But the rest of you can join in, makes it all the better :D

Anyways, ive seen lately, there's really no getting to you scientifically... so lets talk biblically... lets start with Genesis, give me yoyur explanation, and we can move on, if anyone wants to add stuff, go right ahead! If you wanna answer, go right ahead! After all ... its a public forum :p

Genesis 1: 26-31

hen God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

According to this, God created Man on the sixth day of Creation, male and female. Man refers to Human, not Male. So, Male and Female were created together, as Man was created, Male and Female were created, at the same time.

Genesis 2: 5-7

5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [a] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [b] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [c] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man [d] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

According to this, Man was created first, only a male, and after him the plants and animals were created... very, very different than what the first creation story tells us... since that tells us plants, animals, and then humans.

Can someone PLEASE explain this to me???

First I'd like to establish whether Lawdog sees Genesis as literal or symbolic since each perspective sigificantly changes how the debate would proceed.

I'd consider a literal view as exceedingly problematic to justify.

Also - providing Lawdog agrees to participate it would be appropriate that we recognize his fundamentalist position as a given and argue the issues that that presents in a constructive manner, even though you may have no respect for the position.

Why would He consider Genesis as symbolic if he believes the Synoptics (and, if I may presume, the New Testament) to be literal?

The bible includes many approaches, both symbolic and literal. It doesn't follow that if one part is intended as literal then all must be considered literal.

Valid, valid point Cris, and I hope he does participate, for it may convert us (lure ;) )

Why would He consider Genesis as symbolic if he believes the Synoptics (and, if I may presume, the New Testament) to be literal?
Because Lawdog's a catholic, and Catholicism's official stance is that the OT is mostly symbolic and exaggerrated to illustrate a point, while the NT is mostly the exact occurrence of events. Weird mix.

The bible includes many approaches, both symbolic and literal. It doesn't follow that if one part is intended as literal then all must be considered literal.

That is an incorrect approach because Jesus, even as a child, (apparently) knew and taught from the OT. Secondly, much of the Pauline theology builds on the OT. Did I mention that the writers believed that Jesus' divinity was assured by the 'prophecies' in the OT?

I am not sure then how one can accept some of the teachings when the writers CLEARLY did not see the Scriptures as some sort of division between 'Old' and 'New' Testament, but rather as ONE message from God. It's like picking and choosing what to believe, ya know?

SS,

Not sure of your issue here. The Jesus stories also have him give analogies and parables to illustrate a point. The OT uses variations of this and symbologies to illustrate concepts. I thought this was generally accepted and well known.

This thread offers an interesting perspective for debate. The absence of Lawdog thus far suggests it is not a battleground on which he feels he can win.

Provita, have you contacted him by pm to alert him about the thread and the wish to engage?

Yep, so far no response, but i dont think he has seen it yet, I think he signed off (or w/e u want to call it) before i sent it.

Right. I only just noticed how recent your opening post was. For some reason I thought it was a couple of days old.

Can you, or any one esle, comment on the extent to which the apparent ambiguities you pointed out are a result of translation differences? That is an angle that I think should be eliminated, or dealt with, at the outset.

First I'd like to establish whether Lawdog sees Genesis as literal or symbolic since each perspective sigificantly changes how the debate would proceed.

Can you, or any one esle, comment on the extent to which the apparent ambiguities you pointed out are a result of translation differences? That is an angle that I think should be eliminated, or dealt with, at the outset.

Both valuable points, and a necessity when having a debate because of the absolute vastness of differing religious beliefs.

Is the bible the completely literal infallible word of god? Which version? Etc

Exactly. I've read somewhat into this, and supposedly a somewhat common literalist's response would say that the Adam and Eve story takes place on the 6th day, that it is a more specific story of the 6th Day of creation. But if you look closely at a few online bibles, and your bible, for the most part, the Bible states that Adam and Eve were created, and then the plants. Contrary to the 6-Day Creation Story.

Also, since Lawdog is Catholic, lets examine the Catholic-preferred Bible, which is the New American Bible (or the New Jerusalem Bible, but i have failed to yet see those here... i guess they are in Jerusalem :p )

Sure, i cannot say that the Bible is'nt the infallible word of god/God, but dont you think after centuries of translating, passing on handwritten copies (and obviously, unless you are God too, making a typo, which, in Greek or most other languages, makes the word completely different), along with the fact that a word can mean so many different things, plus some languages dont have this word and all that etc. etc. ... I cannot see how we know this is what "God" wants us to see.

You could say "He guided the men to make those mistakes so that we could hear the word He wanted us to hear" sure... but if you go there.... which version, as SnakeLord asked... is THE VERSION ?

(or the New Jerusalem Bible, but i have failed to yet see those here... i guess they are in Jerusalem )


Strange perhaps, but I actually have one here with me right now :) Cant really use it much though because the dog kinda ate half of it. Poor blighter's now doomed to an eternity of burning. I keep telling him to repent before it's too late, but he just tilts his head in confusion and then shits on the carpet. What can you do heh?

Strange perhaps, but I actually have one here with me right now :) Cant really use it much though because the dog kinda ate half of it. Poor blighter's now doomed to an eternity of burning. I keep telling him to repent before it's too late, but he just tilts his head in confusion and then shits on the carpet. What can you do heh?

Bible versions are irrelevant the message is the same, it's like football eveyone understands it but not everyone accepts it. This is more relevant to the Koran which is only holy apparently in its original language.

Hey by the way SnakeLord :)

Bible versions are irrelevant the message is the sameExcept when the words differ resulting in different messages.

Bible versions are irrelevant the message is the same, it's like football eveyone understands it but not everyone accepts it. This is more relevant to the Koran which is only holy apparently in its original language.

Hey by the way SnakeLord :)

you're confusing accuracy with holiness; the Quran is only considered accurate in its original language; since Arabic has many fine shades of meaning with no counterparts in many languages.

you're confusing accuracy with holiness; the Quran is only considered accurate in its original language; since Arabic has many fine shades of meaning with no counterparts in many languages.

So what is the ultimate message of the Quran?

Except when the words differ resulting in different messages.

Example?

Virgin.

Young woman.

Bible versions are irrelevant the message is the same

Well, there's one religious man's personal opinion on the matter. Just another few billion to go.

Hey by the way SnakeLord

How's it going?

you're confusing accuracy with holiness; the Quran is only considered accurate in its original language; since Arabic has many fine shades of meaning with no counterparts in many languages.
Sorry sam, but I don't buy that. It sounds a bit arrogant on the part of quran scholars and muslims. The ideas expressed in different languages may take on a huge range of forms, but they are still human ideas. A good translator should be able to take any idea in any language and communicate the meaning in any other.

It also implies that if I learn arabic I somehow come to comprehend certain ideas that I could never convey to english speaking people (even though the idea would have to be expressed to me in english first as part of my language studies). I don't buy it.

Can you give me an example of a word or phrase in arabic which conveys an idea that cannot be expressed adequately in some other language?

Sorry sam, but I don't buy that. It sounds a bit arrogant on the part of quran scholars and muslims. The ideas expressed in different languages may take on a huge range of forms, but they are still human ideas. A good translator should be able to take any idea in any language and communicate the meaning in any other.

It also implies that if I learn arabic I somehow come to comprehend certain ideas that I could never convey to english speaking people (even though the idea would have to be expressed to me in english first as part of my language studies). I don't buy it.

Can you give me an example of a word or phrase in arabic which conveys an idea that cannot be expressed adequately in some other language?

Just go online type a verse and look up all the translations; you'll see how a change in nuances can change the way the verse is read or understood. I think in my interactions with (Q), there are some translations of his which I have corrected ( in the Evolution thread, I think)

There are other, practical reasons for the Arabic Quran, most of them directed to preservation of the original content ( all Qurans in the world from the oldest available to the latest reprint are EXACTLY the same), keeping one common language of prayer for all Muslims worldwide. Hence any official translation of the Quran is always accompanied by an Arabic text, so all (devout) Muslims worldwide know the sound of the verses and can recognise them during prayers e.g. in Mecca. It also prevents mischief with the meaning of the Quran, because the original text is available for comparison. This does not mean you cannot read a translation, however most Muslims when they learn to read the Quran, start with the Arabic.

e.g. the word nitfah which traditionally meant drop and now is also used for dust clay particle and clot.

So "man was made from a drop" can become "man was made from dust" or "man was made from a clot" or "man was made from clay".

*edit: super, I found the example, check the next post*

So what is the ultimate message of the Quran?


Quran ( meaning recital) is the message of Islam.

Literally, Islam means submission, peace, and salvation. In its most fundamental aspect, Islam is epitomized in the most frequently recited of all Qur’anic phrases, the Basmalahi—In the name of God, the Merciful (al-Rahmani), the Compassionate (al-Rahim). Both words are related to the quality of rahma (mercy and compassion). God manifests Himself through His absolute, all-inclusive Mercy and Compassion, and Islam is founded upon that affirmation.

Literally, Islam means submission, peace, and salvation....

Which is not neccessarily as bad a thing as some seem to think.

Perusing the large variety of religious threads around here one thing comes across to me above all else, that to be your own God is hard work.

--- Ron.

Can you give me an example of a word or phrase in arabic which conveys an idea that cannot be expressed adequately in some other language?

one translation of verse # 13:31

Even if a Quran caused mountains to move, or the earth to tear asunder, or the dead to speak (they will not believe). GOD controls all things. Is it not time for the believers to give up and realize that if GOD willed, He could have guided all the people? The disbelievers will continue to suffer disasters, as a consequence of their own works, or have disasters strike close to them, until GOD's promise is fulfilled.GOD will never change the predetermined destiny.

this is the actual translation:

And if there had been a Quran with which mountains could be moved (from their places) or the earth could be cloven asunder, or the dead could be made to speak ( it would not have been other than this Quran). But the decision of all things is certainly with Allah. Have not then those who believed yet known that had Allah willed, he could have guided all mankind? And a disaster will not cease to strike those who disbelieved because of their deeds, or it settles close to their home, until the promise of Allah comes to pass. Caertainly, Allah does not break His promise.

Do you see the differences in meaning? They are subtle, but important.

Another common mixup is between momineen (believer) and muslimeen (Muslim). A believer is one who follows the right way and a Muslim is one who follows Islam. Both terms are used specifically in Arabic, but used interchangeably in English. Similarly for kaafir (nonbeliever in Islam) and mushrik (one who is not a monotheist); they are both called disbelievers in English.

I keep telling him to repent before it's too late, but he just tilts his head in confusion and then shits on the carpet. What can you do heh?Rip up the carpets and put in laminated wood flooring. This will wipe clean.

Just go online type a verse and look up all the translations; you'll see how a change in nuances can change the way the verse is read or understood. I think in my interactions with (Q), there are some translations of his which I have corrected ( in the Evolution thread, I think)

No, you did not correct anything. You merely offered another interpretation, one of many.

There are other, practical reasons for the Arabic Quran, most of them directed to preservation of the original content ( all Qurans in the world from the oldest available to the latest reprint are EXACTLY the same)

No, they are not, they have been canonized just like other religious doctrines. As a self-professed authority, you should have known that.

So "man was made from a drop" can become "man was made from dust" or "man was made from a clot" or "man was made from clay".

Yes, but the Quran does not talk about evolution, it talks about having created all things in their current forms, which is entirely wrong. More propaganda.

[QUOTE]No, you did not correct anything. You merely offered another interpretation, one of many.

Agreed. Do you know Arabic? Please look up the original and let me also know which one is closer in meaning.

No, they are not, they have been canonized just like other religious doctrines. As a self-professed authority, you should have known that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_and_development_of_the_quran

Having studied early Quran manuscripts John Gilchrist states: "The oldest manuscripts of the Quran still in existence date from not earlier than about one hundred years after Muhammad's death." ("Jam' Al-Qur'an", page 153) He comes to this conclusion because two of the oldest manuscripts, the Samarqand and Topkapi codices are both written in the Kufic script. It "can generally be dated from the late eight century depending on the extent of development in the character of the script in each case."

Uthman's version was written in an older Arabic script that left out most vowel markings; thus the script could be interpreted and read in various ways. This basic Uthmanic script is called the rasm; it is the basis of several traditions of oral recitation, differing in minor points. In order to fix these oral recitations and prevent any mistakes, scribes and scholars began annotating the Uthmanic rasm with various diacritical marks indicating how the word was to be pronounced. It is believed that this process of annotation began around 700 CE, soon after Uthman's compilation, and finished by approximately 900 CE. The Quran text most widely used today is based on the Rasm Uthmani tradition of recitation, as approved by Al-Azhar University in Cairo in 1922.


Yes, but the Quran does not talk about evolution, it talks about having created all things in their current forms, which is entirely wrong. More propaganda.
:m:

[QUOTE=(Q)]

Agreed. Do you know Arabic? Please look up the original and let me also know which one is closer in meaning.

It doesn't matter, neither had any meaning in reality, both were complete nonsense. You attempted to show the science of Islam in regards to evolution, which you don't understand, and were promptly refuted, and hopefully educated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_and_development_of_the_quran

It "can generally be dated from the late eight century depending on the extent of development in the character of the script in each case."

It is believed that this process of annotation began around 700 CE, soon after Uthman's compilation, and finished by approximately 900 CE. The Quran text most widely used today is based on the Rasm Uthmani tradition of recitation, as approved by Al-Azhar University in Cairo in 1922.



"Uthman ibn 'Affan was elected as the third Caliph by a Council called the Shura. As the elected leader of the Muslim Ummah (Brotherhood), it was his privilege and prerogative to appoint a Commission to collect all the available verses of the Qur'an from the 'Ummah and undertake the task of preparing a definitive compiled copy of the Qur'an. The Commission established a criteria for this specific purpose. When this Commission, headed by Zayd ibn Thabit - a reputable scribe and personal secretary to the Prophet, came up with a finally compiled copy of the Qur'an, it was approved by 'Uthman for circulation. The Caliph also supervised that the faithful copies of it were made and circulated to various provinces and Islamic countries. Having accomplished that, the next obvious question before him was; how to preserve this canonized text from being tainted at a later date? There were thousands of collected verses from which this final canonized copy was prepared. The majority of this collected verses met the criteria established by the Commission and there were a few that did not. They all were now superfluous. One of the criteria established by the Commission was that any verse that did not have the collaboration from another source, should be rejected. To keep such rejected verses within circulation would be to defeat the ultimate aim and purpose of this
and it's efforts. Hence, 'Uthman felt the need to destroy these superfluous copies of the verses and preserve the approved text from being tainted. A true Believer would say, within these Revelations, Allah had undertaken to preserve His Final Scripture. The third Caliph was just an instrument of Allah to do what Allah had intended to do."

http://www.mostmerciful.com/reply-ans-islam.htm

[QUOTE=samcdkey]

It doesn't matter, neither had any meaning in reality, both were complete nonsense. You attempted to show the science of Islam in regards to evolution, which you don't understand, and were promptly refuted, and hopefully educated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_and_development_of_the_quran

It "can generally be dated from the late eight century depending on the extent of development in the character of the script in each case."

It is believed that this process of annotation began around 700 CE, soon after Uthman's compilation, and finished by approximately 900 CE. The Quran text most widely used today is based on the Rasm Uthmani tradition of recitation, as approved by Al-Azhar University in Cairo in 1922.



"Uthman ibn 'Affan was elected as the third Caliph by a Council called the Shura. As the elected leader of the Muslim Ummah (Brotherhood), it was his privilege and prerogative to appoint a Commission to collect all the available verses of the Qur'an from the 'Ummah and undertake the task of preparing a definitive compiled copy of the Qur'an. The Commission established a criteria for this specific purpose. When this Commission, headed by Zayd ibn Thabit - a reputable scribe and personal secretary to the Prophet, came up with a finally compiled copy of the Qur'an, it was approved by 'Uthman for circulation. The Caliph also supervised that the faithful copies of it were made and circulated to various provinces and Islamic countries. Having accomplished that, the next obvious question before him was; how to preserve this canonized text from being tainted at a later date? There were thousands of collected verses from which this final canonized copy was prepared. The majority of this collected verses met the criteria established by the Commission and there were a few that did not. They all were now superfluous. One of the criteria established by the Commission was that any verse that did not have the collaboration from another source, should be rejected. To keep such rejected verses within circulation would be to defeat the ultimate aim and purpose of this
and it's efforts. Hence, 'Uthman felt the need to destroy these superfluous copies of the verses and preserve the approved text from being tainted. A true Believer would say, within these Revelations, Allah had undertaken to preserve His Final Scripture. The third Caliph was just an instrument of Allah to do what Allah had intended to do."

http://www.mostmerciful.com/reply-ans-islam.htm


So how does this disprove that the oldest surviving copy is same as the latest?

And I said that it was a hundred years after Muhammed, so what did you say different?

P.S. That verse had nothing to do with evolution :confused:

[QUOTE=(Q)]

So how does this disprove that the oldest surviving copy is same as the latest?

And I said that it was a hundred years after Muhammed, so what did you say different?

The documents were changed over hundreds of years and weren't started until a hundred years after Muhammed.

How is that original?

100 years ago. Sheesh.

Anyone here remember England in 1906? There weren't even cars on the streets, planes in the air, no computers, no toilet roll, hell.. no toothpaste.

My grandmother is around 96 or someshit and when I ask her to recall 4 years before she was born she can't remember. I ask her to recall life when she was 5 and she can't remember. I ask her to recall life when she was 10 and it's very vague, (untrustworthy).

100 years ago. Sheesh.

100 years ago. Sheesh.

100 years ago. Sheesh.

Just as Christianity was born from those who attempted to recall conversations and events decades before.

Preposterous.

[QUOTE=samcdkey]

And I said that it was a hundred years after Muhammed, so what did you say different?

The documents were changed over hundreds of years and weren't started until a hundred years after Muhammed.

How is that original?



The Quran was written down loosely during Mohammeds lifetime ( 7th century) and collected by Uthaman from the Prophet's widow ( she was a scribe), companions and contemporaries. The first written copy was completed between 650 and 656 ( Mohammed died in 632). Uthman destroyed all other variants and rejected those verses which he could not corroborate. The anotations and additions of didactics took much longer.

The oldest surviving Quran is from 100 years after Mohammed.

[QUOTE=(Q)]

The Quran was written down loosely during Mohammeds lifetime ( 7th century) and collected by Uthaman from the Prophet's widow. The first written copy was completed between 650 and 656 ( Mohammed died in 632). Uthman destroyed all other variants and rejected those verses which he could not corroborate. The anotations and additions of didactics took much longer.

In other words, Islam is based on "loose" writings handed over to Uthman who decided what was correct and what was not, decades after Muhammed's death.

Yeah, original. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=samcdkey]

In other words, Islam is based on "loose" writings handed over to Uthman who decided what was correct and what was not, decades after Muhammed's death.

Yeah, original. :rolleyes:

based on duplicates from at least two separate individuals, yes

edit* it helped of course, that the Quran is not read, but recited with meter and rhyme*

Anyone here remember England in 1906? There weren't even cars on the streets, planes in the air, no computers, no toilet roll, hell.. no toothpaste.


Toilet rolls as we know them were first produced in the USA in 1857, and toothpaste dates back at least to the 18th century, and was quite common in Victorian times, albeit not available in squeezy tubes.

--- Ron.

Just as Christianity was born from those who attempted to recall conversations and events decades before.

Preposterous.

Indeed, it is laughable at best.

Toilet rolls as we know them were first produced in the USA in 1857, and toothpaste dates back at least to the 18th century, and was quite common in Victorian times, albeit not available in squeezy tubes.

Very interesting and I thank you deeply for that, but I was hoping the point would not be lost in slight historical mis-dating. If I really wanted to know the year of toilet paper invention, I could use google as well.

Very interesting and I thank you deeply for that, but I was hoping the point would not be lost in slight historical mis-dating. If I really wanted to know the year of toilet paper invention, I could use google as well.

I'd rather the impression that slight historical misdating was the point.

Any bets on the date of the first pinch of salt?

--- Ron.

Im wondering where lawdog is...

Toilet rolls as we know them were first produced in the USA in 1857, and toothpaste dates back at least to the 18th century, and was quite common in Victorian times, albeit not available in squeezy tubes.

--- Ron.


I like this avatar, Ron; much nicer. You look positively dashing!

Virgin.

Young woman.

This could cause problems with traditional nativity productions, but not much else.

How's it going?

Not bad thanks, hope you're doing well.

Quran ( meaning recital) is the message of Islam.

Literally, Islam means submission, peace, and salvation. In its most fundamental aspect, Islam is epitomized in the most frequently recited of all Qur’anic phrases, the Basmalahi—In the name of God, the Merciful (al-Rahmani), the Compassionate (al-Rahim). Both words are related to the quality of rahma (mercy and compassion). God manifests Himself through His absolute, all-inclusive Mercy and Compassion, and Islam is founded upon that affirmation.

There is alot to admire about the message of Islam as you describe it.

What I find hard to understand is, why is there such a complication in translating this into more languages.

I think you mentioned something earlier so I'll ponder on that for a while.

one translation of verse # 13:31

Even if a Quran caused mountains to move, or the earth to tear asunder, or the dead to speak (they will not believe). GOD controls all things. Is it not time for the believers to give up and realize that if GOD willed, He could have guided all the people? The disbelievers will continue to suffer disasters, as a consequence of their own works, or have disasters strike close to them, until GOD's promise is fulfilled.GOD will never change the predetermined destiny.

this is the actual translation:

And if there had been a Quran with which mountains could be moved (from their places) or the earth could be cloven asunder, or the dead could be made to speak ( it would not have been other than this Quran). But the decision of all things is certainly with Allah. Have not then those who believed yet known that had Allah willed, he could have guided all mankind? And a disaster will not cease to strike those who disbelieved because of their deeds, or it settles close to their home, until the promise of Allah comes to pass. Caertainly, Allah does not break His promise.

Do you see the differences in meaning? They are subtle, but important.

Another common mixup is between momineen (believer) and muslimeen (Muslim). A believer is one who follows the right way and a Muslim is one who follows Islam. Both terms are used specifically in Arabic, but used interchangeably in English. Similarly for kaafir (nonbeliever in Islam) and mushrik (one who is not a monotheist); they are both called disbelievers in English.
Ok. Here's my point. Who made the above translations? Someone who knew arabic, read it and translated it, right? So which one is correct? If three devout muslim translators who are fluent in arabic and english come up with translations that have subtle but important differences, this means that each translator was understanding it differently. So if the quran is inherently unclear, even to devout arabic speakers, what validity does any of it have?

My point is that if a paragraph in the quran has a definite meaning, then a good translator can capture that meaning and make the intention completely clear and faithful to the original. If you have a word ishtbul that means a subtle form of deviousness, but there is no single word in english for this concept, then translate it as "a subtle form of deviousness". See?

What I find hard to understand is, why is there such a complication in translating this into more languages.

Good question! ^^^^^^^

I'm still convinced that its a direct result of these holy books being inherently unclear and open to a vast array of interpretations.

Good question! ^^^^^^^

I'm still convinced that its a direct result of these holy books being inherently unclear and open to a vast array of interpretations.

http://deephousepage.com/smilies/2gunsfiring_v1.gif Didn't you read my posts? Anyway, the Quran is translated in all languages ( I think) you just have to have the Arabic alongside.

http://deephousepage.com/smilies/2gunsfiring_v1.gif Didn't you read my posts? Anyway, the Quran is translated in all languages ( I think) you just have to have the Arabic alongside.
http://users.telenet.be/eforum/emoticons4u/violent/sterb003.gif I read em, gunslinger. But what if you don't have the language skills to learn arabic?

Ok. Here's my point. Who made the above translations? Someone who knew arabic, read it and translated it, right? So which one is correct? If three devout muslim translators who are fluent in arabic and english come up with translations that have subtle but important differences, this means that each translator was understanding it differently. So if the quran is inherently unclear, even to devout arabic speakers, what validity does any of it have?

My point is that if a paragraph in the quran has a definite meaning, then a good translator can capture that meaning and make the intention completely clear and faithful to the original. If you have a word ishtbul that means a subtle form of deviousness, but there is no single word in english for this concept, then translate it as "a subtle form of deviousness". See?


When translating three things are required:

1. understand the verse and its context

2. understand Arabic spoken and written ( the Quran is a recital so it is in meter)

3. understand speak read and write English and translate from the Arabic in the right context.

Since there is no rule about WHO may translate the Quran, anyone can translate it including a non-Muslim, and there are hundreds and hundreds of translations floating around.

I got mine in Mecca; its the translation by the Islamic University in Medina.

Didn't you read my posts?

BTW, I'm hurt. I read everything you post with rapt attention. http://users.telenet.be/eforum/emoticons4u/love/643.gif

I got mine in Mecca; its the translation by the Islamic University in Medina.
Cool!

http://users.telenet.be/eforum/emoticons4u/violent/sterb003.gif I read em, gunslinger. But what if you don't have the language skills to learn arabic?

Yup thats where we are falling short; there are some versions that are universally accepted e.g. the Abdullah Yusuf Ali version is considered pretty good; but its like reading Shakespeare in French, you get the general idea but not the poetry and word play.

Yup thats where we are falling short; there are some versions that are universally accepted e.g. the Abdullah Yusuf Ali version is considered pretty good; but its like reading Shakespeare in French, you get the general idea but not the poetry and word play.
Exactly.

BTW, I'm hurt. I read everything you post with rapt attention. http://users.telenet.be/eforum/emoticons4u/love/643.gif


Sorry, you know me ---->http://deephousepage.com/smilies/stupid.gif

Friends again?http://deephousepage.com/smilies/beerchug.gif

Sorry, you know me ---->http://deephousepage.com/smilies/stupid.gif

Friends again?http://deephousepage.com/smilies/beerchug.gif
Of course! I could never stay mad at you...http://users.telenet.be/eforum/emoticons4u/love/new/icon_smile_blush.gif

Cool!

Well it is cool, but its also a giant mall; incredibly commercialized; they even sell the water of the Zamzam spring ( thats an eternal spring which runs inside near the black stone that all associate with Mecca).

Of course! I could never stay mad at you...http://users.telenet.be/eforum/emoticons4u/love/new/icon_smile_blush.gif

I like you super, you're the best!http://deephousepage.com/smilies/kiss3.gif

I like you super, you're the best!http://deephousepage.com/smilies/kiss3.gif
Thanks sam! Right back at ya...http://users.telenet.be/eforum/emoticons4u/love/246.gif

Well it is cool, but its also a giant mall; incredibly commercialized; they even sell the water of the Zamzam spring ( thats an eternal spring which runs inside near the black stone that all associate with Mecca).
I find that amazing. My impression is that the powers-that-be would never allow such a thing. How does that fit in with the sacred nature of the place? I'm really suprised.

I find that amazing. My impression is that the powers-that-be would never allow such a thing. How does that fit in with the sacred nature of the place? I'm really suprised.

Money changes everything. There's not as much difference between people as one would think. Why do you think they took over in the first place? To go to heaven? Nyah! everyone wants the earthly delights first.

Money changes everything. There's not as much difference between people as one would think. Why do you think they took over in the first place? To go to heaven? Nyah! everyone wants the earthly delights first.
Sad. :(

I'd rather the impression that slight historical misdating was the point.

Any bets on the date of the first pinch of salt?

Man you're like a forum troll, but not as amusing. A couple of better one liners and I might just give you a smiley.

:p THIS is for Lawdog!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIZg7S3KUqc&search=creationist
Could be the funniest thing I've seen all year!!
Creationists rejoice, your saviour is here!
:p :D

I like you super, you're the best!http://deephousepage.com/smilies/kiss3.gif

Oh pulleeeze, get a room, you two. :D

[QUOTE=(Q)]

based on duplicates from at least two separate individuals, yes

edit* it helped of course, that the Quran is not read, but recited with meter and rhyme*

TWO! WOW!

I'm thoroughly convinced, that's rigor!

[QUOTE=samcdkey]

TWO! WOW!

I'm thoroughly convinced, that's rigor!

goinboilyeread

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/compilationbrief.html

http://www.themodernreligion.com/basic/quran/quran_proof_preservation.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIZg7S3KUqc&search=creationist
Could be the funniest thing I've seen all year!!
Creationists rejoice, your saviour is here!
Damn, that guy actually thinks "Land of the Lost" and "the Flintstones" are accurate depictions of history? :eek:
What a fucktard! :D Good find.

Damn, that guy actually thinks "Land of the Lost" and "the Flintstones" are accurate depictions of history? :eek:
What a fucktard! :D Good find.

Tell me about it, is it any wonder evolution scientists don't take creationism and intelligent design seriously! :p

one translation of verse # 13:31

Another common mixup is between momineen (believer) and muslimeen (Muslim). A believer is one who follows the right way and a Muslim is one who follows Islam. Both terms are used specifically in Arabic, but used interchangeably in English. Similarly for kaafir (nonbeliever in Islam) and mushrik (one who is not a monotheist); they are both called disbelievers in English.

this seems to be pointless semantics. i would think that someone who believes and follows the right way but is not actually a muslim is a nearly useless distinction that can only be meaningful when viewed through the lens of religious law.

similarily, the difference between kaafir and mushrik is minimal, and it is accurate to call both of them disbelievers or non-believers. if someone is a monotheist but not a muslim, they are a non-believer. if someone is a polytheist, then they are obviously not a muslim, and are also non-believers.

in addition to this, you just portrayed the delicate distinctions between those words to us in english, and it wasn't impossible for us to understand them. so, i don't get you translation argument.

this seems to be pointless semantics. i would think that someone who believes and follows the right way but is not actually a muslim is a nearly useless distinction that can only be meaningful when viewed through the lens of religious law.

similarily, the difference between kaafir and mushrik is minimal, and it is accurate to call both of them disbelievers or non-believers. if someone is a monotheist but not a muslim, they are a non-believer. if someone is a polytheist, then they are obviously not a muslim, and are also non-believers.

in addition to this, you just portrayed the delicate distinctions between those words to us in english, and it wasn't impossible for us to understand them. so, i don't get you translation argument.

These are examples of some words, there are others with more than four or five possible meanings; when applied to concepts and shades of meanings, the dinstinctions are greater. There is no regulation regarding translations and many of the translations are just plain bad.

Anyways, ive seen lately, there's really no getting to you scientifically... so lets talk biblically... lets start with Genesis, give me yoyur explanation, and we can move on, if anyone wants to add stuff, go right ahead! If you wanna answer, go right ahead! After all ... its a public forum :p Whoa, this is quite a challenge for which I am quite unworthy to comment on so holy and sublime a text, since my mind has become so feeble and I have no true authority to do so. Therefore, nothing that I write should be taken as the official Roman Catholic interpretation, though I will draw from that source. I will try, but please forgive me if I make mistakes or sound ignorant.

As I have said before, i interpret scripture in the spirit of the Church fathers, who in many cases take a fundamentalist position, that these events actually occured, though they are not bound or limited to that position.

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

Genesis 1: 26-31

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness,
Here you may note that God refers to himself in the plural, a rare occurance in scripture, and Jesus does not do so. It must therefore have some other meaning than the "royal we." The fathers claimed that this is the first intimation of the multiple persons in God. Three persons, one God. the Trinity; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

God makes man in his own image. Of course the old use of 'man" and "his" is the universal, and applies to both sexes. This distinction is this: God, being pure spirit, is portrayed as male with respect to his personhood.

One must imagine a maleness that surpasses in perfection all our limited experiences of maleness and fatherhood. It is the perfection of the role of lover to beloved, God to the soul, except in the case of the incarnation, sexuality cannot be separated from personhood.

That God's personhood is portrayed as male for the sake of humans says nothing about the actual situation, that God encompasses both male and female and is far beyond gender.

Also note that God created Man in his likeness, that is in the first place, God, being pure spirit created Man as a spirit after his spiritual likeness, endowing him with all the same gifts and virtues. Here is a secondary more shaky but additional interpretation: God also created Man to physically appear as Christ's incarnation. It does not mean that God has a physical body in Heaven. Nevertheless it does seem that he has a spiritual body. Man's physical body is a sign that recalls God's spiritual body.

and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

Man has dominion over the Earth, not to abuse it and misuse it like we have, but to be like Adam and Eve, gardeners and cartakers of the Earth.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

God's original plan for humans was to have them multiply and be fruitful, not illiminate the children their wombs.

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

God supplies man with all his needs.

There are some very beautiful interpretations of this passage, but they dont come to mind right now. It has something to do with the arrangement of the days of creation.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

According to this, God created Man on the sixth day of Creation, male and female. Man refers to Human, not Male. So, Male and Female were created together, as Man was created, Male and Female were created, at the same time.
Genesis 2: 5-7

5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [a] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [b] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams [c] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man [d] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

According to this, Man was created first, only a male, and after him the plants and animals were created... very, very different than what the first creation story tells us... since that tells us plants, animals, and then humans.

It is the result of a typical writer, he is probably relating some account that his grandfather told him or some ancient scroll, and does not take into account the indiscrepancy. He probably had collected various stories that he had heard and put them together. As a writer, I know that it happens to me all the time. It was not just one man that wrote all this, but if it was there would be even more indiscrepancies.

So, u admit thee bible contains stories, and isnt all word-for-word factual?

[QUOTE=(Q)]

goinboilyeread

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/compilationbrief.html

http://www.themodernreligion.com/basic/quran/quran_proof_preservation.htm

Q:
did you see this post?

more propaganda for you.

So, u admit thee bible contains stories, and isnt all word-for-word factual?
Of course not. You must look at the genre of each book. Its not all just history. personally I tend to read it with more of a fundamental take, but that does not limit me to only one way of reading it.

So how do u know wat interpretation of the bible, since now some of it can be contextual and not literal, is right?

this seems to be pointless semantics. i would think that someone who believes and follows the right way but is not actually a muslim is a nearly useless distinction that can only be meaningful when viewed through the lens of religious law.

similarily, the difference between kaafir and mushrik is minimal, and it is accurate to call both of them disbelievers or non-believers. if someone is a monotheist but not a muslim, they are a non-believer. if someone is a polytheist, then they are obviously not a muslim, and are also non-believers.

in addition to this, you just portrayed the delicate distinctions between those words to us in english, and it wasn't impossible for us to understand them. so, i don't get you translation argument.

But do you know that muslimeen not always considered to be already mu'mineen?

But do you know that muslimeen not always considered to be already mu'mineen?

Thank You. Yes

So how do u know wat interpretation of the bible, since now some of it can be contextual and not literal, is right?
I generally do not interprete the bible on my own, but with the help of the Church fathers. Nor do I use the bible as a source of dogma for morality or spirituality. The bible is only an additional source of spirituality for me.

no one doubts the importance of scripture...but...

Where in the bible does it forbid men to use other means of learning truth or morality, as one might in the study of philosophy, or the writings of saints?

Jesus did not say "you must read the bible or you cannot be saved"

Nor did Jesus erect the bible as the sole source of morality or knowledge.

The scriptures themselves describe how Jesus used a body of men and women to establish an authoritative Church led by Simon Peter. Jesus never says "make sure to write this down."

And what about people that cant read? are they to be damned?

Jesus centered his Church around himself, not a book. Jesus gives himself to Man in the Eucharist, in the outer appearance of bread and wine, which are in reality his body and blood.

only the Catholic Church has the same valid eucharist consecrated by priests from the beginning.