The Quran is the word of God

[Citrus]

I personally believe in the Godess. Why I do not believe in Christian Faith? Well how do I know this one old guy was bored and decided to make a story about some guy called God? And also how do I know that it is just another faith?

If I were Islamic sure I would believe that the Quran was the word of God. It is your faith and you are open to believe in that. But I do not think the Quran, Torah, Bible or any other Holy Scriptures are the true words of a Higher One.

Thank you for listening to my opinion, China

[Manic Webb]

I decided to check out that webpage ([url]http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/078.qmt.html[/url]). The verses are actually a little symbolic, much like most spiritual/religious scriptures. Actually, I've never understood all of these claims from different people of different religions that their texts are never symbolic and are very straight-forward. It's a little hard to back up that claim when you hand someone a verse that says "shining lamp," when it clearly means the "the sun."

[quote name='Chabichou']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.[/quote]
I'm not saying they're jibberish, but quite a few verses in the Quran are clearly metaphors.

[quote]078.010
YUSUFALI: And made the night as a covering,
PICKTHAL: And have appointed the night as a cloak,
SHAKIR: And We made the night to be a covering,[/quote]
Then again, maybe the night really is a giant cloak, or a cover.

[quote]078.013
YUSUFALI: And placed (therein) a Light of Splendour?
PICKTHAL: And have appointed a dazzling lamp,
SHAKIR: And We made a shining lamp,[/quote]
Okay, either there's a pretty big lamp in the sky, or that was a metaphor for the sun.

And if those are the metaphors from one chapter, how do we know the whole Quran isn't filled with more of them?

[Xander Harris]

[quote name='Chabichou][COLOR=#004A6F']The Quran has been translated, but the Original arabic version remains. You can always go back to that as a reference. That's why it's importanat to try to learn arabic, to get the true meaning.[/quote]
The same can be said of the greek and hebrew sources for the Christian bible. What's you point?

[quote name='Chabichou']The only scientific revelation in this chapter was "have we not built mountains as pegs", meaning, mountains have roots going into the ground. I posted the entire chapter so that you will see there is a limit to how you can interpret it, mountains means mountains, in this case it is not a metaphor, because the verses before and after it describe nature as well. Get my drift? [/quote]
So mountains go into the ground. Good. Muhammad could see what a two year old can understand. Big whoop.

[quote name='Chabichou']Zeta interpreted the verse about the "seas converging with a barrier between them" as hell and heaven with earth between them. Sorry Zeta, but that interpertation can't be used because the verses before and after it are describing nature as well.[/quote]
Congrats. You proved one of the minor arguements raised by someone wrong. I seem to remember there being several other explanations offered for that verse besides Zeta's, however...


[Quote=Chabichou]I wasn't dancing around a point. I wanted to post and entire chapter, and found a site that had the translations of the Quran. I have memorised this chapter in Arabic and I understand it too. Sure I could go get a book that has the translation, but I don't fell like typing it all out. I read the online translation and confirmed that it means the same thing as the arabic one. I didn't post it before reading it. I could long.

Honestly, since when was linking to other sites a crime? "Oh, Chabicou is wrong 'cause she links to other sites". Right.[/Quote]

Chabichou, how many times must we say it to get it through your thick skull: You can't prove X with X. You keep saying things which essentially amount to "It's true because the Quran says it is!", which proves absolutely nothing. So linking to the Quran accomplishes very little...

[quote name='Chabichou]Muhammad was given the words to him by the angel, but not just told, they were put right into his mind, that's how he had them memorized instantly. Someone needs to actually write them down, so he would speak the words clearly and they wrote it down, without additions or deletions even in the vowel sounds that end words. For instance the word for lion is "asad" but we could say "asad[B]a[/B]" or "asad[B]u[/B]" or "asad[B]i[/B']". It still means lion, but it could change the meaning of a sentence. Is the lion eating the deer or the lion being eaten himself? Even if the word order says "the lion is eating the deer", the change in the vowel sound could make the lion the direct object rather than the subject. But this advanced grammar arabs barely worry about anymore.[/quote]
There are Christian denominations that believe the Bible was written in a similar fashion (I don't believe so myself, but there are people who do). There are Jewish sects that think there is mystic power contained within the Hebrew characters that compose the Torah, b/c they think every single word came directly from God. How does the belief of direct inspiration make Islam in any way unique? It doesn't.

[quote name='Chabichou]They [B]were[/B] high and mighty, but I told you they were [B]changed[/B']. Humans put their own words in as well, and took out words that God said himslef. Jews drink alcohol because the scratched that rule out of their book. Christians eat pork because they scratched that rule out of their book, and they have the so-called new testament, which to their advantage has less rules.[/quote]
Did you even bother to read what I wrote and quoted on this in my last post? If you aren't going to read what people post, why did you start the thread in the first place? I've taken the time to read all your posts, and even your Quran excerpt. Do me the courtesy of returning the favor.

[quote name='Chabichou']Don't tell me they were just "minor changes", I've heard many chrisitans say that the old testament, which was the Torah, was changed beyond recognition by the Jews.[/COLOR][/quote]
Well, I don't know what Christians you are talking to, but none of those that I know say that. And the Torah is only the first 5 books. The old testament has been added to by the Jews (in the form of additional rules, a few history books that some Christians don't count as scripture, and books with interpretation of the law for today), but Christians do not believe the Torah and other core OT teachings were 'radically altered beyond recognition.' Here are the sorts of things Christians [I]actually[/I] say about scripture: [url]http://www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi-bin/gospel_way/bible_preservation.php[/url] I don't expect you to read it all. It's just meant to convey that the idea that Christians agree with you in your assertation that there was a great Jewish conspiracy to rewrite the old testament is ludicrous.

Using the types of arguements you use, I could claim myself to be a purple dinosaur, on account of the fact that I say I am, and many unidentified Muslims I've talked to agree with me!

If you aren't going to bother to read what people post and take their arguements into consideration, if you are intellectually incapable of stretching your mind beyond 'The Quran says it is the word of God! So it is!' and offering more persuasive arguements, if you can't admit defeat on even the most minor of points, than I don't know why I'm wasting my time on this thread...

James Bierly

[Manic Webb]

Okay, I'm just gonna get right to the heart of this.

I don't care how hard you try, you cannot [i]coerse[/i] someone into accepting your religion with "proof" that your texts are true. The reason for that is that you simply cannot prove they're true. There's a reason it's called faith, Chabi, and that's because you believe without proof. You're letting your faith affect your judgement, and it's making you see easily questionable "proof." I'm sorry, but you simply can't prove that the Quran is the word of God. The fact that practically every non-Muslim in this thread has argued with you should show you that much.

Faith means never having to explain your religion to the uninterested and unbelieving. Sure, you might want to explain how it works and what it entails, but no one ever said you had to explain why it was right. You don't have to. You have faith that the Quran, and others don't. To come onto a public forum and to claim that you have proof that it's right; it requires a degree of naivete to think you won't be opposed, and perhaps a degree of gall to try to force your beliefs onto others.

[Brasil]

[quote name='Chabichou']The Quran has been translated, but the Original arabic version remains. You can always go back to that as a reference. That's why it's importanat to try to learn arabic, to get the true meaning.[/quote] GASP! And you can also find the original Hebrew version of the Torah in nearly every single Synagogue! Your point is as clumsy, useless and irrelevant as it is stupid.

[quote]The only scientific revelation in this chapter was[/quote] Hadn't you posted some inane gibberish about how "star piercing the darkness" was actually scientific revelation about black holes?

[quote]"have we not built mountains as pegs", meaning, mountains have roots going into the ground. I posted the entire chapter so that you will see there is a limit to how you can interpret it, mountains means mountains, in this case it is not a metaphor, because the verses before and after it describe nature as well. Get my drift?[/quote] Wow. I never realized that I needed some sort of spiritual revelation to be able to see how mountains connect to the ground. And actually, "as pegs" is a metaphor (a simile, actually, but simile and metaphor are very closely related).

Now, pegs can be removed. That's why they're pegs. Because they're placed in a hole but can be taken out. That's what a peg is.

Mountains aren't pegs. They're not push-pins pressed into corkboard to hold papers in place. They're not on a wall in a coat room in a kindergarten.

They're "natural elevation[s] of the earth's surface having considerable mass, generally steep sides, and a height greater than that of a hill."

The use of "pegs" in the mountain line of the Quran is [b]sloppy writing[/b].

[quote]Zeta interpreted the verse about the "seas converging with a barrier between them" as hell and heaven with earth between them. Sorry Zeta, but that interpertation can't be used because the verses before and after it are describing nature as well.[/quote] Yes, and I also included my own interpretation, [i]one that you still have not even mentioned or attempted to refute[/i]. Chabi, your argument is falling apart. You have to resort to ignoring entire posts to even reply here anymore. You're not helping yourself. Plus, regarding that "two seas" thing...anyone can tell where freshwater ends and saltwater begins, just from the taste (just from common sense, not from some quasi-scientific/religious revelation). Not to mention you could drop a freshwater fish into saltwater and see what happens. If the separation between the bodies of water is so precise, then the difference would be like night and day.

[quote]In the chapter I posted, it says:
See how these verses describe nature? You can't simply take one them and change it metaphorically because it just won't fit.[/quote] So...our saying that when you're quoting "Star piercing the darkness" and when you're claiming it refers to black holes, when we're explaining that it's a metaphor for the light defeating the darkness, for knowledge overcoming ignorance...who really is applying an interpretation that "just won't fit"? Get over yourself, Chabi and come to terms with reality: that you have no idea what you're talking about. lol

And it's not as if you were connecting things with [i]nature[/i], Chabi. You were trying to connect the various lines with [i]precise scientific data[/i]. You have never been talking about nature, so don't try to make it seem like that. If you try, I'll call you on it.

[quote]I know there are symbols and metaphors, and they do add to the beauty of the Quran, but not to the extent when something said means something totally different. We know that when God says he made a "shining lamp" for us, it means sun, [u][b]sure it's metaphorical[/b][/u] but it makes complete sense. Th sun gives us light, which definitely means we can describe it as a "lamp".[/quote] I've highlighted a phrase you need to pay attention to. All along, we've been saying they're all metaphorical statements. All along, you've been denying that, claiming there's no metaphor whatsoever.

Now, however, you're saying "sure it's metaphorical"? You're saying what we've been saying the entire time.

I don't even see what your point is with your "point." So, just because a lamp gives off light, just like the sun, means that the Quran is the word of God? Or somehow legitimizes the Quran and discounts all other religious texts? I can point to every single ancient and/or religious text in the entire world and find numerous examples of the "shining lamp" cliche.

[QUOTE] I wasn't dancing around a point. I wanted to post and entire chapter, and found a site that had the translations of the Quran. I have memorised this chapter in Arabic and I understand it too. Sure I could go get a book that has the translation, but I don't fell like typing it all out. I read the online translation and confirmed that it means the same thing as the arabic one. I didn't post it before reading it. I could long.

Honestly, since when was linking to other sites a crime? "Oh, Chabicou is wrong 'cause she links to other sites". Right.[/QUOTE] You were quoting a text because you couldn't sufficiently make the point yourself. Why try to deny that? You're getting backed into a corner here and trying to get some breathing room by linking to other material. I echo what Xander said to you. Your quotations mean absolutely nothing because you're trying to prove X by X. It doesn't work, it's never worked, and it's not working.

[QUOTE] Muhammad was given the words to him by the angel, but not just told, they were put right into his mind, that's how he had them memorized instantly. Someone needs to actually write them down, so he would speak the words clearly and they wrote it down, without additions or deletions even in the vowel sounds that end words.[/QUOTE] *nods* So humans wrote it.

[quote name='Previously posted by 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] Jesus' disciples=humans. Muhammad's scribes=humans.

If you want to say that the Bible isn't the word of God because Jesus' disciples (humans) wrote some of it--transcribed what Jesus said, did, etc--then the Quran also isn't the word of God, based on that criteria, because Muhammad's followers, his scribes (humans) also transcribed what he said, did, etc.

Your argument that the Quran is the word of God just got derailed, Chabi, because the very same evaluation criteria you're trying to use to discount the Bible just got applied to the Quran.

Now, had you said the second answer, that God himself had written the text, I would have referred you to the story of the Ten Commandments.

Moses comes down from Mt. Sinai, holding two stone tablets in his hand, explaining how God has just given him these commandments (that means the text came directly from God).

Considering that both Judaism and Christianity strongly emphasize the Ten Commandments, that would make both of them the word of God, because God "wrote" those texts.

[QUOTE]For instance the word for lion is "asad" but we could say "asada" or "asadu" or "asadi". It still means lion, but it could change the meaning of a sentence. Is the lion eating the deer or the lion being eaten himself? Even if the word order says "the lion is eating the deer", the change in the vowel sound could make the lion the direct object rather than the subject. But this advanced grammar arabs barely worry about anymore.[/QUOTE] Okay, and the Quran is unchanged how? What you just said is a perfect example of how it's not immune to the rules of Linguistics and proves what I've been saying all along.

[QUOTE]They were high and mighty, but I told you they were changed. Humans put their own words in as well, and took out words that God said himslef. Jews drink alcohol because the scratched that rule out of their book. Christians eat pork because they scratched that rule out of their book, and they have the so-called new testament, which to their advantage has less rules.[/QUOTE] *refers you to what you just said above* Above, you just said how one letter can change the entire meaning of a sentence, and how "arabs barely worry about [this advanced grammar] anymore."

That would indicate massive changes in the Quran over time, Chabi. Or were you just talking out of your *** in some vain attempt to sustain a collapsing argument?

[quote]Don't tell me they were just "minor changes", I've heard many chrisitans say that the old testament, which was the Torah, was changed beyond recognition by the Jews.[/QUOTE] I can see the Christians now: "Oh, teeheeteehee, teh j00s s0 totali chnged teh buk of Exodis!1!! Tehy only wahndred 4 5 dayz!1!1! lolrz!1!1"

Please. Your "point" here basically amounts to "Oh yeah?! Well, they're bad, so you should criticize them!"

You're trying to deflect the issue/focus here (and dragging it off-topic, I might add by focusing on Christianity and Judaism). Stop it.

[quote=Manic]Okay, I'm just gonna get right to the heart of this.

I don't care how hard you try, you cannot [i]coerse[/i] someone into accepting your religion with "proof" that your texts are true. The reason for that is that you simply cannot prove they're true. There's a reason it's called faith, Chabi, and that's because you believe without proof. You're letting your faith affect your judgement, and it's making you see easily questionable "proof." I'm sorry, but you simply can't prove that the Quran is the word of God. The fact that practically every non-Muslim in this thread has argued with you should show you that much.

Faith means never having to explain your religion to the uninterested and unbelieving. Sure, you might want to explain how it works and what it entails, but no one ever said you had to explain why it was right. You don't have to. You have faith that the Quran, and others don't. To come onto a public forum and to claim that you have proof that it's right; it requires a degree of naivete to think you won't be opposed, and perhaps a degree of gall to try to force your beliefs onto others.[/quote] Read that, Chabi. Read it very carefully and very closely and comprehend it.

EDIT:

[quote name='Chabi][color=#004a6f']The Quran has a different message than the Torah and the Bible because they were changed, because the Quran states so, because the Quran is the Word of God. *Gasps for breath*[/color][/quote]
The Quran has been changed in the same ways as the Torah and the Bible, Chabi, in the same ways as all ancient and/or religious texts. It's not immune to the rules of Linguistics.

[CowTipper]

Okay, I read through this whole thread, and I have to say that some of you are quite moronic, but I won't get into that. I am Muslim, just so you all know.

1) Chabi, stop trying to prove the Jewish and Christian faith wrong. In the Quran it says to respect the Jews and Christians because they believe in God too.

2) I agree with you Siren, about how the Quran could have very well been changed. The Bible, however, has been changed A LOT. When Constantine was emperor of the Roman empire, there was a big clash between paganism and Christianity. Constantine, who was a pagan himself, had made a very bold decision. He realized that in order to maintain power, he had to support Christianity and promote it. He also realized that in order to keep pagans on his side he had to make some changes. What he did was he took every single Bible and burned them (a few original texts survived) and replaced them with a new version. He made the Bible more divine and extraordinary, by adding the water to wine and walking on water things. He basically mixed paganism with Christianity.

3) Why are you all trying to put the other religion(s) down? Let people make their own choices, don't try to convert them, and live freakin' life.

To get back on topic here...I personally believe that the Quran is the word of God (let me speak my opinion). I think that some of the things in the Christian faith is a little messed up, but I'm sure you think that about the Islamic faith.

[Retribution]

[quote name='Chabichou']It's more likely that the Arabs didn't know much about Christianity than the idea that they did.[/quote]
[SIZE=1]Wow. I'm glad I'm taking Western Civilization now. We learned that the Arabs [i]did[/i] in fact know about Christianity and Judiasm. They generally like the principle's presented in the two religions, but because of political and social reasons, rejected both only because they wanted to unite under a common "Arab" religion. And what better time for Islam to spring up than now? But that's getting off the path. Point is, they did know of Chrisitianity. It's called [I]trade[/I] and [I]commerce.[/I][/SIZE]

[quote name='CowTipper']2) I agree with you Siren, about how the Quran could have very well been changed. The Bible, however, has been changed A LOT.[/quote]
[SIZE=1]This is true, but I believe that Xander said you could find the original "Bibles" (supposedly free from error) in Latin, just like you can find the Quran in Arabic and then the translated, slightly changed versions. But we miss the bigger point. In each translation, nothing extremely vital was changed or removed. The message stayed the same.[/SIZE]

[QUOTE]When Constantine was emperor of the Roman empire...[/QUOTE]
[SIZE=1]He never was. He was emperor of the Byzantine empire. But moving on...[/SIZE]

[QUOTE]...there was a big clash between paganism and Christianity. Constantine, who was a pagan himself, had made a very bold decision. He realized that in order to maintain power, he had to support Christianity and promote it.[/QUOTE]
[SIZE=1]Again, a perfect example of how you look at it, and which account you believe. Constantine personally wrote in his journal that he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to convert. His vision had a burning cross on a shield or something, and told him to convert. He said to God that he will worship Him if He granted Constantine victory... and he did win. Again, I guess it's all who you want to believe.[/SIZE]

[QUOTE]He also realized that in order to keep pagans on his side he had to make some changes. What he did was he took every single Bible and burned them (a few original texts survived) and replaced them with a new version. He made the Bible more divine and extraordinary, by adding the water to wine and walking on water things. He basically mixed paganism with Christianity.[/QUOTE]
[SIZE=1]Whoa there, man! Let's not get blindly pointing fingers at Constantine for making up divine miracles. There's documented proof from the era recording Jesus' miracles, acts, and mission. Where'd you hear something like that? I'd love to know...

And you also just shot yourself in the foot. Original texts survived? That means that there is are some texts that are original and free from error? I could've [B]sworn[/B] you said that eariler.[/SIZE]

[QUOTE]I think that some of the things in the Christian faith is a little messed up....[/QUOTE][SIZE=1]Care to elaborate?[/SIZE]

[Brasil]

[quote name='CowTipper']2) I agree with you Siren, about how the Quran could have very well been changed. The Bible, however, has been changed A LOT. When Constantine was emperor of the Roman empire, there was a big clash between paganism and Christianity. Constantine, who was a pagan himself, had made a very bold decision. He realized that in order to maintain power, he had to support Christianity and promote it. He also realized that in order to keep pagans on his side he had to make some changes. What he did was he took every single Bible and burned them (a few original texts survived) and replaced them with a new version. He made the Bible more divine and extraordinary, by adding the water to wine and walking on water things. He basically mixed paganism with Christianity.[/quote]
Thank you, Cow Tipper. That's my point exactly, that no text in the entire world is immune to change and/or translation error.

[CowTipper]

Whoa there, man! Let's not get blindly pointing fingers at Constantine for making up divine miracles. There's documented proof from the era recording Jesus' miracles, acts, and mission. Where'd you hear something like that? I'd love to know...

And you also just shot yourself in the foot. Original texts survived? That means that there is are some texts that are original and free from error? I could've sworn you said that eariler.

by Retribution

I heard that Constantine did these things from books, and from some of my teachers that I discuss religion and politics and whatnot. Yeah, I guess I should have made myself a little clearer. I said that the Bible had been changed a lot, but I didn't mean that there aren't any other unedited ones, just that the Bible most people read. I'm not good at explaining things, and I'm really twisting my brain right now, so I hope that cleared something up...

Care to elaborate?

by Retribution

I don't think it's right how you can go to a guy and tell him that you have sinned and be forgiven for your sin(s). You can do this, right? Also I don't understand the Holy Trinity thing and Jesus being the son of God.

I am not trying to put any religion down, just stating my opinion.

[Zeta]

[QUOTE]
He never was. He was emperor of the Byzantine empire. But moving on...[/QUOTE]

That is also known as the Easter Roman Empire. The term Byzantine Empire wasn't coined during his time. It was coined much later to differentiate between the Western and Eastern due to various differences that arose over time.

[QUOTE]He also realized that in order to keep pagans on his side he had to make some changes. What he did was he took every single Bible and burned them (a few original texts survived) and replaced them with a new version.[/QUOTE]

I am curious as to where you heard this? I know for a fact that he had a group of men go through and decide the various books to be put into the Bible, but not of destroying the books and writing a whole new set of them. That would be seen as defiance to God don't you think? Burning his words. He went through and decided which books to add, not destroy. Though, I could be wrong.

Anyways...

I agree with Siren completely as well.

Kk, Im done. ^_^;;

[Retribution]

[quote name='CowTipper']I said that the Bible had been changed a lot, but I didn't mean that there aren't any other unedited ones, just that the Bible most people read.[/quote]
[SIZE=1]True, but like I said, it doesn't matter if the word "Philadelphia" is translated to "brotherly love" as opposed to "love." It's all the same. I don't understand why Muslims believe the Bible was altered by men, when it was only translated into another language, where it kept the message constant.[/SIZE]

[QUOTE]I don't think it's right how you can go to a guy and tell him that you have sinned and be forgiven for your sin(s). You can do this, right? Also I don't understand the Holy Trinity thing and Jesus being the son of God.[/QUOTE]
[SIZE=1]Yeah, that's pretty off topic, but I'll give it a shot.

Well, Catholics go to a "guy," who is referred to as a Priest. Catholics believe that during the sacrament of Reconciliation (aka confession), the Priest is [i]in persona Christi[/i] or in the person of Christ. Basically meaning that Christ's spirit manifests itself in the priest, and therefore has the power of forgiveness. However, I'm a Methodist (Protestant, basically), and I don't believe in a mortal forgiving me of my sins. I pray directly to God, and I know He can forgive me of my sin. It's my faith.

And the Trinity... I guess it's one of the more mysterious, complicated things of Christianity. That's why alot of people don't understand it, much like you. I'm not gonna really get too far into all that.[/SIZE]

[Japan]

[quote name='Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]Yes, I agree with you there too. The Quran could indeed have been changed. Now tell me, do you have proof that it's been changed? No you don't, hence, you cannot use that argument to disprove the legitimacy of the Quran. The [B]possibiity[/B'] that it's been changed is there, but so far what have we seen? There are copies of the Quran that are almost as old as the time of it's revelation, and they are identical to today's copies. I think that's pretty darn good evidence that the Quran hasn't changed, wouldn't you agree?[/COLOR][/quote]

[COLOR=Navy]What proof do you have that the Bible changed over time?[/COLOR]

[Xander Harris]

[QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]

When will YOU get that idea into YOUR "thick skull"? [/Quote]

Chabichou. I owe you an apology. The "thick skull" quote was originally mine. I said it because I felt I was restating something that had already been said multiple times, but I should have said something like, well, "It has already been stated several times" rather than using the harsh expression that I did. I apologize for that, and for any insult or lack of respect that I conveyed through my choice of words.

Good night,

James Bierly

[elfpirate]

[b]I've got to admit, though it proves nothing but what a jerk I am, that this thread has had me laughing my *** off, and I can't believe that the following quote wasn't responded to:[/b]


[b][QUOTE=Morpheus] [/b]

[b][color=darkred]Originally Posted by [b]angst01[/b][/color]
[i][color=darkred]And to go to heaven you must read atleast a portion of the Quaran.[/color][/i]

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.[/QUOTE][b]Or this one--ha ha ha...[/b]
[b][quote name='Heaven's Cloud][color=indigo']I?d say that you really haven?t proven anything except that Mohammed was a cunning linguist. [/color][/quote] [b](Thank you, HC for brightening my day:animesmil )[/b]
[/b]
[b]With all the sarcastic insults and metaphorical mayhem (not to mention Siren's cleverly and sneakily thrown in random chess references-- which I'm still lmao about), this really is one of the most entertaining threads I've read in a while. [/b]

[b]Alright...now, back to the original [i]purpose[/i] of this thread... *composes self a bit*...[/b]

[QUOTE=Chabichou][color=#004a6f] However, the point of my thread is only to try to convince you that the Quran is the word of God.

There is no "proof" that it is the word of God, and there is no "proof" either for the other two scriptures. But, let's take a look at the facts shall we[color=black]?[/color]

I'd say that there's enough evidence here that show the Quran is indeed the word of God. What do you make of it?[/color][/QUOTE][b]Oh, boy, Chabi... though this has been an extremely fascinating, educational, and (at least for an a**hole like me) side-splittingly hilarious read, I'd have to say that [i]this[/i] is what I make of it:[/b]

[b][u]No proof. No fact. No evidence.[/u] [/b]

[b]You haven't convinced anybody that wasn't already on the same page as you that there is "proof" of the Quran being the word of God.[/b]

[b]What you have done is to parrot the text of the Quran and to link it to the thread... and to state your opinions of the meanings behind ancient metaphores.[/b]

[b]To me, this thread is like those creepy televangelists that smack people on the head and knock them over in order to "heal" them or to remove the evil spirits... they babble, smack, and when the person is lying on the floor, they turn to the camara and say "Behold! Proof that the Almighty is within me..."[/b]

[b]*ahem*-- proof that [i]something[/i] is within, but I'm thinking it has a "Do not drive or operate machinery..." sticker on it's bottle.;) [/b]

[b]What I'm trying to say is that showing people metaphores and educating them on ...um... the myths and legends (which may or may not be history) is simply not "proving" that something is what you claim it to be. [/b]

[b]Just because it exists within your faith doesn't automatically qualify it as "evidence". You can point at it and shout "Behold!" as many times as you'd like, and as loudly as you like, but it doesn't change the nature of what you're pointing at... just as the creepy televangelist only proves to me that he can get away with smacking people.[/b]

[b]And Chabi-- did you ever stop to think that maybe every text that carries within its pages the love of God and brings people to have faith IS the word of God?[/b]

[b]I mean, what if God is a thousand times greater than your Quran, the Christians' Bible, and the Torah, and all the other books of faith even touch upon and that He/She/It sent [i]all these texts[/i] to the people in various forms so that the general ideals of faith, love, devotion, etc... would be accepted by all kinds of peoples from all nations ...because they speak to those different nations in a way that its people can relate to?[/b]

[b]I personally don't subscribe to any organised religion, because of things like this thread.[/b]

[b]How many pages have been filled with argument and insult over which book is the true word of God? This is utterly ridiculous to me.[/b]

[b]If God gave "his" teachings to the people, as most religions believe that God did, why can't it be accepted that God put his teachings within everything we see, as I'm pretty sure every one of these texts clearly states.[/b]

[b]Why are you trying to force a god between the covers of a dusty old book? [/b]

[b]Don't you see your God in the praying faces of your Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, etc... brothers and sisters? Don't you hear your God's teachings in the laughter of a child?[/b]

[b]I really do think this organized religion crap is exactly that-- a bunch of crap.[/b]

[b]I don't need an ancient text to tell me what a God would want of "his children"... and I can find enough pointless arguments about things that can't be proven [i]without[/i] trying to cram something as omnipotent as a deity into something that fits in a drawer.[/b]

[b]I think that people of all faiths will agree that there are things more important at the roots of their souls than who's got the better book on how things went down thousands of years ago.[/b]



[center][b]****Screw "two cents"-- that was like a buck fiddy, damnit!****[/b][/center]

[/b]

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Chabichou]There's no harm in having discussions about religion, trying to make others understand your beliefs more. If you believe in Islam, honestly, why not try convey the message to people? What's wrong with trying to convince people that islam is the right path if that's what you believe?

And like I said before, if you don't wanna hear what I have to say, you are quite welcome to leave the discussion. I'm not going to shut up. I still think I'm right, because in my opinion you haven't proven anything. If you don't wanna hear it, leave. That's right, leave me to talk to myself, if you don't want to hear me. Why do you even choose to reply in the first place?[/quote] Chabi, there's a difference between discussing religion and what you do. Keep that in mind.

"I still think I'm right, because in my opinion you haven't proven anything."

So it's gone from "I AM right" to "I still think I'm right." In your opinion? What opinion is that? The opinion of a self-absorbed, narcissistic, fascist religious propagandist? (no offense, but it's the truth)

[QUOTE]You really don't need to load your arguments with petty insults and sarcasm. You only end up proving that you're a real jerk. It doesn't bring us any closer to understanding each other's ideas.

If you want me to "stop playing the victim" then please stop insulting me. We simply have a misunderstanding.

And one more thing Siren, you still haven't disproved the Quran. And the argument "I have disproved the Quran because I proved that Chabichou is stupid" doesn't make sense, just so you know.[/quote] 1) Oh, I'm not loading them with petty insults and sarcasm, because your point [i]is[/i] inane and clumsy. You were trying to justify the Quran simply on the basis that the previous Arabic version still exists, and I mentioned how the Hebrew version of the Torah can be found in virtually every Synagogue, which by your "logic" also justifies the Torah, so your support point to prove that the Quran is the word of God (and by extension, the Torah not being the word of God) is null and void.

2) You play the victim regardless, Chabi. You created this thread, it seems, to throw a childish tantrum and nothing more. In this thread and in the past, when nobody has remotely insulted you, you still act like people are shoving knives in your heart. You play the victim with very little provocation.

3) Firstly, I have nothing to prove here. You do. You're the one who created this thread with the intent to SHOW how the Quran is [b][i]the[/i][/b] word of God. The thread title itself makes that pretty clear. Further in the discussion, you attempted to disprove the Torah and the Bible. As of this post, you still have not done so, more or less just flailing in the water.

Secondly, take a look at my #1 here. Now, it seems to me that if I can apply to the Torah and Bible whatever argument you're using to "prove" the Quran (or legitimize it), that defeats your argument that the Quran is the word of God, and therefore, disproving the idea that the Quran is the word of God, because with [i]your[/i] evaluation criteria, I've proven the Torah and Bible.

[quote]What is the topic of this discussion? That's right, the Quran. Therefore it seems most appropriate to analyze the actual text in this discussion. I told you already, I linked to the text to give you an example of a chapter in the Quran, just to give you an idea of what it's like, to show that there is a limit to how much you can interpret the meanings of the verses. When will YOU get that idea into YOUR "thick skull"? [b]Linking to a chapter in the Quran didn't prove that it is the word of God, I never said that it did,[/b] I was simply addressing other questions that arose in this debate.[/quote] [quote name='Chabichou][color=#004a6f']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[/color][/quote] Hm. I guess you haven't been saying that proof of the Quran being the word of God is in the Quran? I don't know, when I see someone repeating "the Quran is the word of God because it coincides with modern science" ad nauseum in a thread, and then I see that person mention "scientific examples" in the first line of a paragraph where she links to a portion of the Quran, noting, "they really mean what they say," call me crazy, but I don't think there's any denying that the linkage was directly related to defending the "scientific-ness" of the Quran.

Considering that your primary "point" here has been "SCIENCE in the QURAN," I'd say that linkage is still designed to "prove" your argument.

And...the focus of this thread, the reason of this thread, is so you can prove the Quran is the word of God, so...if you [i]are[/i] in fact linking/quoting (fundamentally, linking and quoting are the same thing) portions of the Quran with no relevance to your point...why are you bringing them in to begin with? To help others understand something that you believe to be purely exclusive to the Quran (and apparently utterly absent everywhere else in the world)? It just becomes a waste of everyone's time.
[color=#004a6f]
[/color][QUOTE]And I think I addressed the "proving X with X" accusation. Kindly read my previous post.[/QUOTE] Yes, you said you weren't trying to prove X with X, but on the first page of the thread, you were saying the following:

[quote name='Chabichou][color=#004a6f']However, the point of my thread is only to try to convince you that the Quran is the word of God[/color][/quote] But what you failed (and continue to fail) to do is reference anything other than the Quran. You quote/reference portions of the Quran that state exactly what you said in the above quote. That's proving X with X.

[QUOTE]Okay, now to address the matter of metaphors. If I have contradicted myself before, I apologize. The Quran, like the other holy scriptures makes use of metaphors. But there are verses in the Quran that need to be taken literally, and there is a limit to how metaphorical the text can get.[/QUOTE] Not "if." You [i]have[/i] contradicted yourself. Let's make that clear. Now, "literally." Okay...so "light piercing the darkness," or mountains on the horizon. How does the literal nature of those statements legitimize your claim that the Quran is the word of God?

[QUOTE] When I mentioned the sun being described as "a dazziling/shining lamp", I wasn't trying at that point to prove that the Quran is the word of God. I was addressing the issue of metaphors, Siren. You are really twisting my words around. You need to understand that questions arise that go off topic, and I was simply trying to answer them.[/QUOTE] [quote=Chabichou][color=#004a6f] However, the beauty of the Quran is only [b]one[/b] of the many pieces of evidence that proves it's the word of God. I also stated how Muhammad knew of historical facts that no one in his region would know simply because they have never heard it.

[/color][color=#004a6f] In addition, what about all the references in the Quran to nature? There are many vivid and detailed discriptions of nature and the way things work, which all agree with modern science!

[/color] [b]Do you not see how He created seven heavens in layers, and placed the moon as a light in them and made the sun a blazing lamp? (Qur'an, 71:15-16)[/b]

[b]It is the star that pierces through darkness! (Qur'an, 86:3)[/b] [color=#004a6f]*We know now that although we get light from the moon, it is actually reflecting the sun's light. God makes it clear that it is the sun, our star that "pierces through the darkness". The sun is producing the light.[/color][/quote] I must have just imagined you claiming Quran=word of God, then quoting a passage that refers to a shining lamp, claiming it helps prove Quran=word of God.

[quote]I was addressing chapter 78 Siren. The black hole isn't mentioned in chapter 78. I stated that the only scientific revelation in chapter 78 was the discription of mountains. Why did I state that? Because when I linked to chapter 78, Xander said that he didn't see much of a scientific revelation in the chapter. So I was simply addressing his concern, not yours. Why did I post chapter 78? Because when Zeta (don't worry dude, I'm not trying to put you down, I'm glad you had a go at it) interpreted a verse too metaphorically, and I realized it was important to show that there was a limit to how much you can interpret the Quran. Then again, I did make a mistake of not posting the chapter as an example before asking for interpretations of a verse of the Quran. Sorry for that.[/quote] I agree there's a limit to how much you can interpret the Quran. I think when you link vague, metaphorical language to modern science, that's violating that limit.

Now, I notice you still haven't refuted (or even attempted to refute) my comments regarding the black hole, so I can only conclude that you have no rebuttal for it.

Also, noticing that mountains connect with the ground is hardly scientific revelation. If a 5-year-old can glance at a few hillsides and see them decline into flat ground, you're not proving anything by referencing something so simple.

[QUOTE]Yes, I agree with you there too. The Quran could indeed have been changed. Now tell me, do you have proof that it's been changed? No you don't, hence, you cannot use that argument to disprove the legitimacy of the Quran. The possibiity that it's been changed is there, but so far what have we seen? There are copies of the Quran that are almost as old as the time of it's revelation, and they are identical to today's copies. I think that's pretty darn good evidence that the Quran hasn't changed, wouldn't you agree?

The Quran states that it will be preserved, and we see clear evidence that it has remained unchanged. Doesn't that somehow support the Quran being a devine revelation?

I was trying to say that when people trancribed the Quran from Muhammad, even these vowel endings were important and they made sure they got it right. And when making more copies of the Quran, we keep these exactly the same, and when people memorise the Quran they make sure they get it right. Miniscule aspects of the Quranic grammar are being preserved. Which is important in helping to keep the Quran preserved.

Now this doesn't prove that the Quran wasn't changed in the past, I was simply stating how well we keep the Quran preserved, today that is. It is a fact that we are this careful when transcribing the Quran or teaching it to youngsters. When youngsters have it memorised to every detail, they grow up, and pass this message on to others, making sure they know it perfectly as well. Have you ever played the game when someone whispers something into your ear and you pass it on to someone else, who passes it on to someone else, who passes it on to someone else, who passes it on to someone else, etc? The oiginal message could easily be altered, and usually comes out totally different. Now imagine playing this game and being so careful, the message is exactly the same on the other end. If people are this careful, this definitely helps to preserve the Quran.[/QUOTE] I get it! Out of the [b]entire[/b] world, out of the [b]entire global literary canon[/b], in the face of the [b]reality[/b] of a very real and concrete establishment of guaranteed [b]global translation error[/b] and a guaranteed very strong emphasis by [b]any[/b] Linguistics professor around, in the light of knowledge gained from even taking just one Linguistics course, the Quran is the ONLY text in the entire world that is magically immune to every single rule of Linguistics in the history of the world.

Don't be a fool, Chabi. You have enough common sense to know that no matter what the Quran [i]says[/i], it's not unchanged over the some 2000 years it's been around. [u][b]Take a Linguistics course[/b][/u].

[quote]Listen to me. The Mediterranean sea comes in contact with, "converges" with the Atalantic Ocean. Their waters do no mix because they have different salt contents, giving them different densities. Hence, surface tension froms a barrier between them. It's like water and oil on mixing. You can see a clean line between water and oil , as though their is some barrier between them. Does this make sense?

We know the concept of surface tension was not known back then. People haven't discovered it yet. Muhammad wouldn't know that the Mediterranean sea and the Atlantic ocean didin't mix. People back then would think that they do in fact mix.

If you still don't think that the barrier between neighboring seas is surface tension, fine. Whatever.[/quote] How is this supposed to be a rebuttal? I don't see anywhere in your reply here that shows you understood what I was saying at all, Chabi. In fact, I think my point went sailing right over your head, so I'll repeat it in simpler, more direct ways:

You can tell where saltwater ends and freshwater begins by taste and you don't need any quasi-scientific/religious revelation to know where that line is.

To elaborate, have you ever tasted saltwater, and then tasted what freshwater tastes like? Just from the taste, you can tell there's a difference, and like I said before, if the barrier between different bodies of water is so precise, anybody could tell where one body begins and another ends, simply by tasting the water at various points, [b][i]or[/i][/b] by taking a fish from one body of water and dropping it into the adjacent body of water.

This is why you don't need any quasi-scientific/religious revelation to know that neighboring seas don't mix...because you can tell just through experience, and this is why bringing in that passage of the Quran, claiming that because it vaguely refers to an invisible border between bodies of water, and just happens to coincide with a scientific finding later on, that it proves the Quran is the word of God, which you did say earlier in the thread:

[quote=Chabi][color=#004a6f]However, the beauty of the Quran is only [b]one[/b] of the many pieces of evidence that proves it's the word of God. I also stated how Muhammad knew of historical facts that no one in his region would know simply because they have never heard it.

[/color][color=#004a6f]"[i]This property of the seas, that is, that they meet and yet do not intermix, has only very recently been discovered by oceanographers. Because of the physical force called "surface tension," the waters of neighbouring seas do not mix. Caused by the difference in the density of their waters, surface tension prevents them from mingling with one another, just as if a thin wall were between them.60

It is interesting that, during a period when there was little knowledge of physics, and of surface tension, or oceanography, this truth was revealed in the Qur'an.[/i]"[/color][/quote] I don't know why you're still persisting on this point, because when a 5-year-old can make a distinction between a bay and the ocean...I don't think pointing it out in a religious text is really proving anything.

[quote]Anyway, I would like to point out that the Quran isn't a science book either. For instance, God explains how an embryo froms in its mother not for science's sake. He is explaining our lowly animalistic origins despite how great our minds are. It's just miraculous that the Quran would accurately descibe the stages of an embryo's development. How could a human in that time have known all the details? They simply did not have the technology to know. God states how we were nothing more that a lump flesh, which latches on to the to the side of the womb. It also states how the bones form before the muscle. An embyologist would tell you this is true.[/quote] I'd recommend you check out the following site:

[url="http://www.visembryo.com/baby/hp.html"][u]Embryo development[/u][/url]

According to that site (a site that seems pretty solid, reputable and comprehensive), organs develop first, then muscles, and then the skeletal structure begins taking shape. Now, I'm not a smart man, but I'd say that's pretty different than what the Quran says.

[quote]There's so many statements made, and they all agree with modern science, and people simply wouldn't know those things back then! You might not have found the ones I presented convincing, but there are so many many more. How is it possible?[/quote] "So many statements" like what? The (obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes) mountain statement? The (obvious to anyone with a minimal sense of taste) freshwater vs saltwater statement? The incorrect embryo formation?

Oh, yeah, it's possible...but only if you're a complete fool, lol.

EDIT:

[quote=Xander Harris]Chabichou. I owe you an apology. The "thick skull" quote was originally mine. I said it because I felt I was restating something that had already been said multiple times, but I should have said something like, well, "It has already been stated several times" rather than using the harsh expression that I did. I apologize for that, and for any insult or lack of respect that I conveyed through my choice of words.

Good night,

James Bierly[/quote]
Very nice apology, James, and I do agree that the apology was warranted, but I think the fact that Chabi attributed that to me is testament to just how scattered and unfocused her replies have become.

[Xander Harris]

[QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]Sigh...The Mediterranean sea and the Atlanic both have salt water. It's not a difference between fresh and salty water. So are you stating that Muhammad performs some sort of experiment? He leans out of his boat and tastes [B]salt water[/B]? And apparently just tasting the water confirms that there is a [U]barrier[/U] between the two bodies of water? That sounds quite silly if you ask me.

How was I playing victim in the beginning of this thread? When I try to explain what I mean when you misunderstand me? My intention is to clarify my ideas that's all.

Yes, it "shoves a knife in my heart" when you twist my words around and use it against me. You keep using my past statments to argue my present ones when they are irrelevant. When I talk about metaphors, using my past statements about science to argue doesn't prove anything. I told you countless times, I was addressing two [B]different[/B] questions, two [B]different[/B] subjects. I said, that the sun can be interpreted as a "shining lamp", that metaphor is logical, it's valid. Then you ask "well how does that prove the Quran is the word of God?" It doesn't, that's the thing, I never said that it did. I was addressing the issue of metaphors only, so stop putting words in my mouth. You even go so far as to claim you know you know what I'm thinking: "You don't understand because you don't [B]want[/B] to". Great argument there Siren, and somehow you think this proves me wrong...right. :rolleyes:

I've told you countless times that I posted chapter 78 as an example for Zeta. Xander said there wasn't much scienctific-ness to it, which is true. I told him "You're right, Xander, only the verse that talks about the mountains is scientific". You said "Any idiot would know mountains are embedded into the ground". You're right too Siren. But I told you, when I posted the chapter it wasn't my intention to use it's "scientific statement" to prove the Quran is the word of God. I wanted to show Zeta an example of what a Quranic chapter might talk about. Do I make myself clear? Why do you keep arguing with me about this issue Siren? It's so frustrating, I explain my intentions, and you just keep accusing me of contradicting myself, when I'm not.

What's wrong with thinking I'm right? Doesn't everyone think that their opinions are correct? Don't you think that you're right about your opinions? I think that's the reason we have them. Isn't that why we're arguing in the first place? If I think I'm right, then I think you're wrong, and if you think you're right then you think I'm wrong. We argue for the sake of trying to get people to change their minds.

Apparently because I won't shut-up and agree with your opinion, that makes me "self-absorbed", and "narcissistic"...right. Well, this "narcissistic" person takes the time to thank her lord for giving her life, rather than turning away in arrogance.
Actually you don't.Siren, are you stating that it's a [B]fact [/B] that every single scripture, that every single book has been changed? The [B]possibility[/B] is there, but that doesn't confirm it. I never said the Quran is the [B]only[/B] book that's remained unhanged. If you work hard enough to preseve something, chances are you will succeed, we have also succeeded in preserving shakespeare's plays and famous novels. What "immunity to linguistics" are you talking about? What do you mean by that?

Holy scriptures are more vulnerable to change because people might disagree with them or misunderstand them. The Torah the Bible and the Quran, were all at risk.

But if the Quran is indeed the word of God, then it indeed has remained unchanged because God is protecting it himself. How exactly is he protecting it? Well he allows those who know the message to pass it on properly, meaning the orignial message will always be known, even if there are only a few people who know it.

In regards to the Torah, if the copies in the synagogues are indentical to those of 2000 years ago, then you're right, we have no proof that it's been changed. Therefore, we can assume that the Torah and the Quran are in the same leugue, but only concerning this matter.

But there is proof that the Bible's been altered, we all know that. How much exactly we're not sure, and we all have different ideas how much it has.

Oh, and I took a look at the embryology site you linked to Siren. You were wrong. You looked to see if the word "muscle" comes before "bone". We all know the heart is a muscle and it is one of the first organs to develop, but the muscles I was reffering to is our "flesh that clothes our bones". The site mentions formation of the skeleton before it mentions development to actual body muscles. Hence the Quran is still right about that. Ha![/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Hey, Chabichou... I went looking for more info on the scientific claims of the Quran on the internet, and stumbled upon a site filled with scientific rebuttals to those claims. Granted, some of the rhetoric has a decidedly Christian slant, but all the arguements themselves are based in logic and scientific evidence. (yes, there is stuff on the two seas and embryo arguements. Good reads, but way too long and scientific to try and post them into a message board. Hence, the linkage)
[url]http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Science/index.htm[/url]

These arguements are more than enough to disprove, at least for me, the "The Quran is the word of God b/c it contains scientific truth that could only have been known through divine revelation" claim.

Your only other arguement seems to be that the Quran is eloquent, but as we have pointed out, you could use that arguement to prove the validity of a variety of religions. In fact, you could use it to prove that a good novel is the word of God, for that matter.

Now, I am not asking a rhetorical question here or trying to be sarcastic. I'm genuinely curious. Do you have any other arguements besides those two (scientific statements and eloquence)?

If so, please post them.

If not, it seems to me you really have very little, if anything, for your position to stand on.

Have a good day,

James Bierly

[Brasil]

[quote name='Chabichou']Sigh...The Mediterranean sea and the Atlanic both have salt water. It's not a difference between fresh and salty water. So are you stating that Muhammad performs some sort of experiment? He leans out of his boat and tastes salt water? And apparently just tasting the water confirms that there is a barrier between the two bodies of water? That sounds quite silly if you ask me.[/quote] Have you ever done it? Sounds silly? So does claiming that a 2000-year-old text holds scientific truth, Chabi.

[quote]How was I playing victim in the beginning of this thread? When I try to explain what I mean when you misunderstand me? My intention is to clarify my ideas that's all.[/quote] How? I don't know, perhaps throwing a childish tantrum when you don't get your way? Perhaps the complaining about people insulting you, when they're not really insulting you, only responding with the same level of vitriol seen from your posts in this thread (and there has been some nasty vitriol coming from you, don't deny that)? Chabi, it's a fact that you bring all of that down upon yourself.

[quote]Yes, it "shoves a knife in my heart" when you twist my words around and use it against me. You keep using my past statments to argue my present ones when they are irrelevant. When I talk about metaphors, using my past statements about science to argue doesn't prove anything. I told you countless times, I was addressing two different questions, two different subjects. I said, that the sun can be interpreted as a "shining lamp", that metaphor is logical, it's valid. Then you ask "well how does that prove the Quran is the word of God?" It doesn't, that's the thing, I never said that it did. I was addressing the issue of metaphors only, so stop putting words in my mouth. You even go so far as to claim you know you know what I'm thinking: "You don't understand because you don't want to". Great argument there Siren, and somehow you think this proves me wrong...right. :rolleyes: [/quote] Okay...so then why bring in an utterly pointless quotation if it doesn't relate to anything in the discussion? The Quran uses metaphors. We've been saying that the entire time. It's an established fact that one can understand just by reading the [insert ancient/religious text here] with a basic level of comprehension.

Chabi, Xander's point is easy enough to understand that nobody else in the thread didn't get it. Because you didn't get it, I can only see two reasons for that:

1) You lack the capacity to understand what he's saying (and what he's saying is incredibly easy to understand, provided you don't [i]want[/i] to ignore it).

2) You simply don't want to, because it punches a hole in your argument.

So, you're either incompetent or ignorant to the point of being utterly blinded. Take your pick.

[quote]I've told you countless times that I posted chapter 78 as an example for Zeta. Xander said there wasn't much scienctific-ness to it, which is true. I told him "You're right, Xander, only the verse that talks about the mountains is scientific". You said "Any idiot would know mountains are embedded into the ground". You're right too Siren. But I told you, when I posted the chapter it wasn't my intention to use it's "scientific statement" to prove the Quran is the word of God. I wanted to show Zeta an example of what a Quranic chapter might talk about. Do I make myself clear? Why do you keep arguing with me about this issue Siren? It's so frustrating, I explain my intentions, and you just keep accusing me of contradicting myself, when I'm not.[/quote] A "scientific revelation" that a 5-year-old can see and understand independently of those around him or her? That's not a scientific revelation, Chabi.

[quote]What's wrong with thinking I'm right? Doesn't everyone think that their opinions are correct? Don't you think that you're right about your opinions? I think that's the reason we have them. Isn't that why we're arguing in the first place? If I think I'm right, then I think you're wrong, and if you think you're right then you think I'm wrong. We argue for the sake of trying to get people to change their minds.[/quote] What's wrong with thinking you're right? I don't know, when you're trying to connect dots that aren't even there? When you're proposing and adamantly sticking to a faulty thesis, claiming you've obliterated any "opposing" argument (when you really haven't), downright ignoring points the first five times they're made and only finally getting around to flirting with the idea of maybe mentioning them in passing when they're being slapped into your face?

I'd say after all that, and you still think you're so incredibly right, something's wrong.

[quote]Apparently because I won't shut-up and agree with your opinion, that makes me "self-absorbed", and "narcissistic"...right. Well, this "narcissistic" person takes the time to thank her lord for giving her life, rather than turning away in arrogance.[/quote] Oh, please, haha. Yeah, I'm sure being an Atheist has really doomed me to living such an unfulfilled life. Think about what you're saying here, Chabi. Think about what you've been doing here. You have (and are) acting like a fascist religious propagandist. Myself and others here have only been providing counterarguments to your initial claim that Islam is the true religion, because there is no way to prove something like that, and yet you keep telling us we're wrong, and continuing to persist with the same kind of religious rhetoric that has doomed so many theocracies. I say you're self-absorbed and narcissistic because you live in your own little world and outright ignore what other people say. That's self-absorbed and narcissistic.

[quote]Actually you don't.Siren, are you stating that it's a fact that every single scripture, that every single book has been changed? The possibility is there, but that doesn't confirm it. I never said the Quran is the only book that's remained unhanged. If you work hard enough to preseve something, chances are you will succeed, we have also succeeded in preserving shakespeare's plays and famous novels. What "immunity to linguistics" are you talking about? What do you mean by that?

Holy scriptures are more vulnerable to change because people might disagree with them or misunderstand them. The Torah the Bible and the Quran, were all at risk.

But if the Quran is indeed the word of God, then it indeed has remained unchanged because God is protecting it himself. How exactly is he protecting it? Well he allows those who know the message to pass it on properly, meaning the orignial message will always be known, even if there are only a few people who know it.

In regards to the Torah, if the copies in the synagogues are indentical to those of 2000 years ago, then you're right, we have no proof that it's been changed. Therefore, we can assume that the Torah and the Quran are in the same leugue, but only concerning this matter.

But there is proof that the Bible's been altered, we all know that. How much exactly we're not sure, and we all have different ideas how much it has.[/quote] Chabi, [u][b]take a Linguistics course[/b][/u]. Trust me. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're falling back on a faulty and naive supposition that is entirely contradicted by professional analyses of global literary dynamics.

"We have also succeeded in preserving shakespeare's plays and famous novels."

Bull****. You're talking out of your ***. Take a look at the Norton Anthology Shakespeare Edition prints, 1990 to present day. Take a look at new editions of Walt Whitman's Leaves of Grass and compare them to the editions printed in the early 1900s. Compare Oscar Wilde's works published circa 1895 to re-prints over the past 20 years. Chabi, don't try to talk about Literature here, because you're just coming off as an idiot stretching to try to make a point.

"What 'immunity to linguistics' are you talking about? What do you mean by that?"

Are you just playing dumb here or do you really not understand that (easily understood) concept? Again, are you intentionally ignorant or just purely incompetent?

[quote]Oh, and I took a look at the embryology site you linked to Siren. You were wrong. You looked to see if the word "muscle" comes before "bone". We all know the heart is a muscle and it is one of the first organs to develop, but the muscles I was reffering to is our "flesh that clothes our bones". The site mentions formation of the skeleton before it mentions development to actual body muscles. Hence the Quran is still right about that. Ha![/QUOTE] "Flesh clothing our bones" means what? Muscles? I doubt that. Skin is more likely (there's a referencing to [i]clothing[/i], for crying out loud). I'm even considering the line in the context of how you're looking at it and seeing flaws, Chabi. "Flesh clothing our bones" does not refer to the musculature. It refers to the skin. You've made some horrid interpretive errors previously in this thread, Chabi, so I don't think it's impossible that you've made another grievous interpretive error here.

[quote=Stage 7]The ectoderm grows rapidly over the next few days forming a thickened area. The three layers of the will eventually give rise to: Endoderm that will form the lining of lungs, tongue, tonsils, urethra and associated glands, bladder and digestive tract.

Mesoderm that will form the muscles, bones, lymphatic tissue, spleen, blood cells, heart, lungs, and reproductive and excretory systems.

Ectoderm that will form the skin, nails, hair, lens of eye, lining of the internal and external ear, nose, sinuses, mouth, anus, tooth enamel, pituitary gland, mammary glands, and all parts of the nervous system.[/quote] [quote name='Stage 13']The somites will be involved in building bones and muscles. The first thin surface layer of skin appears covering the embryo.[/quote] Chabi, you're Sisyphus and your argument is the boulder.

With that said, could a Mod please close this thread? Chabi's boulder is never going to reach the top of the hill, yet she keeps trying to push it back up after it falls.

EDIT: Xander, thank you for the linkage.

[url="http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Science/alaqa.html"][u]Quran vs Human Embryo Development[/u][/url]

"[b]Conclusion: on bone development Dr. Sadler and Dr. Moore agree. There is no time when calcified bones have been formed and then the muscles are placed around them.[/b] The muscles are there several weeks before there are calcified bones, rather than being added around previously formed bones as the Qur'an states. [b]The Qur'an is in complete error here.[/b]"

Reproduced in the exact same typography.

[Sara]

[QUOTE=Siren] EDIT:


Very nice apology, James, and I do agree that the apology was warranted, but I think the fact that Chabi attributed that to me is testament to just how scattered and unfocused her replies have become.[/QUOTE][font=trebuchet ms]Or perhaps it's because [i]you[/i] are normally the one making snide remarks to her, and James has been quite civil.

[color=#ff6600][b]Everyone[/b] in this thread: I realise there is frustration on all sides of the issue (or perhaps, in Elfpirate's case, merely amusement), but I am going to ask only once that everyone makes an effort to behave politely. Alex, I'm looking at you. [/color]

As for Chabi's arguements, particularly the [b]X, therefor X[/b] ones: as someone who also is familiar and places some amount of faith in a Holy Scripture, I can't fault her for what she is saying. It doesn't hold water in a scientific arguement, perhaps, but the basis of faith to believe something is true because it says so.

The Bible also states its truth: [i]All Scripture is God-Breathed and is useful for teaching, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.[/i] I don't know the reference offhand, but there you go. It's in there, and I'll be happy to look it up if someone takes issue with it.

Has it been changed and altered throughout the centuries? Certainly. Alex is right, nothing is immune to the limiting aspects of translation. Particularly when talking about the theological, nothing is exact.

Even when talking about the concrete, translations can be...interesting. And even in languages as closely related as English and German.

The German word for turtle is [i]die Schildkröte[/i]. Literally translated, we have a "shield toad." Clearly, a turtle is neither a shield nor a toad. ;) The word for airplane is [i]Flugzeug[/i], "flying thing." There are obviously [i]many[/i] flying things in the German-speaking world that are not also airplanes.

I'm sure everyone is familiar with the stories found in collections of the Grimms' tales. Some of them are told very beautifully. But there's really no comparison to the actual [i]German[/i] version. If you have the choice between reading the tales in German and English, [i]read them in German.[/i] If you can read Goethe in German, why read him in English? Even (or [i]especially[/i]) in such well-known works, there's simply no way to compare the two languages and say that the translation comes anywhere close to the original.

I understand that this point was brought up previously, and Chabi pointed out that this is the reason to learn the original language and read the Quran in that, but I felt the need to reiterate. (As a linguistics and German student, this is really the only input I can bring to the discussion.)[/font]

[Brasil]

Lore, point taken. Will take it under advisement.

[quote name='Chabichou']Just because you weren't convinced that the were scientific statements, that doesn't prove that the Quran is not the word of God. The statments are still correct.[/quote]The thing is, they [i]weren't[/i] scientific statements. They were just conclusions based on simple observations that anyone could make in an ancient time.

[quote]Now take for example the embyotic development. I honestly read that the bones form first, so I really didn't know the muscles formed first. But wouldn't you assume then, that it isn't a scientific statement, and just a metaphorical statement? Leaving out the fact that the ovum is involved in fertilization doesn't make the Quran incorrect. We were created from a sperm. That is true. We were also created from an ovum, I know that isn't mentioned, but still, we were created from a sperm. There is no lie here.

And even if the muscles and bones are formed at the same time, muscles take more time to actually become complete, to fully clothe the bones. However, this statement in the Quran may not have been for scientific purposes at all, so it becomes metaphorical.[/quote]
Okay, and I can point to other ancient/religious texts that deal with the male seed. What's your point? lol

And since you're now saying that the statement in the Quran may not be as scientific as you were preaching earlier in the thread, it's not really helping your original thesis, is it?

[quote]Sorry, what "tantrum" are you talking about? When you call me clumsy and stupid that's insulting me, and I don't like it. Did I lash out in anger? No, I simply asked you to stop insulting me. Why do you use my defence of my feelings (which you are hurting by the way), to disprove my argument?[/quote]
Do you mean when I called your [i]point[/i] clumsy and stupid? Remember that distinction, Chabi. You have a habit of making criticisms personal when they're solely focused on your points and how you're making them.

[quote]The point that I was trying to prove, which I've stated before, is : There is a limit to how you can interpret a verse, because it must fit in with the verses that come before and after it. This wasn't a pointless quotation.[/quote]
Okay, now apply your point to your own posts, Chabi.

[quote]You know, all Xander said was that if he would leave Chrisitanity, he would not consider following Islam. I still don't understand why, he tried to explain, and that's when you came in. I was asking Xander questions about why he wouldn't scratch out Islam if he left Christianity. You used this specific post to argue that I haven't proven anything. But all I was doing is asking Xander a question, we had went off topic.[/quote]
Xander's point was that he wouldn't go to Islam because its religious dogma is just as questionable as other major world religions. How is that so hard to understand?

[quote]I think all of us accepted the fact that mountains being pegs isn't much of a scientific revelation. I told you that I agreed with you, so why do you keep bringing this up?[/quote]
Because you had still referred to it as "scientific revelation" when you referenced it in your previous reply.

[quote]I still think my idea is right, but I know I haven't argued it well. My weakness in expressing my self is a obstacle, but that doesn't automatically make my argument false. I'm sure there are other people who could present it in a better way. You seem to agree with Cow Tipper somewhat, and he believes the Quran is the word of God. Why do you think that is?[/quote]
I agree with CowTipper on the basis that he also agrees that the Quran is certainly subject to international Linguistics SNAFUs. That's all. There was never any confusion on that point.

[quote]There you go again, you simply made an accusation, that I'm playing dumb. I don't understand what you mean by "the Quran is not immune to the rules of linguistics". [b]You have simply stated this again and again without explaining yourself[/b]. The rules of lingusitics say that no text can ever be preserved? I can't even write a poem without it being changed, even if it gets passed on in the same language?[/quote]
I don't have the time to re-quote myself, but I HAVE explained myself on that point, Chabi. I've explained myself [i]numerous times[/i]. I've gone into that concept much, much more than should have been necessary, [i]and you still say you don't get it[/i].

I have explained it sufficiently, and everyone else here gets what I'm saying (hell, Lore confirmed what I was saying, and she studies Linguistics--it's one of her majors, if I'm not mistaken). Because you don't understand it means I haven't explained it properly? [i]Please[/i]. Understanding what I say in my posts isn't difficult. All it takes is basic comprehension.

[quote]You doubt that "flesh" means "muscle"? Carnivors eat other animal's flesh. The skin on it's own isn't enough! Flesh means muscles. That's what meat is, flesh.

Sigh........ here we go again.[/QUOTE]
But what is clothing? A surface covering. The hide of an animal. The skin of a human being.

I think that's everything. Class now.

[Retribution]

[QUOTE=Chabichou]Holy scriptures are more vulnerable to change because people might disagree with them or misunderstand them. The Torah the Bible and the Quran, were all at risk.

But if the Quran is indeed the word of God, then it indeed has remained unchanged because God is protecting it himself. How exactly is he protecting it? Well he allows those who know the message to pass it on properly, meaning the orignial message will always be known, even if there are only a few people who know it.[/QUOTE]
[SIZE=1]Do not go running that arguement around here, that God protects the Holy Book. Sure, I believe that the Holy Spirit keeps the Bible free from error as well ... so use of "faith" in this arguement isn't going to cut it.[/SIZE]

[QUOTE]In regards to the Torah, if the copies in the synagogues are indentical to those of 2000 years ago, then you're right, we have no proof that it's been changed. Therefore, we can assume that the Torah and the Quran are in the same leugue, but only concerning this matter.[/QUOTE]
[SIZE=1]Wait... I thought you said that the Quran is right [B]because of the fact[/B] that it is the only uncorrupted "Holy Book" around. So if the Torah and the Quran are "in the same league" because of the fact it remained unchanged by men, you should also believe the Torah to be the Quran. But I'm guessing that's not right...[/SIZE]

[QUOTE]But there is proof that the Bible's been altered, we all know that. How much exactly we're not sure, and we all have different ideas how much it has.[/QUOTE]
[SIZE=1]I feel like a broken record. [B]What does it matter that it's been altered?[/B] It carries the exact same message ... the Word of the Lord. But off of the faith idea, it embodies the same values as it did when the books were first written.[/SIZE]

[Justin]

Maybe it's thefact that I haven't read through all six pages of this thread, but from what I can see, it's nothing more than an argument. Honestly, I don't know why I'm replying to it.

[quote]I personally don't subscribe to any organised religion, because of things like this thread.[/quote]

I find it sad that you blame your lack of faith on your percieved faults in other people. If people trying start a ---discussion---about their faith, or any faith, is too much for you to handle maturely, perhaps you shouldn't try handling it at all.

As for my opinion on the subject; I'd said it's a given. Then, I realize that most of you probably don't know me, and those who have been around long enough to remember me probably can't remember much.

So, on with my spill, for which I doubt there will be any follow-up: I am a follower ofChrist, and the Torah and the Gospel are the whole Word of God. The Gospel is not a 'revised' edition of the Torah, but a message that the Torah has been fulfilled, the final sacrifice made to atone for sin, and that an [i][b]ever-progressive relationship[/b] of faith, hope, and love with Christ[/i] is all that remains for humans to maintain.
Christianity, as prescribed in the Bible, is not a religion--it is a life. A life that can only be lived on an everyday basis, for the rest of forever. It cannot be maintained once a week, twice a week, once a year, once a month, or in any increment whatsoever. It is a life of constant faith, openness, holiness, transparency, determination, compassion, hope, focus, sharing, giving, pouring into, pouring out, blessing, rebuking, praying, teaching, growing, and love.

God is(as previously suggested) beyond our comprehension, beyond our natures, beyond any perception of what He is other than the perception that He is. That is why the only name He ever gives us Himself(unless I am mistaken) is the tetragrammaton, the Holy Name, Yahweh/Yaveh/Jehovah which means "I AM THAT THAT I AM." In other words, "I am, and that is all you need to understand."

That is why Jesus constantly used the phrase "I am." It's not like He was shy about who He was. Look it up. He said "I am" constantly, connecting Himself and affirming His existance as the Eternal Ruler of Creation--the I AM." For example, He said "before Abraham was, I am." He didn't use the "I was" past-tense--He said "I am." Thereby establishing His eternal, perfect existance that cannot be interupted or disturbed.

What is the Bible then, if the true nature of God is beyond our definition? It is a prescription, from Jehovah, for eternal salvation. Jehovah exists eternally because He is perfect and infallible. And nothing else but His perfection will be everlasting. The Torah gives us a model, basically, for how to come as close as we can to holiness, to purity, to godliness as men. That is, primarily, to seperate ourselves from the filth of our age, and to reserve ourselves for Jehovah.
The Gospel is the message that it is all right that we can't fulfill those goals. The message that Jesus met them for us, and if we believe in His Lordship and accept it we can share in His reward.

What do I think of the Quran? It doesn't matter to me, except studying it to better understand the Muslim people. What do I think of its portrayal of God as Elah? I think it has captured a fleeting glance of Jehovah, as many people of the world have(including most--perhaps any--Christians that try to define Him in human terms).
In fact, Elah is one of the names of God used in the Torah. It means "The Strong One;" but there is more to Jehovah than strength. I found 85 names and titles for the I AM in the briefest of searches; all of which reflect a new and different character and portrait of Him.

To make this novel short, there is far more to this God-thing than we can ever understand. More than most of us care to understand, truthfully. However, you should probably make an effort to achieve some level of personal understanding before you delve into something like this. You [i]show[/i] meproof that the Bible has been altered. Show it to me, verify it, and we'll discuss it. Until then, if this is still the same OB, I hardly think this is the place for these kind ofdiscussions. They always seem to become uninteresting before long.

Anyways, God bless you, and in Christ, Goodnight.

-Justin

[James]

[quote name='Retribution][SIZE=1]I feel like a broken record. [B]What does it matter that it's been altered?[/B'] It carries the exact same message ... the Word of the Lord. But off of the faith idea, it embodies the same values as it did when the books were first written.[/SIZE][/quote]

[color=#B0251E]I really hesitate to get into these threads, but I do want to say something here. I think you are missing the point and are perhaps unaware of the Bible's history to some degree.

First of all, the actual content and message of the Bible has changed many times over the course of history. This is a result of the inclusion and exclusion of various texts at different points. The Nostic Gospels, for instance, were never included within the New Testament - primarily for political reasons (obviously you can't enforce a law if another law contradicts it, for instance).

Even the "King James Version" speaks for itself. Obviously it's not the original unedited document, if it's a [i]King James Version[/i]. lol

Some of the earliest texts from the Bible included references to all sorts of things, which obviously never made it into the current version. Cannibalism is a good example.

So, to some degree, the Bible has changed over time, as part of its relationship with civilization and culture at different points in history.

I think Chabichou is trying to illustrate the idea that while the Bible has changed significantly, the Quran has not.

Honestly, I can't speak about any changes in the Quran, because I simply don't know enough about it.

I just wanted to clarify the reason why Chabichou might be pointing that out and why it does actually matter, if we are talking about relevance.[/color]

[Justin]

Can you show me these changes, or maybe not even the changes, but show me verification for reasons for the changing?

To my knowledge, the original canon was put together from the Torah, the Psalms of the Temple, the Proverbs and the Ecclisiastical(spelling anyone?) writings of Solomon, the accepted prophets, the concurrent Gospels and the accepted writings of the apostles in 125 A.D. Which, if you calculate it, is only 25 years or so after the last book was written.

The Nostic Gospels, the whole of the modern Deuterocanonical texts(the Apochrypha), a few supposed writings of the apostles and such, as well as a slough of supposedly inspired texts were left out of that canon because they aren't congruent with the remainder.

Again, this is all to the best of my knowledge and according to my research. Perhaps you can provide an equally educated view from a different perspective.

God's Grace,

-Justin

[James]

[color=#B0251E]Most of the information I have about this subject actually came from a televised documentary, which included various Biblical researchers as well as various members of the church.

Unfortunately I don't remember the specifics, but they spent a significant period of time discussing the New Testament and the way in which it was formed. It seemed to pretty much boil down to the decisions of a small group of people -- the Nostic texts were considered to be essentially anti-Christian at the time. But the impression I get is that this is largely because they were contradictory to many of the other Gospels, despite being produced within a similar time period. As you probably know, there were actually Nostic churches at that time, which were essentially a type of protestant movement. Actually, some of these gospels seemed to have links to texts within the Quran, which is also interesting.

I wish I could provide you with more information and specifics, but I didn't tape the documentary. It was incredibly interesting though, primarily because most of it was actually being discussed by senior members of the church, from different countries. There was actually a very serious view to understanding the drastic changes made in the Bible over its history, which I found to be highly refreshing.

So, this is why I think it's better for me to leave the discussion to those who really want to get into the nitty gritty of the whole question about the Quran's validity. While I have my doubts that many here are Quran experts or anything, I feel that if they're enjoying the discussion, that's fine. I personally don't think I can get invested in such a discussion, lol.[/color]

[Brasil]

[quote name='Chabichou']It's not that the Quran is right just because it hasn't been changed, it's because it claims that it will not be changed, and that promise has indeed been kept, as far as all the evidence shows. Siren argued that it's impossible for any scripture to be immune from change right? Well, if it's impossible, why has the Quran showed itself to do the impossible, to remain unchanged, to keep it's promises? That's what I think gives it it's validity. Do you see what I'm getting at?[/quote]
Chabi, listen to me, okay? Listen to me. [u][b]You need to take a Linguistics course here[/b][/u], because you don't know what you're talking about. You could talk to [i]any[/i] Linguistics student (Lore, for example) or professor and they would tell you the same thing I'm saying here:

That no matter what anyone else [i]says[/i], no matter what any [i]text says[/i], no matter how a [i]text may look[/i], over the 2000 years it's been around, the chances of it being unchanged are about as good as me sprouting wings and a tail and flying around the world...meaning, [i]not bloody likely[/i]. You're arguing a point that is not based--and is outright ignoring--the reality of global literary dynamics. The only way for your point to hold any merit at all is if we ignore history itself, which is exactly what you've been doing in this thread.

[quote]And then, if the Quran hasn't been changed, the Original message from god has not been altered, meaning anything the Quran says would be true. Now all we need to do is show other attributes of the Quran that show hoe miraculous it actually is. To show that it is indeed the word of God.[/quote]
Your attempt at a logic-based syllogism here is faulty: "Because the Quran seems to be unchanged, it must be true."

What would be true? Incorrect "scientific" statements? Bloody obvious and cliched metaphors about knowledge? [i]If[/i]--and this is a BIG "IF"--the Quran hasn't been changed over the years, I don't see how it proves anything. It doesn't prove there's a God. It doesn't prove it's correct. All it proves is that someone was anal-retentive to the degree of defying every single rule of Linguistics.

[quote]We could for instance look at verses claimed to be scientifically correct, and we can analyze them from different views, both scientific and metaphorical, keeping in mind there is a limit to how much we can interpret them. Anyone in disagreement about that?[/QUOTE]
They're [i]not[/i] scientifically correct, though. That's what we've been saying the entire time. To say that the Quran's statement about creation is accurate because muscle surrounds the bone is grossly, [i]grossly[/i] oversimplifying the human body, because the human body's muscle and skeleton structure is not like simply dipping a pretzel rod into chocolate. There's muscle, yes, but there's also a complex network of more than just muscle. There are tendons, cartilage, fat, fluid, veins, arteries, etc. The Quran's statement is horridly inaccurate.

Now, I want to make sure that you're also applying the "interpretive limit" to your own posts, as well, because it applies to you much more than it applies to anyone else here, given the past 8 pages or so and that "black hole" interpretation of yours.