Skip to main content

Reply to "Not a Sermon only a Thought"

ksazma posted:
Keith posted:


The “Miracle” of the Qur’an — The Christian Response

2. Eloquence of the Qur’an?

Concerning the Qur’an’s beauty, style, and eloquence, any unbiased reader would have to admit that this is certainly true of much of the Qur’an. However, eloquence itself is hardly a logical test for inspiration. If this were the criteria used to judge a work, then we would have to say that the authors of many of the great works of antiquity were inspired by God. Homer would have to have been a prophet for producing the magnificent Iliad and the Odyssey. In the English language Shakespeare is without a peer as a dramatist, but it would be ludicrous to say that because of this his tragedies were of divine origin. Likewise for the eloquence of the Qur’an.

But what about the consistency of the Qur’an — can it be used to show that this Muslim scripture was inspired? To begin with, it can be shown that the Qur’an is not totally consistent, but rather has some major contradictions in it.12 Even if we granted the thesis that the Qur’an was totally consistent this still would not prove anything. In an essay entitled “How Muslims Do Apologetics,” Dr. John Warwick Montgomery demonstrates this for us:

This apologetic is likewise of little consequence, for the self-consistency of a writing does not prove that it is a divine revelation. Euclid’s Geometry, for example, is not self-contradictory at any point, but no one claims that this work is therefore divinely inspired in some unique sense.13

And finally, what about Muhammad’s alleged illiteracy? First of all, there is a good deal of evidence against it. But even if we granted the fact that Muhammad could not read or write this still would not make the Qur’an miraculous. Why? Because all Muslims know that he had at least several amanuenses or scribes: and therefore, he could easily have composed the Qur’an in this fashion. This would not be unique, as there are precedents for this. One that most people will be familiar with concerns Homer. He was blind and thus, in all likelihood, could not write. Yet he was the author of the Iliad and the Odyssey, the two greatest epics of the ancient world. In like fashion the question of whether or not Muhammad was illiterate really has no hearing on the case in question.

Nothing Christian Research Institute wrote here makes any sense. They make several proclamations but provide any evidence to support them. They are not like me who usually present the Biblical passage that I am commenting on. I was looking forward to them listing these "major" contradictions but they never did. In fact, the Qur'an itself proclaimed that had it not been from God, it would have many contradictions. It is now some 1500 years later with us living in the information age where any document can be quickly and easily scrutinized through computer programming and still no contradictions in the Qur'an. The other proclamation is that Muhammad was not illiterate but then again no evidence of this. So far, CRI don't seem too committed to their work here. You need better materials, Bro. Keith.

Not surprise what mention you don't understand or it doesn't make sense to you especially when discrediting what you were trying to claim. It just doesn't fit your belief. We get it