Skip to main content

Why the Bible is Divinely Inspired (Why Not the Qu'ran)

Arguments for why the Bible is the inspired Word of God and the Qu'ran, well, not so much. Michael Gleghorn is a research guy with Probe Ministries, so he knows how to research and probe stuff, to figure out such things.

And here's what he came up with, reasons why he thinks one can suppose that the Bible is indeed the divinely inspired Word of God:
"First, the Bible claims to be an inspired text: 'All Scripture is inspired by God' (2 Tim. 3:16). This does not prove that it really is inspired. However, if the Bible nowhere claimed to be inspired, then we would hardly have good reason to believe that it was. Thus, what the text claims for itself is important.
So you see? The Bible is most likely the inspired Word of God because it says so itself, right there in its own pages, and also nowhere does it mention that it is not, which is just as important, as the Probe dude points out.

Furthermore, answering to the question why the Qu'ran can not also be a divinely inspired Scripture, Gleghorn explains:
"If the Bible is inspired by God, then it would seem logically impossible for the Qu'ran to also be divinely inspired. Why? Because both texts teach very different doctrines that are not logically consistent with one another.

"Clearly, both texts cannot be correct, for this would violate the law of non-contradiction. Thus, if the Bible is inspired by God, then it logically follows that the Qu'ran is not."
And there you have it, logically the Qu'ran can not be inspired by God because if the Bible is instead, which has already been evidenced as per the above, then that law of non-contradiction thing cinches the case.

(He probably should have been more clear about that, though, specifically how that the non-contradiction law only is applicable to inter-contradictions, intra-contradictions not a problem. But I suppose he might have figured that was a given, hardly worth mentioning, really.)

Although, now that I think about it, I reckon some Muslim research guy somewhere could also very well make the flip-side argument for the Qu'ran over the Bible, recording the Almighty's utmost authentic pronouncements. Verbatim, even, when I read back over this, except for switching the two books.

Well, also that one 2 Tim. 3:16 Bible verse, "all Scripture is inspired by God", would need to be swapped out for the Qu'ran's Jonah 10:37, "it was not possible for this Qu'ran to be produced by someone other than Allah", but yeah... other than that, same same only different.

Now I'm just totally confused about what's what, and right when Michael Gleghorn had me pretty much convinced, what with his awesome compelling reasons regarding why so, the Bible as God's authoritative word. Holy shit.

Comments

  1. Yes, such intellectual acumen checkmates me every time!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've heard that God is almighty...and doesn't make mistakes...and is in everyone and everything. If that's true, then logically, how can the Qu'ran, as well as the Bible, NOT be divinely inspired? How can a religion/belief system be "wrong", or even exist? If there were only "one way", wouldn't God have eliminated all other ways?

    Just one more reason I can't buy into organized religion.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Trinette, It sounds like you've heard a mash-up of unrelated beliefs and are reasoning from that. Yahweh God is indeed claimed to be almighty in Scripture, thus Jews and Christians believe this. But nowhere in the Bible (Old Testament nor New Testament) is there any claim that God is in everyone--that is monism, as in the Hindu faith or New Age thought. The entire point of Scripture is that God is alienated by man's actions. So, it does not follow logically that all religious systems are divinely inspired.
    The jump you make from "How can a religion be 'wrong'" to "how can it even exist" seems illogical.
    And there is another option on your last question--one which is claimed by the Christian faith: God could be allowing other "ways" to run their false course and will make it all clear and right in the end. The biblical claim is that it's unclear to the unwilling-of-heart and mind, but made clear for those who truly seek God.
    After all, you want choice, right? You got it! Make it. But if it happens to be wrong, don't curse the fact or the one who says so. It just is.
    But God doesn't hide, says Scripture, from those who want to know. You have a value judgment to make--risk that seeking of God or not. What do you have to lose if it ends up a dead-end? But to be wrong and not seek God, that's eternal. Says who? Says all the evidence that stacks up for believing it. Don't believe it? test it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If shit is truly Holy, it is so because you have said it is Holy, and since Cows are Holy and wholly made of much needed shit, ergo, again shit must indeed be Holy. Many have exclaimed the Holiness of shit and that would seem the word of God since man is made by God and in his image,besides everybody poops, so God's shit is thereby Holy, as would be Allah's. Thank you for clarifying that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I just like that you said "shit" so much.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Me too. tee hee

    ReplyDelete
  7. Chris Christie for PresidentMay 16, 2010 at 12:21 AM

    One who truly follows the Koran and believes it, is ordered to kill all enemies and non-believers. One who truly follows the Bible and believes it, is ordered to forgive his enemies and non-believers. Pretty easy to make a judgment on the divinity of that.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Except for the pesky Old Testament, of course.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I Think

I think I'm bored blogging. I think I'm done with it. I think what's the point? I think you should check out my blogroll instead. I think they say stuff better anyway.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell - Just Do It

Like most other gay folks, I was gratified the other night to hear President Obama announce at the State of the Union address his intention to put repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell on the agenda for 2010. Of course we were all hyped when we heard it the first time, too. Back when he was pandering the rainbow coalition for votes during his campaign, pledging to be a "fierce advocate" for LGBT rights. To start working toward getting rid of DADT during his first year as president was part of that promise. Not that he has totally snubbed us, I guess, but tagging him a "fierce advocate" is probably a stretch . It's really little wonder that much of the queer community reacted approvingly, but also with a fair amount of skepticism, the other night after hearing him vow again to do what he vowed once before with nothing gotten done so far. This DADT thing, I wouldn't think, should be such a big ordeal to get over and done with in short order. Even military p

Hung on the Cross

So what, I'm not very mature for my age. I don't care, I'm easily amused because of it, and I enjoy being amused. Like this picture of a crucifix which was hoisted a couple of months ago above the main altar at the St. Charles Borromeo Catholic church in Oklahoma: I can come up with lots of hilariously inappropriate captions here, some that even I am embarrassed to admit thinking up, despite my unabashed crudity. I would share but probably everyone else is too sophisticated to see the humor. Plus, I really don't want to go to Hell. I'm guessing that there are an awful lot of Okie parishioners down there at the church where this is hung for real, who I reckon wouldn't appreciate my sense of humor about it, either. They are, in general, hugely offended by it instead, because they see nothing funny whatsoever about displaying Jesus' ginormous penis in church, not in the least bit! Seems as though this has caused quite a "deep divide" among members o