Jump to content
Science Forums

The Qur'an Corrects The Mistakes Of The False Injil/torah


Recommended Posts

And what gives the Qur'an the authority or credibility to raise it above the validity (or lack there of) of any other religious nonsense?

 

Stuff.

But all of this is based on the assumption that the Qur'an is in fact not a steaming pile of horse manure. This assumption is faulty and invalid.

 

Those who have denied Our signs, and reacted to them with arrogance, the gates of the sky will not open for them, nor will they enter paradise until the camel passes through the eye of a needle. It is such that We recompense the criminals.

Then just like the Christian fairy god father, it's a god I wouldn't want anything to do with even if I did believe in it.

 

That eye of a needle line is in the bible too, they're basically the same with a few revisions. I think it goes "There's more chance of a camel passing through the eye of a needle than of a rich man going to heaven." Rich Christians obviously ignore that bit.

 

There wasn't two of every animal of the ark either and Lucifer is not the name of the devil, Lucifer is mentioned once, he was the king of Babylon, not even an angel.

Edited by A-wal
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

And what gives the Qur'an the authority or credibility to raise it above the validity (or lack there of) of any other religious nonsense?

 

But all of this is based on the assumption that the Qur'an is in fact not a steaming pile of horse manure. This assumption is faulty and invalid.

 

Then just like the Christian fairy god father, it's a god I wouldn't want anything to do with even if I did believe in it.

 

That eye of a needle line is in the bible too, they're basically the same with a few revisions. I think it goes "There's more chance of a camel passing through the eye of a needle than of a rich man going to heaven." Rich Christians obviously ignore that bit.

 

There wasn't two of every animal of the ark either and Lucifer is not the name of the devil, Lucifer is mentioned once, he was the king of Babylon, not even an angel.

 

Good points with the exception of one thing. Lucifer was actually the morning star as translated in the original Hebrew. Also the word Lucifer is Latin which didn't exist when Isiah was written. So it was later edited into most likely in the King James version. I just wanted to point that out. I am pretty sure there wasn't a king of Babylon named Lucifer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...