Sacred Scriptures

[smaneck]

The Kitab-i-Aqdas is actually a PERFECT example of how trying to emulate the Qur'aanic style only produces hilarious results. .

I'm confused. The Aqdas isn't written in saj which is the style of the Qur'an. It is pretty straight-forward prose, with maybe a little rhyming but not that much.

 

[JJWhite]

It was the Bab, not Baha'u'llah who wrote Arabic in ways that were unique. Remember, he was writing to Persians who knew Arabic as a second language to begin with. Obviously a lot of people did not find his verses 'horrible' or they would not have become Babis to begin with. Indeed, most of his earliest followers members of the 'ulama themselves.

Yeah.. I'm thinking that if the audience had been Arab and not Persian, then it probably wouldn't have been as easily accepted by those who did.

I have never read the Bab's writing, I don't think... unless that Iqan bit I read was Baha'Ullah quoting him. I'm only judging the Kitab-i-Aqdas. I spent my whole day today searching Bahai stuff , and I was articulating my reaction to Baha'Ullah's Arabic in Al-Aqdas.

Like using: shu'oonaat, if I recall correctly. Can't scroll to it.. on different page. That was one of the words that glared at me. It's a plural form of a plural word, and I've never seen anything like it before anywhere.

 

[JJWhite]

I'm confused. The Aqdas isn't written in saj which is the style of the Qur'an. It is pretty straight-forward prose, with maybe a little rhyming but not that much.

الكتاب الأقدس - نص ٧۱-٨٠


-----------------

Here's something I don't understand.

"Ittabi'oo hudood Allaah"?

Follow the limits of Allah?

How do you follow limits?

 

[JJWhite]

I do also have to point out to Jane at this point that maybe Joseph Smith received his revelation in a new version of King James style English that did not have to match the known version.

 

[Arthra]

He was never in charge of people but he was given some respect .

Perhaps you can read the condensed biography atleast once instead of copy pasting from blogs as you always do.

Btw, muhammad was expelled from mecca because he was ridiculing the religious practices of Meccan arabs.

Back to Quran.

Thanks for your post... Yes I've read biographies of the life of Prophet Muhammad.. One of the earliest ones I read and still appreciate was Washington Irving:

Washington Irving, Mohammed and His Successors

Irving I think had an early appreciation for Islam and as an early American man of letters I respect his work.

 

[smaneck]

Like using: shu'oonaat, if I recall correctly. Can't scroll to it.. on different page. That was one of the words that glared at me. It's a plural form of a plural word, and I've never seen anything like it before anywhere.

If I still had access to Lane-Poole lexicon I would check it out for you.

 

[smaneck]

"Ittabi'oo hudood Allaah"?

Follow the limits of Allah?

How do you follow limits?

I believe the proper translation is "transgress not the limits."

 

[smaneck]

Perhaps you can point out my mistakes.

I can't see anything in the Qur'an that even remotely resembles what you describe, so I'm not sure what 'mistake' I could correct.

 

[Rationalt]

Yes I've read biographies of the life of Prophet Muhammad.. One of the earliest ones I read and still appreciate was Washington Irving:

Washington Irving, Mohammed and His Successors

Irving I think had an early appreciation for Islam and as an early American man of letters I respect his work.

I was referring to the Official biography(By Muslims) of Muhammad which was Sirat Ibn Hisham.It was based on records of Ibn Ishaq and Tabari.

The Link you gave reads like a propaganda piece and short on actual references.

 

[smaneck]

Btw, muhammad was expelled from mecca because he was ridiculing the religious practices of Meccan arabs.

If by that you mean because he was condemning idolatry, isn't that why all the prophets suffered?

 

[Rationalt]

I can't see anything in the Qur'an that even remotely resembles what you describe, so I'm not sure what 'mistake' I could correct.

I said i don't see any miraculous message in quran. Copying judaism and adding some arabic flavor doesnt sound miraculous to me.The descriptions of natural phenomenon like day and night corresponds to folk knowledge of 7th century.

 

[JJWhite]

I believe the proper translation is "transgress not the limits."

Let's look up the root taa-baa-'ain. Let's see if transgression can be a valid understanding.

 

[JJWhite]

I'll give you:

"Comply with the limits"... though that's really stretching it.

 

[Rationalt]

الكتاب الأقدس - نص Ù§Û±-Ù¨Ù[bless and do not curse]


-----------------

Here's something I don't understand.

"Ittabi'oo hudood Allaah"?

Follow the limits of Allah?

How do you follow limits?

May be he was referring to Quran [FONT=&quot]02.229[/FONT][FONT=&quot] : [/FONT]they cannot keep within the limits of Allah; then if you fear that they cannot keep within the limits of Allah, there is no blame on them for what she gives up to become free thereby. These are the limits of Allah, so do not exceed them and whoever exceeds the limits of Allah these it is that are the unjust.
[FONT=&quot].

[/FONT]

 

[razeontherock]

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?

Yup, that would be it. Projecting our own ideas upon G-d and then blaming Him for it, isn't really His mistake! It's also quite possible that the original language referred to a localized flood. There's opinion both ways about that, and as near as I can tell, we can't be sure.

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.

Well this is an odd nook to flow from what I wrote but alright:

Paul's words don't say inerrant. Still, very little of the NT hadn't been written by that time, and most of that was written by the youngest Apostle, who was also the last to remain alive - John. The whole issue of "Canon" is specious. Most Churches have never "closed their Canon," and all it's made up of is what was read in Church. "Canon" merely gives members of one Church, the benefit of what another used.

The real point here, is the purpose of Scripture. It's a book about G-d, that tells us how we may relate to Him. In that respect, it is as Paul said. Which by no means equates to us not being able to mess things all up

 

[smaneck]

Let's look up the root taa-baa-'ain. Let's see if transgression can be a valid understanding.

I'm talking about the intent of the expression. You can't always get the meaning from chasing down the root. The root of the word 'spirituality' is breath but if you translate that way you will lose its meaning entirely.

 

[razeontherock]

The Dead Sea scrolls validate the existence of ancient texts, not the existence of God.

They do more than that; they tell us remarkably well-preserved our Scriptures are.

 

[smaneck]

I said i don't see any miraculous message in quran. Copying judaism and adding some arabic flavor doesnt sound miraculous to me.

That's not what you said. You said that all you saw was "the ideas of a 7th century man of Arabian desert who wanted to be in charge of people."

There is very little in the Qur'an about Muhammad's leadership.

The descriptions of natural phenomenon like day and night corresponds to folk knowledge of 7th century.

And that of the Bible corresponds to an earlier period still.

It is not the business of revelation to provide us with scientific knowledge, we can discover that for ourselves. The references to natural phenomenon in the Qur'an are largely poetic and should be read that way. It is the spiritual truths that matter.

 

[smaneck]

Paul's words don't say inerrant. Still, very little of the NT hadn't been written by that time, and most of that was written by the youngest Apostle, who was also the last to remain alive - John. The whole issue of "Canon" is specious. Most Churches have never "closed their Canon," and all it's made up of is what was read in Church. "Canon" merely gives members of one Church, the benefit of what another used.

The real point here, is the purpose of Scripture. It's a book about G-d, that tells us how we may relate to Him. In that respect, it is as Paul said. Which by no means equates to us not being able to mess things all up

Oh my gosh, I think I'm agreeing with you.

Wonders never cease!

 

[razeontherock]

Are you by any chance familiar with the Sapir-Whorf-hypothesis?

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.

While the Bible does yield some applicable Truth from a surface reading, you don't get too far with it w/o at least relating to the mindset of a Jew of the day. And then actually learning ANE customs adds another whole dimension of meaning ... (to both OT and NT)

This may be why so much of the NT is devoted to pointing out we don't actually have to become a Jew