The Quran is the word of God

[James]

[color=#B0251E]I find it amazing that people still think there was a "Great Flood". There whole concept of a Great Flood has been totally and utterly disproven by modern geology. There are a whole slew of reasons why such an event would be impossible, not least of which being the whole concept that the world's eco-system relies on a very specific flow of water (and that the amount of water on the Earth is always the same -- water doesn't magically appear and then disappear, in other words).

So aside from what people painted on rocks thousands of years ago when they didn't know any better, there's absolutely no natural evidence of it. And to go even further, such a thing is quite improbable if one knows anything about geology at all.

I think that people's explanations of "great floods" probably arise from natural disasters, such as Tsunami and the like. If you look at the most recent asian tsunami, you can see how far inland the waters went (and how deep they were). Considering that people in isolated communities have attached spiritual significance to the tsunami, it's entirely reasonable to except far less knowledgable ancient cultures to have done that as well. So I really don't consider that point worthy of discussion at all, lol.

So, HC had it right the first time.

But I tend to feel that this specific issue is a little irrelevant. I think the last few posts are sort of skirting around a specific point, but aren't really getting at the bulk of what Chabichou mentioned. Let's try to get back to where the discussion was going, otherwise we'll end up with several tangents and the thread will become another generic religion thread (which would suck, considering that it seems to have done pretty well on the first page and a half).[/color]

[Brasil]

I'm on Sabbatical from OB right now, and I might get to your "challenge" if I'm so inclined. Though, black holes can only be detected by x-ray or something far greater than human range on the (electromagnetic?) spectrum, so...human knowing of black holes? No.

I don't have the time to go into those various little interpretations of yours, but your black hole idea is a very long stretch.

Black holes don't penetrate (or pierce) the darkness. They are darkness, lol. The reason they're "black" is because light can't escape them, because their gravity is just so insanely powerful.

"Star pierces the darkness" refers to actual stars, like the sun. And the sun was spoken of in the excerpt immediately preceding that, too.

You're really stretching to connect those two dots. I don't have any background in the Quran, but I know enough about Interpretive theory to know a stretched, sketchy interpretation when I see one.

[quote name='Chabichou']But proving that the Quran is the word of God, would in turn prove that God exists. Once some one realizes that the Quran was not written by humans, thy would have to assume that it is the word of a higher being, which would be God.[/quote] Your train of thought here doesn't really make sense, because you're essentially saying your conclusion supports your point, not the other way around.

That'd be like me saying John Milius based Apocalypse Now off of Dante's Inferno, so therefore Kurtz is based off of the She-wolf. That's exactly what you're saying.

Anyone can claim that anything is the word of God, but that doesn't prove God's existence (if anything, it just casts more doubt on the whole Truth-Claim). Your goal here is to prove the Quran to be the word of God...that's your conclusion. To get there, you have to first prove God's existence, [i]then[/i] prove the Quran is the "official" Godspeak, not the Torah or the Bible (and that's pretty much impossible, let's be realistic here).

Just like for my conclusion that John Milus' real inspiration for Apocalypse Now was Dante's Inferno, I first have to prove there's a foundation for it (i.e., proving Kurtz=She-wolf).

Otherwise, you're just stating an empty and invalid Truth-Claim:

"God exists because the Quran is the word of God."

"Kurtz is the She-wolf because John Milus ripped off Dante's Inferno."

Do you see what I mean? The logic doesn't work.

[quote name='HC']However, what you are doing is no more relevant than a Christian sighting historical references that fit ?Revelations? or people believing Nostrodamos to be psychic.[/quote] I think HC summed it up pretty well there. You can go into virtually any religion, any religious text where suppositions/predictions/hypotheses/statements are made and do exactly what you're doing here, Chabi...but that doesn't concrete anything at all, nor does it prove anything concrete, either.

[Zeta]

[QUOTE]Sure they were smart, but they didn't not have the technology to know these things. Galileo lived almost a thousand years later and people were mocking him for stating that the Earth was not flat! [/QUOTE]

As I said, the Greeks found the circumfrence of the earth. Where is Greece situated? Europe. With basic math they were able to figure out the circumfrence of the earth.

Hundreds of years before Galileo, the greeks and Romans knew the earth was round. Before his time. Which means the people of the time were very, very smart. The reason being that they argued that the Earth was flat was all of the stuff going around in the Medieval times. You believe something for so long that you don't want it to change.

So yes, I think it is entirely plausible that the Arabs could figure out many a thing. And you made a point in and of itself.


[QUOTE]He has let loose the two seas, converging together, with a barrier between them they do not break through. (Qur'an, 55:19-20)[/QUOTE]

I myself interpreted that as Heaven and Hell, with Earth itself being the barrier. *shrug*

[Zeta]

I intreprated it the way I did. There is no right or wrong answer. We do not know what he is talking about. You cannot say it with any more certainty that I can say mine is the right answer. You haven't proved anything.

I am showing you that it is entirely pausible for the Arabs to know such things. And I am showing you that things can be interpreted in many ways. Who is to say he actually means true seas? We don't know that.

[Manic Webb]

[quote]He has let loose the two seas, converging together, with a barrier between them they do not break through. (Qur'an, 55:19-20)[/quote]
If it's to be interpretted literally, how do we know it doesn't refer to the Red Sea and Persian Gulf? Or the Red Sea and Mediterranean Sea? The Red Sea and Gulf converge in the Indian Ocean, and modern day Saudi Arabia is a barrier of land between them. The Red and Med are even closer together, and there's clearly a barrier of land between them.

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Chabichou]It says two seas. You're being way too metaphorical, which is ironic, because people use even the slightest use of metaphors to accuse the Quran of being wrong. Besides, earth isn't the barrier between heaven and hell, they are outside the universe.

Nice try.[/QUOTE]
Let's keep in mind that every single religious text in the history of the world is heavily rooted in symbolistic metaphors, Chabi, and that there's fundamentally no difference between the Quran, Bible, Torah, Epic of Gilgamesh, etc. Because of this, it's foolish to read into any ancient mythological/religious text as literally as you're doing here.

Now, about this "two seas" challenge of yours...let's not forget how segregation is so prominent (and recommended) in ancient religious texts. I hardly think the phrase is literal. I think it's more symbolic, metaphorical, and figurative than you're making it out to be.

Just consider the language being used. Two seas that exist next to each other, but don't merge/combine/blend together?

Segregation is the same exact thing.

Go ahead and deny it. I don't give a ****, lol, but I think it's pretty clear you're trying to connect dots that simply aren't there to begin with.

And Manic raises a very good point about how if it's meant to be taken literally, there are far too many possibilities--meaning, the language used is too vague--to be considered as a sound and applicable statement.

[Decadence]

Also your speaking as if there is a definitive answer to this. Which, as it is based upon faith, there can not be. If there was to be you'd have to go on the assumption that you are completely correct, in which case, no amount of arguing is going to change your mind, because you'll refuse to listen. And that attitude also turns people off to the idea's, I would know, because I have had people try to force a relegion on me, and then others talk to me allow me to ask questions and do the best they can to answer honestly, which I find makes the relegion much more attractive.

[Morpheus]

[QUOTE=Chabichou] However, there is archealogical evidence of the flood.
[/QUOTE]
There is archealogical evidence of [b]A[/b] flood. Many areas flood, and I wouldn't be suprissed if each place had their own little flood. 2 flood in different places in a span of a few hundred years seems plausible, no?

[Morpheus]

[quote name='Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f']But "converge" literally means that they touch. I'd also like to point out, that in the chapter this verse came from, God points out all the natural wonders in the world, stating how they are only possible because of him. There's nothing extraordinary about seas being seperated by land, so why would he bother to mention it? God is stating how seas actually touch each other but they don't mix.[/COLOR][/quote]
I'm curious: How are they only possible because of him?

[Zeta]

The question still remains. How do you know that he actually means true seas? It is entirely possible that my interpreations is correct. It is entirely possible that Manic's is correct. And it is entirely possible that yours is correct. We don't know what he truly means. So you cannot say anything about with with 100% fact. It doesn't prove anything.

[dMage]

I won't try to argue the "scientific" and "natural" points you believe exist within the Qu'ran, as I believe there are others arguing that point more effectively than I could. One thing I would like to talk about is the origins of the Qu'ran, and how it had maintained itself "pure" while others have not.

I have been told that the Qu'ran has maintained itself pure, and that copies of it written before would be exactly like those that exist today. That this is the reason why Islam prefers for al of its followers to speak Arabic, as this was the language in which it was decided that the Qu'ran be written, and therefore is the purest, as things tend to get lost in translation.

Yet the thing that I would like to point out is that the Qu'ran was the third of the Holy books to be written. When it comes to the Monotheistic western religions, it is the baby. I would also like to point out that the oral tradition of both the Torah and Gospels were all over, and that it is more than probable that the prophet Muhammad overheard these tales, and felt like putting his own together, to help band his people under one new faith. We know this is possible due to the fact that Muhammad was both quite the cunning man and well traveled. If thats not enough, than why is it that the Qu'ran has mention of pretty much all the major players who were first introduced in the Torah? and also, why is it that it contains the story of Jesus?

If the case is that the Qu'ran is the word of God, than that would mean that the Torah, which precedes it and heavily influenced it, and the Gospels, which also influenced and form a part of it, are also the word of God.

[Xander Harris]

[QUOTE=dMage]
If the case is that the Qu'ran is the word of God, than that would mean that the Torah, which precedes it and heavily influenced it, and the Gospels, which also influenced and form a part of it, are also the word of God.[/QUOTE]

If that's true then it presents us with a bit of a difficulty. Since the gospels assert that belief in Jesus is the only way to salvation, and the Quran asserts that adherence to the commands given to Mohammad is the true path, then it is impossible for both to co-exist within one's worldview.

That is why, were I to suddenly abandon my faith in Christianity and go looking to find another religion, Islam would be the first option eliminated...

[Guest angst01]

Wow I really like this thread.
( I'm Islamic )

And to go to heaven you must read atleast a portion of the Quaran.
I've read 25 surahs.


~Angst01

:catgirl:

[Guest Alchemist]

[QUOTE=angst01]Wow I really like this thread.
( I'm Islamic )

And to go to heaven you must read atleast a portion of the Quaran.
I've read 25 surahs.


~Angst01

:catgirl:[/QUOTE]
y because the quran says so. maybe someone who just lives a good life and helps others but it is not religous should go to heaven over someone who is religous but a bad person.

[Morpheus]

[quote name='angst01']And to go to heaven you must read atleast a portion of the Quaran.[/quote]
That is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard. What happens to babies that die young? Are they coondemed to hell for eternity? Also, wouldn't that mean Muhamed went to hell? He was illiterate, so he could never read the quran.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Chabichou']I don't get it.[/quote]
Because you don't want to "get it."

[quote]Islam specifically states that Jesus was no the son of God, that he was a prophet and was also human, and that all the miracles performed by him were throught the will of God. Islam rejects that Jesus was the only way to salvation. Doesn't that make the two religions somewhat different?[/QUOTE]
I think the better question here is "Doesn't that make the two religions contradictory, and thus invalidate both Truth-Claims?"

It goes like this.

Person A says, "I'm telling the truth. Person B is lying."

Person B says, "I'm telling the truth. Person A is lying."

Unless someone is so wrapped up in what Person A (or B) says, most people would see the issue here, the issue being there's no way at all to accurately distinguish which Person is actually telling the truth, and which is lying, and thus makes any Truth-Claim ("Person A is whom you should follow" or "Person B is whom you should follow") wholly invalid.

And this directly relates to Morpheus' question, Chabichou, a question you (conveniently) omitted in your reply.

[quote name='Morpheus'] I'm curious: How are they only possible because of him?[/quote]
Also, I notice you (conveniently) omitted my previous rebuttals to your (stretchy) interpretations (black holes and the two seas), so I'd like for you to touch upon those (i.e., prove me wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt) as well, if you can.

So, rather than selectively (and creatively) replying to particular posts and post excerpts, why not make your replies a bit more comprehensive? I don't see you doing that right now, and it makes me wonder how well you can actually argue your thesis.

[Xander Harris]

[quote name='Chabichou']So if you abandon Christianity for whatever reason, how does that automatically make Islam wrong? It would only be wrong (in your point of view) if you decide not to believe in any of the prophets of or the stories the Christians believed in.[/quote]

Here's my best attempt at clarification, Chabichou. Sorry if it's a bit too drawn out... I've got a heckuva cold today...

Siren sort of picked up on what I was getting at. Either Jesus was who he said he was (the son of God) or he was a human like anyone else. If the first statement is correct, then Islam is wrong. If the second statement is true, then either Jesus was insane to make such claims, or he was a deciever. I don't see how someone can be merely a great prophet of a God and yet claim to be that God at the same time. Again, Islam's view of Jesus seems skewed. That is why I say that either way you slice it, whether I believed Christianity to be true or not, that I would not put my faith in the teachings of Islam.

Now, there is one other option available in the discussion of Jesus' identity. Perhaps the people who recorded his teachings and life story after his departure from the earth fabricated everything. Perhaps Jesus never did claim to be the son of God, in which case the above arguement fails. The problem with making this statement is that the founders of the church believed in Christ so strongly that many of them were willing to (and did) die in horrendous fashions for those beliefs. We are again faced with two options:

A. Allah had his hand on Jesus, as the Quran asserts, but the disciples made up the stuff about His being the son of God and the resurrection and such.

B. They were insane/brainwashed

C. They were telling the truth

If C is true, then Christianity's teachings are true, and, as was asserted earlier, if Christianity is truth, it invalidates Islam.

If B is true, then both religions are telling falsehoods.

Now, let's take a look at A. If this is true, then it can be reasonably assumed that Jesus must have surrounded himself with liers. Liers so skilled that they managed to convince themselves so deeply of the truth of their lies that they were willing to suffer and die in terrible fashions for those lies. Do those sound like the kinds of people a true Great Prophet would choose as his disciples? Maybe Jesus just wasn't blessed enough by God to have the wisdom to see that he was surrounding himself with boarderline-delusional pathological liers? That seems contrary to the Islamic picture of the prophet Jesus to me.

Or perhaps Jesus was just such an incompetent teacher that he never managed to communicate his nature to the disciples? This would make him not a great prophet, but a worse prophet than even the most minor of old testament prophets, who made it quite clear to those listening to them that they were prophets of the most high God.

At best, option A leaves us with a bumbling, incompetent prophet, and at worst a man with an uncanny talent for finding the most twisted and psychologically scarred liers in the land to make his disciples. Neither of these options seems to fit with the view that Islamic people have of a 'great prophet' Jesus.

That is why I say that whether I believed in Christianity or not, I couldn't except the teachings of Islam.

Does my position make sense to you now, Chabichou? Sorry I didn't have time to type it out more fully earlier...

Peace on earth,

James Bierly

[Retribution]

[SIZE=1]Well, I personally believe that Jesus wasn't crazy, and therefore wouldn't have suffered as terribly as He did for a lie. I'm not sure a human could endure that much pain, without knowing there was some higher purpose. I believe the documented evidence of Jesus' miracles should be taken into consideration, as He probably couldn't and definitely wouldn't decieve this many people. Jesus, I believe, is perfect, and had full capability of performing such miracles.

Speaking of evidence, does Islam have documented writings of the period to say that divine miracles occured? I mean, aside from the facts written by Muhammad, which could have been corrupted by himself. Without some sort of revelation, it's pretty hard to have faith in the religion.[/SIZE]

[Japan]

[quote name='Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f']Oh I see what you mean, but just so you know, Muslims believe that the story of Jeus really is twisted around, and many aspects were left out. His story was altered after his disappearance. He never claimed that he was the son of God, and although some people suggested it, he alsways denied it. I wouldn't say that all his disiples were liers but many of them were. Some of them continued to try to convince people to convert to Christianity/"Islam" after his disappearance. They started claiming that Jesus was the son of God, to make his miraculous birth make more sense to the people, and convince them to convert. They knew in their hearts that he was not, but to them I'd say the lifestyle taught by Christianity was more important that the fundamental aspect, which was believing in One God only. Before you kow it, people start worshipping Jesus.[/color][/quote]

[COLOR=Navy]We are all sinful in nature no matter how much we try to be good. We all lied before. So that means that we are all lyers in a sense if you think about it.

God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are part of the Holy Trinity. Meaning, three in one. They are all God. That's what Christians believe. It's not like we stopped worshiping God to follow Jesus. We believe in all three. The Holy Spirit is the conscious or spirit that enters our body after we accepted that Jesus died and rose to wash away our sins.

How else would you describe Jesus's birth? He was born of a virgin. The Holy Spirit entered into Mary's body, and she conceived a child....Jesus.[/COLOR]


[QUOTE][COLOR=#004a6f]I wouldn't find it surprising if Jesus knew that some of his disiples were liers. Muslims also believe that he knew that Judas would betray him, and he did state to all his disiples that one of them will betray him. Through God's will, Jesus knew which of these men were liers, which of them were traitors, but he kept silent. God knew that some people would associate Jesus with God, but he allowed them to. This is a test from God; who will believe such lies?
[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=Navy]Everyone lies...not just a certain few. Jesus is the son of God. It's not that if God allowed Jesus to know. Jesus is part of the Holy Trinty.

I also remember you stating that the Quran told you how to pray and that Christianity just told you to pray.

You don't need to pray a certain way. You don't have to face a certain direction, don't need mats, or even need an alter to pray.

All you do is speak from the bottom of your heart. You could kneel, fold your hands, whatever. As long as you talk to Him, he doesn't really care how you pray. Jesus just wants you to be His best friend, and believe that He died and rose again.[/COLOR]

[Xander Harris]

Edit: I'm replying to the post Areej made prior to her most recent. Most recent was posted while I was typing eso...

C'mon Chabichou, work with me here. And believe me, what I'm trying to get you to do is genuine intellectual work. When I was replying to your thread, I took a step back, and tried to put myself in the mindset of someone who had not already chosen a belief about Jesus. Do me a favor and follow suite. Simply saying "I'm right because the Quran says so! See?" Does nothing to further the discussion. It's like saying X is true, therefore X. It's meaningless.

Personally, I don't want to have a faith based simply on believing dogmatic statements made by people who died thousands of years ago. What I'm trying to do is examine in a logical manner the content of what those people said, and draw a conclusion on what is true.

So far, the only valid logical or historical proof you seem to have given for your position is: The Quran is true because it's words sound pretty.

This is rediculous. I could prove the validity of any number of religions based on this criteria. The Christian texts dealing with love which are read at weddings are considered to be profound and elegant pieces of literature even by those who are not Christians. Many of the Buddhist sayings are exquisite in their conveyence of divine mystery and truth. Even some of the Wiccan words to live by I have heard sound fantastic. The fact that all these religions have great rhetoric and strongly poetic texts does not make any of them true.

What I'm trying to do, and what I am trying to get you to do as well, is to look at these religions objectively. If God (Allah) gave us minds, he must want us to use them. If we cannot reconcile intellect and faith, than one must be led to wonder what is wrong with the faith.

So, just for the sake of this discussion, try to pretend for a moment that you are not a muslim, and just be a seeker of Truth. For, in the end, where Truth is, there God also is. (unless you are an athiest, but that's a topic for another thread...)

With that said, let's move on to the content of your post beyond your way of approaching the material...

[QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]Oh I see what you mean, but just so you know, Muslims believe that the story of Jeus really is twisted around, and many aspects were left out. His story was altered after his disappearance. He never claimed that he was the son of God, and although some people suggested it, he alsways denied it. I wouldn't say that all his disiples were liers but many of them were. Some of them continued to try to convince people to convert to Christianity/"Islam" after his disappearance. They started claiming that Jesus was the son of God, to make his miraculous birth make more sense to the people, and convince them to convert. They knew in their hearts that he was not, but to them I'd say the lifestyle taught by Christianity was more important that the fundamental aspect, which was believing in One God only. Before you kow it, people start worshipping Jesus.
I wouldn't find it surprising if Jesus knew that some of his disiples were liers. Muslims also believe that he knew that Judas would betray him, and he did state to all his disiples that one of them will betray him. Through God's will, Jesus knew which of these men were liers, which of them were traitors, but he kept silent. God knew that some people would associate Jesus with God, but he allowed them to. This is a test from God; who will believe such lies?
[/Quote]

O.k. We are, for the sake of this discussion, going to assume that Jesus was a divine man of some sort, since you and I can both agree on that. There we find our 'stosis', as the Greeks would say. Our place where two arguements can coincide.

The topic at hand is "Is the Quran true?" NOT "Is Christianity True?" My earlier thesis was that, whether Christianity is true or not, I could not accept the teachings of Islam because of their views of Jesus. Therefore, Jewish and secular views of Christ have been excluded from this post.

Now, moving from there, I am presented with two major options. Either the Christian view that Jesus was God made flesh for us or he was a prophet sent by God to test the people of the earth by seeing if they would make him out to be God, or worship Allah instead.

If the second option is true, than God must have provided the means for humans to see that the teachings of the disciples were false. Therefore, one must look
In order to make my decision as to which view has more validity, I must take into account previous instances of divine revelation. Earlier, you claimed that the Torah is considered to be a part of the Quran, therefore we each agree that the Torah was such an instance of divine revelation, correct?

Looking at the Torah, we see several main themes. The first is that humanity is sinful and flawed (early chapters of Genesis), but that God is good. I think we both can agree on that.

Secondly, we see that God acts out of grace, and human obedience follows after. Or father Abraham was not a particuarly righteous man, yet God reached out to him. Abraham believed the Lord, and did what was asked of him.

Later, we see the Israelites held in bondage in Egypt. God saves them from that bondage through the prophet Moses. At mount Sinai, they recieve the Ten Commandments and the books of the law. In recent years, scholars have found that the 'law-giving' portions of the Torah are written in what is known as the form of a "Suzerein-Vassel Treaty". This was a kind of treaty prevelant in the ancient world, in which a king who had conquered a new land gave the requirements of behavior he expected from his new subjects. God delivers. God conquers. Then, and only then, do humans obey.

As the Old Testament narrative progresses, we see that the people of God do not hold up their end of the covenant. Prophet after prophet is given power by the Lord to bring the people back to Him, but they are not enough to draw the people back to Him. Something else needs to happen to deal with human sin.

These are observations drawn simply from the Old Testament. They seem to fit with the Christian view of Christ. God acts to remove sin and free us from bondage. Then humans serve him in gratitude.

In the muslim view of Christ, Jesus is a prophet, like those before him, and therefore is, like the others, powerless to do much about human sin in the long term. Also, you have pointed out, he was meant to test humans to see if they would believe him to be a God and turn away from the true God.

The problem with this is that it does not fit the pattern of prior divine revelation. God acts to deliver, then humans obey. In the muslim view, God acts to set standards, then humands must obey in order to be delivered. The two views do fit together. Therefore, if one takes the Torah to be true (and especially if one takes the rest of the Old Testament to be true), and also takes the Quran to be true, then one must ask the question: Why did God change his method of operation? If he is eternal, unchanging, than shouldn't his pattern for dealing with humanity be consistant? The Christian view is consistant with God's prior dealings with humanity. The Islamic view is not.

There is one thing in Islam's favor, however, and that is the triune aspect of God implied by the Christian account of Jesus. Remember, however, that Christians do not believe in 3 gods. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity remain the 3 great [I]monotheistic[/I] religions.

But, one must again ask the question: Is there a precedent for this triune aspect of One Holy God present in his prior revelations to humanity?

Too many verses to go into here... but check out this link: [url]http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/triunity.html[/url]

And so again I come to the conclusion I came to the first two times. Either Jesus was God incarnate, or he was not. But the Quran's statements about him just don't seem to me to be a valid option in light of prior divine revelation.

[lea]

Out of curiosity, are people that never heard of Islam, are they going to hell?

How come God doesnt judge based off of your intentions, your beliefs?

[Brasil]

[quote name='Chabichou'][Yes, I know, but if you haven't noticed already, someone brought something up which made us go off topic.[/quote] It seems to me that when people doubted the Quran being the word of God, and you posted excerpts and tried to link them in with modern science, and then began talking about how Islam is some type of "truer" religion than Christianity or Judaism, I can't see how that couldn't drag your thread off-topic, particularly when you point out how inconsistent Christianity/Judaism are. Just think about this, Chabi. Just think about it and then get back to us.

[QUOTE] I really thought people would consider this the least convincing argument, though for me it is the most convincing. I didn't use the word "pretty" either.[/QUOTE] Well, you thought wrong, now didn't you? Seems to me that when you're trying to "prove" that "Star pierces the darkness" refers to black holes and isn't in fact based in very concrete symbolism of the ancient world, I can't see how you're going to be so surprised when people don't buy into that.

I mean, honestly.

Star=light=hope=knowledge=goodness

piercing the

Darkness=black=death=fear=suffering etc.

It's a common theme in all ancient literature--and even in literature today. Trust me on this. I know literature. I've only been majoring in its study for oh, about 5 years now.

"Check." Your King is under attack.

[QUOTE]"Powerful", or "wise" is more like it. Which accompanied by it's style makes it quite "beautiful".[/QUOTE] Okay, so if captivating language means truth, and the Bible and Torah have some pretty awesome speeches, bits of dialogue, and narration...why aren't you regarding those as highly?

"Check."

[quote]Most of you brush off the scientific examples as though they were nothing, as though they are just a bunch of jibberish loaded with symbolisim and metaphors.

But they really mean what they say. Actually I thought this time I will post an entire chapter of the Quran. Then when you read a verse, it will make sense more because it follows the information given by the verse before it. Here is a link to chapter 78: [url="http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/078.qmt.html"]http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/078.qmt.html[/url]

This is one of my favorite chapters, though it is frightening when it talks about hell.[/quote] Because they are symbolisms and metaphors, Chabi. Plus, I don't recall anyone here accusing them of being "jibberish." Are you trying to play some type of victim here? I know I didn't say anything like what you're responding to. All I said was that you were treating the text too literally, because it's a familiar quality of all ancient texts to be heavily rooted in symbolism and metaphor.

You're trying to dance around this point by posting a link to an online text...but the online text doesn't even help your argument, lol. To me, it just shows that you're grasping at straws here because you have to bring in supplementary sources to act as your point.

This would be similar to a Freshman quoting a passage from Shakespeare for their Comp 101 course, because they don't know how to argue their point.

"Check." Your King is under attack.

[quote]Please take the time to read it. Each verse is translated three times by three different scholars.[/quote] [img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=22842&stc=1[/img]

If something as simple as one line of dialogue in a video game could be translated so horribly wrong, if it's a known fact that every single text in the world can get utterly lost in translation--hell, if dialogue had to be changed in Shaun of the Dead so American audiences wouldn't get the wrong impression...

...how is the Quran magically exempt from the rules of Linguistics?

"Check." Defend your King.

[QUOTE] Anyway, back to what you were saying, Xander:Okay I'm having a difficult time understanding you but I will try:[/QUOTE] I understood it perfectly well. Others understand it perfectly well, too.

[quote]First of all, I've stated several times that the Torah and the Bible have been altered, firstly because they've been translated time and time again, translation being made from previous translation, which eventually chages the meanings of the text. In addtion, humans have made their own alterations.[/quote] There's a reason we can find the Quran in English (and French, and German, and Russian, and Italian, I'm sure), you know. Because it's been translated (time and time again), and I find it incredibly hard to believe that it's escaped any type of "All your base are belong to us."

If "OMFG teh Quran s0 h4s nevr been ch4nged!1!" is the strongest support point you have for the Quran being the word of God, then I'm sorry, but you have no argument, because if you were to think rationally about this, it's impossible. Take a Linguistics course; ask a Linguistics professor. No text is immune to translation error.

"Check." Your King is running out of space.

[QUOTE] And I also thought that some of the books cristians follow are actually written by Jesus' disples, making them not the word of God.[/QUOTE] ...was the Quran written by Muhammad? Was it transcribed by his followers?

Or was it transcribed by God himself?

I ask because you only have two possible answers here, and each of them is going to derail your argument.

"Check."

[quote]I stated how the Quran remained unchanged. Would you not think then, that the idea that humans are born sinful is something that was incorporated into the Torah and Bible due to their alterations? It's quite possible, is it not?[/quote] And this supports your "Quran is the word of God" argument how? Seems to me that your paragraph there is more focused on Christianity/Judaism.

Chabi, come to terms with what the reality of global Linguistics is: that everything will be lost in translation.

[quote]Therefore, you can't compare the Quran to the older scriptures[/quote] But we all have been.

[quote]disprove it's legitimacy[/quote] Oh, I think we did that, too.

[quote]because as I stated before, they were changed, or if you don't believe that, the Quran at least states that they were.[/quote] The Quran states that other texts were altered? I couldn't imagine why a religious text would attempt to discount other religious texts that it's competing against...

[quote]Why is it that christians eat pork and jews don't? Don't you consider that and inconsitancy in God's message as well?[/QUOTE] Dietary restrictions relate to inconsistency in God's message?

You want to label Christianity and Judaism as being inconsistent with each other (and apparently, inconsistent with God) based on diets?

Okay, so Muslims have no dietary restrictions at all? They don't have any meat restrictions? They don't have any fastings? Are Muslims free to eat/drink/consume whatever they want?

Again, you only have two possible answers here, and each is going to derail your argument.

You're grasping at straws here, Chabi. Your argument is falling apart.

"Checkmate." Your King is dead.

[Xander Harris]

[quote name='Chabichou][[COLOR=#004a6f']Yes, I know, but if you haven't noticed already, someone brought something up which made us go off topic.[/quote]
Sorry. The statement you were replying to wasn't directed at anything you said. I was simply stating the 'groundrules' for the diatribe I was about to type. Sorry I didn't make that clear. :animesmil


[Quote=Chabichou] I really thought people would consider this the least convincing argument, though for me it is the most convincing. I didn't use the word "pretty" either. "Powerful", or "wise" is more like it. Which accompanied by it's style makes it quite "beautiful".

Most of you brush off the scientific examples as though they were nothing, as though they are just a bunch of jibberish loaded with symbolisim and metaphors. But they really mean what they say. Actually I thought this time I will post an entire chapter of the Quran. Then when you read a verse, it will make sense more because it follows the information given by the verse before it. Here is a link to chapter 78: [url]http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/078.qmt.html[/url]

This is one of my favorite chapters, though it is frightening when it talks about hell.

Please take the time to read it. Each verse is translated three times by three different scholars.
[/Quote]
O.k. I read it. It's a well written piece (I also liked the description of Hell as well as line 078.018 and the couple lines following it), but I see nothing more eloquent in there than similar passages in Psalms or Job. Also, I see no great scientific revelation. The author is showing how great God is by holding up creation as an example. What he says are basic statements about the grandeur of nature, not profound scientific facts the likes of which the earth had not seen before that point.

[Quote=Chabichou]Anyway, back to what you were saying, Xander:Okay I'm having a difficult time understanding you but I will try:

First of all, I've stated several times that the Torah and the Bible have been altered, firstly because they've been translated time and time again, translation being made from previous translation, which eventually chages the meanings of the text. In addtion, humans have made their own alterations.[/Quote]

Altered in minor ways, yes. But remember that you are talking about things maintained by zealous Jewish scribes for centuries, and by rigorous oral tradition before that. Perhaps some words and phrasings and such got changed, but the basic jist of the stories would have survived. Unless the Jewish scribes/storytellers were gibbering idiots, and even then the members of the Hebrew tribes would probably notice if one year they were told one story about their past, and the next year were told an entirely different and contradictory tale. If you honestly think that the major events and themes I was talking about, such as God calling Abraham, the Exodus from Egypt, and the ministry of the prophets were things that were added/altered, than what's to keep you from believing Albert Einstein discovered America, or somesuch.

EDIT: b/c Siren posted while I was typing..

Saying the jewish texts were altered on the level you suggest is akin to saying that the 'all-your bases' translation error, as horrible as it was, transformed the game into a Hello Kitty daily organizer. There's textual modification, and then there's writing something totally different and expecting no one to tell the difference... do you see what I'm getting at?

[quote name='Chabichou']And I also thought that some of the books cristians follow are actually written by Jesus' disples, making them not the word of God.[/quote]
The idea of inspiration was already explained by someone else in this thread, I think. Christians and Jews believe that God worked through humans to convey his messages to the masses. But, y'know, Islam has the same idea. God used Muhammad to convey his message to the children of Ishmael, correct?

[Quote=Chabichou]

I stated how the Quran remained unchanged. Would you not think then, that the idea that humans are born sinful is something that was incorporated into the Torah and Bible due to their alterations? It's quite possible, is it not?[/Quote]
Perhaps possible in the same way it's possible the story of the founding of Canada is fabricated. But if you actually read the Old Testament, you will see that the idea of human sinfullness is perhaps THE biggest theme/idea present there. It's easily as big as the Exodus. The story of creation: climaxes in the fall of man. The laws given at Sinai: Revolves around substitutionary sacrifices for sin. The prophets: Calling people to repent of sin. The books of the Kings: About how Israel turned from God and was destroyed because of it. I could go on, but you get the point.

[quote name='Chabichou']Therefore, you can't compare the Quran to the older scriptures to disprove it's legitimacy because as I stated before, they were changed, or if you don't believe that, the Quran at least states that they were.[/quote]
There we go with the X therefore X again. 'The Quran is right because it says it is!' You can prove anything with that arguement.

[quote name='Chabichou']Why is it that christians eat pork and jews don't? Don't you consider that and inconsitancy in God's message as well?[/COLOR][/quote]

A valid question. Here's the answer. Pardon the use of quotage, but answering that question takes a big data dump of info on Old and New Testament texts and theology, and it would have taken me a long time to write it up myself :animeswea

[Quote=The Objection To Eating Pork] The Law of the Old Testament consisted of both the moral law and the civil law. The moral law dealt with the great ethics of life. Its purpose was to set apart the chosen people of Israel from all other nations on the basis of inner holiness with regard to honor for both God and man. This great moral law was to uplift the Children of Israel to a much higher standard of holiness and to serve as a model for all people of all generations. For example, the Ten Commandments are a code of moral law that pertain to man's duties to God and fellowman. They are laws unaffected by changes in the environment, and thus themselves remain unchanged.

The civil law was different. It consisted of rules and regulations that pertained to everyday living; and these rules were influenced by both environment and customs of neighboring pagan communities. Such laws dealt with issues of cleanliness, food, health, clothing, and religious ritual. The purpose of these laws was to set apart the Children of Israel from all other nations on the basis of outer holiness. They were to remain separate and distinct, and were to be distinguished in the eyes of the rest of the world for serving the one true God, and refusing to adopt the practices and superstitions of idolatrous worship that surrounded them.

Among these civil laws was the rule that forbade the eating of pig meat. It was a common practice among neighboring pagan tribes to offer a pig as a sacred sacrifice to their idols. Furthermore, in that time and in that part of the world, the pig was a very filthy animal that fed on dead meat and garbage. As a result, eating pork caused the spread of terrible diseases that affected the whole community.

The Children of Israel were to keep themselves completely separate from such pagan influence and filth.

The Children of Israel were chosen to be a holy nation submitting itself to the one true God, the very God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They were to be a constant reminder to the rest of the world that God set them apart from other nations for a very special reason. The Qur'an speaks of this also:


And commemorate our servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, possessors of power and vision. Verily We did choose them for a special (purpose) -- proclaiming the message of the hereafter.
Surat-us Sad (38):45-46
O Children of Israel! Call to mind the (special) favor which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all others (for My Message).
Surat-ul Baqara (2):47

We now know that the Children of Israel were the chosen community through which would come the Savior of the World, Jesus the Messiah, the Holy One sent from God to ransom mankind. The Word of God took on human flesh in the person of Jesus and was born of the virgin Mary. This Holy One was to be born among the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- the Children of Israel. No wonder they were called to be holy and unique from all other nations.

Unfortunately, at the time of Jesus' ministry on earth, many among the Children of Israel had lost sight of the purpose of the civil law. They substituted the washing of hands for the washing of the heart and began placing more emphasis on the civil laws of daily rules and regulations. In fact, the religious leaders began to add many more regulations of their own and claimed these to be the true standard of holiness as opposed to the purity of the heart which was much more difficult to observe. As a result, true religion for many degenerated into dead rituals lined with arrogance and hypocrisy. On the outside, the religious leaders could be seen of men reciting their prayers, washing their hands, and eating only permitted foods. But on the inside, their hearts were diseased with hatred, greed, lust, and jealousy. Men had abused the law to boast of their own version of holiness!

Jesus saw this human corruption of the civil law and took appropriate action according to the authority God had given him. He declared all food clean for the purpose of removing such hypocrisy and returning the emphasis of true holiness to the heart. As a result, for the followers of Jesus, all food was declared lawful. Even the Qur'an quotes Jesus as saying:


(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me, and to make lawful to you part of what was (before) forbidden to you...
Surat-u Ali Imran (3):50
From the New Testament, we read about the teaching of Jesus on holiness:


"Are you so dull?" he (Jesus) asked, "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him unclean? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance, and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean'."
Mark 7:18-23

It should also be pointed out that since Jesus finally came into the world, there was no longer any need for the Children of Israel to remain a distinct and exclusive community. In fact, Jesus had now come to unite all cultures of the world unto God and to empower people of all races to live up to the holiness of the great moral laws of God. It is obvious that as this community grows worldwide there are no civil laws that can be common to all, because of great differences in environment and climate. Nevertheless, the great moral teaching of Jesus remains the same for everyone: it is not the abstinence of food that brings great glory to the Almighty, but rather the expression of genuine love for God and fellowman! This law can apply to anyone and to anyplace in the world!

It should also be noted that the Mosaic Law was for the Children of Israel, and since most Christians are not descendants of Israel, they are not subject to the civil laws that dealt with community practice.

There are times, however, when Christians refrain from eating pork. If they know that in their area of the world, pigs feed on dead meat and filth, then they are careful not to eat pork for health reasons. To care for the body is also pleasing to God. Also, some Christians refrain from pork if they feel it creates a stumbling block in their desire to witness to Muslim friends and neighbors. [/Quote]

Does that make sense?

Grace and peace,

James Bierly

[EVA Unit 100]

[QUOTE]it is not the abstinence of food that brings great glory to the Almighty, but rather the expression of genuine love for God and fellowman![/QUOTE]

The laws of Kashrut aren't done to bring "great glory to the Almighty". They are done out of environmental respect for animals.

[Xander Harris]

[quote name='EVA Unit 100']The laws of Kashrut aren't done to bring "great glory to the Almighty".[/quote]

Well, maybe not today. In the context of the people Jesus was speaking to, the dietary laws were followed for religious reasons...

BTW, EVA, may I ask what branch of Judaism do you belong to? Orthodox? Reconstructionist? Conservative? I'm just kinda curious... it's not often I get the opportunity to talk to a Jew here in NW lowa :( ...

James Bierly