Bible And Quran Text Analysis Reveals 'Violence' More Common In Old And New Testament

[Thorolfr]

Here’s something interesting from a few days ago in the UK version of the Huffington Post:

An analysis of the Bible and the Quran has found that violence and destruction are discussed more frequently in Christian scripture than in the Islamic text.

In an effort to dispel the oft-mentioned argument that Islam is an “inherently violent religion”, an American software engineer processed the Holy books in order to find out how frequently savagery is mentioned.

Tom Anderson said: “The project was inspired by the ongoing public debate around whether or not terrorism connected with Islamic fundamentalism reflects something inherently and distinctly violent about Islam compared to other major religions.”

Anderson used software he developed, Odin Text, to analyse both the Old and New Testaments as well as an English-language version of the Quran dated from 1917.

It took just two minutes to complete the analysis and produce a series of data analysing the sentiment of words included in the scriptures.

Of eight emotions - joy, trust, fear, surprise, sadness, disgust, anger and anticipation - the Bible scored higher for anger and much lower for joy and trust than the Quran.

Delving into the Bible further revealed the Old Testament was distinctly more violent than the New Testament.

The process identified words such as “destroy”, “kills” and phrases such as “suffer vengeance”, as having violent connotations.

huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/09/bible-and-quran-text-analysis_n_9192596.html

 

[TonyBS]

With all this it is obvious the FUNDAMENTAL foundation of the Holy books is Love.

We have been created to Know and Love God, thus it stands to reason.

To me the warnings are often, because we mess it up often. The purpose of the warnings are to make us think and act only with Love.

May we all get to this aim.

Regards Tony

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

The article says that these findings are not intended to be conclusive, which is good because this doesn’t prove or disprove whether Mohammedanism is inherently violent. It didn’t look at the context of the violence or destruction, the example of Mohammed, the commands to do violence, and so forth.

 

[Thorolfr]

The article says that these findings are not intended to be conclusive, which is good because this doesn’t prove or disprove whether Mohammedanism is inherently violent. It didn’t look at the context of the violence or destruction, the example of Mohammed, the commands to do violence, and so forth.

Commands to do violence like this?

1 Samuel 15:2-3:

2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

Or like this?

Numbers 15:32-36:

32 When the Israelites were in the wilderness, **they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day. **33 Those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses, Aaron, and to the whole congregation. 34 They put him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him outside the camp.” 36 The whole congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.

 

[Servant19]

Commands to do violence like this?

1 Samuel 15:2-3:

Or like this?

Numbers 15:32-36:

The balanced perspective you present, as a Christian, is wonderfully and refreshingly just

God bless you!

.

 

[meltzerboy]

Commands to do violence like this?

1 Samuel 15:2-3:

Or like this?

Numbers 15:32-36:

This is why the Oral Torah or Talmud is so important in the reading of the Written Torah (Law). The latter is often written in such a manner that the meaning is not so clear or ever so shocking, particularly to a modern reader; however the Oral Torah clarifies the meaning by filling in the gaps. For example, stoning, harsh punishment that it was, was always a last resort and required a high threshold of evidence, that is, at least two reliable eyewitnesses to the crime. Further, doing work on the Sabbath has always been justified if that work involves the health and salvation of a human life. Therefore, no punishment at all would be meted out.

 

[MartinJordan]

This is why the Oral Torah or Talmud is so important in the reading of the Written Torah (Law). The latter is often written in such a manner that the meaning is not so clear or ever so shocking, particularly to a modern reader; however the Oral Torah clarifies the meaning by filling in the gaps. For example, stoning, harsh punishment that it was, was always a last resort and required a high threshold of evidence, that is, at least two reliable eyewitnesses to the crime. Further, doing work on the Sabbath has always been justified if that work involves the health and salvation of a human life. Therefore, no punishment at all would be meted out.

MJ

 

[ComplineSanFran]

This is why the Oral Torah or Talmud is so important in the reading of the Written Torah (Law). The latter is often written in such a manner that the meaning is not so clear or ever so shocking, particularly to a modern reader; however the Oral Torah clarifies the meaning by filling in the gaps. For example, stoning, harsh punishment that it was, was always a last resort and required a high threshold of evidence, that is, at least two reliable eyewitnesses to the crime. Further, doing work on the Sabbath has always been justified if that work involves the health and salvation of a human life. Therefore, no punishment at all would be meted out.

The Talmud is essential in understanding the Hebrew Scriptures. As are the commentaries on the Qur’an. I do know it’s rather simplistic to compare book and verse of the two, but it does help dispel stereotypes. I once did an exercise in a religion class I was teaching. I pulled about 40 verses from the Hebrew Bible, the Christian New Testament, and the Qur’an and asked the students to identify from which Scriptures they came.

Eyes were opened, shall we say.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Here’s something interesting from a few days ago in the UK version of the Huffington Post:

huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/02/09/bible-and-quran-text-analysis_n_9192596.html

The reasons this analysis should not be used to draw hard and fast conclusions about which religion is a religion of peace or not relates to how violence is viewed by the religions. The mere incidence of violence is insufficient evidence by which to draw conclusions about which religion endorses violence and how that violence is promoted.

This is why the study is a 30 000 ft view – it doesn’t make crucial distinctions. Much of the violence in the OT is against the Israelites or Jews themselves or against their bad behaviours or the horrific behaviours of those around them as a means of chastizing them. This study doesn’t take into account the reasons for the violence and the reasons for or purpose behind the use of violence within the narrative. Sure, the findings will convince shallow pacifists who decry all violence in principle, but that says nothing about the nature of the religions themselves.

Now, Thorolfr, you pointed out in another post that God ordered violence against the Amalekites but you make no mention of the fact that God gave them 300 years to reform their ways – ways which included child sacrifice, atrocities committed against innocent women and children and a number of other horrific deeds over a long period of time.

In the Qur’an, Allah orders the destruction of other peoples for the simple fact that they are not Muslim.

So, the reasons for the violence and how violence is viewed by the religions are key factors in determining which is better called a “religion of peace.” Mere frequency of words does not establish that. This is merely a quick and dirty analysis.

It is also interesting from the combox on the HuffPo site to see how the prejudices and biases of people come into play in their determinations. Some claimed this was “proof” of something they knew to be true despite the software engineer’s disclaimer that it shouldn’t be taken that way at all.

A better analysis would be to take passages (as integral wholes) that directly exhort or prescribe violence against members of the groups themselves for unjustified reasons or against other peoples merely because they are not members of the ingroup. It would be far better to contextualize the words within the narratives to determine the role that violence plays rather than just point out that violent words happen to appear in the text.

Barring that, this study is pretty much inconclusive with regard to making claims about any of the religions or members of those religions because it leaves entirely unrecognized the reasons for the mention of that violence.

A far better index would be to simply count the number of aggressive campaigns (wars, attacks, and the like) committed by the different religious groups on others purely for the sake of imposing their religion on those others through their entire history.

This video is instructive with regard to Islam and the Crusades.
youtu.be/HIeG_0WfaJw

Now Thorolfr points to a couple of campaigns by the Israelites on other peoples, but in actuality their weren’t many and certainly no offensive ones after the establishment of the kingdom under Saul and David. Islam was pretty much established across the Middle East, North Africa, Spain, Asia Minor, into Europe and Asia by military conquest.

The problem with reference to Christianity is that there is a distinction to be made between rulers, kingdoms and states which happen to be nominally “Christian” but which are motivated by other ends. Islam tends to be more political and ingrained in the political structure of the kingdoms and states it influences because of its nature and its end goals – i.e., to convert, by whatever means necessary, those outside of its domain.

Judaism never went out of its way to physically convert those outside of it and Christianity sought to do so by spreading its message. Sure, there have existed nominally “Christian” kingdoms or states that colonized and an aspect of that colonization was to spread Christianity, but the central motivation for colonization was not to spread Christianity it was to extend political power. The spread of Islam happened with intent by Muslim rulers and groups.

There are all kinds of distinctions to be made that this analysis leaves entirely untouched.

 

[pnewton]

This has got to be one of the all time dumbest projects I have ever seen. Superficial? It makes the Kardashians seem important in comparison. Anderson has serious errors.

1. Word count means nothing because:
   a. words have more than one meaning.
   b. words can and are used figuratively
   c. verbs require subjects and sometimes object to have meaning.
2. The cultures vary wildly, specifically , the Koran coming five centuries after the New Testament.
3. Neither the Old or New Testament are a single book or have a single author. The Old Testament covers two millennia, for example.
4. These are not the same genre. History uses different language than poetry, or prophecy, or apocalyptic literature.

I kills me how dead wrong Anderson is in this massacre of the scientific method, not that I am violent or anything.

 

[TARRAT]

The old testament has violence at a time and a place and at a particular person or group. What I know of the koran it’s violence is taken by its radicals as on going. Even in the analysis it says the new testament is not as violent and most of the violence is against Jesus. :twocents:

 

[powerofk]

Right. The OT is a historical record. Many of the orders to do violence are confusing today, in light of the NT. This is actually why Gnosticism became so popular - it was difficult for many to equate the war orders in the OT (especially in the Torah, Joshua, and Judges - where most of the violence actually takes place) with the loving Father presented by Jesus. Some figured that there must have been two gods! But in closer examination, God was doing two things - proving that He would always protect the Israelites as long as they were faithful to Him (and even if they abandoned Him, He would never let them completely perish) and trying to make sure that they would remain faithful to Him by removing people who would tempt them into faithlessness.

Regardless, except for Revelation (in which God’s judgment is the source of most of the violence), the violence in the NT is not done by Jesus and his followers, but to Jesus and the early Christians, who offer up no resistance (except for Peter chopping of Malchus’s ear, which was immediately condemned by Jesus - who immediately cured the injury).

 

[Peter_Plato]

This has got to be one of the all time dumbest projects I have ever seen. Superficial? It makes the Kardashians seem important in comparison. Anderson has serious errors.

1. Word count means nothing because:
   a. words have more than one meaning.
   b. words can and are used figuratively
   c. verbs require subjects and sometimes object to have meaning.
2. The cultures vary wildly, specifically , the Koran coming five centuries after the New Testament.
3. Neither the Old or New Testament are a single book or have a single author. The Old Testament covers two millennia, for example.
4. These are not the same genre. History uses different language than poetry, or prophecy, or apocalyptic literature.

I kills me how dead wrong Anderson is in this massacre of the scientific method, not that I am violent or anything.

Well, I don’t know about your claim to not being violent. The fact that you used four words related to killing or violence in the last sentence alone seems to indicate otherwise.

Seriously, though. Reading through the combox on HuffPo, it is astounding how many self-described “intelligent” people take the analysis as “proof” of some preconceived animosity of theirs against all religion as if we should, therefore, trust that they arrived at that preconception by some careful thought process.

That is the thing I find most ironical and not at all irenical, despite that those who posted there claim to be against violence.

 

[twf]

As others have said it’s meaningless. I very much doubt his software took into account 1) textual context 2) historical context 3) literary device and genre 4) traditional commentary / sacred tradition.

I know for a fact the Quran allows a man to physically discipline his sinful wife. You won’t find that in the bible. Does the script look at the context of the violence? Who it’s directed at? Who is carrying it out? Just a tally of key words is absolutely useless but I can see those not schooled in the humanities eating it up.

 

[Thorolfr]

The problem with reference to Christianity is that there is a distinction to be made between rulers, kingdoms and states which happen to be nominally “Christian” but which are motivated by other ends. Islam tends to be more political and ingrained in the political structure of the kingdoms and states it influences because of its nature and its end goals – i.e., to convert, by whatever means necessary, those outside of its domain.

So Muslim violence is different from Christian violence?

Were the Franciscans in Mexico only “nominally Christian”? For example, in his Account of the Things of Yucatan, Diego de Landa, Bishop of Yucatan from 1571-1579, wrote (p. 70):

These people also make use of certain characters or letters, with which they wrote in their books their ancient matters and their sciences, and by these and by drawings and by certain signs in these drawings they understood their affairs and made others understand and taught them. We found a large number of these books in these characters and, as they contained nothing in which there was not to be seen superstition and lies of the devil, we burned them all, which they regretted to an amazing degree and which caused them great affliction.

In 1561 some years before becoming Bishop of Yucatan, Diego de Landa was elected head (Provincial) of the Franciscans in Yucatan. Shortly after this, it was discovered that some of the Mayan Indians had been secretly keeping some idols from their old religions. So, according to a Spanish eyewitness (Inga Clendinan, Ambivalent Conquest: Maya and Spaniard in Yucatan, 1517-1570, p. 74):

When the Indians confessed to having so few idols (one, two or three) the friars proceeded to string up many of the Indians, having tied their wrists together with cord, and thus hoisted them from the ground, telling them that they must confess all the idols they had, and where they were. The Indians continued saying they had no more…and so the friars ordered great stones attached to their feet, and so they were left to hang for a space, and if they still did not admit to a greater quantity of idols they were flogged as they hung there, and had burning wax splashed on their bodies.

According to Inga Clendinnen, Ambivalent Conquest: Maya and Spaniard in Yucatan, 1517-1570 (Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 76:

More than 4,500 Indians were put to the torture during the three months of the inquisition, and an official inquiry later established that 158 had died during or as a direct result of the interrogations. At least thirteen people were known to have committed suicide to escape the torture, while eighteen others, who had disappeared, were thought to have killed themselves. Many more had been left crippled, their shoulder muscles irreparably torn, their hands paralyzed ‘like hooks’.

 

[TonyBS]

So Muslim violence is different from Christian violence?

Were the Franciscans in Mexico only “nominally Christian”? For example, in his Account of the Things of Yucatan, Diego de Landa, Bishop of Yucatan from 1571-1579, wrote (p. 70):

In 1561 some years before becoming Bishop of Yucatan, Diego de Landa was elected head (Provincial) of the Franciscans in Yucatan. Shortly after this, it was discovered that some of the Mayan Indians had been secretly keeping some idols from their old religions. So, according to a Spanish eyewitness (p. 74):

According to Inga Clendinnen, Ambivalent Conquest: Maya and Spaniard in Yucatan, 1517-1570 (Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 76:

Thank you it is refreshing to find a person that does not suffer from Religion Amnesia.

It is from the past we learn, the lesson here is to learn is predudices of any kind lead to ungodly actions. Actions not sanctioned by the very Word we profess to follow.

Also need to consider the Lawful framework given by God in our understanding of harsh Justice. We are all under His law, Bounty, Grace, Mercy, Wrath and Judgement

Regards Tony

 

[Peter_Plato]

So Muslim violence is different from Christian violence?

I wouldn’t think there is any such reality as “Muslim violence” or “Christian violence.” What there might be are distinctions to be made between such terms as “senseless violence,” and “justifiable violence,” among others.

The mere fact that there some incidents of violence in the histories of all religions ignores the prevalence of those incidences and the integral role that the religion itself played in those. These are all interesting questions which ought to be discussed candidly, but which also require a comprehensive understanding of history and a full awareness of the significance and prevalence of such acts within the entire narrative.

You can’t isolate such negative incidents from others which would bring a different light to them.

Note: I can’t finish this post at the moment, but I will let the thought stand.

 

[pnewton]

So Muslim violence is different from Christian violence?

I thought this thread was about the usefulness or lack of counting words in determining theological content. Is this whole thread just a way to bash, Christians, specifically Catholics as that is the only violence you mentioned, omitting violence done against them by Protestants.

I do not like the either phrase “Muslim violence” or Christian violence" because all those who resort to excessive violence are giving into an evil that is inherent in them individually, not because they are Catholic, Muslim, Lutheran, or Anglican. But yes, there is one, big, glaring, gigantic, huge difference that should be obvious to anyone and is most germane to any discussion of evil in the world today.

 

[pnewton]

Thank you it is refreshing to find a person that does not suffer from Religion Amnesia.

No one has amnesia. That was silly. Did you notice he only used Catholic examples?

 

[Thorolfr]

Is this whole thread just a way to bash, Christians, specifically Catholics as that is the only violence you mentioned, omitting violence done against them by Protestants.

Actually, my first two examples were of Israelite violence in the Old Testament.