The Quran is the word of God

[Decadence]

To pose one simple question.
How do you know the Arabic version is the original, whose to say that there wasn't a mistake when it was copied by hand?

[Retribution]

[QUOTE=James][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][/QUOTE]
[SIZE=1]You're right. Of course there have been major changes to the Bible. But the overall message has remained the same. There hasn't been some faith-shattering remake of the Bible; it's all generally been the same. The nature of the Trinity, for example, is the exact same now as it was in the 5th century AD. The Bible's perspective of God as a loving, forgiving creator has not changed either.

Yes, there have been both major and minor changes in the Bible, but the overall message has remained the same.[/SIZE]

[Decadence]

Ok, that takes care of when he was alive, but after he was dead, how do we know the Quran was not changed after that?

Edit: Though I do think we are getting into pointless minute details as it all comes down a basis of faith, weather or not its been changed you still beleave it, and weather or not its been changed others don't, I think thats about as close as a resolution as we'll come to this.

[Heaven's Cloud]

[color=indigo]I cannot believe that this thread is still active.

Anyway, as far as the Quran remaining unmodified, I wonder, Chabichou, what you make of possible omitted texts and Mohammed?s abrogated verses?

In Bukhari there are several statements where Abu Bakr writes that during the Quran?s compilation verses were revealed to be false by Allah and there by omitted. This was due to the fact that much of the Quran, especially during Mohammed?s latter years, were written on palm leaves.

I would also like to touch on the abrogated verses in the Quran. Just a little side note for those who are not familiar with pre-Islamic Arabia, Allah was a god with three daughters, al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat. The following segments are all from the tale commonly known in story book form as [b]The Flimsy Idols[/b].

Sura 53:19-20 states ?Have ye thought upon (about, of?[i]there is a brief description of what Siren meant when he said translating texts infallibly alter a document, three sources, three translations of one word[/i]) al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat, the third, the other??

In every Quran today the following is (in some translation or another) written ?Are yours the males and his the females? That indeed were an unfair division.? This more or less helps to show that the three daughters were of flesh and not children of the true God, Allah.

However, several early Muslim biographers wrote of the Mohammed?s original verse, one that was later replaced by Mohammed himself who stated he was overcome by Satan?s tongue. The verse was: ?These are the exalted cranes whose intercession is to be hoped for.? During Mohammed?s time in Arabia cranes were thought of as divine hosts and spiritual intermediaries. Therefore the line would symbolize that Allah did indeed have three daughters and they were his divine hosts.

There were also four more similar verses that were accounted for in the Quran and later omitted and abrogated. Wakidi, al-Tabari, Ishaq all wrote about these abrogated verses and all are well respected early Muslim biographers.

Personally, I don?t think the abrogated verses change the overall message of the Quran, but I also don?t think that the altered versions of the bibles change its overall meaning.

Having read both texts (actually I took extremely boring history classes on both) I am under the assumption that the Quran was altered so it didn?t mimic some of the times and areas ?mythology? while the bible was altered more for the church?s own political gain. [/color]

[Zeta]

You said earlier in the topic that the earliest ones are from 100 years after his death, right here.

[QUOTE]And then some of you will still assume that the Quran has been changed over time. There are very old copies of the Quran however, just a century after Muhammad's time, whose text is identical to the copies we use today.[/QUOTE]

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Chabichou]The problem is, you have not shown the Quran to be changed. You claim that you explained your so called vast knowledge of linguistics, and you honestly have not proven anything. I told you, the Quran remains today in it's original language. No sentences are reworded when copies are made of it, people make sure to get every thing exactly the same. Unless someone purposely makes a change, it will remain the same. It's meanings might change when it's translated. Honestly, what the hell are you trying to argue? You are making no sense. And although you think you proved something, you honeslty have not. "Take a linguistics course". Is that the only argument, you have? It doesn't prove anything. I know several languages, Arabic French, Spanish, English and Japanese. I understand the meanings of things can change when they are translated, you don't need to "take a linguistics course" to realize that. And as much as i'd like to take a linguisitcs course, I don't have ther time right now. My major is science, and I'm already taking Japanese as my extra ^_^.

You keep arguing that the Quran has been changed due to translation. I told you, we have the original Arabic version, which we keep exactly the same when we make more copies. The Arabic version of the Quran has not changed, and that is something you still have failed to disprove.
You keep repeating the same pointless arguments again... and again...and again....and again. You still haven't proven that it's been changed. Why? Because almost every copy in the world is exactly the same, every sentence, every letter, every accent marking is exactly the same. The only ones that are different are made by people trying to misguide muslims. When comparing today's real copies to the very old copies from Muhammad's time, they are exactly the same.

Hence, I have come to the conclusion that the Qur'an indeed has not been changed. The original message is still known to day, exactly the way it was when it was revealed. You have proven nothing.

"Take a linguistics course. You don't know what you're talking about."

How about taking an Arabic course? Maybe you'll finally understand what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE] You look at only [i]two[/i] versions in a span of [i]2000[/i] years and you're able to say it's remained unchanged for all eternity? Where is the logic in that, Chabi? You're telling me that I'm not making any sense? You're the one who's basing an observation of 2000 years of history on a span roughly equivalent to that of a decade. I'm basing an observation of 2000 years of history on a span of 2000 years of history.

Now, Lore has echoed my comments and she's a Linguistics major, and since you doubt my knowledge of the subject, then surely you don't doubt hers.

[quote]The only ones that are different are made by people trying to misguide muslims.[/quote] So you're claiming there's a [i]conspiracy[/i]? That the world is out to get all you Muslims? That any mistake made is so clearly not the fault of any Muslim in the entire world, and is really the plot of some other group of people engaged in a maniacal scheme to destroy the entire faith of Islam?

Did you ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, everyone who's translating the Quran is doing so honestly, but some just aren't perfect at it? Just think about the idea of screaming "CONSPIRACY! THERE'S SOMEONE OUT TO GET ME!" It's lunacy...not to mention [i]playing the victim[/i].

[quote][color=#004a6f]These are the copies that [b]everyone believes[/b] are indeed that old. There are copies form Muhammad's time, made by his companions who led the islamic communities right after his death, but some people don't believe they are from that time. Why? I really don't know.[/color][/quote] So they're [i]second-hand[/i] works scribed [i]after[/i] his death...in a time when you weren't born...so you can't really state that it was a perfect translation...because you weren't there, and for all you know, the versions you read right now could have been altered just like when those second-hand copies were written.

Like Lore has said, nothing is immune to translation error (or for that matter, immune to textual change), especially theologic writings, so that [b][i]FACT[/i][/b], coupled with a 2000-year span of history...I'd say that's pretty good evidence that there have been revisions/alterations, Chabi.

Your argument here seems to stem from you reading a "modern" translation and comparing it to the "original" text. You're not actually accounting for the 1990 years between the two versions, just supposing that because the two versions are identical as per your own translation (and, what makes you so sure you've translated everything perfectly? Hell, you have blatantly misinterpreted passages in the Quran in this very thread, and missed easily understood points), any version in the 1990 years in between also must be identical.

You're basing your argument on a loose and slippery supposition based on a religious dogma. I'm basing my argument on established literary fact. Common sense would dictate that the established literary fact is much more reliable than the loose supposition. Or don't you feel that common sense should be utilized here?

OtakuSennen (12:46:02 AM): "These are the copies that everyone believes are indeed that old." Everyone believed that Earth was flat, too.

Nick raises a good point here. Just because everyone believes something, does that make it true?

EDIT: And Chabi, you're not even arguing your original thesis anymore.

EDIT 2: I did some snooping and came across this website.

[url=http://www.uga.edu/islam/quran.html][u]Quran Analyses[/u][/url]

Now, it presents articles for both sides of the issue, and I've read various ones for both sides, and each side makes compelling arguments, but...a few things on there strike me as very peculiar, apart from the rampant vitriol seen on both sides, but moreso on the part of the "defenders."

I think I even see elements of the "defenders" accusing the critics of being anti-Muslim and basing their historical criticisms on some Ideological remnant of the Crusades. As far as I can tell from the articles, they're simply researching and reporting what they find. It seems that the "defenders" take great offense to that...and I don't see a reason why they should.

But anyway, enough of my yakkin. Let's boogie.

[quote]In other words, while scholars of the Bible in the West have largely succeeded in convincing the community of scholars that the Bible we have today was not the very same "Word of God" that was revealed through the prophets and which was spoken by Jesus, scholars of Islam have generally not come to similar conclusions about the Qur'an.[/quote]
Fair enough, however, the following statement is iffy.
[quote]This is not to say that the text of the Qur'an is written just as it was written during the time of Muhammad. On the contrary, it is a historical fact, accepted by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, that the [u]writing of the text[/u] ([b]but not the text itself[/b]) of the Qur'an has substantially evolved. One such major evolutionary difference is that originally the text was written without diacritical points--which distinguish some letters from others-- but early in the history of the writing of Qur'an, diacritical points were added.[/quote]

Now, when diacritical points were added to the documents themselves, apparently because dialects and vocabularies were changing throughout the regions, that is the text itself changing. How it's written is changing, yes, but the text is also changing.


The marks are being added onto the page; they're being written in. That is the text changing--even in the original Arabic; that is the text being altered.


It's a subtlety that I see many of the "Pro-Quran" articles omitting. If I were to add an accent mark to a French character's soliloque in Shakespeare's Henry V, that's changing the text...and there's no difference between that and what was done to the Quran.


The text has changed--on a basic morphological (I believe that's the term for the study of the building blocks of words) level, which is one of the foci of Linguistic study. The Quran has been altered and that alteration directly relates to the subject matter of Linguistics.


[quote][color=#004a6f]You still haven't proven that it's been changed. Why? Because almost every copy in the world is [b]exactly the same[/b], every sentence, every letter, every accent marking is [b]exactly the same[/b]. The only ones that are different are made by people trying to misguide muslims. When comparing today's real copies to the very old copies from Muhammad's time, they are [b]exactly the same[/b].[/color][/quote]

It looks like it [i]has[/i] been changed, Chabi.


And I don't think your "to misguide Muslims" statement is all that accurate, because the changes made were to [i]help[/i] others understand and recite the text, not misguide them--unless, of course, you feel that those changes (the diacritical marks and such) are what is misguiding Muslims.


[quote]The upshot of this is the vast majority of Muslims rest assured that they are reading the exact words of revelation received by Muhammad (even though the manner of writing those words has indeed changed over time).[/quote]

And I get the sense that this isn't a real assurance...because while the meaning stays the same, the text does change, and technically, they're not reading the exact words of Revelation; they're reading a variation of them.


[quote]Translations--however inspired they may be--are only shadows of the original. They should always be read with a healthy dose of skepticism concerning the degree to which they reflect the original. The gulf between the original and the translation is an important reason why Muslims must recite the Qur'an only in Arabic for the required daily prayers. A translation of the Qur'an is not the Qur'an; it is simply one person's interpretation of the Qur'an. To a limited extent, however, translations can shed light on the meaning of the Qur'an.[/quote]

This was pretty darn interesting, too, because it's saying that translations are not indicative of anything...which makes Chabi's usage of quotations to support her original thesis pretty...invalid.


I don't wish to be lumped in with any supposed "Crusaders," but I think there are some pretty questionable things going on in the Quran's development.


It seems as though the entire "defense" there is minimizing the fact that when you add something, whether it be a mark, slash, dot, apostrophe, colon, underscore, morphological marks, etc., that is altering the text...that is changing the text.


I don't think there's any denying that if I were to glide the tip of a pen across a sentence in a research paper of mine, that would entail a change in how the paper is receieved--and in a sense, change its meaning.

[elfpirate]

[b]Hey, Chabi-- Siren indeed has you in checkmate. He has for nearly the entirety of this thread. And all of the arrogant pawns and bishops and everything else you've thrown at him, he has taken with ease. [/b]

[b]I truly believe that you are no longer arguing for the Quran but for your own injured pride.[/b]

[b]Why can' t you admit that you haven't proven anything but that you seriously lack an open mind, real-world insight, and a sense of humor?[/b]

[b]You've been in checkmate for a while now-- it's time to admit that you've lost the game to Siren.[/b]

[b][size=1][color=#8b0000]If I offended anyone, please note that this is my apology for being an outright jerk...[/color][/size][/b]

[Semjaza]

This thread, overall, is beyond ridiculous. While I think Chabi is being far too stringent in this, the fact of the matter is that [B]not one[/B] person has used any factually backed up proof to say anything against it aside from Heaven's Cloud. Hilariously, it's been largely ignored by both sides.

A person can sit here and say "it's impossible for this to have never changed" for a million and one reasons related to writing and language, but who cares? Seriously, does anyone beyond the ones writing it? Unless you have some actual experience with the physical texts, how in the world would you ever even know beyond popping out statistics? And is it really possible for someone my age to know all about the subject in the first place?

I think the main argument here is that the book has survived in its original language and is still read in that original language. Few read the Christian segments of the Bible itself in its original written form and it's been translated by many different people over the years, entire books removed, names changed because of misunderstandings... It's why people think "Lucifer" is Satan.

I feel like Chabi is being gone after more for [I]how [/I]the posts are being written than what they actually are attempting to say. These threads always seem to turn into semantics debates more than anything else, where entire pages are devoted arguing about what someone meant by a single sentence out of a 1,000 word post.. Nothing is ever any closer to completion than it was the second the debate on the matter even started.

In the end, you're not going to convince anyone to believe something you do simply because [i]you believe it[/i]. No matter how strongly you do, it's not adequate debating fodder, whether it's religion or linguistics or cow herding or why cats can't digest their own hair. It'd be nice if people actually were able to cite something to back up claims beyond "I know".

In any case, I'm washing my hands of this topic and don't plan on reading any more of it. I have no clue how anyone can have the patience to read most of this.

[elfpirate]

[quote name='Generic NPC #3]This thread, overall, is beyond ridiculous. While I think Chabi is being far too stringent in this, the fact of the matter is that [b]not one[/b'] person has used any factually backed up proof to say anything against it aside from Heaven's Cloud. Hilariously, it's been largely ignored by both sides..[/quote][b][color=darkred]The fact that I stated previously is that quoting a text and using that quote to prove that the text is "the true word of God" is the most assinine thing you can do-- [/color][/b]

[b][color=#8b0000]If you want to prove a "truth", you need objective evidence-- not opinions and the "It's the truth because I believe it's the truth" argument.[/color][/b]

[b][color=#8b0000]She seems to think that because [i]she[/i] believes it for the reason that she can read it and that she "understands" ancient metaphores-- that we should be sticking to her words like honey... and that all should begin to accept everything she believes.[/color][/b]

I think the main argument here is that the book has survived in its original language and is still read in that original language.


[color=#8b0000][b]Yeah, it has become that-- Chabi is getting defensive and arrogant and stubborn, instead of sticking to the original purpose of this thread, which was to "prove" to us that the Quran is the "true word of God". She lost her ground and her focus as soon as she was challenged to elaborate on her so-called evidence.[/b][/color]

In the end, you're not going to convince anyone to believe something you do simply because [i]you believe it[/i]. No matter how strongly you do, it's not adequate debating fodder, whether it's religion or linguistics or cow herding or why cats can't digest their own hair. It'd be nice if people actually were able to cite something to back up claims beyond "I know".

[b][color=darkred]Exactly the point-- we've asked Chabi for something more than her defensive statements-- some real "proof" that her argument can hold water, so to speak... and all we're getting here is a frustrated parrot that not only has none of the "evidence" that she claimed to have, but doesn't seem to be able to prove anything but that she can't handle the questioning of her beliefs, her ideas, her motives, and her personal interpretations.[/color][/b]

[b][color=#8b0000]She wanted to inform us, but she can't handle the fact that we want [i]facts[/i] to back up her point-- not speculations.[/color][/b]

I have no clue how anyone can have the patience to read most of this.[/QUOTE][b][color=darkred]I, myself, read it for the sadistic satisfaction of reading the sarcastic insults and the complete dissection of the poorly executed attempts at being intellectual... [/color][/b]


[b][size=1][color=darkgreen]If I offended anyone, please note that this is my apology for being an outright jerk...I can't seem to help myself lately...I've been a true pirate... selfish and mean---so--sorry.[/color][/size][/b]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[COLOR=INDIGO]I think you are being far too defensive. I also think you are spending way too much time focusing on an argument of nit-picking with Siren over a pointless matter of linguistics. Anyway, I have no desire to trade snide remarks about whether or not a translation changes a text, nor do I have any further interest on pushing my previous statement that you cannot prove that the Quran is the word of God because you cannot prove that God exists with the exception of his validation is the Quran. That type of cyclical arguing gets too old to fast.

Instead, I would like to read your responses on my previous post and some points that I intend to bring up in this post. As I have written before, I am not trying to change your beliefs; I just want to see how someone well read in Islamic ideology responds to questions that have been raised by historians and theologians.

In several earlier posts you have stated that regardless of the linguistic issues, there is an original Quran, written in Arabic that was directly dictated by God through the prophet Mohammed. However, Surah 25.32 states ?We have rehearsed it to you in slow, gradual stages.? This remark is made because the Quran was not written all at once. Mohammed preached various aspects of the Quran over the final twenty-three years of his life. The teachings were later compiled by his followers and scribes. The surahs are not presented in chronological order, nor are they presented in the Quran in an order dictated by Mohammed.

As I stated earlier, though I haven?t dedicated an abundance of time to the Quran, I have read and studied it a bit. It seems to me that if the passages were written in a different order some passages could be interpreted differently. What are your thoughts on this?

It is known that the Quran was not written down until after Mohammed?s death because Mohammed and his followers put great stock in memorization. I guess the point I am getting at is that, much like the bible, the Quran is the teachings of a prophet as written by his disciples. Furthermore, it is known that Mohammed prophesized quite a bit immediately before his unexpected death. Since these prophecies were sudden do you think it is possible that his followers omitted some because they couldn?t be committed to memory? [/COLOR]

[Brasil]

I'll hit the other points later today/tonight, but...

[QUOTE=Chabichou]But I told you, when I said it won't be changed, I didn't mean that every copy of the world will be unchanged, just that there will always be people who know the original message, and so far, most of the books in the world are exactly the same, and in turn thet are indentical to those in the past.
People have made up their own Chapters and distributed these to muslims and others trying to learn about islam. They claim that they are chapters from the Qur'an. That's not trying to mislead people?

Sometimes Arabs have a hard time understanding the Qur'an too, but Muhammad explained some of the meanings. You can also get a Qur'an that has a commentary for the verses, you don't need to change them to understand them.

Some verses simply say two letters of the alphabet, and chapter/surah is even named after them. There is a surah called "Ya-seen", the equivilants to the letters y and s. The first verse simply says ya-seen. Hmm, honestly what could it mean? Well, God makes many oaths in the Qur'an. He swears by time, the sun, the moon, day and night, by mountains and by the sky. Some people think ya-seen means God is swearing by these letters. Others think he might be challenging the Arabs, because they are quite proud of their language. Some think that it means God is addressing Muhammad. "Ya" on it's own kind of means "Oh". I could say: "Ya Siren" meaning "Oh Siren", it's a word you add to tell someone. you're addressing them. Some people think it might be an acronym for something, who knows.

The point is, things that are difficult to understand like above example, aren't just left there for people to ponder about. Like I said, if you don't understand something, you can get a Qur'an that has a commentary as well. You don't need to change the actual words.
But the sound has not changed. Written Arabic has evolved to accomodate the sounds. The revelation was spoken to Muhammad. The told it to the scribes word for word, and each sound has been kept the same. The original revelation is the actual words and sounds is it not? If written Arabic has evolved to accomodate sounds, it in turn preserves the Qur'an.
If it changes the text, does that automatically change the words? Does it automatically change their sounds? True Arabic has evolved, the concept of accent markings developed later, but it's because Arabs are beginning to forget our proper language. The way we speak is in complete slang. Remeber how I explained how the word "Asad" could change because of of it's ending vowel sound? Asadu and Asadi and Asada all mean "lion", but could change if it's a direct object, indirect object or subject. Now back then the scribes didn't have vowel markings, they would write down the words with just the letters. But they knew exactly how these words sound like, and if you gave them something without vowel markings, they can automatically fill in the correct sounds. Why? They know their language.

Modern Arabs, need a little help. So, since the time the accent markings have been added to make sure we get the sounds right, these accent marking have not changed. And they wouldn't have and shouldn't have changed because it would be grammatically incorrect to do so. I could say :"al asadu akala alaghazala". Okay, "the lion is eating the deer". The u marks him as the subject. Unless I change the word order, it would be grammatically incorrect to mark him as the direct object with a. Hence, "alasada akala al-ghazalu, would be grammatically incorrect. [/QUOTE] Doesn't all of what you just wrote here contradict your theme that the Quran has been preserved and in fact confirm that it has been changed/altered with the times?

If the text is being changed to accomodate a change in the lingual stylings of the people, then the Quran is being changed with the times, ergo, it is being changed.

The original text (the first "version") is not identical to the revised text (the diacritical additions).

That's a change.

And adding a letter to a word [i]does[/i] change the word [i]and[/i] the meaning (again, morphology and Linguistics coming back in here). Asad is [i]not[/i] the same word as Asadi (it's the [i]morpheme[/i] for Asadi, but it's not the same word), nor does it have the same meaning, like you just said (the "Lion eating deer" example). Adding one letter changes everything. This is particularly emphasized in Linguistics courses.

In fact, "Asadi," "Asadu," and "Asada" aren't the same word. They don't even mean the same thing, nor are they spelled the same way.

You've said that the original scribes didn't have the "slang" of modern Arabs, and I'm getting from your post that they didn't have the "Asadi" "Asadu" "Asada," just "Asad."

By adjusting the Quran to include those new "slang" terms to help modern Arabs understand it...aren't you (and by "you" I mean Muslims) actually diluting the original language? You're in fact not keeping it pure--you're actually making it all "slangy."

[Heaven's Cloud]

[QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]
First, I mentioned the Qur'an was written down, [B]all of it was written down during the prophet's lifetime[/B]. The scribes memorized it and wrote it down, or the other way around. I'm sure if they just memorized it first, they would proofread what they had written with the prophet. People used cloth, tree bark, leaves and so on to write on. I'm guessing they had some sort of paper back then, but I'm not sure. But all these sheets were scattered, and they [B]were put together after the prophets death[/B]. They only existed in "book" form after he died.

His death in a way was expected. In the last sermon he gave, he stated how he might not give another, which was true, becuase he died soon after. This sermon was given after the Qur'an was completely revealed. Now I know you might not believe in God, but I heard that God told him that he has completed his mission, and then Muhammad told this to the muslims.
[/COLOR][/quote]

[color=indigo]Historians would say that you are incorrect. In the writings Ka?b, Jabal, and Thabit, all three discuss how little of the Quran was written before Mohammed?s death. It is generally accepted by scholars that the written text of the Quran was collaborated upon by Mohammed?s followers. The fact that he prophesized so much right before his death makes it pretty improbable that the entire Quran was recorded before his death.

Thabit is generally regarded as the person responsible for compiling the Quran into what it is today, piecing the majority of it together from his memory. He was asked to search out pieces of the Quran that he couldn?t remember by Bakr. Thabit was unsure about completing this task because he didn?t want to include information he was uncertain about.

Anyway, this brings me back to my previous question, since the Quran was not written completely or compiled during Mohammed?s lifetime, with the exception of faith, how are you certain that the text wasn?t altered? [/color]



[QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]As far as the order of verses go, you can argue that the order might have changed, because in reality we're not sure. Because of my faith, I simply trust Muhammad's instructions for the order, and trust his companions to follow them. He'd say, "okay these verses are for chapter [blank]. We number our verses in today's Qur'ans, maybe they numbered them back then too.

However, logically speaking, if the verses are indeed all mixed up, a chapter simply won't make sense, and as far as I've seen, the verses fit naturally with those before and after them. There is also a large amount of rhyming in the Qur'an, so when you see 20 verses all ending with the same sound, it just makes it more convincing that they belong to the same chapter.

Actually, the idea that the surahs were revealed in such a mixed up order intrigues me. Don't you think a human would've been confused if a the first 5 verses were given, and then maybe two or three years later the rest of the verses were given?

Wow, muhammad must have been the ultimate gunius to have accomplished this "scam".

[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[color=indigo]I disagree, especially if you take into account the abrogated verses. However, I will not harp on points because I don?t want a speculative versus faith based debate where nothing is accomplished. It isn't fair for me to say "what if the abrogated verse was intended in a different area of the Quran" because it is such a "what if" argument that I really don't feel strong enough about to push. I definitely reccomend that you investigate them for yourself though, they are quite interesting. [/color]

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Chabichou]And some arguments that arose just don't make sense, the "two seas" debate going on was really getting me ticked off:
"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.

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 honestly don't see how a difference in taste tells you that there is a barrier between waters. No one swims in the between an ocean and sea (which is also extremely deep), performing experiments, or tasting water to tell how salty it is, and even if they did, how would they conclude that th bodies of water never mix at all? If there was no surface tesnion, salt will only fade into the other body of water, not complete mix up. You can still tell the difference then.

But somehow, people have enough "common sense" to actually find where the barrier between oceans and seas is? We're not talking about small bodies of water, you can't just throw yourself into the sea and swim around to taste water, you can't throw a fish in without the huge waves carrying it off, so you won't even get a chance to see if it dies.

This idea is so far-fetched, who can possibly accomplish it? Muhammad's only traveled within Arabia, and the only sea he ever crossed on a boat was seperated from other's by land. He's never even been to the Medditranean!

Do any of you see any sort of "common sense" in this? Sigh......[/quote]
It's not far-fetched, Chabi, lol. Anyone can do it (I've done it). Come to Jersey and I'll prove it to you. Take a dip in the water down the shore, get a nice mouthful of that crisp, cool saltwater, then head back here to the Delaware River, and see what pollution tastes like. Then head up north to the Delaware River Watergap and taste how clean that water is. Then we'll head down to the Delaware Bay and you can experience for yourself that separation and see just how you can check that without any God telling you what's going on. Who can ever accomplish it, you say? I know I can. I know my family can. I know any able-bodied individual can.

It's not as if it requires some great strength that people in ancient times never possessed. All it takes is some good ole fashioned observation, that's all, but you seem to believe that the "scientific" statements of the Quran couldn't be explained through simple worldly observation, so that's not indicative of a problem with what I'm saying.

[quote]Exept with the case of long vowels, the final vowel sound in a word can be changed, or ommited. Asadi, Asada and Asadu all come from Asad. They all mean "lion". When written without the vowel markings, they all look exactly the same, meaning the word remains the same.[/quote]
How is this different from anything I said in my previous post? When you strip away that vowel marking, they all become the same word. Yes, because that word is the morpheme on which each of those words is based. They don't all mean "lion," because you've said it yourself that depending on whether there's an 'a,' 'u,' or 'i,' the meaning of the word changes. You remember, "the lion is eating the deer" versus "the lion is getting eaten by the deer." Remember when you explained how each letter gives the word a different usage? Object vs agent? (<---by the way, those are the actual Linguistic terms if I'm not mistaken)

In fact, how is anything you said in your reply below supposed to counter what I said?

[quote]The Arabic language, and the hebrew language as well, only have as consonants, we do have "A" but it is treated as a consonant too.[/quote]
That doesn't mean the rules of Linguistics don't apply to them. See below.

[quote]The markings we put on a letter indicated the vowel sound that comes after it. "B" can become "Ba" "Bi" or "Bu" or just plain "B" depending on the accent/vowel markings we put on it. "A" can become "A" "I" or "U".[/quote]
Yes, that is called adding to a morpheme to create a new word. Again, how are you countering what I was saying? If anything, you're confirming it.

[quote]Adults can read without vowel markings at all, they READ "A" "S" "D" and automatically know the word is "asad". These days though, not everyone is perfect with grammar so they might read the final vowel sound incorrectly. So one person might say asada and another will say asadu.[/quote]
And how is this supposed to counter what I said? With different vowel endings, the word is pronounced differently. Yet another rule of Linguistics.

[quote]Arabic itself has not changed. All the arab countries have slang talk, but we can't write in slang, it's not appropriate. We still know the proper arabic, we still write in proper arabic. The prophet's speeches make complate sense to me. It's not like arabic changed the way english did since elizebethan times . I'm just saying that some people might be weak in grammar and [b]people decided to put the vowel markings in[/b] to make sure we say the right sound. [u]Arabs have changed, not the actual qur'an.
[/u]
I'm going to try to show you what I mean with pictures, but I'll need to find/make them first.[/quote]
Chabi, answer me this: into what text did people put the vowel markings? Don't dodge the question. Don't omit the question. Just answer it. [b]Where did people add in vowel markings?[/b]

[quote]Woah, you've completely misunderstood me here. I'm telling you, you really, really misunderstood me.[/quote]
I'm sure I have.

[quote]Please don't make conclusions based on a language you don't even know. I'm telling you, you really, really misunderstood me. I'm trying my best to explain.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that I wasn't allowed to use Linguistics here to counter your points (points, I might add, that you're basing on Linguistics without even realizing it).

[quote]Arabs have changed, not the actual qur'an[/quote]
The Quran was changed, Chabi. See my previous posts. When you add anything to a text, you're changing the text. Or does the Quran get exempt from [i]that[/i] rule, too?

[CowTipper]

I don't see what the big deal is over whether or not the Quran was changed. I'm sure there have been, as Siren has been saying oh so tediously, some minor text changes. People even admit to this before they translate the Quran by saying there is no way that each word could be translated correctly, which is why people should read it in arabic. Even if it has been changed that doesn't automatically falsify the exact sura's that the prophet Muhammad memorized. The only one hundred percent way of showing that the Quran is the word of God is either to have faith, or let people listen to the prophet Muhammad recite the Quran. Chabi, your on a fool's errand, you can convince nobody that the Quran is the word of God unless they are muslim, but they would already think/know that. Anyway if the Quran has been changed God would have a reason for it, maybe for the people of today to comprehend it better, or some other reason. I wish I could add more of an argument to my posts, but still need to do some research...

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f][QUOTE=Siren]It's not far-fetched, Chabi, lol. Anyone can do it (I've done it). Come to Jersey and I'll prove it to you. Take a dip in the water down the shore, get a nice mouthful of that crisp, cool saltwater, then head back here to the Delaware River, and see what pollution tastes like. Then head up north to the Delaware River Watergap and taste how clean that water is. Then we'll head down to the Delaware Bay and you can experience for yourself that separation and see just how you can check that without any God telling you what's going on. Who can ever accomplish it, you say? I know I can. I know my family can. I know any able-bodied individual can.

It's not as if it requires some great strength that people in ancient times never possessed. All it takes is some good ole fashioned observation, that's all, but you seem to believe that the "scientific" statements of the Quran couldn't be explained through simple worldly observation, so that's not indicative of a problem with what I'm saying.[/QUOTE]Siren, let me ask you something: Where did Muhammad live? In Saudi Arabia. The farthest place Muhammad has ever travelled was to Syria, when he was earning a living in trade and commerce. When he learned that he had become a prophet, the only cities Muhammad ever stayed in were Madina and Makkah. Actually, just from these [B]historical facts[/B], we can conclude that Muhammad has never even been to a sea or ocean at all! Earlier, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that Muhammad might have crossed a sea in his lifetime, but then I took the time to actually read his biography, and he has never been to a sea!

Therefore, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to perform your "experiments".

Furthermore, there is no fresh water in Middle east, except in spring and wells, which are all underground.

Therefore, taking a fish out of the Mediterranean sea and dropping it into the atlantic won't do anything either. And I told you, no one is stupid enough to swim in the [B]middle[/B] of an ocean and sea. The water is just too deep.

Your experience in the delaware river must have been very interesting, and I'd love to try it myself, I really would. All I'm saying is that you can't do the same thing in a very deep ocean. The water is can be almost a mile deep, and the waves are very strong. You'd have to be a fool to do such a thing.

You've called me narccistic and stubborn and self absorbed, becuase I'm not "getting my way". But so far I've addmited it when I was wrong. You on the other hand have refused to ever admit that you might be mistaken, you even completely deny the possibility:

[quote name='Me]Woah, you've completely misunderstood me here. I'm telling you, you really, [B]really[/B] misunderstood me. [/QUOTE][QUOTE=Siren']I'm sure I have.[/quote]Right, you go on thinking that that way. I know what I meant, and you are thinking of something completely different, hence, we have a misunderstanding. You stated that we changed the Qur'an to say everything in slang, and I never even said that. I said we [B]speak in slang[/B], and hence, not everyone is strong with Arabic grammar, and that's why they added vowel markings. Adding vowel markings does not change what the Qur'an is saying, or how it sounds. It tells you how it should sound.

Here is the picture I said I was going to make to explain what I mean:

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v149/Chabichou/arabic.bmp[/IMG]

Notice how the two sentences look exactly the same exept for the vowel markings. They should be read exactly the same according to grammar. Now, an adult can read the sentence without the markings, they can fill in the correct vowels, but they might fill in the wrong [B]final vowel[/B] sound, because these change according to grammar, and not all Arabs today are strong in grammar.

"they might fill in the wrong final vowel sound, because these change according to grammar, and not all Arabs today are strong in grammar."*

*Hold on a sec, maybe this statement is what is confusing you. Vowel sounds don't change within a sentence. A sentence has a specific vowel for each letter. This sentence would be grammatically incorrect if the vowels are changed. If a sentence says "asada", and that is grammatically correct, I cannot change "asada" to "asadu". Hence, I leave the sentecne alone. I either write in the correct vowel marking and read it according to that, or I don't write in the vowel marking, but still have to read it the same way the sentence with the vowel markings would be read.

Now, the earlier Qurans didn't have vowel markings, anyone who knows grammar will pronounce everything properly. When we invented vowel markings, they decided to put these in the Quran to make sure people will read it properly.[quote name='Siren]Chabi, answer me this: into what text did people put the vowel markings? Don't dodge the question. Don't omit the question. Just answer it. [B']Where did people add in vowel markings?[/B][/quote]Okay, I won't omit it. They added vowel markings to [B]every single letter and every single word in the Qur'an[/B]. Adding vowel markings [B]did not change the way words are pronounced[/B], they [B]tell the person[/B] reading the words [B]how to pronounce things[/B], and for most people , it's just a reminder. You cannot however, change the vowel markings, you cannot replace one vowel marking with another in a word. You either have them or you don't. Either way, the words are same.

I am not good at reading without vowel markings, and I can't read Arabic newspapers well because they don't have them. If the newspaper had them, I would be able to read. People want to make it easier to read the Qur'an, so they add vowel markings to the letters, which don't change the words, just remind you how to read them.

So therefore, the only thing that has changed is what you see on the page, not what it says, what it means, or how it is read. The markings have only stressed the importance of saying the words properly. After vowel markings were added, no one has changed them since, because it would be grammatically incorrect to do so. The possibility for typos exists, but I told you several times we are very careful to keep everything exactly the same, and we have succeeded. Just take two, three, four, or even more copies of the Qur'an, from different publishers that is, and you will see they are exactly the same.

So now, tell me Siren, how does adding vowel markings, [B]just to specify the readings[/B], tell you that the Qur'an has actually changed, that the message and the meanings are different? The only thing that has changed is what you see. I bet you would be so shallow as to assume that a font change means the Qur'an has changed.

You know what we mean by "change". In this debate, "change" meant the actual words are different, that sentences are different, that the strories are different. That's what we mean by "change".

And when we say "God wrote the Qur'an" or "God wrote the Torah", we don't mean to say that he actually [B]wrote[/B] it on paper. They are his words, that's the point. You should be smart enough to know what we mean. The Quran wasn't the word of the the scribes, they simply wrote it down. And all you say is "right, so the scribes wrote the Qur'an". You've been making these stupid sorts of arguments throughout this whole thread. Stop being so shallow.

Another thing is you keep asking me is: "how is this supposed to be a rebuttal, how is this supposed to counter what I said". You know I'm just explaining things.

You are really arguing a point which has no relevance to this thread.

Anyway....

[quote name='Heaven's Cloud']Historians would say that you are incorrect. In the writings Ka?b, Jabal, and Thabit, all three discuss how little of the Quran was written before Mohammed?s death. It is generally accepted by scholars that the written text of the Quran was collaborated upon by Mohammed?s followers. The fact that he prophesized so much right before his death makes it pretty improbable that the entire Quran was recorded before his death.[/quote]Well, I've been told, according to history alone that is, that the Quran was all written down during the life of the prophet. From the actual history I've heard, the companions of the prophet made sure to write down everthing and check with the prophet. However, the history I've heard might be wrong, or yours might be wrong, so let's just agree to disagree shall we?

[quote name='Heaven's Cloud']Anyway, this brings me back to my previous question, since the Quran was not written completely or compiled during Mohammed?s lifetime, with the exception of faith, how are you certain that the text wasn?t altered? [/quote]I'd like to point out that I never said that we have complete proof from anything. I never said that I have actual proof that the Qur'an is the word of God. I said I wanted to "convince" you. People can be convinved of things just from common sense and evidence.

I am convinced that matter is made of atoms, but no one has actual "proof" that they exist. No one has ever seen an atom, but from using common sense and evidence, we have come to the conclusion that they exist.

There are many things in this world that we don't know for sure, but we can safely make assumptions based on what we know.

In this thread I was only trying to present [B]evidence[/B], just evidence, that the Qur'an is the word of God. But I can't absolutely prove it, I simply can't. It takes some common sense, and faith to believe it. I can't absolutely prove that God exists. The only way to know for sure would be for God to show himself to us.

[quote name='Cow Tipper']Chabi, your on a fool's errand, you can convince nobody that the Quran is the word of God unless they are muslim, but they would already think/know that.[/quote]Really? I wonder why people actually convert to Islam? Maybe because some come to believe the Qur'an is the word of God?

Not to say that believing in the Qur'an automatically makes you muslim. Belief isn't enough. You must have faith, and live your life according to Islam.[/COLOR]

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Chabichou]Siren, let me ask you something: Where did Muhammad live? In Saudi Arabia. The farthest place Muhammad has ever travelled was to Syria, when he was earning a living in [b]trade and commerce[/b]. When he learned that he had become a prophet, the only cities Muhammad ever stayed in were Madina and Makkah. Actually, just from these historical facts, we can conclude that Muhammad has never even been to a sea or ocean at all! Earlier, I gave you the benefit of the doubt that Muhammad might have crossed a sea in his lifetime, but then I took the time to actually read his biography, and he has never been to a sea!

Therefore, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to perform your "experiments".

Furthermore, there is no fresh water in Middle east, except in spring and wells, which are all underground.

Therefore, taking a fish out of the Mediterranean sea and dropping it into the atlantic won't do anything either. And I told you, no one is stupid enough to swim in the middle of an ocean and sea. The water is just too deep.

Your experience in the delaware river must have been very interesting, and I'd love to try it myself, I really would.

You've called me narccistic and stubborn and self absorbed, becuase I'm not "getting my way". But so far I've addmited it when I was wrong. You on the other hand have refused to ever admit that you might be mistaken, you even completely deny the possibility:[/quote]
Muhammad went to places where he could learn of trade and commerce? Trade and commerce...I wonder if there would have been any merchants there, and if there were, I wonder where they might have come from...after all, traveling merchants weren't all that rare back then...and for that matter, merchant ships weren't unheard of, either...

Gee...if Muhammad is talking with traveling merchants and sailors, and they're talking about what they've seen and so forth (because, when you're interested in learning a trade, you're going to be asking the merchant about his or her life), and they've explored the world and had seen things that Muhammad might not have seen or experienced...what makes you think that [i]they[/i] didn't mention that saltwater/freshwater oddity?

Chabi, you've been trying to say that Divine Revelation was the only way for Muhammad to "know" stuff like that, and I'm saying that there are far more likely (and far more realistic) ways.

[quote]And I told you, no one is stupid enough to swim in the middle of an ocean and sea. The water is just too deep.

All I'm saying is that you can't do the same thing in a very deep ocean. The water is can be almost a mile deep, and the waves are very strong. You'd have to be a fool to do such a thing.[/quote]
Where did I ever imply that you needed to swim out into the middle of an ocean to taste saltwater? Nowhere. You haven't been to the beach much, have you, Chabi? You know, the water at the beach is roughly the same as the water in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean? Did you know that?

[quote]I bet you would be so shallow as to assume that a font change means the Qur'an has changed.[/quote]
I wanted to address this one sentence before I moved on to the larger portion of the next part, because I'd like to refer you to a statement you had made previously in this thread:

[quote name='Chabichou][color=#004a6f]Because almost every copy in the world is [b]exactly the same[/b], every sentence, every letter, every accent marking is [b]exactly the same[/b]. The only ones that are different are made by people trying to misguide muslims. When comparing today's real copies to the very old copies from Muhammad's time, they are [b]exactly the same[/b'].[/color][/quote]
If it's "shallow" of me to point to literal, visual text differences and say the Quran has been changed, then it's equally shallow of you to point to literal, visual text qualities and claim the Quran is unchanged, because, clearly, from a literal, visual text standpoint, the Quran has been changed, and it makes your previous statement incorrect.

[quote]You are really arguing a point which has no relevance to this thread.[/quote]
Also, I'd like address this sentence before moving on to the main chunk of your reply, and I'm actually going to again refer you to statements you had made earlier in the thread:

[quote name='Chabichou][color=#004a6f']But as I said, the Torah and Bible were altered, so God sent his final revelation down, which he has taken upon himself to preserve in it's entirety till the end of the world.[/color][/quote]
[quote name='Chabichou][color=#004a6f']It is true that the Quran has remained completely unchanged for over 1400 years, since the time of it's revelation. Not a single word, nor a single letter has been changed.[/color][/quote]
There are virtually hundreds of statements like those throughout your posts, so it'd be a waste of time if I were to go through and isolate each one.

Now, you've said that I'm arguing a point that has no relevance to the thread, but the point I'm arguing is that the Quran has been changed (in a variety of ways, which I'll hit upon later in this reply), which directly relates to your argument that it hasn't been changed, and that directly relates to your point of this thread, that the Quran is the word of God.

So, I'd say my point actually has some direct relevance to what you've been saying, Chabi, and directly relevant to the thread.

[quote]Right, you go on thinking that that way. I know what I meant, and you are thinking of something completely different, hence, we have a misunderstanding. You stated that we changed the Qur'an to say everything in slang, and I never even said that. I said we speak in slang, and hence, not everyone is strong with Arabic grammar, and that's why they added vowel markings. Adding vowel markings does not change what the Qur'an is saying, or how it sounds. It tells you how it should sound.

Here is the picture I said I was going to make to explain what I mean:

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v149/Chabichou/arabic.bmp[/img]

Notice how the two sentences look exactly the same exept for the vowel markings. They should be read exactly the same according to grammar. Now, an adult can read the sentence without the markings, they can fill in the correct vowels, but they might fill in the wrong final vowel sound, because these change according to grammar, and not all Arabs today are strong in grammar.

"they might fill in the wrong final vowel sound, because these change according to grammar, and not all Arabs today are strong in grammar."*

*Hold on a sec, maybe this statement is what is confusing you. Vowel sounds don't change within a sentence. A sentence has a specific vowel for each letter. This sentence would be grammatically incorrect if the vowels are changed. If a sentence says "asada", and that is grammatically correct, I cannot change "asada" to "asadu". Hence, I leave the sentecne alone. I either write in the correct vowel marking and read it according to that, or I don't write in the vowel marking, but still have to read it the same way the sentence with the vowel markings would be read.

Now, the earlier Qurans didn't have vowel markings, anyone who knows grammar will pronounce everything properly. When we invented vowel markings, they decided to put these in the Quran to make sure people will read it properly.

Okay, I won't omit it. They added vowel markings to every single letter and every single word in the Qur'an. Adding vowel markings did not change the way words are pronounced, they tell the person reading the words how to pronounce things, and for most people , it's just a reminder. You cannot however, change the vowel markings, you cannot replace one vowel marking with another in a word. You either have them or you don't. Either way, the words are same.

I am not good at reading without vowel markings, and I can't read Arabic newspapers well because they don't have them. If the newspaper had them, I would be able to read. People want to make it easier to read the Qur'an, so they add vowel markings to the letters, which don't change the words, just remind you how to read them.

So therefore, the only thing that has changed is what you see on the page, not what it says, what it means, or how it is read. The markings have only stressed the importance of saying the words properly. After vowel markings were added, no one has changed them since, because it would be grammatically incorrect to do so. The possibility for typos exists, but I told you several times we are very careful to keep everything exactly the same, and we have succeeded. Just take two, three, four, or even more copies of the Qur'an, from different publishers that is, and you will see they are exactly the same.

So now, tell me Siren, how does adding vowel markings, just to specify the readings, tell you that the Qur'an has actually changed, that the message and the meanings are different? The only thing that has changed is what you see. I bet you would be so shallow as to assume that a font change means the Qur'an has changed.

You know what we mean by "change". In this debate, "change" meant the actual words are different, that sentences are different, that the strories are different. That's what we mean by "change".

And when we say "God wrote the Qur'an" or "God wrote the Torah", we don't mean to say that he actually wrote it on paper. They are his words, that's the point. You should be smart enough to know what we mean. The Quran wasn't the word of the the scribes, they simply wrote it down. And all you say is "right, so the scribes wrote the Qur'an". You've been making these stupid sorts of arguments throughout this whole thread. Stop being so shallow.

Another thing is you keep asking me is: "how is this supposed to be a rebuttal, how is this supposed to counter what I said". You know I'm just explaining things.

You are really arguing a point which has no relevance to this thread.

Anyway....[/quote]
Now, you've asked me how changing the text changes the meaning, so I'll explain. I should mention that I don't view any text at all as having a single version and nothing more. Texts change in a variety of ways with each passing generation. This will be explained more fully at the end.

Now, the "original" version of the Quran had a specific meaning. I'm not arguing with that, because every text has a specific meaning in its original version (sans some stuff from the 1890s).

However, as time went on, the meaning in the Quran was changing, because a variety of new meanings were being introduced. The "set" meaning of the original version was disappearing, being replaced by the new interpretations/meanings.

It was a different Quran from an interpretive standpoint, from an aesthetic standpoint, from a "meaning" standpoint. It wasn't the same Quran as the original, despite having a literal, visual similarity.

Because of this, the diacritical marks were added to restore the original meaning of the Quran and act as a guide of sorts to avoid confusion (like you've said in your previous posts).

The only reason they would have for altering the text would be if the "original" meaning was in danger of being replaced by the new meanings/interpretations, which it was.

Hence, by adding in the marks, they did change the meaning of the current Quran, because a text doesn't remain the same from generation to generation. It changes with the times, whether it's alterations, new interpretations/meanings, etc. Nothing is a static text, because it's not going to have the same meaning/impact/interpretation as each generation comes and goes. This is what I mean when I say I view every text as having different generations, because the audience is constantly changing.

Understand it now? With each generation, it's going to be a new text.

I know the material below was directed at HC, but I just had a few questions/comments.

[quote]Well, I've been told, according to history alone that is, that the Quran was all written down during the life of the prophet. From the actual history I've heard, the companions of the prophet made sure to write down everthing and check with the prophet. However, the history I've heard might be wrong, or yours might be wrong, so let's just agree to disagree shall we?[/quote]
Well, I researched the Quran and Islam. Why are you so quick to "agree to disagree" and not even take the time to research the history beyond "what you've been told/what you've heard"? I realize that HC isn't keen on getting drawn into a debate of that nature, but still, why don't you do some research?

[quote]I'd like to point out that I never said that we have complete proof from anything. I never said that I have actual proof that the Qur'an is the word of God. I said I wanted to "convince" you. People can be convinved of things just from common sense and evidence.

But I can't absolutely prove it, I simply can't.[/quote]
[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, but not neccesarily that Islam is the "right religion".[/color][/quote]
Versus:

[quote name='Chabichou][color=#004a6f'] I'd say that there's enough evidence here that show the Quran is indeed the word of God.[/color][/quote]
The last sentence in your first post is a conclusion based on a syllogism/proof. Your first post boiled down to:

[quote]Premise 1:
Premise 2:
Premise 3:
Premise 4:

Therefore, X.[/quote]
That's the structure of your first post, and it's the exact structure of any proof you'd find in any Logic course.

[quote]I am convinced that matter is made of atoms, but no one has actual "proof" that they exist. No one has ever seen an atom, but from using common sense and evidence, we have come to the conclusion that they exist.[/quote]
But we do have actual proof that they exist. There have been experiments to explore the atomic structure of the elements of the Periodic Table; there are countless models based on those results, and you can test electron transfer (you know, that flow of electrons) by rubbing a balloon on your head, or rubbing your feet along a carpet then zapping the person next to you.

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='Chabichou]Because almost every copy in the world is exactly the same, every sentence, every letter, every accent marking is exactly the same. The only ones that are different are made by people trying to misguide muslims. When comparing today's real copies to the very old copies from Muhammad's time, they are exactly the same.[/QUOTE][QUOTE']If it's "shallow" of me to point to literal, visual text differences and say the Quran has been changed, then it's equally shallow of you to point to literal, visual text qualities and claim the Quran is unchanged, because, clearly, from a literal, visual text standpoint, the Quran has been changed, and it makes your previous statement incorrect.[/quote]I was stressing how the words have not changed. Did you honestly think that "exactly the same" meant how the Qur'an looked as well? I apologize for the somewhat incorrect statement I have made.

Therefore, I will correct the statement above. Here goes:

[B]Although copies of the Qur'an may differ visually, such as size of text, the font, the color of the cover (you can get in hardcover or paperback too), the number of pages due to text size, the actual size of the book, and the designs drawn of the covers, the text within the book is exactly the same.

When comparing today's copies to the first copies made, the text slightly differs because vowel markings have been added to make it easier to read and to get the final vowel markings of nouns correct. This does not however, change what the words say, simply remind you how to read them.[/B]

Anyone in disagreement?
[QUOTE=Siren]Now, you've asked me how changing the text changes the meaning, so I'll explain. I should mention that I don't view any text at all as having a single version and nothing more. Texts change in a variety of ways with each passing generation. This will be explained more fully at the end.

Now, the "original" version of the Quran had a specific meaning. I'm not arguing with that, because every text has a specific meaning in its original version (sans some stuff from the 1890s).

However, as time went on, the meaning in the Quran was changing, because a variety of new meanings were being introduced. The "set" meaning of the original version was disappearing, being replaced by the new interpretations/meanings.

It was a different Quran from an interpretive standpoint, from an aesthetic standpoint, from a "meaning" standpoint. It wasn't the same Quran as the original, despite having a literal, visual similarity.

Because of this, the diacritical marks were added to restore the original meaning of the Quran and act as a guide of sorts to avoid confusion (like you've said in your previous posts).

The only reason they would have for altering the text would be if the "original" meaning was in danger of being replaced by the new meanings/interpretations, which it was.

Hence, by adding in the marks, they did change the meaning of the current Quran, because a text doesn't remain the same from generation to generation. It changes with the times, whether it's alterations, new interpretations/meanings, etc. Nothing is a static text, because it's not going to have the same meaning/impact/interpretation as each generation comes and goes. This is what I mean when I say I view every text as having different generations, because the audience is constantly changing.

Understand it now? With each generation, it's going to be a new text.[/QUOTE]Oh, I see now what you're getting at, and you do raise a good point.

There are words in the Qur'an, specifically verbs and nouns, that people are not sure of their meaning. If you get a Qur'an with a commentary, It'll simply suggest different scholar's veiws on what things mean, but not stating that there is an exact answer. However, these words that we might not understand were probably not understood back then either.

Although some verbs and nouns from the past aren't used today, we still know what they mean, you can still find them in an Arabic dictionary. Scholars who study the Qur'an know the vocabularay used back then. The vocabulary used in the past has not been lost. Furthermore, Arabic grammar has not changed either. As I said in my first post, Arabic was at it's peak when it comes to grammmar and vocabulary in the prophet's time.

Concerning the vowel markings: You still seem to have this notion that they changed something, but they simply didn't.

So I thought I might mention this: Even without the vowel markings, no two words from the same part of speech (noun, verb, adjective) are alike. Therefore, this idea that we can use different combinations of vowel markings on the same word to make new words is wrong, even if we do have additional vocabulary today. Of all the nouns, "A" "S" "D" can only be read as "asad", and there are no new nouns that use these letters either. They might be read differently for a verb, but the order of words just tells you wether the word is a noun or verb anyway.
[QUOTE]Where did I ever imply that you needed to swim out into the middle of an ocean to taste saltwater? Nowhere. You haven't been to the beach much, have you, Chabi? You know, the water at the beach is roughly the same as the water in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean? Did you know that?[/QUOTE]I know you can taste the water on the shore, but how does that tell you that there is a barrier between the two seas? You would have to go very far out into the sea to find the surface tension barrier between the sea and the ocean. And even if Muhammad has been to the sea, or talked with people who have, none of them would have known it. The key word I've been pointing out is [B]barrier[/B], no one back then would have known there is a force stopping the seas' waters from mixing with eachother.
[QUOTE][B]He has let loose the two seas, converging together, with a barrier between them they do not break through. (Qur'an, 55:19-20)[/B][/QUOTE]Notice the word "let loose" for those of you who think the barrier is land. The seas are let loose, they coverge, they touch, yet there is barrier they don't break through, a barrier other than land.

How can "any idiot" know this back then? Sigh... okay I'm gonna stop arguing with you Siren, but I still don't agree with you.

This thread is getting pretty tiresome, and I'm tired of arguing, especially over things that just take common sense to realize....

See you on the day of judgement. May God be with you 'till then.[/COLOR]

[Zeta]

[QUOTE]When comparing today's copies to the first copies made, the text slightly differs because vowel markings have been added to make it easier to read and to get the final vowel markings of nouns correct. This does not however, change what the words say, simply remind you how to read them.[/QUOTE]

I believe that someone said something of this sort concerning the Bible and the Torah earlier in the thread. Retribution I believe it was said things were changed so they could be easily understood. But the message the words convey is the same. That is what you just as well. So how is the Bible and Torah changed?

But what you fail to realize is that they [i]can[/i] find out things such as barriers between the seas, and many other things. People back then were very, very educated for their times. If they can find out the circumfrence of the Earth by shadows and angles, I can be my bottom dollar they could do testing on the waters to find out that [i]something[/i] was there.

I do not see why you say they have no ways of knowing such complex things. Many, many complex things of today were found out in the ancient times, and have just been expanded on. They were not idiots.

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Chabichou]I was stressing how the words have not changed. Did you honestly think that "exactly the same" meant how the Qur'an looked as well? I apologize for the somewhat incorrect statement I have made.

Therefore, I will correct the statement above. Here goes:

Although copies of the Qur'an may differ visually, such as size of text, the font, the color of the cover (you can get in hardcover or paperback too), the number of pages due to text size, the actual size of the book, and the designs drawn of the covers, the text within the book is exactly the same.

When comparing today's copies to the first copies made, the text slightly differs because vowel markings have been added to make it easier to read and to get the final vowel markings of nouns correct. This does not however, change what the words say, simply remind you how to read them.

Anyone in disagreement?[/quote]
Better, but still not solid.

[quote]Oh, I see now what you're getting at, and you do raise a good point.

There are words in the Qur'an, specifically verbs and nouns, that people are not sure of their meaning. If you get a Qur'an with a commentary, It'll simply suggest different scholar's veiws on what things mean, but not stating that there is an exact answer. However, these words that we might not understand were probably not understood back then either.

Although some verbs and nouns from the past aren't used today, we still know what they mean, you can still find them in an Arabic dictionary. Scholars who study the Qur'an know the vocabularay used back then. The vocabulary used in the past has not been lost. Furthermore, [b]Arabic grammar has not changed either[/b]. As I said in my first post, Arabic was at it's peak when it comes to grammmar and vocabulary in the prophet's time.

Concerning the vowel markings: [b]You still seem to have this notion that they changed something, but they simply didn't.[/b]

So I thought I might mention this: Even without the vowel markings, no two words from the same part of speech (noun, verb, adjective) are alike. [b]Therefore, this idea that we can use different combinations of vowel markings on the same word to make new words is wrong[/b], even if we do have additional vocabulary today. Of all the nouns, "A" "S" "D" can only be read as "asad", and there are no new nouns that use these letters either. They might be read differently for a verb, but the order of words just tells you wether the word is a noun or verb anyway.[/quote]
[quote][color=#004a6f]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]". [b]It still means lion, but it could change the meaning of a sentence[/b]. Is the lion eating the deer or the lion being eaten himself? Even if the word order says "the lion is eating the deer", [b]the change in the vowel sound could make the lion the direct object rather than the subject[/b]. But [b]this advanced grammar arabs barely worry about anymore[/b].[/color][/quote]
You add a new letter to the word, or even a new sound, it's creating a new word. When you write it out, that becomes very clear. Asad is the morpheme. Asada is a word based on an addition to that morpheme.

When you add a new letter to the word, or even a new sound, you're changing the concept of the word--changing what it means.

Asadi has an entirely different implication, different concept, different meaning, than asadu.

Visually, they're new words. Conceptually, they're new words. Linguistics, Chabi, Linguistics.

[quote]I know you can taste the water on the shore, but how does that tell you that there is a barrier between the two seas? You would have to go very far out into the sea to find the surface tension barrier between the sea and the ocean. And [b]even if Muhammad has been to the sea, or talked with people who have, none of them would have known it[/b]. The key word I've been pointing out is barrier, no one back then would have known there is a force stopping the seas' waters from mixing with eachother.

Notice the word "let loose" for those of you who think the barrier is land. The seas are let loose, they coverge, they touch, yet there is barrier they don't break through, a barrier other than land.

How can "any idiot" know this back then? Sigh... okay I'm gonna stop arguing with you Siren, but I still don't agree with you.[/quote]
Firstly, you don't have to go swimming out in the middle of the ocean. By the way, the Atlantic Ocean stretches from the East Coast to Britain, Spain, etc, so you're not having to swim out to the middle, because quite frankly, there is no middle like that, so your counter for that is weak at best.

I find it odd that simply because a religious text doesn't outright deny it (Look at the language used in that passage of the Quran. There's no explicit denial of what I'm saying), you're completely writing off the idea that traveling merchants, sailors, fishermen, tradesmen, etc., could have told Muhammad about all of that. And the fact of the matter is, it's highly more likely (and more realistic) that he learned of sea movements and such from those who have actually sailed around the world.

History is against you here, Chabi.

[quote]This thread is getting pretty tiresome, and I'm tired of arguing, especially over things that just take common sense to realize....[/quote]
Common sense to realize like the Quran isn't talking about black holes, isn't giving accurate scientific analyses of embryology, isn't so unchanging over the years, isn't immune to the rules of language?

I'm done with this thread, too, but Chabi, you need to take a Linguistics course. After you do, you'll realize that a lot of what you've been saying (specifically, the lingual material) is incredibly faulted.

Also, every single Premise you had at the beginning to support your claim that the Quran is the word of God has been proven to be faulty, whether it was "scientific" statements, unchanged text (which has been changed in a variety of ways, which many of us have shown here), etc.

[quote]See you on the day of judgement. May God be with you 'till then.[/QUOTE]
God? God is a creation of Man.

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='Siren']God? God is a creation of Man.[/quote]Right, you go on thinking that way.

Have a nice day.[/COLOR]

[Adahn]

[QUOTE=Siren]
You add a new letter to the word, or even a new sound, it's creating a new word. When you write it out, that becomes very clear. Asad is the morpheme. Asada is a word based on an addition to that morpheme.
[/QUOTE]
Ever read David Hume? This merely epitomizes the fact that you have little idea of what you so adamantly propose. Your idea of the morpheme is misconstrued in the evidence that you so adamantly propose.

My advice: take a Linguistics course.

[AzureWolf]

[QUOTE=Adahn]Ever read David Hume? This merely epitomizes the fact that you have little idea of what you so adamantly propose. Your idea of the morpheme is misconstrued in the evidence that you so adamantly propose.

My advice: take a Linguistics course.[/QUOTE][COLOR=blue]Ooooo! That was really nice! I wasn't very fond of you before, Adahn, but that really bought me over! Great display of rhetoric: the truth hurts - really bad. XD I'm glad I wasn't on the recieving end of that one.

I realize that sounds sarcastic, but it wasn't meant to be.

I'm all for Holy Books, but I really did not like that final claim about God being a Creation of Man at all. Was it even necessary?[/COLOR]

[Xander Harris]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][COLOR=blue]Ooooo! That was really nice! I wasn't very fond of you before, Adahn, but that really bought me over! Great display of rhetoric: the truth hurts - really bad. XD I'm glad I wasn't on the recieving end of that one.

I realize that sounds sarcastic, but it wasn't meant to be.

I'm all for Holy Books, but I really did not like that final claim about God being a Creation of Man at all. Was it even necessary?[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

I've gotta agree with you, Azure... Adahn's post was one of the most cutting replies I've seen in a long time... and I read a lot of internet arguements.

It seems to me that this thread has degenerated beyond rational discussion. Chabichou won't be convinced that her arguements are wrong no matter what anyone says, and Siren has gotten real nasty, and has gone beyond simply trying to prove Chabichou wrong and is now insulting her intelligence and religious belief in general. Also, neither of them have the credentials to be talking about the textual history of the Quran in the level of detail they are.

Let's all be friends, says I...

James Bierly

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Adahn]Ever read David Hume? This merely epitomizes the fact that you have little idea of what you so adamantly propose. Your idea of the morpheme is misconstrued in the evidence that you so adamantly propose.

My advice: take a Linguistics course.[/QUOTE]
David Hume wasn't a Linguist. Philosopher, yes. Theologian, a bit. But Linguist? No. Your post is meant to be a mockery of what I've been saying, but it (like your attempt at wit) fails miserably because you haven't actually referenced any Linguist.

[Adahn]

[font=Times New Roman][size=3][quote name='Siren']David Hume wasn't a Linguist. Philosopher, yes. Theologian, a bit. But Linguist? No. Your post is meant to be a mockery of what I've been saying, but it (like your attempt at wit) fails miserably because you haven't actually referenced any Linguist.[/quote][/size][/font]



[font=Times New Roman][size=3]You are right, Hume was [i]not[/i] a linguist. That, however, has nothing to do with the fact that his philosophy is still relevant to the discussion. I?m assuming you have little knowledge of why I was referencing Hume. Obviously, this comes from a misunderstanding that you can only blame yourself for. I don?t want you to get too worked up about it so instead of lecturing you, I?ll just give you a similar advice you try to give Chabi:[/size][/font]



[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Go read some Hume. Go take a Linguistics course.Now, two plus two is...?[/size][/font]



[font=Times New Roman][size=3]Good luck Siren.[/size][/font]