Is there a contradiction in the Qur'an?

[Abaddon_ire]

They're not, you didn't even point to a contradiction. Creating man from nothing, from blood of clot, from sperm, are just different aspects of creation. It's really moronic to think describing stuff in different, complementary ways is somewhat contradictory.

I pointed out a crapton of contradictions. And I have many more. But you cant even be honest with the first one. You are compelled to flat out lie.

The trinity doctrine was implemented and adopted in the council. The latter, as a result, clearly had a decisive impact on the present-day christian doctrine.

Roling, rolling, rolling see those goalposts rollint rawhide!!!!
The Nicean councils did not do that. Pretending they did is a lie.

Of course christian literature doesn't acknowledge this, they treat the origin of their gospels as a problem though. There are literally dozens of theories explaining their origin, attempting to solve what they refer to as the synoptic problem. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels#Theories

BS. You lied. Admit it. The canon was set in 382 CE at the council of Rome. You have not the foggiest clue what you are spouting on about.

This is enough for me to conclude there is no comparison between the reliability of the Qur'an and that of the O/NT. The former began virtually as an audio book, mouth to ear recitation of hundreds of companions of Muhammad. They heard every word of the Qur'an verbatim from their prophet. This is very very different from what christians face to back up the historicity of their holy book.

The christians cannot back up their holy book. The muslims cannot back up their holy book. Nobody can back up any holy book.

Except for Nay_Sayer, who can back up his holy book. Isn't that strange?

How do you know that.. exactly?

That would be science. You know, the thing you reject while fucking using it to post right fucking here.

It's really retarded to claim you know some god isn't real. At least say no evidence convinced you.

There is no evidence to convince me. You have none at all.

Has any deity been proven real? It is rather simple. I will believe pretty much anything given sufficient evidence. But you have none. If you were to prove allah the shit real, I would believe in him/her/it/housecat. But I guarantee I would spit on him/her/it/housecat, because as described it's a cunt.

Blasphemy. That is merely amusing. How can one give offence to an imaginary being?

I have no problem using the term "allah the shit" because I have freedom of speech. You want to stop that.

Why do you oppose freedom of speech?

Because you do not want freedom. Your imaginary god has told you it is wrong. But it wasn't your imaginary god. It was your very real imam who told you. Odd that, no?

So should I kill my eldest child?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Okay, pal. I got it. You consider these conversations to be useless. Stay true to your word and don't bring this up, especially when you're not ready to have a lengthy discussion about the supposed mistakes. What you're doing now is a meta discussion, even more useless.....

I'm explaining to you how you have made them useless.  

You can use this information to improve your delivery - or not.

Further examples of exactly how you fuck the pooch follow below.

You got it. More importantly, it doesn't contain any mistakes. Just say out loud atheists so we can move on.

No one handed me anything, pal. People here just type errors in the Qur'an in any search engine and vomit what they find. Not that I blame them, but I expected to have a challenge worthy of skeptics that really looked up abrahamic religions... or not

It's a miracle, except when it isn't, which it is...and it's accurate, except when it isn't, but it doesn't need to be because that's not the point of magic book - and it wouldn't mean anything if magic book got it wrong..

Which it does....but, obviously, given the litany of bad faith arguments and incompetent reasons™ you've spouted off just in this thread, just in these last few hours...couldn't possibly matter to you.  I've always been ready to state a fact and move on, especially when that fact isn't really pertinent to the underlying contention.

If you'll recall, I found no point in arguing over whether mistakes are mistakes, because it doesn't matter that there are mistakes in magic book - it's just not surprising that a google search will turn up an endless buffet of them.

So us actually providing sources is apparently bad 

---

I am just asking to show me exactly, where the Qur'an got it wrong. Just go back and read the first attempt Ire made. Is copy pasting five verses decribing various stuff amounts to a mistake.......? Is that the best you can do.?

If it's trivial to you that our holy book is not holy... help us then get to that, by bringing trivially clear mistakes ...?

Too which you have and will provide nothing but mental gymnastics and excuses

It matters to me a lot. I suggest you take some time - or someone else, to really get to the bottom of these claimed mistakes. If you think otherwise that I'm fine with reading a book I know is filled with mistakes for two decades now,....well, I'm not fine with that.

1.So far we have and you have not 

2.No i think you are fine with it 

3.The length of time is irrelevant

[The Grand Nudger]

It's a miracle, except when it isn't, which it is...and it's accurate, except when it isn't, but it doesn't need to be because that's not the point of magic book - and it wouldn't mean anything if magic book got it wrong..

I am just asking to show me exactly, where the Qur'an got it wrong. Just go back and read the first attempt Ire made. Is copy pasting five verses decribing various stuff amounts to a mistake.......? Is that the best you can do.?

If it's trivial to you that our holy book is not holy... help us then get to that, by bringing trivially clear mistakes ...?

-So you can argue that a mistake is not a mistake, as you have at every opportunity in past.  Pointless.  We've agreed that the presence or absence of mistakes means diddly squat, haven't we?  

It matters to me a lot. I suggest you take some time - or someone else, to really get to the bottom of these claimed mistakes. If you think otherwise that I'm fine with reading a book I know is filled with mistakes for two decades now,....well, I'm not fine with that.

In what way?  There's a good discussion that doesn't require you to argue that mistakes are not mistakes.  

In what way would it matter to you if there were internal errors in magic book, and in what way would it matter to you if there weren't? Why would it matter if magic book contained internal or external mistakes? Presumably, the truth of what matters to you, in magic book...isn't related to whatever internal or external mistakes it contains. Like aesops fables, it doesn't really matter if a talking hare and a talking turtle never got into a footrace.

Not the point, right?

[The Architect Of Fate]

I pointed out a crapton of contradictions. And I have many more. But you cant even be honest with the first one. You are compelled to flat out lie.

Roling, rolling, rolling see those goalposts rollint rawhide!!!!
The Nicean councils did not do that. Pretending they did is a lie.

BS. You lied. Admit it. The canon was set in 382 CE at the council of Rome. You have not the foggiest clue what you are spouting on about.

The christians cannot back up their holy book. The muslims cannot back up their holy book. Nobody can back up any holy book.

Except for Nay_Sayer, who can back up his holy book. Isn't that strange?

That would be science. You know, the thing you reject while fucking using it to post right fucking here.

There is no evidence to convince me. You have none at all.

Has any deity been proven real? It is rather simple. I will believe pretty much anything given sufficient evidence. But you have none. If you were to prove allah the shit real, I would believe in him/her/it/housecat. But I guarantee I would spit on him/her/it/housecat, because as described it's a cunt.

So should I kill my eldest child?

1. Saying exactly when the Trinity was adopted is messy even after the second council of not everyone was on board .Some historians argue it wasn't till 361 AD .If we mean the conception of the trinity that was well before the council and it's not like christians pull this idea out of thin air for example you have Matthew 28:19 etc .

2.But your right it was the council of Rome at least for a pre 5th century cannon  though it's origins may actually be due to the Bishop of Alexandria who came up with a list identical to the new testament. But i will  point out the Book Of Revelations was not adopted till the 5th century so one could argue there 

[SometimesFactsAreUnpopular]

There are many contradictions in the Quran.

[The Architect Of Fate]

There are many contradictions in the Quran.

Indeed 

https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/

Now watch him cry ..Waahh copy and paste !

[SometimesFactsAreUnpopular]

I doubt he will be crying. Religious people are often quite happy.

They're often quite miserable as well, of course. But I still doubt he will be crying.

[The Architect Of Fate]

I doubt he will be crying. Religious people are often quite happy.

They're often quite miserable as well, of course. But I still doubt he will be crying.

Cry in the sense of complaint not sadness

[SometimesFactsAreUnpopular]

Hm. I'm not aware of such a sense.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Hm. I'm not aware of such a sense.

Cry as in a proclamation of protest 

Example 

Mike cried out "That's just copy and paste!"