Sacred Scriptures

[smaneck]

MASHALLAH!

An excellent post, JJ. I'd like to ask you about one thing, though. You wrote:

Three is probably the Qur'aanic claim that God has been sending messengers to every nation that existed since the first of our species. <snip>
I am happy to accept the good found in the texts of all religions, and I'm sure they carry many remnants of wisdom within them. I believe that most religions are somehow more or less rooted in God's teachings... just things get warped with time. Which brings me to point four.
Four is probably the issue of the preservation of the Qur'aan. [/QUOTE]

The implication here seems to be that religions get corrupted because the text of their scriptures are changed? Is that really the problem, or is it not the case, that the real corruption comes from perverse interpretations? Is this not the real meaning of 'corrupting the Word of God"? I don't doubt that the Qur'an has been better preserved than any other religions' scripture (aside from the Baha'i Faith, but we are still young) but can you honestly say that the Islamic umma is any less corrupted today than the other religions of the world? You correctly stated that "God has been sending messengers to every nation.' As the Qur'an states:

109. Say: "If the ocean were ink (wherewith to write out) the words of my Lord, sooner would the ocean be exhausted than would the words of my Lord, even if we added another ocean like it, for its aid."

(The Qur'an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah 18)

Is it not the case, then that God will continue to reveal Himself as He has done in the past?

 

[smaneck]

Are you serious??? I know I don't view that at all from qur'an or hadith

Have you actually read the Qur'an or just those out-of-context passages that appear on Islam-hating "Christian" websites?

 

[razeontherock]

Several religions out there rely upon a collection of texts that are considered holy, divinely inspired or even (in some cases) flawless and literal representations of Supreme Reality.

I would hope no Biblical literalist thinks the Bible is any flawless or literal representation of God. That is not what is meant by "the inerrant word of God." Just that it doesn't have mistakes. And these days, most qualify that with "in their original autographs," to allow for copy and translation errors. Aside from those, if we are finding mistakes, we are misunderstanding. (And really, the things people come up with to try to point out Biblical mistakes are almost always immaterial)

 

[Avelina777]

I would hope no Biblical literalist thinks the Bible is any flawless or literal representation of God. That is not what is meant by "the inerrant word of God." Just that it doesn't have mistakes. And these days, most qualify that with "in their original autographs," to allow for copy and translation errors. Aside from those, if we are finding mistakes, we are misunderstanding. (And really, the things people come up with to try to point out Biblical mistakes are almost always immaterial)

Actually sometimes when the translation is wrong it is very pertinant to point it out, but as the for the message of salvation I completely agree it is immaterial!!

 

[razeontherock]

Because all Holy Text point believers toward the Light of the Divine, for myself ALL Holy Text ARE "the real thing". It's not the outer words of belief that I'm look at, but the inner light that shines upon ones soul.

I know that's not what your asking, but there you go anyway.

.

+1 The real thing we wind up with is never identical to the text, just as a city map is not the city.

 

[razeontherock]

You are aware of archaelogical finds that credit biblical accounts all the way back to the time of Moses.

Sorry for the derail but I'd like to see that (Or are you talking about Ron Wyatt?)

 

[Avelina777]

Sorry for the derail but I'd like to see that

It is true ray, they do have such findings, even before Moses.

 

[JJWhite]

MASHALLAH!

An excellent post, JJ. I'd like to ask you about one thing, though. You wrote:

Three is probably the Qur'aanic claim that God has been sending messengers to every nation that existed since the first of our species. <snip>
I am happy to accept the good found in the texts of all religions, and I'm sure they carry many remnants of wisdom within them. I believe that most religions are somehow more or less rooted in God's teachings... just things get warped with time. Which brings me to point four.
Four is probably the issue of the preservation of the Qur'aan.

The implication here seems to be that religions get corrupted because the text of their scriptures are changed? Is that really the problem, or is it not the case, that the real corruption comes from perverse interpretations? Is this not the real meaning of 'corrupting the Word of God"? I don't doubt that the Qur'an has been better preserved than any other religions' scripture (aside from the Baha'i Faith, but we are still young) but can you honestly say that the Islamic umma is any less corrupted today than the other religions of the world? You correctly stated that "God has been sending messengers to every nation.' As the Qur'an states:

109. Say: "If the ocean were ink (wherewith to write out) the words of my Lord, sooner would the ocean be exhausted than would the words of my Lord, even if we added another ocean like it, for its aid."

(The Qur'an (Yusuf Ali tr), Surah 18)

Is it not the case, then that God will continue to reveal Himself as He has done in the past?

Could be either honestly. Personally, I am of the opinion that, at least largely, the Torah found today contains God's Words revealed verbatim.

Other texts don't claim to be that anyway. Teachings and understandings do change with time.

I agree that Muslims can and do understand the Scripture available to them.

There's a narration I once read where Umar ibn Al-Khattab asked Ibn Abbas how it was that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) prophesied that Muslims would go astray when God promised to preserve the Qur'an. Ibn Abbas's response was to look at the Jews and Christians around them... that they still had God's teachings, yet they had still gone astray.

Another narration, of Ibn Mas'ud if I recall correctly, has him saying that the Muslims would fall into all the mistakes that the Children of Israel ever made except that they might not worship a calf.

I've come across many such narrations that indicate this, and, of course, observation alone suffices to prove that this is indeed sadly the case.

May God guide us all to the best.

As for continuous revelation, the texts that state that Muhammad was the final prophet sent by God seem very clear to me. I don't see how, from an Arabic language perspective, they can be taken to mean any of the alternate understandings that I have seen put forth by Baha'is.

Also, the whole "Manifestations" thing doesn't feel right. Then, as I mentioned, the quality of Arabic writing in Kitab-i-Iqan is the thing that just made me stop reading any more.

I take that verse to mean that God is beyond anything we can say or imagine. Our words are nothing compared to His Words.. our knowledge nothing compared to His Knowledge.

And God knows best.

 

[SanFrank]

Have you actually read the Qur'an or just those out-of-context passages that appear on Islam-hating "Christian" websites?

Yes, the english translation, Yusuf Ali. I don't care to hear the enemy of G*d's, carefully written hallucinatory music of the qur'an in arabic. I don't wish to know the enemy that well. Hearing the qur'an in arabic is what derails, deceives and prohibits its listeners from recognizing the truth. Its like a strong addictive drug that traps its listeners.

 

[SanFrank]

Sorry for the derail but I'd like to see that (Or are you talking about Ron Wyatt?)

Brother, there are some well-written books on the subject by several authors which you can find at the nearest Barnes & Noble, Christian section. The best books are filled with pictures of the findings; they're large and costly though.

 

[steve_bakr]

Yes, the english translation, Yusuf Ali. I don't care to hear the enemy of G*d's, carefully written hallucinatory music of the qur'an in arabic. I don't wish to know the enemy that well. Hearing the qur'an in arabic is what derails, deceives and prohibits its listeners from recognizing the truth. Its like a strong addictive drug that traps its listeners.

Lol, Yusuf Ali's version is good--especially if you read the one with the extensive commentary--but it is only an approximation of the qualities of the Quran in Arabic.

In Catholicism, Islam is not the enemy, so I get to enjoy Sheik Mishari Rashid Alafasy's beautiful Quran recitations without becoming possessed, lol. Remember that the real enemy is often the one that speaks inside our own selves.

 

[Avelina777]

Yes, the english translation, Yusuf Ali. I don't care to hear the enemy of G*d's, carefully written hallucinatory music of the qur'an in arabic. I don't wish to know the enemy that well. Hearing the qur'an in arabic is what derails, deceives and prohibits its listeners from recognizing the truth. Its like a strong addictive drug that traps its listeners.

Amen brother

 

[Zoness]

Good news! My religion lacks holy scriptures.

That said there are many folk tales, writings, traditions and cultural customs that can develop a religious standard. None, some or all of these can be observed and they are not uniform in any particular sense.

To tell ya the truth, my spiritual life would be rather bizarre if I had to follow it out of a book. Nature gives pretty good cues herself, but that's my opinion.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

It is true ray, they do have such findings, even before Moses.

Except that they don't.

Finkelstein's "The Bible Unearthed" pretty much records all of the archaeological findings pertaining to Biblical claims, and it's not much.
Basically, almost all the stuff prior to the Babylonian exile is so deeply warped by myth and based on such a fragile historical component as to render it virtually worthless as far as history is concerned (although it may still be of great spiritual significance - just in case Ray is protesting).

And by the way: that book is not a controversial hate-fest written by crusading atheists. It was very well-received by biblical scholars and archaeologists alike, and is perfectly fair (if brutally honest) in its assessment of the evidence.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Brother, there are some well-written books on the subject by several authors which you can find at the nearest Barnes & Noble, Christian section. The best books are filled with pictures of the findings; they're large and costly though.

What are the credentials of these authors? Has their researched been backed up by professional archaeologists, via peer-review? And what exactly are these findings supposed to be?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I would hope no Biblical literalist thinks the Bible is any flawless or literal representation of God. That is not what is meant by "the inerrant word of God." Just that it doesn't have mistakes. And these days, most qualify that with "in their original autographs," to allow for copy and translation errors. Aside from those, if we are finding mistakes, we are misunderstanding. (And really, the things people come up with to try to point out Biblical mistakes are almost always immaterial)

What do you mean when you say "mistakes"?

If there never was such a thing as a global flood, yet the Bible affirms that it happened, does that constitute a mistake - or are people just failing to understand that these stories are not meant to be read as literal history, but as myth, thus communicating profound spiritual messages in the form of symbols and allegories?

The whole notion of Biblical inerrancy seems to be based on Paul's reference to the OT as "good for instruction" and "god-breathed". You won't find any claim in it that defines the whole Biblical canon (of OT and NT) as inerrant, simply because there was no canon at the time these lines were penned. As you all know, parts of the NT weren't even written when Paul directed his epistles at very specific audiences inquiring whether to discard of keep the Jewish scriptures.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I know this sounds circular, Jane, but ultimately don't we believe something to be the Word of God because when we read it we hear God speak? I don't hear that when I read the Book of Mormon. I do hear it when I read Baha'u'llah's Writings. And unlike most people I've pretty much read all the texts you name above.

I know exactly what you mean! The Book of Mormon has never struck me as anything other than fraudulent, and not just because of its usage of mangled King James English, its frequent anachronisms or its ridiculous historical claims.

Now, I think it's possible that people derive spiritual "nourishment" even from sources such as this, but more because of what's in themselves than because of some quality inherent to the text as such. Readers who engage with a text do so in an active manner, and what they derive from it quite often has its source in their own psyche.

Just a curious aside: I once had an epiphany listening to a Kylie Minogue-song - yet I'd never claim that there was some deep significance to the lyrics as such beyond the intertextual connections that I made while listening to them.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Again looking for extra-scriptural proofs? You are aware of archaelogical finds that credit biblical accounts all the way back to the time of Moses. Why don't you go with that as proof. How about the dead sea scrolls validating the OT scripture going back to at least 200BC? How about the contents of the NT validating claims of the OT? I'm glad I had faith before ever glancing at these extra-biblical proofs; I would not want my faith to rely on those proofs. I'm glad I believe by having heard the Word.

The Dead Sea scrolls validate the existence of ancient texts, not the existence of God. Archaeological discoveries validate places that existed according to the Bible but also do not prove the existence of God. The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe mentions a wardrobe, but in no way proves that the wardrobe is a magic portal to Narnia.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

My reply to your thread may not satisfy you, but for me as an Arabic Muslim female I got impressed with the language of Quran. I can distinguish between the different styles of text but the Quran is unique and is never repeated. It is perfect and if someone, by mistake, changed a single word or a single letter or even change the pronunciation of a word the meaning could change.
I have examples of what I'm saying but it might be difficult for me to translate it. but I will try if you insist!
I advice you to learn the Arabic language to taste the beauty of the Quranic language.

Are you by any chance familiar with the Sapir-Whorf-hypothesis?
Put simply, language is not merely a stack of labels that we attach to pre-existing categories and concepts, but actively creates these, defining the manner in which a speaker-community relates to and conceives of reality.

It's not wholly deterministic, insofar as your unconscious is still capable of relating to aspects that cannot be fully articulated by the language that informs your world view, but it nevertheless exerts a strong influence on the way you think, feel, and act.

I think this hypothesis is quite clearly bolstered by what we can observe in the case of Islam: the whole religion (and its holy book) is so fundamentally based within Arabic modes of thought and the world view derived from them as to make it virtually impossible to divorce it from its specific cultural and historical concepts.
In other words, if you wish to become a genuine muslim, you must "become an Arab" first.

One fact about the Quran is that it is easy to memorize the Quran and it is also easy to forget what you have memorized. I face this problem.The Quran is different from any other material that is memorized such as poetry and prose. And this is because the Quran is quickly lost from one’s mind. In fact the Messenger of Allah said: "By Him in whose Hand is my soul, it is faster in escaping than a tied camel." Reported by Bukhari and Muslim.
One more thing, Allah said to Muslims (through the Quran) to keep a good relationship with the Quran and a person who choose to live his life away from the Quran will have a tough life. Believe me this is absolutely true; even if you are doining your prayers at time but not have recited the Quran for sometime or listened to a recitation, you got lost and it will be easy for Satan and bad desires and thoughts to destroy you and you will loose the state of inner peace in your heart. Allah says:{But whosoever turns away from My remembrance, his shall be a life of narrowness,..} [20:124]. The more you get close to the Quran (the Word of Allah) the more you become happy.

These paragraphs struck me as quite uncanny, as your comments describe a process of intense indoctrination, of limiting the mind to very specific material in order to keep it in line. It's reminiscent of Orwell's 1984, as well as of various destructive cults that exert great control over the material accessible to its converts, basically training their minds to stay within the prescribed confines of the cult's doctrines.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Again looking for extra-scriptural proofs?

Not really, no.
I'm just interested in the reasons believers of various religions give as far as the (often exclusive) validity of their scriptures is concerned. Of course, somebody could cite supposedly archaeological evidence as their personal cause (the Mormons have various organizations devoted to the exclusive task of substantiating the spurious claims of their holy book), but I'm interested in pretty much any reason that people might potentially bring up.

You are aware of archaelogical finds that credit biblical accounts all the way back to the time of Moses.

As I pointed out a few posts ago: archaeologicla finds hardly credit biblical accounts. The scriptures are not completely devoid of historical context, but especially as far as its more spectacular claims are concerned, the evidence is less than scarce - it is nonexistant.

Why don't you go with that as proof. How about the dead sea scrolls validating the OT scripture going back to at least 200BC?

What about them? What exactly do you think they prove, other than that the OT-scriptures existed in 200 BCE, and believers treated them as sacred?

How about the contents of the NT validating claims of the OT?

What do you mean by "validating"?
The Book of Mormon "validates" claims of both the OT and NT (at least if you ask LDS members). That sort of thing is easy to pull off if you have a copy of the scriptures in question in front of you, and just transpose your retroactive continuity upon them. It's like writing a sequel to a well-known tale: not much of a difficult task.