Where does "allah" say...

[LittleLambofJesus]

Innahu laqur-anun kareemun fee kitabin maknoonin la yamassuhu illa almutahharoona tanzeelun min rabbi alAAalameena afabihatha alhadeethi antum mudhinoona

Truly it is a holy collection. In a Book, carefully guarded. None touches it except the purified ones. The Revelation from the Lord of the jinn and of mankind. So is it with this, the narrative, you adopt a conciliatory attitude? (56.77 – 81)


Your first example describes to us that the coveted Biblical Book of Revelation (i.e. the narrative) was converted into an Arabic collection (or Koran).

These ayahs state plainly that its contexts came from a carefully guarded book. Thus, confirming that the Holy Bible was fully intact when the authors of the Koran pilfered material from it.

That was always my thoughts on that.

Luke 21:20 `And when ye may see Jerusalem surrounded by armies/hosts/stratopedwn <4760> , then know that come nigh did the desolating/erhmwsiV <2050> of her.

Revelation 19:11 And I saw the heaven having been opened, and lo, a white horse, and He who is sitting upon it is called Faithful and True, and in Righteousness doth He judge and war,
14 And the armies/host/strateumata <4753> in the heaven were following to Him upon white horses, clothed in fine-linen/bussinon <1039>--white and pure;

 

[ApplePie7]

first of all
you distorted the translation of this statement
77 - That this is indeed a Quran most honorable,
into
Truly it is a holy collection

before we discuss this point , i have to know if you think that Quran means Holy collection ?


i will answer that after we agree about the meaning of arabic word " Quran "

Let’s clear the air regarding what the Koran claims to be…


&#1575;&#1604;&#1602;&#1585;&#1569;&#1575;&#1606; = “alqur-ana”

“alqur-ana” definition:

Originally meaning the Collection; “I collected together the thing” or “I read, or recited, the book or scripture”; and then conventionally applied to signify the Book of God that was revealed to Mohammad; it also signifies the revelation, meaning that which is termed the mighty, or imitable which is read, or recited, and written in books or volumes. A name for the Book of God, like the book of the Law revealed to Moses and the Gospel.

&#1602;&#1585;&#1569;&#1575;&#1606; is so called because it has collected the histories of the prophets, and commands and prohibitions, and promises and threats, and the verses or signs, and the chapters

It comes from the root “qara’a”, which has the primary signification he collected together the thing; put it, or drew it, together; part to part, or portion to portion. He read, or recited, the scripture chanting; he read or recited anything in any manner, without, or from, or in a book.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume seven, pp. 2502 - 2504
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, pp. 448 - 449


As you can verify for yourself, the primary definition for Koran means “collection”.

It collected to previous Biblical scriptures into one place and converted them into Arabic.

2 - (This is) the revelation of the Book in which there is
no doubt, from the Lord of the Worlds.
3 - Or do they say, He has forged it? nay, it is the Truth from thy Lord, that thou mayest admonish a people to whom no warner has come before thee: in order that they may receive guidance.

how did you know that this book refered to bible ?

The Koran was originally an oral transmission. It was not a book. Thus, when it talks about a book, it could not possibly have been referring to itself, as it was not even a book at the time.

anyway the entire chapter is about the details of Joseph story
if it is allready mentioned in biblical Genesis material as you claim , so show me

Here is the original story…

And his brothers said to him, Shall you indeed reign over us, or shall you really rule over us? And they hated him still more because of his dreams, and because of his words. And he dreamed still another dream, and told it to his brothers. And he said, Behold, I have dreamed another dream: And, behold, the sun and the moon and the eleven stars were bowing themselves to me. And he told it to his father, and to his brothers. And his father rebuked him, and said to him, What is this dream which you have dreamed? Shall we indeed come to bow ourselves to the earth to you, I, your mother, and your brothers? And his brothers were jealous of him. (Genesis 37.8 -11)

Here is the story as copied into the Koran…

We, we relate on you, he did the narrative excellently, with what we revealed to you, this, The Collection, and truly you were from before it from the unmindful ones. When Joseph said to his father: "O! My dear father that I, I saw eleven stars and the sun and the moon, I saw them those who prostrate themselves to me." Say: "O! My dear son, relate not your dream to your brothers, so they devise to you an artful device, truly the devil to mankind is a clear enemy.” And likewise, your Lord, He chooses you and He teaches you by explanation, the narratives, and completes His blessing on you, and on Jacob's (Israel) people, just as He completed it on your fathers from before, Abraham and Isaac, truly your Lord who knows, wise. (12.3 – 6)

you are not honest
you didn't accept the authorized translation of quran i gave you , you just exchange it with yours , then say to me it didn' mention that this is inspired

Since when is Yusuf Ali “authorized” to dictate the Arabic Koran?

Doesn’t the clear Arabic stand on its own….or does it require Yusuf Ali to bring it to life?

you must first argue with me about transltion i stated , and proof for me that it's wrong , not to put your distortion version and say to me you have nothing

Not a problem.

What Arabic words are causing you distress…?

 

[français]

Context.

If you want the usage “elohim” to show uniplurality, as it clearly does in the Genesis creation account, then you would have to show that 1 Kings is showing a plurality in each of the gods that it mentions.

As it is, there is one “elohim” used and rendered as “god” for each of three separate gods, each with absolutely no contextual extension that it represents anything more than a single god.

In Genesis, there is one “elohim” used for the creator God of the Universe, and is showing contextually to consist of a spirit, and a word.

What on earth?

I am not at all saying that the gods mentioned in 1 Kings are uniplural. I am saying the exact opposite.. That they are not, so why is "elohim" being used when they are not uniplural, and they are being described each as one god?

I think that you do not even know what I am trying to say.

No lexicography is offered in any of these books…

You asked me to show proof that there was a difference of opinion, and I clearly did.

No lexicography offer @ this website either…

You asked me to prove that there was a difference of opinion, and I did. I cited books, some which are very popular and written by renowned scholars. Likewise, I know I cited a dictionary or two in there, which may not be a lexicon, but still cites what scholars have said!

And yet…none of these books are lexicons, nor do they reference classic lexicography.

But I still proved the point.

Let’s begin with the assertion that the Koran never states that it was divinely inspired.

Do you agree with this statement?

Yes. I agree that it states this as well as implies this indirectly in some areas.

 

[elwill]

It comes from the root “qara’a”, which has the primary signification he collected together the thing; put it, or drew it, together; part to part, or portion to portion. He read, or recited, the scripture chanting; he read or recited anything in any manner, without, or from, or in a book.

you distort the basic langauge also
you add the wrong tranlations for the word mixed with the right translation , then give us the reference which we can't examined !!!!

Quran literally mean "the recitation"

It comes from the root “qara’a”, He read, or recited, the scripture chanting; he read or recited anything in any manner, without, or from, or in a book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'an

It collected to previous Biblical scriptures into one place and converted them into Arabic.

who converted them into arabic ? or it's just guess !!!

The Koran was originally an oral transmission. It was not a book. Thus, when it talks about a book, it could not possibly have been referring to itself, as it was not even a book at the time.

my question was why do you think that it refers to the bible ? and you didn't answer me if you think that the bible is one book?

 

[ApplePie7]

you distort the basic langauge also
you add the wrong tranlations for the word mixed with the right translation , then give us the reference which we can't examined !!!!

All of our renderings can be fully backed-up with verifiable references.

Quran literally mean "the recitation"

It comes from the root &#8220;qara&#8217;a&#8221;, He read, or recited, the scripture chanting; he read or recited anything in any manner, without, or from, or in a book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'an

Too bad your googled link fails to provide a verifiable lexical reference for defining the term "Koran". The only reference to Lane's Lexicon on the whole page was for something entirely different.

You should actually read through the material that you google...

who converted them into arabic ? or it's just guess !!!

The authors who composed the text.

my question was why do you think that it refers to the bible?

Because the Koran says so...

Is the Koran not telling us the truth?

and you didn't answer me if you think that the bible is one book?

The Holy Bible is a collection of books.


Thus...you should not be at all surprised that your Koran is also a collection of books...just as stated in the very word "Koran", itself.



Now....where is that Koranic ayah mandating that the Koran was divinely inspired?

 

[elwill]

Too bad your googled link fails to provide a verifiable lexical reference for defining the term "Koran". The only reference to Lane's Lexicon on the whole page was for something entirely different.

You should actually read through the material that you google...

i really dont need to proof for my self what is the meaning of quran or qara'a , my googled is for refuting your calim for whom don't know arabic

you agree with me that root word of quran is qara'a which mean read or recite , not collect somthing together as you claim ( that's what i proofed in my unbiased site)

The authors who composed the text.

who?
is they unknown authors as in many chapters in the bible !!

Because the Koran says so...

Is the Koran not telling us the truth?

of course

The Holy Bible is a collection of books.

well , which book of this collection quran refered to from your point of view?

Thus...you should not be at all surprised that your Koran is also a collection of books...just as stated in the very word "Koran", itself.

give me the names of the books which collected in quran

Now....where is that Koranic ayah mandating that the Koran was divinely inspired?

i gave it to you before , but you didn't respond to it
i think that you made your responding against distortion translation which i'm not agree with , but you never responded to what i cited or what i believe

 

[ApplePie7]

i really dont need to proof for my self what is the meaning of quran or qara'a , my googled is for refuting your calim for whom don't know arabic

Your googled site does not refute anything that we stated.

you agree with me that root word of quran is qara'a which mean read or recite , not collect somthing together as you claim ( that's what i proofed in my unbiased site)

Wrong.

Go back and read what was posted...

It comes from the root &#8220;qara&#8217;a&#8221;, which has the primary signification he collected together the thing; put it, or drew it, together; part to part, or portion to portion. He read, or recited, the scripture chanting; he read or recited anything in any manner, without, or from, or in a book.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume seven, pp. 2502 - 2504
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur&#8217;an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, pp. 448 - 449


What part of the primary signification do you not understand?

who?
is they unknown authors as in many chapters in the bible !!

We can agree that no one named "Muhammad" claimed to have written the Koran.

In fact, no one at all claimed to have written the Koran, according to the Koran.

Nor did the authors of the Koran ever claim that it was divinely inspired.

well , which book of this collection quran refered to from your point of view?


give me the names of the books which collected in quran

The authors of the Koran copied numerous Biblical books.

The Book of Revelation is called-out by name, and comprises >50% of the Koranic opus....all by itself!

Other Biblical books used in the Koran are:

Genesis
Job
Psalms
Luke
John
Mark

Hope this helps...

 

[elwill]

[/size][/font][/i]


Let’s clear the air regarding what the Koran claims to be…


&#1575;&#1604;&#1602;&#1585;&#1569;&#1575;&#1606;= “alqur-ana”

“alqur-ana” definition:

Originally meaning the Collection; “I collected together the thing” or “I read, or recited, the book or scripture”; and then conventionally applied to signify the Book of God that was revealed to Mohammad; it also signifies the revelation, meaning that which is termed the mighty, or imitable which is read, or recited, and written in books or volumes. A name for the Book of God, like the book of the Law revealed to Moses and the Gospel.

&#1602;&#1585;&#1569;&#1575;&#1606;is so called because it has collected the histories of the prophets, and commands and prohibitions, and promises and threats, and the verses or signs, and the chapters

It comes from the root “qara’a”, which has the primary signification he collected together the thing; put it, or drew it, together; part to part, or portion to portion. He read, or recited, the scripture chanting; he read or recited anything in any manner, without, or from, or in a book.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume seven, pp. 2502 - 2504
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, pp. 448 - 449


As you can verify for yourself, the primary definition for Koran means “collection”.

It collected to previous Biblical scriptures into one place and converted them into Arabic.

my dear friends
is applepie7 really have references he quotes with every post ?
is he really know arabic language ?
is he study from trustfull sources , is he honest ?

i'm really not sure , but i want you to share me your openions please
i just found this site

http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/What_it_says_about_itself

this isn't islamic site


is his sources came from one wrote that he used The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an or applepie himself have this knowledge and have these references to depate with me about !!!!!!! ? (thoughts)

 

[ApplePie7]

[/size][/font]

my dear friends
is applepie7 really have references he quotes with every post ?
is he really know arabic language ?
is he study from trustfull sources , is he honest ?

i'm really not sure , but i want you to share me your openions please
i just found this site

http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/What_it_says_about_itself

this isn't islamic site


is his sources came from one wrote that he used The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an or applepie himself have this knowledge and have these references to depate with me about !!!!!!! ? (thoughts)

You just googled our KB material....and yes, it can be verified as legitimate...for those willing to take the time...


Have you been able to locate a Koranic ayah which states that it was divinely inspired yet...?

 

[Voice_of _reason]

Your googled site does not refute anything that we stated.





Wrong.

Go back and read what was posted...

It comes from the root “qara’a”, which has the primary signification he collected together the thing; put it, or drew it, together; part to part, or portion to portion. He read, or recited, the scripture chanting; he read or recited anything in any manner, without, or from, or in a book.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume seven, pp. 2502 - 2504
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, pp. 448 - 449


What part of the primary signification do you not understand?








We can agree that no one named "Muhammad" claimed to have written the Koran.

In fact, no one at all claimed to have written the Koran, according to the Koran.

Nor did the authors of the Koran ever claim that it was divinely inspired.







The authors of the Koran copied numerous Biblical books.

The Book of Revelation is called-out by name, and comprises >50% of the Koranic opus....all by itself!

Other Biblical books used in the Koran are:

Genesis
Job
Psalms
Luke
John
Mark

Hope this helps...

This is true. Probably 75% of the Koranic text seems to be plagiarized and twisted biblical stuff.

 

[Bookofknowledge]

This is true. Probably 75% of the Koranic text seems to be plagiarized and twisted biblical stuff.

Come to what is common and then analyze did we plagiarized or you guys went astray from the path of Abrahamic faith.

 

[Gremlins]

I think it's very sad because obviously, today's Arabs can't understand the Quran even though it's in Arabic. I think it's a bit like I can't understand Beowulf even though it's written in Old English or Anglo-Saxon. Beowulf is totally Greek to me (I probably can understand Classical Greek better because I study it at school). I understand better now. It's like I'm arguing with someone about Beowulf and he knows Old English even though he's not English and I can't go round claiming to know Beowulf because I'm English.

Well actually that's not right. Arabic has probably been more linguistically conservative than English has, so it is infact more like modern vs. ancient Greek - a Greek person can largely understand ancient writings. Infact, it's even easier than that. Try reading Scots, which is really just a more conservative form of English, and you'll see how easy it is for an Arabic speaker to understand Qur'anic Arabic.

But that's not all. The colloquial standards in, say, Morocco and Yemen have diverged enough that they might not fully understand each other if they met in the street. However, pretty much everyone in the Arab world can also speak Modern Standard Arabic, which is pretty much identical to Qur'anic Arabic with some more modern pronounciation (The letter jim, for example, which was pronounced 'gy' in classical Arabic, is pronounced like English 'j' in 'judge' in Modern Standard Arabic. In terms of grammar, it's almost identical to what you see in the Qur'an.

It's as if you spoke as you would normally to your friends and family, but with people who were from a different part of the country you spoke Beowulf-style Old English with a cockney accent. People on the TV/Radio would do the same, and the newspapers would be written entirely in old English. This is called Diglossa and world-wide is a very, very common phenomenon.

Also, Modern Standard Arabic documents use the royal we. Want to know the opening of the Omani basic law document?

On the Issue of the Basic Law of the State We, Qaboos bin Said, Sultan of Oman…

So really some people on this thread should stop bearing false witness. It's not very becoming. There are hundreds of nagging little inconsistencies in the Bible, against which Allah changing the pronoun He uses for Himself seems like a very small thing indeed.

 

[Gremlins]

Brother Elwill,

Thanks for your reply.

Let’s review the examples that you put forth as pertaining to the question of whether or not the Koran proclaims that it was divinely inspired…

&#1573;&#1606;&#1607; &#1604;&#1602;&#1585;&#1569;&#1575;&#1606; &#1603;&#1585;&#1610;&#1605; &#1601;&#1610; &#1603;&#1578;&#1576; &#1605;&#1603;&#1606;&#1608;&#1606; &#1604;&#1575; &#1610;&#1605;&#1587;&#1607; &#1573;&#1604;&#1575; &#1575;&#1604;&#1605;&#1591;&#1607;&#1585;&#1608;&#1606; &#1578;&#1606;&#1586;&#1610;&#1604; &#1605;&#1606; &#1585;&#1576; &#1575;&#1604;&#1593;&#1604;&#1605;&#1610;&#1606; &#1571;&#1601;&#1576;&#1607;&#1584;&#1575; &#1575;&#1604;&#1581;&#1583;&#1610;&#1579; &#1571;&#1606;&#1578;&#1605; &#1605;&#1583;&#1607;&#1606;&#1608;&#1606;​

Innahu laqur-anun kareemun fee kitabin maknoonin la yamassuhu illa almutahharoona tanzeelun min rabbi alAAalameena afabihatha alhadeethi antum mudhinoona

Truly it is a holy collection. In a Book, carefully guarded. None touches it except the purified ones. The Revelation from the Lord of the jinn and of mankind. So is it with this, the narrative, you adopt a conciliatory attitude? (56.77 – 81)


Your first example describes to us that the coveted Biblical Book of Revelation (i.e. the narrative) was converted into an Arabic collection (or Koran).

Dear Lord. Insanity alert or what? Revelation is pretty obviously not the proper noun here. It just means that God is revealing the next stage of his plan for Mankind through the prophet Mohammad (if you're a Muslim, that is).

These ayahs state plainly that its contexts came from a carefully guarded book. Thus, confirming that the Holy Bible was fully intact when the authors of the Koran pilfered material from it.

No, all it states is that the Qur'an is carefully guarded. Doesn't say anything about the Bible.

This would then explain why the Koran contains copious amounts of Biblical apocalyptic material.

No, the Qur'an probably contains copious amounts of Biblical material because it's the same God who had the book of Revelations and the Qur'an sent to Earth.

Further, the Koran was originally an oral transmission. Thus, to mention a book that is carefully guarded immediately tells us that this is talking about something outside of the Koran itself.

This example states absolutely nothing regarding the “divine inspiration” of the Koran….but actually promotes the Biblical Book of Revelation as Holy and pure.

Mad. Completely Mad.

&#1578;&#1606;&#1586;&#1610;&#1604; &#1575;&#1604;&#1603;&#1578;&#1576;&#1604;&#1575; &#1585;&#1610;&#1576; &#1601;&#1610;&#1607; &#1605;&#1606; &#1585;&#1576; &#1575;&#1604;&#1593;&#1604;&#1605;&#1610;&#1606;

Tanzeelu alkitabi la rayba feehi min rabbi alAAalameena

32.2 The Book of Revelation, no doubt in it, from the Lord of the jinn and of mankind.

What? That is obviously a construct state. It's not 'the book of revelation', it's 'the revelation of the book'. The Arabic name Abdullah doesn't mean 'Servant's God', it means 'Servant of God'. This is exactly the same construction. This verse actually reads:

The revealing of the book is without doubt from the Lord of the Jinn and Mankind

My Arabic is far from fluent and even I can tell you're wrong. You're not being very intellectually honest here, are you?

Which neatly brings us back to this:

Your task is to show us one single solitary place, out of the 114 suras of your book of faith, which states that it was divinely inspired.

Ok:

Tanzi:lu-l kitabi la: raiba fi:hi min rabbi-l`a:mi:na

The revealing of the book is without doubt from the Lord of the Jinn and Mankind.

You see, when you don't blatantly lie in your translations, it's actually perfectly, completely obvious what the Qur'an is trying to say. You do Christianity absolutely no good by bearing false witness like this. It's very upsetting.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

So, use of a majestic plural indicates that Allah did not create the world on his own?



You *do* know that the Abrahamaic God was also known by such a majestic plural, don't you? "Elohim", the Lords. Your Bible merely mistranslates it.
And then, there's also that weird passage in Genesis, where YHVH (supposedly alone) suddenly adresses others and says "Look, man has become like us, to know good and evil".

Of course, that's a dim reflection of the polytheistic roots of the Abrahamaic religions, but I bet some Christian apologist has come up with a nice rationalization for that one as well.
The fact remains that both the Biblical god and the deity of the Qur'an obviously employ a majestic plural (or have it applied to them).

 

[Montalban]

Try reading Scots, which is really just a more conservative form of English, and you'll see how easy it is for an Arabic speaker to understand Qur'anic Arabic.

'I ken a thing
that's like a kist of ferlies gif ye read.
Frae Jamison's muckle buik the words tak wing,
auld douce or ramstam, lown or virrfu words,
for musardry o thocht or grame o dirds,
our forebears uisd to flyte or scryve or sing'

However your analogy is flawed.

Scots is indeed a Germanic language akin to English, but the 'form' as above is simply that of English (Scots) of the 1700s.

English of the 1700s is also 'conservative' and can also be read. English from even further ago can also be read. Take a look at this exerpt from The Canterbury Tales (written before 1400)
"The which that I
Learn'd at Padova of a worthy clerk,
As proved by his wordes and his werk.
He is now dead, and nailed in his chest,
I pray to God to give his soul good rest.
Francis Petrarc', the laureate poete,
Highte this clerk, whose rhetoric so sweet
Illumin'd all Itaile of poetry. . . .
But forth to tellen of this worthy man,
That taughte me this tale, as I began." . . .

However 'Old English' is unintelligible to someone who only knows modern Enlgish... This is the Lord's Prayer...

Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum,
Si þin nama gehalgod.
To becume þin rice,
gewurþe ðin willa, on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.
Urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg,
and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum.
And ne gelæd þu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele. Soþlice.

 

[Gremlins]

Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum,
Si þin nama gehalgod.
To becume þin rice,
gewurþe ðin willa, on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.
Urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg,
and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum.
And ne gelæd þu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele. Soþlice.

English is something of special case, since a) in terms of grammar and phonology it's probably the least conservative language in the Western World(except possibly for French), and b) it's borrowed tonnes of vocabulary from the Romance languages and Greek, meaning that a lot of OE words that have clear cognates with modern German or Dutch either don't exist in English or have a different meaning. The dialects of modern Arabic haven't changed nearly as much in the last 1000 years or so as English has. My point is that Arabic has changed in the last 1000 years about as much as English has in the last 600 or so, and the classical form has been retained for use in formal situations anyway (just like people in Italy, France, or Spain would write in Latin in the middle ages).

 

[Montalban]

English is something of special case, since a) in terms of grammar and phonology it's probably the least conservative language in the Western World(except possibly for French), and b) it's borrowed tonnes of vocabulary from the Romance languages and Greek, meaning that a lot of OE words that have clear cognates with modern German or Dutch either don't exist in English or have a different meaning. The dialects of modern Arabic haven't changed nearly as much in the last 1000 years or so as English has. My point is that Arabic has changed in the last 1000 years about as much as English has in the last 600 or so, and the classical form has been retained for use in formal situations anyway (just like people in Italy, France, or Spain would write in Latin in the middle ages).

Apparently Icelandic hasn't changed. However, English can be read from 600 years ago... as I exampled. However comparing it to Arabic of 1,000 years ago, well Arabic is older so if I were to go back to 1008 English would be "Old English" or really Germanic. Arabic might not have changed due to the stability afforded it of the Koran, do you think? What about Arabic from the before the time of the Koran, till after it was set down? I recall someone here earlier affirming that there were different versions of the Koran, but the one that best resembled the 'proper' Arabic was kept

No, the Qur'an probably contains copious amounts of Biblical material because it's the same God who had the book of Revelations and the Qur'an sent to Earth.

Further, I disagree that God is behind the Koran. I find for an alleged Catholic your statement quite amazing that the same God would send the Koran to earth after the Bible.

Were we in need of correction by it? Or, was the Bible not to be applied to Arabs?

Truly remarkable.

 

[Gremlins]

Apparently Icelandic hasn't changed. However, English can be read from 600 years ago... as I exampled. However comparing it to Arabic of 1,000 years ago, well Arabic is older so if I were to go back to 1008 English would be "Old English" or really Germanic. Arabic might not have changed due to the stability afforded it of the Koran, do you think? What about Arabic from the before the time of the Koran, till after it was set down? I recall someone here earlier affirming that there were different versions of the Koran, but the one that best resembled the 'proper' Arabic was kept

Oh, don't get me wrong, colloquial, regional dialects of Arabic have changed lots, to the extend that someone in Morocco would not understand a conversation between to Yemeni Arabis. However, MSA, which is based of the Qur'an, is the standard used in Arabic media and when people from two different countries wish to communicate with each other. Because MSA is no-one's first language, it's not subject to the same factors normal languages are, and therefore doesn't really change.

Further, I disagree that God is behind the Koran. I find for an alleged Catholic your statement quite amazing that the same God would send the Koran to earth after the Bible.

Were we in need of correction by it? Or, was the Bible not to be applied to Arabs?

Truly remarkable.

Woops. Slighty miscommunication. I was sort of playing devil's advocate and saying that Muslims believe that there is some validity in the Bible, so from a Muslim's perspective it's not a surprise there are shared concepts.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

No document is timeless. Each and every book, no matter how inspired, wise, or universal in its approach, is ultimately shaped by the culture and age that surrounds it.

I'd suppose that Christians (who, after all, do not consider their scriptures the verbatim work of their God, but the work of individual "inspired" authors) would have far less trouble seeing that than muslims - who maintain that their holy book of choice records the very words of deity, the Final Revelation.

Personally, I find the notion that any revelation might be the last and final word not only supremely naive but quite averse to any social or intellectual progress. Allow any doctrine to become petrified law, and you will be unable to adapt to a new situation and a new societal context.

This is especially interesting in the light of language: you'll find that medieval English texts dating from the 1300s onward are superficially readable, yet you'll also find lots and lots of abstract concepts and thought processes that are fundamentally alien to us. Our society, our culture, our very way of perceiving and categorizing the world is not the same as Chaucers, or Shakespeare's, or even Dickens's. Accordingly, our way of reading and interpreting ancient texts as "timeless" documents inevitably renders results that differ fundamentally from what a 1st century audience might have seen there.

 

[Montalban]

No document is timeless. Each and every book, no matter how inspired, wise, or universal in its approach, is ultimately shaped by the culture and age that surrounds it.

I'd suppose that Christians (who, after all, do not consider their scriptures the verbatim work of their God, but the work of individual "inspired" authors) would have far less trouble seeing that than muslims - who maintain that their holy book of choice records the very words of deity, the Final Revelation.

Personally, I find the notion that any revelation might be the last and final word not only supremely naive but quite averse to any social or intellectual progress. Allow any doctrine to become petrified law, and you will be unable to adapt to a new situation and a new societal context.

This is especially interesting in the light of language: you'll find that medieval English texts dating from the 1300s onward are superficially readable, yet you'll also find lots and lots of abstract concepts and thought processes that are fundamentally alien to us. Our society, our culture, our very way of perceiving and categorizing the world is not the same as Chaucers, or Shakespeare's, or even Dickens's. Accordingly, our way of reading and interpreting ancient texts as "timeless" documents inevitably renders results that differ fundamentally from what a 1st century audience might have seen there.

Oh, I agree about Chauncer. Terry Jones in fact did a study on it where he believes a lot of medieval jokes are in it that people have long missed

It's one of the arguments I use when people question the word 'virgin' in a prophecy of Isaiah - where the actual word is 'maiden' - but in the historical context - what with the prohibitions on extra-marital sex, maiden meant virgin. Context makes for everything