The Bible Is Inaccurate And Camels Prove It, Archaeologists Claim

First topic message reminder :

Archaeologists have cast doubt on the accuracy of the Bible after uncovering new evidence about camels.

Carbon dating suggests the animals were not domesticated in Israel until the 9th century BC - hundreds of years after they were depicted in the Old Testament.

Camels feature in biblical stories involving Abraham and Joseph.

The research was carried out by Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen of Israel's Tel-Aviv University.

A statement from the university, reported in the Times of Israel, said the discrepancy “is direct proof that the [Biblical] text was compiled well after the events it describes”.

The archeologists found camel bones in layers that dated from the last third of the 10th century BC or later, long after they feature in the Bible.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/02/05/the-bible-camels_n_4730151.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

smelly_bandit wrote:

grumpy old git wrote:

are you deliberately thick or just didn't read the post correctly.....
I said TWO "holy books " ONE written by.....
and
one whos eventual contents.........

DOH!

im deliberately thick
When it comes to theology? Yes

but apparently you're a natural especially if you are saying that Muhammad wrote the qur'an

you really should do some research

ask any Muslim and they will swear blind that Muhammad was illiterate, its an argument they claim proves the Divinity of the qur'an.

in reality the qur'an went through same process that the bible did, since it was compiled into book format long after Muhammads death and even then there were several drafts before one was chosen but the later caliphs

anyway the NT is a mix of historical accounts,spiritual guide and moral compass  

and of course lets not forget that the UK and US are countries based on judeo christian values because people placed credence on the bible

you could of course go live in saudi arabia where your life would be very different


     

Yes some relevant but everything comes through Muhammad, absolutely everything to make the Quran. So what grumpy said was 100% accurate according to Muslims. As there only was one messenger, bringing this message was there not? So arguments on illiteracy? Moot, Muslims believe absurdly believed handed down by word of mouth, word for word, letter for letter with traditions as the word of a deity. So I agree the Quran went through the same process as with the bible, but as seen also grumpy was correct the message comes from only one desert dweller, just as is the same with Jesus, their words can make many chapters or countless works , but their story is just one book or half with the case of Christianity.

The NT cannot work without the OT, that is a fact if you are a follower of Christ.
We are based on Christian values, not Judaic, but this concept is also incorrect about our nation, because Christian values have tried to hinder any equality in this nation for the last few centuries, and every time they have tried, and yet society have denounced the Christian values and replaced them with sound reason.

PhilDidge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

im deliberately thick
When it comes to theology? Yes

but apparently you're a natural especially if you are saying that Muhammad wrote the qur'an

you really should do some research

ask any Muslim and they will swear blind that Muhammad was illiterate, its an argument they claim proves the Divinity of the qur'an.

in reality the qur'an went through same process that the bible did, since it was compiled into book format long after Muhammads death and even then there were several drafts before one was chosen but the later caliphs

anyway the NT is a mix of historical accounts,spiritual guide and moral compass  

and of course lets not forget that the UK and US are countries based on judeo christian values because people placed credence on the bible

you could of course go live in saudi arabia where your life would be very different


     

Yes some relevant but everything comes through Muhammad, absolutely everything to make the Quran. So what grumpy said was 100% accurate according Muslims, there only was one messenger bringing this message was there not? So arguments on illiteracy? Moot, Muslims believe absurdly handed down by word of mouth, word for word, letter for letter with traditions. So I agree the Quran went through the same process as with the bible, but as seen also grumpy was correct the message comes from only one desert dweller, just as is the same with Jesus, their words can make many chapters or countless works , but their story is just one book or half with the case of Christianity.

The NT cannot work without the OT, that is a fact if you are a follower of Christ.
We are based on Christian values, not Judaic, but this concept is also incorrect about our nation, because Christian values have tried to hinder any equality in this nation for the last few centuries, and every time they have tried, and yet society have denounced the Christian values and replaced them with sound reason.    

I believe his child bride had a lot to do with what was finally to become the complete writings and the understanding of it..

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Yes some relevant but everything comes through Muhammad, absolutely everything to make the Quran. So what grumpy said was 100% accurate according Muslims, there only was one messenger bringing this message was there not? So arguments on illiteracy? Moot, Muslims believe absurdly handed down by word of mouth, word for word, letter for letter with traditions. So I agree the Quran went through the same process as with the bible, but as seen also grumpy was correct the message comes from only one desert dweller, just as is the same with Jesus, their words can make many chapters or countless works , but their story is just one book or half with the case of Christianity.

The NT cannot work without the OT, that is a fact if you are a follower of Christ.
We are based on Christian values, not Judaic, but this concept is also incorrect about our nation, because Christian values have tried to hinder any equality in this nation for the last few centuries, and every time they have tried, and yet society have denounced the Christian values and replaced them with sound reason.    

I believe his child bride had a lot to do with what was finally to become the complete writings and the understanding of it..

The age of Aisha is up for debate, that though does not excuse from either religion, what violence happens within, something you avoid like the Plague.
The reality is Gods law from your faith is never changed, Jesus himself confirms this (John 10:35).and (Matthew 5:18)., just one example of many, Jesus never came to change any laws from God, he came to save humanity and change perceptions not born from the laws but by cultures. He created exceptions to laws and expanded on the original message like allowing women within his followers for example He broke not any of Gods laws but cultural taboo's. Your faith just like Islam is based on human laws, not something divine, which is obvious, nothing that intelligent would be flawed on his own words or where they might contradict

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

I believe his child bride had a lot to do with what was finally to become the complete writings and the understanding of it..

The age of Aisha is up for debate, that though does not excuse from either religion, what violence happens within, something you avoid like the Plague.
The reality is Gods law from your faith is never changed, Jesus himself confirms this (John 10:35).and (Matthew 5:18)., just one example of many, Jesus never came to change any laws from God, he came to save humanity, he created exceptions to laws and expanded on the original message like allowing women within his followers for example, he broke not Gods laws but cultural taboo's. Your faith just like Islam is based on human laws, not something divine, which is obvious, nothing that intelligent would be flawed on his own words or where they might contradict

there is no debate about muhammed's child bride he married her at five and had sex with her when she was nine..

Jesus came to fulfill the law..

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

The age of Aisha is up for debate, that though does not excuse from either religion, what violence happens within, something you avoid like the Plague.
The reality is Gods law from your faith is never changed, Jesus himself confirms this (John 10:35).and (Matthew 5:18)., just one example of many, Jesus never came to change any laws from God, he came to save humanity, he created exceptions to laws and expanded on the original message like allowing women within his followers for example, he broke not Gods laws but cultural taboo's. Your faith just like Islam is based on human laws, not something divine, which is obvious, nothing that intelligent would be flawed on his own words or where they might contradict

there is no debate about muhammed's child bride he married her at five and had sex with her when she was nine..

Jesus came to fulfill the law..

There is debate over the age
Well if you take the works where it states that age, another hadith conflicts with this from the same writer over the age, as well as other hadiths he collated. Of course how accurate are the hadiths, being as they did not come to far late they are not taken just as with the bible with historical accuracy. Example, the Gnostic gospels, you do not count due to clergy deciding what was the word of God, they be men/
There is no debate over the bible with age of consent, there is none,

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

there is no debate about muhammed's child bride he married her at five and had sex with her when she was nine..

Jesus came to fulfill the law..

There is debate over the age
Well if you take the works where it states that age, another hadith conflicts with this from the same writer over the age, as well as other hadiths he collated. Of course how accurate are the hadiths, being as they did not come to far late they are not taken just as with the bible with historical accuracy. Example, the Gnostic gospels, you do not count due to clergy deciding what was the word of God, they be men/
There is no debate over the bible with age of consent, there is none,

there is no debate at all there are enough record writings from even islamic sources to put it beyond the doubt of anyone, muhammed had sex with her when she was nine years old, it talks about her playing with toys when he came to her, literally.

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


There is debate over the age
Well if you take the works where it states that age, another hadith conflicts with this from the same writer over the age, as well as other hadiths he collated. Of course how accurate are the hadiths, being as they did not come to far late they are not taken just as with the bible with historical accuracy. Example, the Gnostic gospels, you do not count due to clergy deciding what was the word of God, they be men/
There is no debate over the bible with age of consent, there is none,

there is no debate at all there are enough record writings from even islamic sources to put it beyond the doubt of anyone, muhammed had sex with her when she was nine years old, it talks about her playing with toys when he came to her, literally.

Again, yes there is, the writer who claims the age contradicts himself over this age with another passage, you need to keep up to date. Also there is next to nothing in regards to original hadths. These so called words or deeds passed down were supposedly collated by men who knew no people in the time of Muhammad and you claim that this verse thus then proves beyond doubt.??

Sorry, that is just absurd, it is like claiming Moses must have parted the Red Sea based on no real evidence but a passage from only one book

So not only is it religion you know little about, but how we determine historical accuracy from the past

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

there is no debate at all there are enough record writings from even islamic sources to put it beyond the doubt of anyone, muhammed had sex with her when she was nine years old, it talks about her playing with toys when he came to her, literally.

Again, yes there is, the writer who claims the age contradicts himself over this age with another passage, you need to keep up to date. Also there is next to nothing in regards to original hadths. These so called words or deeds passed down were supposedly collated by men who knew no people in the time of Muhammad and you claim that this verse thus then proves beyond doubt.??

Sorry, that is just absurd, it is like claiming Moses must have parted the Red Sea based on no real evidence but a passage from only one book

So not only is it religion you know little about, but how we determine historical accuracy from the past

really i thought you said the koran was written by one person, how did they contradict themselves..

there is more than enough proof to show muhammed had sex with his nine year old bride and he ejaculated with her before that time, comments on her washing his semen from his clothes and leaving wet patches..

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Again, yes there is, the writer who claims the age contradicts himself over this age with another passage, you need to keep up to date. Also there is next to nothing in regards to original hadths. These so called words or deeds passed down were supposedly collated by men who knew no people in the time of Muhammad and you claim that this verse thus then proves beyond doubt.??

Sorry, that is just absurd, it is like claiming Moses must have parted the Red Sea based on no real evidence but a passage from only one book

So not only is it religion you know little about, but how we determine historical accuracy from the past

really i thought you said the koran was written by one person, how did they contradict themselves..

there is more than enough proof to show muhammed had sex with his nine year old bride and he ejaculated with her before that time, comments on her washing his semen from his clothes and leaving wet patches..

Poor claims again, when none were claimed

The Quran is written by one thing to Muslims, their deity through his chosen person, Muhammed You do though realise the Quran has no works/relevance to her age, being as the works that cover this are hadiths, not the Quran

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

really i thought you said the koran was written by one person, how did they contradict themselves..

there is more than enough proof to show muhammed had sex with his nine year old bride and he ejaculated with her before that time, comments on her washing his semen from his clothes and leaving wet patches..

Poor claims again, when none were claimed

The Quran is written by one thing to Muslims, their deity through his chosen person, Muhammed You do though realise the Quran has now works/relevance to her age, being as the works that cover this are hadiths, not the Quran

and do the hadiths and other writings get used to support the validity and idea of the koran??

there is more than enough information to show muhammed married his child bride at six and consummated that marriage when she was nine, there is also information of her washing his semen of his clothes before he went to prayers...

Volume 1, Book 4, Number 229:
Narrated 'Aisha:
I used to wash the traces of Janaba (semen) from the clothes of the Prophet and he used to go for prayers while traces of water were still on it (water spots were still visible).

No, there is two verses, one from a source where within this same source of  hadiths has another contradicts th agee , let alone more hadiths to contradict.

But you neglect the bible has no age limit and even worse you know bugger all about historicity, as clearly now you are saying no evidence of original hadiths to ones spring up out of thin air is historically accurate?

That is gobbledygook, w can only go off the unreliable sources which you are taking as historical, that again is absurd.
You are making claims to hearsay
Bye

PhilDidge wrote:No, there is two verses, one from a source where within this same source of  hadiths has another contradicts th agee , let alone more hadiths to contradict.

But you neglect the bible has no age limit and even worse you know bugger all about historicity, as clearly now you are saying no evidence of original hadiths to ones spring up out of thin air is historically accurate?

That is gobbledygook, w can only go off the unreliable sources which you are taking as historical, that again is absurd.
You are making claims to hearsay
Bye

Who is talking about the bible. it is not gobbledeygook at all it is documented evidence, she was six when she married muhammed, she was nine when he had sex with her and she used to wash his semen of his clothes in the mean time..it is all there to be seen..Volume 1, Book 4, Number 231:
Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar:
I asked 'Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied, "I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah's Apostle and he would go for the prayer while water spots were still visible. "

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:No, there is two verses, one from a source where within this same source of  hadiths has another contradicts th agee , let alone more hadiths to contradict.

But you neglect the bible has no age limit and even worse you know bugger all about historicity, as clearly now you are saying no evidence of original hadiths to ones spring up out of thin air is historically accurate?

That is gobbledygook, w can only go off the unreliable sources which you are taking as historical, that again is absurd.
You are making claims to hearsay
Bye

Who is talking about the bible. it is not gobbledeygook at all it is documented evidence, she was six when she married muhammed, she was nine when he had sex with her and she used to wash his semen of his clothes in the mean time..it is all there to be seen..Volume 1, Book 4, Number 231:
Narrated Sulaiman bin Yasar:
I asked 'Aisha about the clothes soiled with semen. She replied, "I used to wash it off the clothes of Allah's Apostle and he would go for the prayer while water spots were still visible. "

The Thread is about the bible and accuracy is it not, something clearly lost on you I guess, as these works you take as evidence are like with many points from the bible, down to faith. You have head of corroborating evidence have you not? Where works have no originals, and we know the source for these claims is based on no ore than a vocal tradition, the sources are very much unreliable, unless who have for example outside sources to corroborate. Are you now saying Jesus turned water into wine using this evidence alone?

Absurd

Byeeeee

the age of muhammeds child bride is proven beyond all doubt, as is the fact he had sex with her at nine...and in between the ages is washing semen off his clothes..

heavenly father wrote:the age of muhammeds child bride is proven beyond all doubt, as is the fact he had sex with her at nine...and in between the ages is washing semen off his clothes..

Hilarious, and of course going off that bases and illogical view point Jesus rose from the dead, walked on water, was a one man pub, just because two or more Gospels agree on this point.

DOH

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:the age of muhammeds child bride is proven beyond all doubt, as is the fact he had sex with her at nine...and in between the ages is washing semen off his clothes..

Hilarious, and of course going off that bases and illogical view point Jesus rose from the dead, walked on water, was a one man pub, just because two or more Gospels agree on this point.

DOH

what does that have to do with muhammed having a six year old bride and had sex with her at nine, and she had to wash his semen off between times...

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Hilarious, and of course going off that bases and illogical view point Jesus rose from the dead, walked on water, was a one man pub, just because two or more Gospels agree on this point.

DOH

what does that have to do with muhammed having a six year old bride and had sex with her at nine, and she had to wash his semen off between times...

Everything

It shows you have no idea about what is proven beyond doubt and a claim.
In this case, with have the author of a set of hadiths who's works clash because no point can be proven true without further evidence, hence a contention over the age, even more so when there are more than one hadith that do so.

Again, simple points for you to remember, next to no original hadiths, they are none in actual circulation until 150-200 years after Muhammad lived without any outside corroborating works and the works that are available clash with other hadiths or even in some cases the Quran,

Now to explain this, why do you not take the Gospel of Thomas as a true account of Jesus ?

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

what does that have to do with muhammed having a six year old bride and had sex with her at nine, and she had to wash his semen off between times...

Everything

It shows you have no idea about what is proven beyond doubt and a claim.
In this case, with have the author of a set of hadiths who's works clash because no point can be proven true without further evidence, hence a contention over the age, even more so when there are more than one hadith that do so.

Again, simple points for you to remember, next to no original hadiths, they are none in actual circulation until 150-200 years after Muhammad lived without any outside corroborating works and the works that are available clash with other hadiths or even in some cases the Quran,

Now to explain this, why do you not take the Gospel of Thomas as a true account of Jesus ?

lol..no it just proves you defend islam and the fact you do not accept the proof that you always demand from others..

muhammed married a six year old girl and had sex with her when she was nine and she had to wash his semen off, its been written about so much it is undeniable. the fact he used thighing has been admitted by islam.

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Everything

It shows you have no idea about what is proven beyond doubt and a claim.
In this case, with have the author of a set of hadiths who's works clash because no point can be proven true without further evidence, hence a contention over the age, even more so when there are more than one hadith that do so.

Again, simple points for you to remember, next to no original hadiths, they are none in actual circulation until 150-200 years after Muhammad lived without any outside corroborating works and the works that are available clash with other hadiths or even in some cases the Quran,

Now to explain this, why do you not take the Gospel of Thomas as a true account of Jesus ?

lol..no it just proves you defend islam and the fact you do not accept the proof that you always demand from others..

muhammed married a six year old girl and had sex with her when she was nine and she had to wash his semen off, its been written about so much it is undeniable. the fact he used thighing has been admitted by islam.

No it just proves I understand where with claims, they are just that compared to real evidence and you prove my point this is not about finding the truth, as you have made up your mind without even researching into this.
That means your arguments are based on faith.

That is not defending anything, which again is yet another pathetic attempt to cover your ignorance on a subject

http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/childbrides.htm

you might like to read this in fact a few might.

heavenly father wrote:http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/childbrides.htm

you might like to read this in fact a few might.

So now you cannot answer for yourself but have to use other arguments, I can do the same

http://www.islamawareness.net/FAQ/what_was_ayesha.html


Again both put forward arguments without reliable evidence, something you again miss

This shows again and proves my point you do not research and place blind faith on a view point

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/childbrides.htm

you might like to read this in fact a few might.

So now you cannot answer for yourself but have to use other arguments, I can do the same

http://www.islamawareness.net/FAQ/what_was_ayesha.html


Again both put forward arguments without reliable evidence, something you again miss

This shows again and proves my point you do not research and place blind faith on a view point

my quotes are official writings that say over and over that it is so where do we go from here...

she was six years old when he married her and nine year old when he had sex with her and it is all supported as is the washing of the semen of him...i've shown you writing from muslim scholars... :

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


So now you cannot answer for yourself but have to use other arguments, I can do the same

http://www.islamawareness.net/FAQ/what_was_ayesha.html


Again both put forward arguments without reliable evidence, something you again miss

This shows again and proves my point you do not research and place blind faith on a view point

my quotes are official writings that say over and over that it is so where do we go from here...

she was six years old when he married her and nine year old when he had sex with her and it is all supported as is the washing of the semen of him...i've shown you writing from muslim scholars... :

 ://?roflmao?/: 

Epic fail


The four main Gospels are official writings in Christianity, does not mean all they claim is true now does it?
That means many are down to faith, do you understand this?

Clearly not

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

my quotes are official writings that say over and over that it is so where do we go from here...

she was six years old when he married her and nine year old when he had sex with her and it is all supported as is the washing of the semen of him...i've shown you writing from muslim scholars... :

 ://?roflmao?/: 

Epic fail


The four main Gospels are official writings in Christianity, does not mean all they claim is true now does it?
That means many are down to faith, do you understand this?

Clearly not

really what four gospels mention muhammed having married a girl of six and had sex with her at nine and that she washed his semen off?? never seen that one in the bible, it is mentioned in suras and haddiths though..

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

 ://?roflmao?/: 

Epic fail


The four main Gospels are official writings in Christianity, does not mean all they claim is true now does it?
That means many are down to faith, do you understand this?

Clearly not

really what four gospels mention muhammed having married a girl of six and had sex with her at nine and that she washed his semen off?? never seen that one in the bible, it is mentioned in suras and haddiths though..

Oh my, it gets worse by the minute with absurd claims, again are you saying the bible is 100% accurate by such logic?

That shows how again badly you do not research but place blind faith and also idiotic associations now as well, when as already established the Christian faith has no age of consent

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

really what four gospels mention muhammed having married a girl of six and had sex with her at nine and that she washed his semen off?? never seen that one in the bible, it is mentioned in suras and haddiths though..

Oh my, it gets worse by the minute with absurd claims, again are you saying the bible is 100% accurate by such logic?

That shows how again badly you do not research but place blind faith and also idiotic associations now as well, when as already established the Christian faith has no age of consent  

i'm asking you what four gospels of the bible tell us muhammed married a six year old girl had sex with her when she was nine and she washed semen off?

other than that i haven't asked anything else. :D 

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Oh my, it gets worse by the minute with absurd claims, again are you saying the bible is 100% accurate by such logic?

That shows how again badly you do not research but place blind faith and also idiotic associations now as well, when as already established the Christian faith has no age of consent  

i'm asking you what four gospels of the bible tell us muhammed married a six year old girl had sex with her when she was nine and she washed semen off?



other than that i haven't asked anything else. :D 

I am telling you there is no age of consent in the bible, again your logic is not only hilarious but pure entertainment now

How old was Mary believed to be when pregnant?

12 to 14, the natural age for the time for a Jewish girl to marry.

Seriously, you want to go on about things whilst ignoring your own faith, of which I find very amusing

and again you guess at the age of Mary and you think that supports your argument while at the same time denying all the written evidence that says muhammered married a six year old, had sex with her when she was nine and she used to wash the semen off, how odd so your guess is greater evidence than the suras and haddiths and islamic scholars....

heavenly father wrote:and again you guess at the age of Mary and you think that supports your argument while at the same time denying all the written evidence that says muhammered married a six year old, had sex with her when she was nine and she used to wash the semen off, how odd so your guess is greater evidence than the suras and haddiths and islamic scholars....

We can make an educated guess on the age, hence the point here, it again does not mean I am right, so thank you for helping me prove my point

You really do struggle to understand many things, again because your ability to understand anything is clouded by prejudice and the blind stock you place in your own faith

Its also getting boring to try and reason with an imbecile, when they clearly do not understand historicity.

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:and again you guess at the age of Mary and you think that supports your argument while at the same time denying all the written evidence that says muhammered married a six year old, had sex with her when she was nine and she used to wash the semen off, how odd so your guess is greater evidence than the suras and haddiths and islamic scholars....

We can make an educated guess on the age, hence the point here, it again does not mean I am right, so thank you for helping me prove my point

You really do struggle to understand many things, again because your ability to understand anything is clouded by prejudice and the blind stock you place in your own faith

Its also getting boring to try and reason with an imbecile, when they clearly do not understand historicity.

why is an educated guess of yours, which i would call uneducated, be a stronger argument than the writings of the haddiths and suras, which I believe are used to support the Koran and its writings and islams own writings say he married a six year old girl, he had sex with her when she was nine years old and she used to wash the semen off in between times.

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


We can make an educated guess on the age, hence the point here, it again does not mean I am right, so thank you for helping me prove my point

You really do struggle to understand many things, again because your ability to understand anything is clouded by prejudice and the blind stock you place in your own faith

Its also getting boring to try and reason with an imbecile, when they clearly do not understand historicity.

why is an educated guess of yours, which i would call uneducated, be a stronger argument than the writings of the haddiths and suras, which I believe are used to support the Koran and its writings and islams own writings say he married a six year old girl, he had sex with her when she was nine years old and she used to wash the semen off in between times.

Hilarious again, the works you use conflict over the age, the point you miss, again it ill be down to faith.
Well Muslims believe many things, as do Christians, it does not mean many of the things they believe in are historical facts.


Not sure how many ways to explain this for you, but clearly you again have no idea!

Again your view is it is proven beyond doubt, that is not the case.

PhilDidge wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

why is an educated guess of yours, which i would call uneducated, be a stronger argument than the writings of the haddiths and suras, which I believe are used to support the Koran and its writings and islams own writings say he married a six year old girl, he had sex with her when she was nine years old and she used to wash the semen off in between times.

Hilarious again, the works you use conflict over the age, the point you miss, again it ill be down to faith.
Well Muslims believe many things, as do Christians, it does not mean many of the things they believe in are historical facts.


Not sure how many ways to explain this for you, but clearly you again have no idea!  

Again your view is it is proven beyond doubt, that is not the case.

the points do not conflict it is said in countless sura's that muhammed married a six year old girl, he had sex with her when she was nine and she used to wash the semen off him in the meantime, the idea you can deflect from that by your best guess of the age of Mary is laughable.

It is said in two hadiths, which again other hadiths conflict over, even from one with the same author, something you keep avoiding as you are either actually ignorant or choosing to ignore the fact hadiths to conflict

I can give a guess, it does not mean my guess is right, but it is also well known that Jewish girls could marry and did marry from the age of 12 for the time.

Again historicity, something you have not the first clue about and is like talking to a brick wall, which is usually the case with people so blind to faith

PhilDidge wrote:It is said in two hadiths, which again other hadiths conflict over, even from one with the same author, something you keep avoiding as you are either actually ignorant or choosing to ignore the fact hadiths to conflict

I can give a guess, it does not mean my guess is right, but it is also well known that Jewish girls could marry and did marry from the age of 12 for the time.

Again historicity, something you have not the first clue about and is like talking to a brick wall, which is usually the case with people so blind to faith

all the suras i quoted gave the same thing muhammed married her at 6 and had sex with her at nine years old and she washed semen off in the meantime ..

of course you can guess but as you always ask for proof you must realise that written evidence is far more substantial to an argument than your best guess.

Again that shows you have not a clue what you are talking about and am bored trying to reason with an imbecile:


So I will await someone to come back with something intelligent

PhilDidge wrote:Again that shows you have not a clue what you are talking about and am bored trying to reason with an imbecile:


So I will await someone to come back with something intelligent

which is classic phildidge for i cannot disprove the muhammed married a six year old girl who he had sex with when she was nine and she in the meantime used to wash the semen off but of course you can't because of all the documented evidence.

proof after proof shows muhammed married a six year old, had sex with her when she was nine and in the meantime she washed semen off..

What proof, there is nothing but claims to something written down two centuries after the event which as shown has verses that conflict from the same authors that compiled them into books. I do not even take the Quran as 100% authentic in regards to the fact of word being passed on by word of mouth, as words change and even have affect on meanings if not passed on word for word. Not failing that many of the verses that were written down were destroyed again leaving open the possibility if some were not stated my Muhammad. Hence why religion is down in the main to faith    


Here is something that shows why they are not acurate and agreed with by western Islamic scholars in the main that the hadiths are very unreliable:




Millions of Muslims all over the world have been brought up to believe that the collections of hadith by Bukhari and Moslim provide the authentic words and teachings of the prophet Muhammad. These two collections have been labelled "sahih" (authentic). The majority of these hadith portray a chain of narrators in a chinese whispers fashion attributing sayings to the Prophet (e.g. A said that B said that C said ....... that G said, that the Prophet said). Often the chain extends to seven names or even more, yet for some reason the hadith advocates still deemed these hadith to be the authentic and genuine sayings of the Prophet! With an extremely naive type of logic. It is assumed that every person in the chain, not only was totally honest, but that he had a super human memory to enable him to narrate accurately incidents that took place one hundred or two hundred years earlier.! How did they come to this conclusion?

http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/part_1/history_hadith_1_(P1148).html

http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/part_1/history_hadith_2_(P1308).html

PhilDidge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

im deliberately thick
When it comes to theology? Yes

but apparently you're a natural especially if you are saying that Muhammad wrote the qur'an

you really should do some research

ask any Muslim and they will swear blind that Muhammad was illiterate, its an argument they claim proves the Divinity of the qur'an.

in reality the qur'an went through same process that the bible did, since it was compiled into book format long after Muhammads death and even then there were several drafts before one was chosen but the later caliphs

anyway the NT is a mix of historical accounts,spiritual guide and moral compass  

and of course lets not forget that the UK and US are countries based on judeo christian values because people placed credence on the bible

you could of course go live in saudi arabia where your life would be very different


     

Yes some relevant but everything comes through Muhammad, absolutely everything to make the Quran. So what grumpy said was 100% accurate according to Muslims. As there only was one messenger, bringing this message was there not? So arguments on illiteracy? Moot, Muslims believe absurdly believed handed down by word of mouth, word for word, letter for letter with traditions as the word of a deity. So I agree the Quran went through the same process as with the bible, but as seen also grumpy was correct the message comes from only one desert dweller, just as is the same with Jesus, their words can make many chapters or countless works , but their story is just one book or half with the case of Christianity.

The NT cannot work without the OT, that is a fact if you are a follower of Christ.
We are based on Christian values, not Judaic, but this concept is also incorrect about our nation, because Christian values have tried to hinder any equality in this nation for the last few centuries, and every time they have tried, and yet society have denounced the Christian values and replaced them with sound reason.

you agree that the qur'an went through the same process but you dont understand how or why

if you had the slightest idea of the how or why then you would know that it didn't just come from one desert dweller but from hundreds

you're ignorant and you don't even know it

last thing

what is the official religion of the UK??

If the message was from only one person, the source is one person to Muslims, what I think is that it is many sources, so hence why the view point by grumpy would still be right, as this is what Muslims fundemental faith is about the fact it was brought by Muhammad, thus you did not get the point, being as you were too silly to see this point.

PhilDidge wrote:If the message was from only one person, the source is one person to Muslims, what I think is that it is many sources, so hence why the view point by grumpy would still be right, as this is what Muslims fundemental faith is about the fact it was brought by Muhammad, thus you did not get the point, being as you were too silly to see this point.
 

haven't a clue what you are trying to say

if you can rephrase that in coherent English i might have a response

:D 

SMELLY Bum is a fuckwit ~ it is simply impossible that a 16-year-old high school dropout troll like Smelly could possibly post an intelligent response to any arguments...

Smelly_bum is also a racist and neo-nazi piece of scum, so nobody can really expect any better !   

heavenly father wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:Again that shows you have not a clue what you are talking about and am bored trying to reason with an imbecile:


So I will await someone to come back with something intelligent

which is classic phildidge for i cannot disprove the muhammed married a six year old girl who he had sex with when she was nine and she in the meantime used to wash the semen off but of course you can't because of all the documented evidence.

  

"documented" evidence !!!

ONLY in that strange alternate universe that you and Smelly-bum seem to inhabit, Heavenly' !!   :-:bravo:-:

Beekeeper wrote::D 

SMELLY  Bum is a fuckwit ~ it is simply impossible that a 16-year-old high school dropout troll like Smelly could possibly post an intelligent response to any arguments...

Smelly_bum is also a racist and neo-nazi piece of scum, so nobody can really expect any better !     

ah bless

bee keeper wants a pat on the head  ::attn:: 

 

ONCE AGAIN, the Smelly_Bum_Bandit proves me right and correct in everything I've ever written against him...

THANKS, smelly'  ~  you never fail, in constantly showing yourself to be your own worse enemy..

 

PhilDidge wrote:
Archaeologists have cast doubt on the accuracy of the Bible after uncovering new evidence about camels.......................

The archeologists found camel bones in layers that dated from the last third of the 10th century BC or later, long after they feature in the Bible.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/02/05/the-bible-camels_n_4730151.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

   SOME simple facts that will always blow the smelly'/heavenly' approach to this argument "out of the water" :

* "The Bible" didn't even exist as one single volume until some 500 years after Christ's death;

* The first English version didn't show up until the 15th Century, some 900+ years later;

* That millennia in-between the 5th and 15th centuries then allowed for a lot of embellishment, expansion and "editorial freedom" by those faithful and hardworking monks, as they committed their life's work to hand-copying single copies (in Latin..) of their holy books..     

AND STILL, the smelly_one and the heavenly_fraud faithfully stick to their guns, digging themselves in deeper and deeper each post, making themselves sound even sillier week by week !