NationStates Jolt Archive

(Deleted)

Oh jeez. Here we go.

I'll get some popcorn.

This is one assumption that does my head in: the Qur'an hasn't changed. The original, Arabic version, MAY not have changed since it has been written (but then it aint been around as long as the Holy Bible), but the majority of people who read the Qur'an, at least in the Western World, do not read the original but instead read a translation that is in their own language. As with the translated Bible copies, the translations of the Qur'an can never be EXACTLY what the original says, due to a word having more than one meaning, the same woprd meaning differet things in different countries, etc.

As for Bible 'versions', with the exception of a few (usually the 'revised' versions) as anyone can type a load of words and call it 'The Bible' - just like anyone can type a load of words and call it 'The Qur'an'), they say the same thing, they are just written differently to be more accessible to different people (for example, the King James Bible uses the phrase 'prevent us Oh Lord' - where 'prevent' means something entirely different from what it means today, due to language changing. If someone read the King James Bible without having knowledge of how language was used at that time, they could get the meanings VERY wrong. But (apart from those aforementioned few), no Bible has a major doctrinal difference.

Versions of the Qur'an: There are many English translations of the Qur'an, written by different people - and there are differences between the copies, including major differences. The writers just had the sense not to call them 'versions'. For example, it is well known that sura 4.34 says to beat your wife if you fear she will leave you, but I have an English copy which omits the latter part of that passage.

OK let me add something I forgot to add: The ORIGINAL Bible in its Aramaic, Greek, and Latin forms has not changed either. But people who claim the Qur'an has not changed often claim that the Bible has. So in summary:

ORIGINAL QUR'AN: Never changed, but hasn't had as long to be changed as hasn't been around as long as the Bible
ORIGINAL BIBLE: Never changed

TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE: Different from original due to language changing, but still meaning the same thing in today's language as they would have meant if they had stayed in the original language and we still spoke in that original language
TRANSLATIONS OF THE QUR'AN: Different from original due to language changing, but still meaning the same thing in today's language as they would have meant if they had stayed in the original language and we still spoke in that original language

VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE: Different, but (with minor exceptions, usually 'revised' versions) mean the same thing, just written in different ways, and no major doctrinal difference
VERSIONS OF THE QUR'AN: These too exist, and have differences

In other news, scientists are investigating claims that the sky is "blue". More at 11.

And?

The same thing could be said about the Bible. It was changed when adopted for Protestant Christianity, and each denomination has its own preferred version, with the most popular being the King James Bible.

Read what I wrote about that.

Oh jeez. Here we go.

Read what I wrote about that.

I tried to delete my post but time warp made it the first one so I couldn't. :rolleyes:

So...erm...what, exactly, are we meant to be debating here?

In other news, scientists are investigating claims that the sky is "blue". More at 11.
Pfft. Scientists. :rolleyes:

I lost all respect for any of them after their outlandish claims that water is "wet".

so its like me copying from a history book in my own words and so what your saying is 'a contemporary source is more reliable'

http://www.kooties.com/_images/kooties_singles/clever_kootie.jpg

as for your general point well religion is silly as such why should anyone have to follow a strict wording or interpretation

So...erm...what, exactly, are we meant to be debating here?

That shit stinks.


Apparently. Oh, and the Pope IS Catholic.

And?

Well it's just that a lot of people (mainly Muslims) keep claiming the Qur'an has never changed.

Well it's just that a lot of people (mainly Muslims) keep claiming the Qur'an has never changed.

See, now this is where you provide sources.

So...erm...what, exactly, are we meant to be debating here?That Christian religion is good and Islam is teh Ebil. Silly I V. Surely you can't possibly have missed the OP's subtle sig?

http://www.kooties.com/_images/kooties_singles/clever_kootie.jpg:)

That Christian religion is good and Islam is teh Ebil. Silly I V. Surely you can't possibly have missed the OP's subtle sig?

:)
The OP appears to be Kryozerkia...;)

That Christian religion is good and Islam is teh Ebil. Silly I V. Surely you can't possibly have missed the OP's subtle sig?


I'm so sick of people asserting this, every single time someone says something about islam. When ever a thread is made about muslims, someone else always goes, "yeah all hes really saying is ZOMG t3h 333b1lll mussleemmmsss" even though there is no reason to assume that he is saying anything similar of the sort.

I'm so sick of people asserting this, every single time someone says something about islam. When ever a thread is made about muslims, someone else always goes, "yeah all hes really saying is ZOMG t3h 333b1lll mussleemmmsss" even though there is no reason to assume that he is saying anything similar of the sort.

I think Multiland is 'subtly' hinting that the Qur'an is a load of bull, though.

See, now this is where you provide sources.

I havn't got any sources, but just to be a second witness I have also seen many people claim that the Qur'an has not stayed the same.

I think Multiland is 'subtly' hinting that the Qur'an is a load of bull, though.

And? People frequently say that the Bible is a load of bull but that isn't taken to be an attack on the character of Christians.

I think Multiland is 'subtly' hinting that the Qur'an is a load of bull, though.

Yeah obviously, but i'm still sick of it happening in every thread.

And saying that it is a load of bullshit, is different from saying it's "evil".

And? People frequently say that the Bible is a load of bull but that isn't taken to be an attack on the character of Christians.

It can be taken like that by a lot of people. Not me, it's just a matter of opinion, but some do.

Yeah obviously, but i'm still sick of it happening in every thread.

And saying that it is a load of bullshit, is different from saying it's "evil".

Yeah, I'm sick of it as well. And yes it is different, I agree.

Well it's just that a lot of people (mainly Muslims) keep claiming the Qur'an has never changed.
I haven't heard anyone claim that, but if they want to, that's fine by me. Compared to the whole believing in the invisible friend upstairs thing, believing a book hasn't changed is relatively minor.

Well it's just that a lot of people (mainly Muslims) keep claiming the Qur'an has never changed.
And the basis for this claim is, as you say...
This is one assumption that does my head in: the Qur'an hasn't changed. The original, Arabic version, MAY not have changed since it has been written

See?

Or let me put it this way:
Which is the authorative version of the Koran? The arabic version.

Why? Because it's supposedly the literal word of God.

What does this entail? Translations of the divine speech og the Koran into other languages are necessarily the work of humans and no longer possess the uniquely sacred character of the Arabic original.

Eh? What? This means that scholars, purists and others regard these translations as necessarily falling short and thus dub them interpretations.

So, the Koran hasn't changed? One can arguably claim that it hasn't, and that all you're seeing are interpretations of the Koran.

In conclusion:
Not changed, but being interpreted. The original text is the same.

Are we done here?

This is one assumption that does my head in: the Qur'an hasn't changed. The original, Arabic version, MAY not have changed since it has been written (but then it aint been around as long as the Holy Bible), but the majority of people who read the Qur'an, at least in the Western World, do not read the original but instead read a translation that is in their own language. As with the translated Bible copies, the translations of the Qur'an can never be EXACTLY what the original says, due to a word having more than one meaning, the same woprd meaning differet things in different countries, etc.

As for Bible 'versions', with the exception of a few (usually the 'revised' versions) as anyone can type a load of words and call it 'The Bible' - just like anyone can type a load of words and call it 'The Qur'an'), they say the same thing, they are just written differently to be more accessible to different people (for example, the King James Bible uses the phrase 'prevent us Oh Lord' - where 'prevent' means something entirely different from what it means today, due to language changing. If someone read the King James Bible without having knowledge of how language was used at that time, they could get the meanings VERY wrong. But (apart from those aforementioned few), no Bible has a major doctrinal difference.

Versions of the Qur'an: There are many English translations of the Qur'an, written by different people - and there are differences between the copies, including major differences. The writers just had the sense not to call them 'versions'. For example, it is well known that sura 4.34 says to beat your wife if you fear she will leave you, but I have an English copy which omits the latter part of that passage.

Multiland, go find some lesbian twin porn and fap to it.

This is one assumption that does my head in: the Qur'an hasn't changed. The original, Arabic version, MAY not have changed since it has been written (but then it aint been around as long as the Holy Bible), but the majority of people who read the Qur'an, at least in the Western World, do not read the original but instead read a translation that is in their own language. As with the translated Bible copies, the translations of the Qur'an can never be EXACTLY what the original says, due to a word having more than one meaning, the same woprd meaning differet things in different countries, etc.

Entirely correct. Which is why all translations of the Koran are supposed to have a disclaimer stating exactly that, while urging people to read the original.

Are we done here?

Of course not. We haven't bled the subject dry yet ;)

In later news, scientists have discovered that water is, in fact, wet.

Is it really that big a deal that a holy book has gone through an editorial process?
Your New Testament wasn't even a coherent book until Constantine basically forced the Chrisitan leaders of the time to put the contents of it to a vote. If that isn't "Not staying the same" I don't know what is.

Yeah obviously, but i'm still sick of it happening in every thread.

And saying that it is a load of bullshit, is different from saying it's "evil".

You're certainly right as far as strictly the text of the OP goes. If anybody else had posted it, I wouldn't have cared one way or another. But excuse me if "before Mohammed -a false prophet (whom the Bible warned of)- made some stuff up" in a size 6 font in the author's sig strikes me very much as screaming that not only is Islam bullshit but it is indeed evil, too.

Purporting to rationally and objectively discuss the differences between the holy scriptures of two religions while yelling through a bullhorn that one is true and good and the other one is bullshit and dangerous inherently disqualifies the speaker from being taken and debated with seriously.

Of course not. We haven't bled the subject dry yet ;)

*sigh* Can you pass the popcorn?

See, now this is where you provide sources.

It is a commonly and firmly held belief for muslims.

So much so that the preservation of the original word of God (as muslims see it) in the form of Qur'an is considered as a miracle and proof that Qur'an is indeed the word of God (yeah, I know circular reasoning and all that....).

I am not bored enough to link to what is common knowledge. Ask Soviestan. :p

Purporting to rationally and objectively discuss the differences between the holy scripts of two religions while yelling through a bullhorn that one is true and good and the other one is bullshit and dangerous inherently disqualifies the speaker from being taken and debated with seriously.

Why? You technically believe the same thing he does about the Qur'an (unless your a muslim). The only thing you don't agree with is him believing the Bible is true. So what you are basically saying is you can't have a rational discussion with him because he is a christian.

OK let me add something I forgot to add: The ORIGINAL Bible in its Aramaic, Greek, and Latin forms has not changed either. But people who claim the Qur'an has not changed often claim that the Bible has. So in summary:

ORIGINAL QUR'AN: Never changed, but hasn't had as long to be changed as hasn't been around as long as the Bible
ORIGINAL BIBLE: Never changed

TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE: Different from original due to language changing, but still meaning the same thing in today's language as they would have meant if they had stayed in the original language and we still spoke in that original language
TRANSLATIONS OF THE QUR'AN: Different from original due to language changing, but still meaning the same thing in today's language as they would have meant if they had stayed in the original language and we still spoke in that original language

VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE: Different, but (with minor exceptions, usually 'revised' versions) mean the same thing, just written in different ways, and no major doctrinal difference
VERSIONS OF THE QUR'AN: These too exist, and have differences

Purporting to rationally and objectively discuss the differences between the holy scriptures of two religions while yelling through a bullhorn that one is true and good and the other one is bullshit and dangerous inherently disqualifies the speaker from being taken and debated with seriously.

Why ? Decent arguments are decent arguments. Far more tiresome to listen to if presented like that- yes, but not necessarily wrong.

The "wrongness" here is not that the claim that translations are imperfect - that is in fact quite true. It is the suggestion that muslems are unaware of/deny that fact.

In other news, scientists are investigating claims that the sky is "blue". More at 11.

Not so fast.

Most practicing muslims consider the Qur'an they have now (the Arabic ones, not the translations into other languages), is the original and uncorrupted word of God as it was revealed to Muhammed by Gabriel.

We can debate if this belief is based on factual truth or evidences and the plausibility of such claims.....but the belief is there amongst all practicing muslims. It is one of the central tenets of the faith.

Your New Testament wasn't even a coherent book until Constantine basically forced the Chrisitan leaders of the time to put the contents of it to a vote. If that isn't "Not staying the same" I don't know what is.

Well, the four Gospels were generally accepted as canonical by 180CE. It was Marcion's gnostic preachings which prompted agreement on the contents of the New Testament, Constantine's only real contribution was to commission a set of decorative Bibles for each of the major churches.

For starters you are not technically suppose to translate the Qur'an from it's Arabic form. With that said I do have a Arabic and English copy. They are basically the same. I haven't found any real difference between the two versions. If someone would like to point out a particular item that is different in the English version vs the Arabic version I would like to see this for myself.

Well, the four Gospels were generally accepted as canonical by 180CE. It was Marcion's gnostic preachings which prompted agreement on the contents of the New Testament, Constantine's only real contribution was to commission a set of decorative Bibles for each of the major churches.

Thanks for the clarification. I was wrong.

However, it still took you guys 180 years to get it together, eh?

For starters you are not technically suppose to translate the Qur'an from it's Arabic form. With that said I do have a Arabic and English copy. They are basically the same. I haven't found any real difference between the two versions. If someone would like to point out a particular item that is different in the English version vs the Arabic version I would like to see this for myself.

Forgive me for asking what seems a fairly rude question under the circumstances, but: You can read Arabic, yes?

Not to say that, should you be able to read Arabic, you will find differences, I'm merely curious.

OK let me add something I forgot to add: The ORIGINAL Bible in its Aramaic, Greek, and Latin forms has not changed either.

Wrong. Off the top of my head: the Markan Resurrection narrative, Paul's reference to Jesus' post-mortem appearance to 500 followers, and John's allusion to the Trinity are generally agreed to be later interpolations. Many modern translations such as the NIV note this fact.

Of course not. We haven't bled the subject dry yet ;)
Aw hells!

*Brings lemonade*
*Snip*
Do you actually have a point hidden around here somewhere?

Thanks for the clarification. I was wrong.

However, it still took you guys 180 years to get it together, eh?

It's an easy mistake to make, IIRC the first Bible wasn't collected in one book until about 350CE but most groups had agreed on the contents before that. Getting different Christian groups to agree on anything at all is rather like herding cats. :p

Aw hells!

*Brings lemonade*


Yum! :p

So, the Koran hasn't changed? One can arguably claim that it hasn't, and that all you're seeing are interpretations of the Koran.

In conclusion:
Not changed, but being interpreted. The original text is the same.

Are we done here?

No. The original text is not the same.

The oldest copy we have is the Samarkand one and that is like 150 years after Muhammed died. There are textual variances between that copy and the copy that we have now.

Besides, there is the Uthmanic recension which was much like the "Council of Nicea" affair. Many of Muhammed's companions who were entrusted in memorizing what he spoke, died in the internecine wars and wars of succession after his death. Uthman basically discarded many copies that he did not like and asked the writers to make up the gaps due to the deaths of companions.

And then there is the huge issue of the veracity of transmission of the "word of God" from Gibrael to Muhammed and Muhammed to his companions. Without going there, we can easily disprove the muslim claim that the Arabic Qur'an they have is what was revealed to Muhammed.

It's an easy mistake to make, IIRC the first Bible wasn't collected in one book until about 350CE but most groups had agreed on the contents before that. Getting different Christian groups to agree on anything at all is rather like herding cats. :p

What is it like, exactly, to herd cats? I mean, I would imagine it would be easier than herding some other animals...

I tremble every time I hear the words "common knowledge." What is or is not common knowledge is debatable. For example, I consider it common knowledge that unless you back up your post with facts, even if you consider it common knowledge, you're just making things up. Just my $.02.

Why? You technically believe the same thing he does about the Qur'an (unless your a muslim). The only thing you don't agree with is him believing the Bible is true. So what you are basically saying is you can't have a rational discussion with him because he is a christian.
...

You just left me speechless.

That is about the most outlandish claim you could have made. I couldn't care less what he believes or doesn't believe. I didn't even know he was religious at all until I saw his sig here.

I don't even know how to put what I'm taking issue with any clearer. It's like if Ny Norland had his sig blaring about how black people are intellectually inferior to white people and was posting a thread quoting some statistics about differences in brain size between races.

If anybody were to ask what the OP expected us to debate, surely the answer would OBVIOUSLY have been "Duh, he wants us to acknowledge his proof that white people are smarter than black people".

Multiland expects us to neutrally debate the differences between the bible and the Koran with him when the first thing he does is put up a sign saying "The Koran is all dangerous lies"? Oh, please.

The Alma Mater may be right:
Why ? Decent arguments are decent arguments. Far more tiresome to listen to if presented like that- yes, but not necessarily wrong.

But I fail to feel guilty about not wanting to engage in a discussion with someone like that. About what, anyway?? He didn't come here and ask "One religious text hasn't changed, the other one has, so what does that mean in terms of [insert question, anything, but insert SOMETHING AT ALL]?" He came here and said "One religious text hasn't changed, the other one has" while finishing off his post by a sig one third as high as the whole post saying

Jesus: Most High Son of God, spoke through the tongue of the Father, God... before Mohammed -a false prophet (whom the Bible warned of)- made some stuff up.

And I'm expected to afford him the respect of actually debating with him about anything? When he doesn't even feel the need to point out what he's trying to imply because he knows there is only thing it could be?

A better person than me is free to do so. But I am certainly free to point out that he doesn't want us to debate anything, all he wants is to share his discovery of yet another proof that Islam is bullshit and evil.

No. The original text is not the same.

The oldest copy we have is the Samarkand one and that is like 150 years after Muhammed died. There are textual variances between that copy and the copy that we have now.

Besides, there is the Uthmanic recension which was much like the "Council of Nicea" affair. Many of Muhammed's companions who were entrusted in memorizing what he spoke, died in the internecine wars and wars of succession after his death. Uthman basically discarded many copies that he did not like and asked the writers to make up the gaps due to the deaths of companions.

And then there is the huge issue of the veracity of transmission of the "word of God" from Gibrael to Muhammed and Muhammed to his companions. Without going there, we can easily disprove the muslim claim that the Arabic Qur'an they have is what was revealed to Muhammed.

I know, though I disagree a bit with the "easily disprove" part...

But that's not what the OP is concerned about, as far as I can tell. It's more about the translation of the Koran... Isn't it?

...
<snipped>

That's why I have sig's turned off. Helps to keep presumptions (true or not) out. ;)

And makes for easy readings.


I know, though I disagree a bit with the "easily disprove" part...

But that's not what the OP is concerned about, as far as I can tell. It's more about the translation of the Koran... Isn't it?

Well, easy is a subjective word anyways..;)

Yeah, the OP's post was about translated works....which is kinda a moot point, since nobody considers translated works as valid anyways.

That is the whole reason why there is a mullah class now in Islam, who became interpreters of the Arabic Qur'an for the non-Arabic believers.

But there were claims in this thread ("So, the Koran hasn't changed? One can arguably claim that it hasn't", "The original text is the same") that the Arabic Qur'an that we have now is an unchanged one. Hence my post that it is not so. :)

What is it like, exactly, to herd cats? I mean, I would imagine it would be easier than herding some other animals...

I tremble every time I hear the words "common knowledge." What is or is not common knowledge is debatable. For example, I consider it common knowledge that unless you back up your post with facts, even if you consider it common knowledge, you're just making things up. Just my $.02.

Erm... I don't believe I used the term 'common knowledge', although I will admit to having used 'it is generally agreed' in a separate post directed at Multiland.

And what particular claim would you like to see support for? I'm afraid I don't have any peer reviewed data on the comparative ease of getting Christians to agree and herding cats. If you want a source for the 180CE claim then you can have this quotation from Irenaeus' Adversus Haereses (written in 185CE):

"Matthew published his written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, While Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome. After their decease Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing those things which Peter had preached; and Luke, the attendant of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel which Paul had declared. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined on his bosom, published the Gospel, while residing at Ephesus in Asia."

And later in the same book:

"It is impossible that the Gospels should be in number either more or less than these. For since there are four principal winds, and the Church is as seed sown in the whole earth, and the Gospel is the Church's pillar and ground, and the breath of life: it is natural that it should have four pillars, from all quarters breathing incorruption, and kindling men into life. Whereby it is evident, that the Artificer of all things, the Word, who sitteth upon the Cherubim, and keepeth all together, when He was made manifest unto men, gave us His Gospel in four forms, kept together by one Spirit... For indeed the Cherubim had four faces, and their faces are images of the dispensation of the Son of God... For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel also is quadriform."
Due to the context we can be pretty sure that Irenaeus' views are representative of those of the Church at the time. As you can see, they agreed on which Gospels they accepted and they were adamant that four Gospels was the right number.

Oh, and for future reference, there are politer ways of asking for sources than accusing people of lying, k?

How could this thread not be about an Iranian-version of Transformers?
*Is disappointed*

Well, easy is a subjective word anyways..;)

Yeah, the OP's post was about translated works....which is kinda a moot point, since nobody considers translated works as valid anyways.

That is the whole reason why there is a mullah class now in Islam, who became interpreters of the Arabic Qur'an for the non-Arabic believers.

But there were claims in this thread ("So, the Koran hasn't changed? One can arguably claim that it hasn't", "The original text is the same") that the Arabic Qur'an that we have now is an unchanged one. Hence my post that it is not so. :)

Yeah, sorry for any confusion, it was sloppyness on my part born out of a confusing OP. I was referring to belief there rather than facts...

Maybe I should have said something like
"Within Islam there is a belief that the arab text is the authorative one, and that it hasn't changed; It's still the divine message is was back when the Prophet recieved the message. Many (most?) believe that the wording of the Koran available today corresponds exactly to that revealed back then. Whether or not this is factually true, and some will argue that it is, it is a fact that the translation into other languages does not in any way change the Koran as it is only viewed as interpretations of the book."

Maybe that's better?

No.

The Qur'an is only the Qur'an if it is in Arabic of the 5th Century Hijaz dialect. Otherwise it is merely a companion to the Qur'an.

So go straight to the Wrongdrome, do not go past Go, do not collect £200.

I'm so sick of people asserting this, every single time someone says something about islam. When ever a thread is made about muslims, someone else always goes, "yeah all hes really saying is ZOMG t3h 333b1lll mussleemmmsss" even though there is no reason to assume that he is saying anything similar of the sort.

Except the posters history, the mannor in which the post is made and the posters personallity

Let's get some facts. The Bible is just as mistranslated and changed as the Qu'ran.

Also, quick! Kyrozerkia! Use your stolen power to create a poll asking just how much Multiland hates muslims!

Also, we're not assuming Multiland hates muslims merely because he says the Qu'ran has been changed. There's no denying this, pretty much every holy text has been changed in some way. The reason for this is we tend to remember the history of posters on here, for some reason. NSG's a bit more friendly and personable than most forums. But the point here is, Multiland has been demonstrated to not be paticularly fond of Muslims, as have a few other people, some banned, some still on. (The Potato Factory, Captain Pooby, Multiland, and I think Eve Online and DesignatedMarksman (Or is it men?) as well.

Let's get some facts. The Bible is just as mistranslated and changed as the Qu'ran.

But - and this is an important but - the Qu'ran acknowledges that with a disclaimer.

This is one assumption that does my head in: the Qur'an hasn't changed. The original, Arabic version, MAY not have changed since it has been written (but then it aint been around as long as the Holy Bible),

They're both crocks. "holy bible" my ass.

What is it like, exactly, to herd cats? I mean, I would imagine it would be easier than herding some other animals...

Have you ever tried to get ONE cat to do something it didn't feel like doing?

Have you ever tried to get ONE cat to do something it didn't feel like doing?

Apparently these (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8) people have. :D

Forgive me for asking what seems a fairly rude question under the circumstances, but: You can read Arabic, yes?

Not to say that, should you be able to read Arabic, you will find differences, I'm merely curious.


Yes I can read Arabic. The differences are slight in my opinion. But like anything it is all about the readers perceptions of what they are reading. If you set out with the mind set of finding differences then you will. If you set out to objectively look at both texts side by side then you will most likely come to the conclusion that they are virtually the same. This is what I have come to the conclusion of.

Apparently these (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8) people have. :D

That's a BRILLIANT video :D

How could this thread not be about an Iranian-version of Transformers?
*Is disappointed*

I can't imagine why it hasn't gone in that direction either. Maybe there is "more then meets the eye". Haven't looked hard enough. ;)

But - and this is an important but - the Qu'ran acknowledges that with a disclaimer.

I can't tell if this is a joke or not, but I'm going to pray it is.

Maybe that's better?

Yes. :)

For the record, I have no problems with a Christian or a Muslim believing that the Bible or the Qur'an is the literal unchanged and uncorrupted word of God. People are entitled to their beliefs however stupid they are to me.

But when they insist that their beliefs are facts, then I have to go "ummm..no".:p

And when one person insists to others as a fact that his book is "holy" and the other is not...then that is hypocrisy and have to be countered no matter what his religious persuasion is (Hindu or Muslim or Christian)...

Either give the other person the very same latitude you give yourself or be fair and ridicule both :cool:

That's a BRILLIANT video :D

I aim to please. :p

Jesus: Most High Son of God, spoke through the tongue of the Father, God... before Mohammed -a false prophet (whom the Bible warned of)- made some stuff up.

Ya know, Jesus could be considered a false prophet too, soo. . .

OK let me add something I forgot to add: The ORIGINAL Bible in its Aramaic, Greek, and Latin forms has not changed either. But people who claim the Qur'an has not changed often claim that the Bible has. So in summary:


I don't know much about the Qur'an, however to say that the "original" bible hasn't is false. Nobody has the original texts-we have no idea what the "original" texts said. We have very old texts, and when one compares them to today, well, many things have been changed(Largely due to mistranslations, others the meanings have changed due to cultural differencesbetween today and then).

Off the top of my head, the controversial subjects include:

Where and when Jesus was born(For the love of God, he wasn't born in an inn)
How long it took God to create the world(If you study the meaning of the original words used, it does not refer to any specific period of time)
Judas' role in Jesus' capture(Studying what the words originally said seem to indicate that Jesus had told Judas to hand him over to the authorities, not that Judas betrayed Jesus)

And quite a few more. Not only has it empirically changed, but people views towards the meanings have changed due to changing social views.

So, you are wrong.



ORIGINAL QUR'AN: Never changed, but hasn't had as long to be changed as hasn't been around as long as the Bible
ORIGINAL BIBLE: Never changed
Not only are you wrong, I have no idea what point you are getting at is. Really... so what if one is younger or not. Doesn't make it true. And, if you use this as a defense, I'm going to have to pull out the 9000 year old Australian aboriginal religion on you. Since it is older, it has to be right. Right?


TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE: Different from original due to language changing, but still meaning the same thing in today's language as they would have meant if they had stayed in the original language and we still spoke in that original language


No, not true at all. Due to mistranslations, and different societal views, the "meaning" of many parts of the bible are completely different than they were 2000 years ago. So, keep talking. You will still be wrong.


VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE: Different, but (with minor exceptions, usually 'revised' versions) mean the same thing, just written in different ways, and no major doctrinal difference

Depends on the sect. Some include some books of the bible other don't, for example.

I can't tell if this is a joke or not, but I'm going to pray it is.

It isn't. Translated Korans are supposed to explicitly state that a translation is not the same as the original texts. "Officially" a translation of the Koran is not even considered a copy of the Koran at all.

Ya know, Jesus could be considered a false prophet too, soo. . .

Well he is. Krishna beats him as a son of God by a good 3000 years. AND as an incarnation of that God.

OK let me add something I forgot to add: The ORIGINAL Bible in its Aramaic, Greek, and Latin forms has not changed either. But people who claim the Qur'an has not changed often claim that the Bible has. So in summary:

The Bible has changed alot. Even the Tanakh was still being debated up untill 100 AD or so. The NT was being debated up untill around 400. Even more interesting, the Catholic and Protestant OT varies, as well as the entire book being different from the Ethiopian Orthodox church. That means that the books of the Bible have been divided, amended, added, and subtracted as recently as the 16th century.

Even without translation, the Bible is not without its differences within the faith.

Even without translation, the Bible is not without its differences within the faith.

Like, for example, whether the Bible (Paticularly Revelations) is supposed to be a metaphor or true historical (Or prophetic, in the case of revelations) fact.

Ya know, Jesus could be considered a false prophet too, soo. . .

Eww, don't quote me like that! What will people think? <.<

See, now this is where you provide sources.

www.7cgen.com
www.maniacmuslim.com

Those are both muslim sites that I am a member of, and they will tell you that the Quran has never been changed, and that the Quran is the word of God, because it was spoken in arabic to Mohammed, and Mohammed wrote it out, even though he was illiterate.

Well he is. Krishna beats him as a son of God by a good 3000 years. AND as an incarnation of that God.

Well, when was the last time that Krishna fulfilled every single prophecy written about him (by at least 400 years)? Or when was the last time that Krishna's prophecies were coming true?

Well, when was the last time that Krishna fulfilled every single prophecy written about him (by at least 400 years)? Or when was the last time that Krishna's prophecies were coming true?

Well, Jesus didn't manage either of those. Hell, he managed to not fulfill almost every single prophecy around.

Well, Jesus didn't manage either of those. Hell, he managed to not fulfill almost every single prophecy around.

ORLY?

http://bibleprobe.com/300great.htm
http://biblia.com/jesusbible/prophecies.htm
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prophchr.php
http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch19/default.htm

Just google it.

All those sites manage to miss the most important one of all. Jesus was not descended from David. Joseph was, but Jesus was not Joseph's son.

Apparently these (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8) people have. :D

lulz!

All those sites manage to miss the most important one of all. Jesus was not descended from David. Joseph was, but Jesus was not Joseph's son.


Adoption? If say, the king of england adopted me back in 1585(if i was alive then) and i was his only son, would I not be entitled to the throne?

Well, when was the last time that Krishna fulfilled every single prophecy written about him (by at least 400 years)? Or when was the last time that Krishna's prophecies were coming true?

pffftt...prophecies are for prophets.

God is in an altogether different league. :cool:

pffftt...prophecies are for prophets.

God is in an altogether different league. :cool:


Prophets get their power from God, no?

Adoption? If say, the king of england adopted me back in 1585(if i was alive then) and i was his only son, would I not be entitled to the throne?

You would get the inheritance, yes. But no, you would never be the Kings bloodline son, nor would anyone claim you or your offspring were related to him.

Jesus was not of the bloodline that birthed David.

Eww, don't quote me like that! What will people think? <.<

What?

You would get the inheritance, yes. But no, you would never be the Kings bloodline son, nor would anyone claim you or your offspring were related to him.

Jesus was not of the bloodline that birthed David.

Evidently, there is a loophole (http://home.inreach.com/bstanley/geneal.htm)

What?It was Multiland's sig that you were quoting there from my post. The sig that annoyed me so much. And now it looks like I said it. Bad Fleckenstein, bad.

Prophets get their power from God, no?

ur point?:confused:

Hindus hold that Krishna is the supreme personality of Godhead not a regular avatar like Rama or Vamana or Narasimha etc.

Quite different from prophet or even son of God.

Well, Jesus didn't manage either of those. Hell, he managed to not fulfill almost every single prophecy around.
It is a very poor prohecy that can't be twisted around in order to match whatever later circumstances or people later arise to fulfill it.

OBVIOUS OP

In other news, water is wet, fire is hot, winter is cold, and diamonds are shiny.

Show me one text from two thousand years ago that has been copied and NOT changed in some way. (I'm not even discussing the political aspects of altering religious texts.)

The Bible changed.

The Quran, if it changed, did so quite less than the Bible.

And this is as much an answer as a bigot that doesn't even hide his prejudices will get from me.

This is one assumption that does my head in: the Qur'an hasn't changed. The original, Arabic version, MAY not have changed since it has been written (but then it aint been around as long as the Holy Bible), but the majority of people who read the Qur'an, at least in the Western World, do not read the original but instead read a translation that is in their own language. As with the translated Bible copies, the translations of the Qur'an can never be EXACTLY what the original says, due to a word having more than one meaning, the same woprd meaning differet things in different countries, etc.

As for Bible 'versions', with the exception of a few (usually the 'revised' versions) as anyone can type a load of words and call it 'The Bible' - just like anyone can type a load of words and call it 'The Qur'an'), they say the same thing, they are just written differently to be more accessible to different people (for example, the King James Bible uses the phrase 'prevent us Oh Lord' - where 'prevent' means something entirely different from what it means today, due to language changing. If someone read the King James Bible without having knowledge of how language was used at that time, they could get the meanings VERY wrong. But (apart from those aforementioned few), no Bible has a major doctrinal difference.

Versions of the Qur'an: There are many English translations of the Qur'an, written by different people - and there are differences between the copies, including major differences. The writers just had the sense not to call them 'versions'. For example, it is well known that sura 4.34 says to beat your wife if you fear she will leave you, but I have an English copy which omits the latter part of that passage.

OK let me add something I forgot to add: The ORIGINAL Bible in its Aramaic, Greek, and Latin forms has not changed either. But people who claim the Qur'an has not changed often claim that the Bible has. So in summary:

ORIGINAL QUR'AN: Never changed, but hasn't had as long to be changed as hasn't been around as long as the Bible
ORIGINAL BIBLE: Never changed

TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE: Different from original due to language changing, but still meaning the same thing in today's language as they would have meant if they had stayed in the original language and we still spoke in that original language
TRANSLATIONS OF THE QUR'AN: Different from original due to language changing, but still meaning the same thing in today's language as they would have meant if they had stayed in the original language and we still spoke in that original language

VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE: Different, but (with minor exceptions, usually 'revised' versions) mean the same thing, just written in different ways, and no major doctrinal difference
VERSIONS OF THE QUR'AN: These too exist, and have differences

There actually is no Qur'an outside of Arabic. If you're not reading the Qur'an in Arabic you're not really reading the Qur'an. All Muslims are encouraged to learn Arabic at least to the point where one can read the Qur'an in its proper, original form. Since if you don't you miss the power behind the words and a lot of the meaning. The Qur'an is so powerfully written that in 1,400 years no person as ever been able to write a single verse equal to or better than the Qur'an. This is one reason why it could have only come from Allah swt.

In other news, water is wet, fire is hot, winter is cold, and diamonds are shiny.

Show me one text from two thousand years ago that has been copied and NOT changed in some way. (I'm not even discussing the political aspects of altering religious texts.)
http://msnucleus.org/membership/html/jh/earth/gems/images/uncutdiamond.jpg

;)

The Qur'an was originally written in Arabic. Most Muslims read the Qur'an in arabic. Thus, it doesn't really matter if it has changed when written in other languages.

Most Christians don't read the bible in its original language. Thus, that DOES matter.

The end.

Prophets get their power from God, no?


This has been Prophet TV. This public television show brought to you by Schizophrenia, megalomania, and viewers like you!

http://msnucleus.org/membership/html/jh/earth/gems/images/uncutdiamond.jpg

;)

What the fuck is that?

What the fuck is that?
It's a diamond.

There actually is no Qur'an outside of Arabic. If you're not reading the Qur'an in Arabic you're not really reading the Qur'an. All Muslims are encouraged to learn Arabic at least to the point where one can read the Qur'an in its proper, original form. Since if you don't you miss the power behind the words and a lot of the meaning. The Qur'an is so powerfully written that in 1,400 years no person as ever been able to write a single verse equal to or better than the Qur'an. This is one reason why it could have only come from Allah swt.

You are using a subjective opinion of the quality of a document as proof of a deity ... wierd ... and wrong

You are using a subjective opinion of the quality of a document as proof of a deity ... wierd ... and wrong

He's also clearly never read the Silmarillion.

You are using a subjective opinion of the quality of a document as proof of a deity ... wierd ... and wrong

Wrong? Really, then if the Qur'an did not come from Allah swt, produce a verse like it.

Wrong? Really, then if the Qur'an did not come from Allah swt, produce a verse like it.
Define "like it," using the SPECIFIC criteria you will be using to evaluate the verse.

Define "like it," using the SPECIFIC criteria you will be using to evaluate the verse.

like it. Meaning a verse with the same power, grasp, and understanding of the Arabic language that is within the Qur'an from start to finish. Best example I could give is something like describing an entire battle in detail in a few short words.

As if it makes a difference.

What is important is what people get out of an interpretation, not what's written verbatim.

I can scarcely believe that the words in the Koran are not subject to multiple interpretations. If it were not subject to interpretation, there would be no need for Muslim scholars, and no history of Islamic writings on how to interpret various verses.

Apparently, there have been many scholars, many scholarly interpretations, and a large body of writing on the subject of how to interpret various verses.

Apparently, like other books, the Koran is not perfect enough to send its message without people arguing over what individual verses might mean.

like it. Meaning a verse with the same power, grasp, and understanding of the Arabic language that is within the Qur'an from start to finish. Best example I could give is something like describing an entire battle in detail in a few short words.
Define how you will evaluate "power" and "grasp" and "understanding of the Arabic language." Define how you have evaluated all other Arabic literature to determine that no passage, anywhere, contains this "power," "grasp," or "understanding of the Arabic language."

ORLY?

You tell me:

Is the whole world worshiping the God of Israel? (Isaiah 2:17)
Have all the Jews returned to Israel? (Isaiah 11:12)
Has anything bad happened to the Jewish people since the time of Jesus? (Isaiah 51:11)
Have all the weapons of war been destroyed? (Ezekiel 39:9) Are we in an era of world peace? (Isaiah 52:7)
Has the Temple been rebuilt? (Ezekiel 40)

like it. Meaning a verse with the same power, grasp, and understanding of the Arabic language that is within the Qur'an from start to finish. Best example I could give is something like describing an entire battle in detail in a few short words.

Alicante, by Jacques Prevert

Une orange sur la table
Ta robe sur le tapis
Et toi dans mon lit
Doux présent de la présent
Fraîcheur de la nuit
Chaleur de ma vie

Alicante, by Jacques Prevert

Une orange sur la table
Ta robe sur le tapis
Et toi dans mon lit
Doux présent de la présent
Fraîcheur de la nuit
Chaleur de ma vie

I would have gone with "Veni, vidi, vici" myself.

Another good example, along with 'Alea jacta est' (sp?). Apparently this proves that Julius Caesar is God.
No, J.R.R Tolkien is God.

I would have gone with "Veni, vidi, vici" myself.

Another good example, along with 'Alea jacta est' (sp?). Apparently this proves that Julius Caesar is God.

Of course, General Napier is God.

"Peccavi." (I have Sindh.)

Define how you will evaluate "power" and "grasp" and "understanding of the Arabic language." Define how you have evaluated all other Arabic literature to determine that no passage, anywhere, contains this "power," "grasp," or "understanding of the Arabic language."

Define "evaluate" Define "all other Arabic literature" define "anywhere" define "why you have problems understanding what I'm saying":rolleyes:

Alicante, by Jacques Prevert

Une orange sur la table
Ta robe sur le tapis
Et toi dans mon lit
Doux présent de la présent
Fraîcheur de la nuit
Chaleur de ma vie

I would have gone with "Veni, vidi, vici" myself.

A) Were there writings all constantly and equally powerful, or did they have a drop off? Had there writing styles change at all within 20 years?

B) That's not Arabic

A) Were there writings all constantly and equally powerful, or did they have a drop off? Had there writing styles change at all within 20 years?

B) That's not Arabic

Who cares if it's in Arabic?

You're saying that it's perfect. Has Arabic never changed over the years?

You still haven't answered why the Koran is subject to so many interpretations - by Arab scholars speaking Arabic over the years.

If it's perfect, should it not mean the same thing, no matter who reads it?

Wrong? Really, then if the Qur'an did not come from Allah swt, produce a verse like it.

Why?

What? I was under the impression that most Muslims read the Quran in Arabic... but that could just be because I know a disproportionate amount of Arabic Muslims... ah well...

What? I was under the impression that most Muslims read the Quran in Arabic... but that could just be because I know a disproportionate amount of Arabic Muslims... ah well...
Most are supposed to learn Arabic in order to do so.

Most are supposed to learn Arabic in order to do so.

Encouraged. I would say.

And I would also assert that, were an Arabic translation of the Silmarillion ever produced, it would trump the Quran.

Define "evaluate" Define "all other Arabic literature" define "anywhere" define "why you have problems understanding what I'm saying":rolleyes:
I asked you to specifically list your criteria. You listed some subjective words. You did not provide any information about how you will determine if something has "power" and whatnot. If you actually want anybody to respond to your challenge, you need to provide them with the terms.

But I suspect that, as usual, you aren't actually interested in any of the responses you may get. You already have decided what you are going to say, and you will simply post the same thing regardless of what anybody else does. A pity, because it could have been a very interesting literature discussion!

Apparently, like other books, the Koran is not perfect enough to send its message without people arguing over what individual verses might mean.

You assume only the message has to be perfect for it to be understood. Not the case. The person receiving it must have perfect understanding, which, even in a scenario of a given religion being the truth, is impossible, as we humans are imperfect.

A) Were there writings all constantly and equally powerful, or did they have a drop off? Had there writing styles change at all within 20 years?

COME BACK WITH THOSE GOAL POSTS!!!

You originally said:

Wrong? Really, then if the Qur'an did not come from Allah swt, produce a verse like it.

"A verse", not "an entire anthology". What's it going to be next? "Those verses don't count because they weren't written in iambic pentameter, on lined paper, during a partial eclipse of the Sun?"

You assume only the message has to be perfect for it to be understood. Not the case. The person receiving it must have perfect understanding, which, even in a scenario of a given religion being the truth, is impossible, as we humans are imperfect.The 'imperfection' of humans is always a pretty cheesy excuse when it comes to understanding allegedly divine stuff.

The 'imperfection' of humans is always a pretty cheesy excuse when it comes to understanding allegedly divine stuff.

I'm not a muslim. I'm an occultist. In this context, more importantly, I'm a Linguistics graduate. I have no reason whatsoever to defend the divinity of any book. I'm just pointing out that the message depends on the person that receives it just as much as on the person that sends it. Linguistics one-oh-one.

like it. Meaning a verse with the same power, grasp, and understanding of the Arabic language that is within the Qur'an from start to finish. Best example I could give is something like describing an entire battle in detail in a few short words.

So you mean to say if there are literary works in other languages that have the "power, grasp and understanding of the language" from start to finish - then they must be divinely inspired ? :cool:

You just scored a self goal there.

So you mean to say if there are literary works in other languages that have the "power, grasp and understanding of the language" from start to finish - then they must be divinely inspired ? :cool:

You just scored a self goal there.

Bhagvad Gita really must be divinely inspired then :eek:

I'm not a muslim. I'm an occultist. In this context, more importantly, I'm a Linguistics graduate. I have no reason whatsoever to defend the divinity of any book. I'm just pointing out that the message depends on the person that receives it just as much as on the person that sends it. Linguistics one-oh-one.

One would think that an all powerful deity that supposedly has a love for mankind would make sure that everyone got what they needed to understand it

Sure it would be a tone of work but ...

Originally posted by Soviestan
like it. Meaning a verse with the same power, grasp, and understanding of the Arabic language that is within the Qur'an from start to finish. Best example I could give is something like describing an entire battle in detail in a few short words.

Have you been a Muslim for very long? There are specific guidelines set out for the Surah like it challenge, you cant simply just describe a short battle. The challenger must invoke another God besides Allah, so the challenge is pretty irrelavent to an individual who doesnt beleive in a Deity. And the body of the surah must be at least 10 chapters long. The following text is from the Quran, but I beleive the Hadith goes into much better detail explaining all the guidelines and such.

"Bring you then ten forged sûrah (chapters) like unto it, and call whomsoever you can, other than Allah (to your help), if you speak the truth!" [Qur'ân 11:13]

Of course, I now find the whole challenge to be farcial because finding beauty in a text is extremely subjective. Muslims are already convinced that the Quran is the perfect word of God, it is unlikely that they will ever accept a alternative text to have superior prose.

Another question, can you read and understand Arabic? I used to be a Muslim so I was taught to read it but I never actually knew the meaning behind the words coming out of my mouth. Arabic is very beautiful phonetically (in my opinion, anyways) and makes the Quran sounds very soothing and eloquent. However, once I read the Quran translated, it didnt matter t me wether it was articulate or not, the wisdom behind it was shallow, uninspiring and quite frequently hateful. Similarly, after I read the Bible for the first time I find its literature to be highly overrated as well.

COME BACK WITH THOSE GOAL POSTS!!!

You originally said:



"A verse", not "an entire anthology". What's it going to be next? "Those verses don't count because they weren't written in iambic pentameter, on lined paper, during a partial eclipse of the Sun?"
See, and this is why I demanded, right off the bat, that he DEFINE his criteria. Because Soviestan is slippery and has no intention of allowing fair discourse, so the moment you provide a qualifying verse he will invent some new criteria that it fails to satisfy.

Of course, he refused to answer my requests, because holding Soviestan to his word is like nailing Jello to the wall, but it was worth a try.

See, and this is why I demanded, right off the bat, that he DEFINE his criteria. Because Soviestan is slippery and has no intention of allowing fair discourse, so the moment you provide a qualifying verse he will invent some new criteria that it fails to satisfy.

Of course, he refused to answer my requests, because holding Soviestan to his word is like nailing Jello to the wall, but it was worth a try.

Am I the only one who really wants to try and nail jello to the wall now?

I bet if you use the 'jigglers' recipe you could do it...;)

Am I the only one who really wants to try and nail jello to the wall now?

You get a hammer and some nails, I'll find Bill Cosby. If he can't figure out how to nail jello to a wall, no one can.

You get a hammer and some nails, I'll find Bill Cosby. If he can't figure out how to nail jello to a wall, no one can.

Scary fact: there are actually quite a few websites dedicated to this noble project.

I will vote for you.

Certainly!
That's why I do not agree with whatsoever nobody said about it, simple fact.
In the same time it could be explained why all homosexuals are gay.

Even G.. is corrupted in his own way to make the evolutionism process a good one when we learn chimps evoluted better and fadster than we do (in fact we never evolved, our brain is not ready to approach all these godeity insanities).

Yes life is an architecture of questions (bastard, I'll kill you for that one) and you hate questions. No Sir he started it first.

Same model of dialectic with the guy who beleived in what you call "democraty", just an anabolisant for your neurones.

Have a nice drink. :headbang:

One would think that an all powerful deity that supposedly has a love for mankind would make sure that everyone got what they needed to understand it

Sure it would be a tone of work but ...

Good thing I'm explaining Linguistics, not religion. That part isn't mine to explain.

semantics: all ways to confused the navel by telling he's not the center of the world.
A bad science for religions.
A good one for politics.