A little response to "How Did the Apostles Die?"
Jeff Epler errancy@infidels.org
Sun, 25 Jul 1999 08:41:40 -0500 (00932928100, 19990725084140.A29252@craie.inetnebr.com)
THEO:
> > Since the Bible contradicts the Qur'an (compare John 3:16 and Sura 9:30,
> etc.), >we know that the Qur'an is not the word of God.
>
On Sun, Jul 25, 1999 at 01:53:26AM -0700, Farrell Till wrote:
> Oh, my, Theo, is this an example of the kind of "apologetics" we
> can expect from you? Your circular reasoning begs the very question
> you are trying to prove, which is that the Bible is the word of God.
> Hence, you are arguing like this: (1) The Bible is the word of God.
> (2) The Qur'an cannot be the word of God, because it contradicts the
> Bible, and the Bible is the word of God.
To his credit, I don't think this is Theo's argument. I think it was this:
1. The Qur'an claims [Sura 9:30].
2. The Bible claims [John 3:16].
3. But (1) and (2) are contradictory.
4. "[T]he Qur'an claims to confirm the bible."
5. Therefore, the Qur'an is internally inconsistent.
Now, of course, we *do* agree with (5), but the point here is that if you
use the same standard of proof, you get:
1. The OT claims that an offering of flour is sufficient to
forgive sins.
2. The NT claims that only an offering of blood is sufficient to
forgive sins.
3. But (1) and (2) are contradictory.
4. The NT claims to confirm the OT.
5. Therefore, the NT is internally inconsistent.
So, if we take Theo's reasoning to *not* be question-begging, but instead
formulate it in an even half-rigorous way, we see that the same argument
proves Christianity a sham. Of course, Theo accepts the argument about the
Qur'an, but not the one about the NT, so I expect he'll explain to us
straight away what important difference there is between the two proofs,
and that also without begging the question.
Jeff
--
\/ http://www.infidels.org/ Jeff Epler jepler@inetnebr.com
The cable TV sex channels don't expand our horizons, don't make us better
people, and don't come in clearly enough.
-- Bill Maher