.

Dear Dan S de Merengue,

.

You observed :

«… if we may try and compare apples with apples, the gospels should be compared with other literature of antiquity. For instance, we state with confidence the histories of people and events of ancient Rome and Greece, etc. based on the writings passed down to us by the historians and biographers of the day. We assess the accuracy and veracity of the texts by certain, hopefully objective, standards. My understanding is that the gospels are consistent with the style of certain biographies of the day …»
.

I understand your apprehension with Wikipedia. All I can say is that the sources cited in the article are purported to be reputable scholars of antiquity. If that is the case, I am sure they have proceeded as you suggest and more.

.

Jayb states: "I order to support my Statement I give you the... "Koran.""

In other words you cann't support the statement but are too cowardly to admit it.

My next point: You stated the following:

"Which Biblical Manuscripts. There have been many, many Biblical Scripts. Many sources of divine revelation, over the past 7000 years that their have been written scripts. Is Gilgamesh true, are the Egyptian, Sumerian, Greek, Roman, Viking, & the Indian Vedas equally as true as the Jewish Torah & the Christian Bible. I won't include the Koran as it is just a load of Misogynistic Crap."

How many of these manuscripts can you say has been preserved?
In the case of the Qur'an, we have the Birmingham manuscripts:

‘Muslims believe that the Qur’an they read today is the same text that was standardised under Uthman and regard it as the exact record of the revelations that were delivered to Muhammad.

‘The tests carried out on the parchment of the Birmingham folios yield the strong probability that the animal from which it was taken was alive during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad or shortly afterwards. This means that the parts of the Qur’an that are written on this parchment can, with a degree of confidence, be dated to less than two decades after Muhammad’s death. These portions must have been in a form that is very close to the form of the Qur’an read today, supporting the view that the text has undergone little or no alteration and that it can be dated to a point very close to the time it was believed to be revealed.’"

source: http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/2015/07/quran-manuscript-22-07-15.aspx

That's the University of Birmingham website saying that not a Muslim website.

In the Quran itself, it predicts that it will be protected from corruption:

‘’We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption). (Al-Hijr –Stone land-:9)

There's your miracle.

Ignorance is bliss, until it is smashed on the head by the truth.

Batten writes: "Isaac Newton, the greatest scientific mind of all time, was a Christian believer, as were other founders of modern science."
In Newton's time everyone was a christian. the alternative was usually punishable by a cruel death pronounced and executed by civil authority. Newton followed Arianus and Socinius. He would have been anathematised and seriously persecuted by the anglican church had his allegiances been public knowledge. He rejected as idolatry the divinity of Jesus of Joseph and Mary. Even today with the weasel-worded reinterpretations of doctrine and scripture, the lachrymose mea culpas of church hierarchy and the hypocritical adoption of ignorance as an immaculate defence, Newton would be anathematised and/or excommunicated from christianity. Anyone claiming Newton's "christianity" as advantageous to the christian cause is ignorant of history and secretly relies on that presumption being endemic among his adversaries as well.

Batten writes: "Surveys have consistently shown that people with a strong adherence to the Bible's authority are the least likely to be superstitious, in contrast to the average de facto atheist."
Such internal contradictions are of the type exemplified in the declaration; "I'm not a racist! I just hate wogs and slopes!" The phrase, "strong adherence to the bible's authority" is, in fact, an undeniable example of SUPERSTITION. Total commitment to biblical inerrancy, even a "strong adherence" [almost total] raise issues that are laughable in their internal contrariness and risible in the arbitrary nature of the choices available......illogic applied to self-delusion, the epitome of superstition. Would it be too presumptuous to enquire after some authentication of those consistently supporting surveys?
Batten exhibits that execrable feature of creationists which seeks not to inform but to preach, not to elucidate but to confound. One could, if generous enough, humorously indulge the naïve and juvenile tenor of his treatise. It becomes immediately obvious to the discerning reader that if Batten has little or no understanding of aspects of physics and chemistry he presumes a similar deficiency in his target readership. He argues with the fresh enthusiasm of one who is yet unaccustomed to the subtle use of after-shave

Dear Phanto,

<<There is nothing that is superficial or mundane about the world we live in which is the topic of this thread.>>

The word 'mundane' comes from the Latin 'mundus' - world.

My argument here, hence the terms I use, is with others such as the author, who share a common goal, who like myself also aspire to overcome our addiction to the world (even while we might disagree over the methods).

As you wish to keep your addiction to the world, our paths part, we share no common goals and in your own words, "One person’s trash is another’s treasure."

---

Dear Grateful,

The carbon age of the Birmingham parchment proves nothing as parchments at the time were expensive and it was common to erase them and rewrite over previous texts: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/07/oldest-quran-fragments-in-the-world-discovered-in-the-uk-maybe-maybe-not

I appreciate that neither yourself nor Sheikh Nuh Keller or the Sufi tradition supports violence, but the Quran as we know it today calls for violence, hence cannot befit or be the work of the blessed Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

---

Dear Rhian,

<<from people who believe God literally brought the universe, nature and humanity into being in seven days>>

Six - not seven.

The advantage in believing the biblical creation-story, is the gift of the Sabbath.
If believing inspires you to regularly take the time off away from work and busy-ness and dedicate a day wholly for recovering your spirit, then it is worthwhile (otherwise it's merely regurgitating technical information).

Jayb, you say:
"Leo Lane: Then we are told that he must exist, because he made the world in which we live, and if he did not, then who did?

I question “Who,” does there have to be a “Who?” Is it Logical to have a “Who?” Why is the “Who” a “he?” If the “Who” cannot be seen, heard, touched smelt or tasted, & we assign “He” to Humans as they exist at present then the “Who” is a non-entity, or “It” which is called a God."
I was simply conjecturing as to statements arising in the circumstances I described. It is not my statement, and I am not reporting anyone’s statement. I concocted it from what I remember of the many discussions I have heard. You must be aware that many people personify their deity.

Jayb:"Leo Lane: It is ridiculous for highly intelligent fools like Richard Dawkins to make the puerile pronouncement that there is no god,

I could be said also that highly intelligent fools such as Creationists & other Religious Fanatics make puerile announcements that there is a God."

My statement is in respect of a specific man whose books I have read, and whose programmes I have watched and heard. He is highly knowledgeable on DNA, and would be aware that humans are hard-wired to believe in gods
Your statement is general, so not in respect of any specific person or persons, or any particular circumstances and you have given no proper basis for it.

Battan says "Isaac Newton, the greatest scientific mind of all time, was a Christian believer, as were other founders of modern science"

Pogi, while i understand why it is very misleading to say Christian believer given that most people who would call themselves Christians a trinitarians, the point remains that Newton had a firm belief in God that was founded on extensive research. He was a follower of Jesus not the Church.

"Isaac Newton (1642-1727) was a deeply religious person who wrote far more words on religion than he did on science. Early on, as an undergraduate at Trinity College Cambridge, he wrote a list of sins, itself a mark of his religious convictions. Many of these since relate to his non-attendance at church on Sunday. At some point he moved away from the orthodox (conventional) thinking of the Church of England and became a radical heretic, denying that Jesus Christ shared any essential characteristics of God. Because he denied the existence of the Holy Trinity that was believed by all orthodox Catholics and Protestants, Newton's position is characterized as antitrinitarian. Because there were severe legal and social penalties for holding such beliefs, he was forced to keep his views quiet and they became known only after he had died.
source: http://www.enlighteningscience.sussex.ac.uk/learning_objects/student/science_and_religion/isaac_newton_on_religion