the King chosen by God himself did not upheld the Law of the Lord and therefore God chose a corrupt king according to the Bible...
"The Qur'an does not contain most of the basic practices or many of the beliefs of Islam."
I will debunk this later on.
"when the Koran refers to three daily prayers (24:58, 11:116, 17:78-79, 20:130, 30:17-18), but the Sunnah sets five."
24:58, 11:116,20:130,30:17-18 all of them do not speak about prayers only 17:78-79 and it says:
"Establish prayer at the decline of the sun [from its meridian] until the darkness of the night and [also] the Qur'an of dawn. Indeed, the recitation of dawn is ever witnessed. And from [part of] the night, pray with it as additional [worship] for you; it is expected that your Lord will resurrect you to a praised station."
Clearly not 3.
Con is clearly in error, his whole argument is a red herring, because the resolution is that the Qur'an is more accurate than the Bible, but Con is arguing the there are many teachings that are not found in the Qur'an, Allah says in the Qur'an if you obey the Prophet you obey God, therefore HADITH OR SUNNAH is part of scripture.
I advice Con to review the topic and try to rebut my argument, I have fulfilled the BoP and have shown that the account in the Qur'an is more accurate than in the Bible.
neoyuey forfeited this round.
Thanks for this debate, Con has forfeited the 3rd round, I extend my arguments, and urge people to vote for Pro.
neoyuey forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|