Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
???????? Did Muhammad Author the Quran
19 views
Skip to first unread message
BV BV
May 2, 2013, 7:10:55 AM5/2/13
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
DID MUHAMMAD AUTHOR THE QURAN?
Did Muhammad Author the Quran?
Who authored the Quran? Someone must have produced it! After all, how
many desert men have stood up in the history of man and given the
world a book like the Quran? The book has amazing details of past
nations, prophets, and religions as well as accurate scientific
information unavailable at the time. What was the source of all this?
If we were to deny the divine origin of the Quran, we are left with
only a few possibilities:
- The Prophet Muhammad authored it himself.
- He took it from someone else. In this case, he either took it from
a Jew or a Christian or one of the foreigners in Arabia. The Meccans
did not bother to accuse him of having taken it from one of them.
A brief response from God is:
“And they say, ‘Legends of the former peoples which he has written
down, and they are dictated to him morning and afternoon.’ Say, [O
Muhammad], ‘It has been revealed by He who knows [every] secret within
the heavens and the earth. Indeed, He is ever Forgiving and
Merciful.’” (Quran 25:5-6)
It was well known to his detractors that Muhammad, who was raised
among them, never learned how to read or write from the time of his
birth. They knew whom he befriended and where he had traveled; they
acknowledged his integrity and honesty by calling him ‘Al-Ameen,’ the
Reliable, the Trustworthy, the Honest.[1] Only in their revulsion
against his preaching did they accuse him – and then it was anything
they could dream up: He was accused of being a sorcerer, a poet and
even an imposter! They could not make up their minds. God says:
“Look how they strike for you comparisons; but they have strayed, so
they cannot [find] a way.” (Quran 17:47)
Simply, God is aware of what is in the heavens and the earth, He knows
the past and the present, and reveals the truth to His prophet.
Could Muhammad Have Authored It?
It is impossible that Muhammad could have authored the Quran due to
the following reasons:
First, several occasions presented themselves where he could have
fabricated revelation. For example, after the first revelation came,
people awaited to hear more, but the Prophet did not receive anything
new for months. The Meccans began making fun of him, ‘His Lord has
abandoned him!’ This continued until the 93rd chapter, Ad-Doha, was
revealed. The Prophet could have compiled something and presented it
as the latest revelation to end the mockery, but he did not. Also, at
one point during his prophethood, some of the hypocrites accused his
beloved wife Aisha of being unchaste. The Prophet could have easily
fabricated something to free her of blame, but he waited for many
excruciating days, all spent in pain, mockery, and anguish, until
revelation came from God freeing her from the accusation.
Second, there is internal evidence within the Quran that Muhammad was
not its author. Several verses criticized him, and were on occasion
strongly worded. How can an imposter prophet blame himself when it may
run him into the danger of losing the respect, perhaps following, of
his followers? Here are some examples:
“O Prophet! Why do you prohibit [yourself from] what God has made
lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And God is
Forgiving and Merciful.” (Quran 66:1)
“…while you concealed within yourself that which God is to disclose
and you feared the people, while God has more right that you fear
Him..” (Quran 33:43)
“It is not for the Prophet and those who have believed to ask
forgiveness for the polytheists, even if they were relatives, after it
has become clear to them that they are companions of Hellfire.” (Quran
9:113)
“But as for he who came to you striving [for knowledge] while he fears
[God], from him you are distracted. No! Indeed, they [these verses]
are a reminder.” (Quran 80:8-11)
If he were to hide anything, he would have hid these verses, but he
recited them faithfully.
“And he [Muhammad] is not a withholder of [knowledge of] the unseen.
And it [the Quran] is not the word of a devil, expelled [from the
heavens]. So where are you going? It is nothing but a reminder to
the worlds.” (Quran 81:24-27)
The Prophet is cautioned, perhaps warned, in the following verses:
“Indeed, We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth so
you may judge between the people by that which God has shown you. And
do not be an advocate for the deceitful. And seek forgiveness of God.
Indeed, God is ever Forgiving and Merciful. And do not argue on behalf
of those who deceive themselves. Indeed, God loves not the one who is
a habitually sinful deceiver. They conceal [their evil intentions and
deeds] from the people, but they cannot conceal [them] from God, and
He is with them [in His knowledge] when they spend the night in such
as He does not accept of speech. And God ever is encompassing of what
they do,. Here you are – those who argue on their behalf in [this]
worldly life – but who will argue with God for them on the Day of
Resurrection, or who will [then] be their representative? And whoever
does a wrong or wrongs himself but then seeks forgiveness of God will
find God Forgiving and Merciful. And whoever earns [i.e., commits] a
sin only earns it against himself. And God is ever Knowing and Wise.
But whoever earns an offense or a sin and then blames it on an
innocent [person] has taken upon himself slander and manifest sin. And
if it was not for the favor of God upon you, [O Muhammad], and His
mercy, a group of them would have determined to mislead you. But they
do not mislead except themselves, and they will not harm you at all.
And God has revealed to you the Book and wisdom and has taught you
that which you did not know. And ever has the favor of God upon you
been great.” (Quran 4:105-113)
These verses explain a situation in which a man from the Muslim
inhabitants of Medina stole a piece of armor and hid it in the
property of his Jewish neighbor. When the owners of the armor caught
up with him he denied any wrongdoing, and the armor was discovered
with the Jewish man. He, however, pointed to his Muslim neighbor,
also denying his involvement in the crime. The people from the
Muslim’s tribe went to the Prophet to plead on his behalf, and the
Prophet began to incline towards them till the above verses were
revealed clearing the Jewish man of wrongdoing. All this despite the
Jew’s rejection of Muhammad’s prophethood! The verses instructed
Prophet Muhammad himself not to side with the deceitful! The verses:
“…and do not be an advocate for the deceitful and seek forgiveness of
God…and if it was not for the favor of God upon you, [O Muhammad], and
His mercy, a group of them would have determined to mislead you.”
If Muhammad himself authored the Quran, thus being a lying imposter,
he would have made sure that there was nothing in existence which
could jeopardize the gaining of followers and supporters. The fact
that the Quran, on various occasions, reprimands the Prophet in
certain issues in which he had made in incorrect judgment is in itself
a proof that it was not authored by him.
[1] ‘Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources’ by Martin
Lings, p. 34.
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/338/
thank you
Did Muhammad Author the Quran?
Who authored the Quran? Someone must have produced it! After all, how
many desert men have stood up in the history of man and given the
world a book like the Quran? The book has amazing details of past
nations, prophets, and religions as well as accurate scientific
information unavailable at the time. What was the source of all this?
If we were to deny the divine origin of the Quran, we are left with
only a few possibilities:
- The Prophet Muhammad authored it himself.
- He took it from someone else. In this case, he either took it from
a Jew or a Christian or one of the foreigners in Arabia. The Meccans
did not bother to accuse him of having taken it from one of them.
A brief response from God is:
“And they say, ‘Legends of the former peoples which he has written
down, and they are dictated to him morning and afternoon.’ Say, [O
Muhammad], ‘It has been revealed by He who knows [every] secret within
the heavens and the earth. Indeed, He is ever Forgiving and
Merciful.’” (Quran 25:5-6)
It was well known to his detractors that Muhammad, who was raised
among them, never learned how to read or write from the time of his
birth. They knew whom he befriended and where he had traveled; they
acknowledged his integrity and honesty by calling him ‘Al-Ameen,’ the
Reliable, the Trustworthy, the Honest.[1] Only in their revulsion
against his preaching did they accuse him – and then it was anything
they could dream up: He was accused of being a sorcerer, a poet and
even an imposter! They could not make up their minds. God says:
“Look how they strike for you comparisons; but they have strayed, so
they cannot [find] a way.” (Quran 17:47)
Simply, God is aware of what is in the heavens and the earth, He knows
the past and the present, and reveals the truth to His prophet.
Could Muhammad Have Authored It?
It is impossible that Muhammad could have authored the Quran due to
the following reasons:
First, several occasions presented themselves where he could have
fabricated revelation. For example, after the first revelation came,
people awaited to hear more, but the Prophet did not receive anything
new for months. The Meccans began making fun of him, ‘His Lord has
abandoned him!’ This continued until the 93rd chapter, Ad-Doha, was
revealed. The Prophet could have compiled something and presented it
as the latest revelation to end the mockery, but he did not. Also, at
one point during his prophethood, some of the hypocrites accused his
beloved wife Aisha of being unchaste. The Prophet could have easily
fabricated something to free her of blame, but he waited for many
excruciating days, all spent in pain, mockery, and anguish, until
revelation came from God freeing her from the accusation.
Second, there is internal evidence within the Quran that Muhammad was
not its author. Several verses criticized him, and were on occasion
strongly worded. How can an imposter prophet blame himself when it may
run him into the danger of losing the respect, perhaps following, of
his followers? Here are some examples:
“O Prophet! Why do you prohibit [yourself from] what God has made
lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And God is
Forgiving and Merciful.” (Quran 66:1)
“…while you concealed within yourself that which God is to disclose
and you feared the people, while God has more right that you fear
Him..” (Quran 33:43)
“It is not for the Prophet and those who have believed to ask
forgiveness for the polytheists, even if they were relatives, after it
has become clear to them that they are companions of Hellfire.” (Quran
9:113)
“But as for he who came to you striving [for knowledge] while he fears
[God], from him you are distracted. No! Indeed, they [these verses]
are a reminder.” (Quran 80:8-11)
If he were to hide anything, he would have hid these verses, but he
recited them faithfully.
“And he [Muhammad] is not a withholder of [knowledge of] the unseen.
And it [the Quran] is not the word of a devil, expelled [from the
heavens]. So where are you going? It is nothing but a reminder to
the worlds.” (Quran 81:24-27)
The Prophet is cautioned, perhaps warned, in the following verses:
“Indeed, We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth so
you may judge between the people by that which God has shown you. And
do not be an advocate for the deceitful. And seek forgiveness of God.
Indeed, God is ever Forgiving and Merciful. And do not argue on behalf
of those who deceive themselves. Indeed, God loves not the one who is
a habitually sinful deceiver. They conceal [their evil intentions and
deeds] from the people, but they cannot conceal [them] from God, and
He is with them [in His knowledge] when they spend the night in such
as He does not accept of speech. And God ever is encompassing of what
they do,. Here you are – those who argue on their behalf in [this]
worldly life – but who will argue with God for them on the Day of
Resurrection, or who will [then] be their representative? And whoever
does a wrong or wrongs himself but then seeks forgiveness of God will
find God Forgiving and Merciful. And whoever earns [i.e., commits] a
sin only earns it against himself. And God is ever Knowing and Wise.
But whoever earns an offense or a sin and then blames it on an
innocent [person] has taken upon himself slander and manifest sin. And
if it was not for the favor of God upon you, [O Muhammad], and His
mercy, a group of them would have determined to mislead you. But they
do not mislead except themselves, and they will not harm you at all.
And God has revealed to you the Book and wisdom and has taught you
that which you did not know. And ever has the favor of God upon you
been great.” (Quran 4:105-113)
These verses explain a situation in which a man from the Muslim
inhabitants of Medina stole a piece of armor and hid it in the
property of his Jewish neighbor. When the owners of the armor caught
up with him he denied any wrongdoing, and the armor was discovered
with the Jewish man. He, however, pointed to his Muslim neighbor,
also denying his involvement in the crime. The people from the
Muslim’s tribe went to the Prophet to plead on his behalf, and the
Prophet began to incline towards them till the above verses were
revealed clearing the Jewish man of wrongdoing. All this despite the
Jew’s rejection of Muhammad’s prophethood! The verses instructed
Prophet Muhammad himself not to side with the deceitful! The verses:
“…and do not be an advocate for the deceitful and seek forgiveness of
God…and if it was not for the favor of God upon you, [O Muhammad], and
His mercy, a group of them would have determined to mislead you.”
If Muhammad himself authored the Quran, thus being a lying imposter,
he would have made sure that there was nothing in existence which
could jeopardize the gaining of followers and supporters. The fact
that the Quran, on various occasions, reprimands the Prophet in
certain issues in which he had made in incorrect judgment is in itself
a proof that it was not authored by him.
[1] ‘Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources’ by Martin
Lings, p. 34.
http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/338/
thank you
Alistair Maclean
May 6, 2013, 7:27:50 AM5/6/13
to
On Thursday, 2 May 2013 12:10:55 UTC+1, BV BV wrote:
> DID MUHAMMAD AUTHOR THE QURAN? Did Muhammad Author the Quran?
No. At his time it was a loose collection of mearkings on scraps of cloth, leather, wood, bark and bone.
> DID MUHAMMAD AUTHOR THE QURAN? Did Muhammad Author the Quran?
Isn't it about time that you read about the history of Mo and his religion?
Charles Hottel
May 6, 2013, 1:35:34 PM5/6/13
to
"Alistair Maclean" <alistair.j...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9b0ca1e8-65bf-4edb...@googlegroups.com...
have only glanced at it so far. I am mentioning this because when I went on
Amazon to see which version to purchase I found it pretty difficult to
decide based upon the reviews. I probably did not look at all of the
different versions, but on the ones that I did look at, there was always a
great controversy among the people making the reviews. It seemed to me that
the various Islamic factions disagreed vehemently over which was a correct
version. Even the version recommended by Saudi Arabia was stronly attacked.
docd...@panix.com
May 6, 2013, 2:42:59 PM5/6/13
to
In article <GamdnWB0gax9dBrM...@earthlink.com>,
Charles Hottel <cho...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snip]
>Has anyone here read the Quran (Koran)?
I did, some several decades back. From what I recall it had a strong plot
b ut was light on character development.
>I bought a copy a few years ago but
>have only glanced at it so far. I am mentioning this because when I went on
>Amazon to see which version to purchase I found it pretty difficult to
>decide based upon the reviews. I probably did not look at all of the
>different versions, but on the ones that I did look at, there was always a
>great controversy among the people making the reviews.
There's disagreement about what constitutes The True Word of Heaven? The
Devil you say!
DD
Charles Hottel <cho...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snip]
>Has anyone here read the Quran (Koran)?
b ut was light on character development.
>I bought a copy a few years ago but
>have only glanced at it so far. I am mentioning this because when I went on
>Amazon to see which version to purchase I found it pretty difficult to
>decide based upon the reviews. I probably did not look at all of the
>different versions, but on the ones that I did look at, there was always a
>great controversy among the people making the reviews.
Devil you say!
DD
Bill Gunshannon
May 6, 2013, 4:30:45 PM5/6/13
to
In article <GamdnWB0gax9dBrM...@earthlink.com>,
You read Arabic? If it wasn't in Arabic it isn't the Koran. There are
no authorized translations and trasnslating it is forbidden.
And people thought Catholicism was intolerant!!
bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
no authorized translations and trasnslating it is forbidden.
And people thought Catholicism was intolerant!!
bill
--
Bill Gunshannon | de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n. Three wolves
bill...@cs.scranton.edu | and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton |
Scranton, Pennsylvania | #include <std.disclaimer.h>
Robert Wessel
May 6, 2013, 9:29:57 PM5/6/13
to
On 6 May 2013 20:30:45 GMT, bi...@server1.cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon)
wrote:
>In article <GamdnWB0gax9dBrM...@earthlink.com>,
> "Charles Hottel" <cho...@earthlink.net> writes:
>>
>> "Alistair Maclean" <alistair.j...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:9b0ca1e8-65bf-4edb...@googlegroups.com...
>>> On Thursday, 2 May 2013 12:10:55 UTC+1, BV BV wrote:
>>>> DID MUHAMMAD AUTHOR THE QURAN? Did Muhammad Author the Quran?
>>>
>>> No. At his time it was a loose collection of mearkings on scraps of cloth,
>>> leather, wood, bark and bone.
>>>
>>> Isn't it about time that you read about the history of Mo and his
>>> religion?
>>
>> Has anyone here read the Quran (Koran)? I bought a copy a few years ago but
>> have only glanced at it so far. I am mentioning this because when I went on
>> Amazon to see which version to purchase I found it pretty difficult to
>> decide based upon the reviews. I probably did not look at all of the
>> different versions, but on the ones that I did look at, there was always a
>> great controversy among the people making the reviews. It seemed to me that
>> the various Islamic factions disagreed vehemently over which was a correct
>> version. Even the version recommended by Saudi Arabia was stronly attacked.
>
>You read Arabic? If it wasn't in Arabic it isn't the Koran. There are
>no authorized translations and trasnslating it is forbidden.
>
>And people thought Catholicism was intolerant!!
It's not precisely forbidden. According to Islam, the original Arabic
of the Quran is the actual word of God (as communicated to Mohammed by
Gabriel - as I understand it, Gabriel, being an angel, communicated
God's word perfectly). No human translation could ever be that, as
you've imposed the interpretations of a human between the actual word
of God and the reader of the translation.
That being said, literal translations are pretty frowned upon, since
the language is often very colloquial Arabic, and a literal
translation would be flatly wrong. Many of the Semitic languages have
rather more fluid meanings associated with words, making translations
more problematic as well (since the meaning of verses can change based
on the situation to which they're being applied). That there are huge
debates as to the correct interpretation of the Arabic doesn't help
either.
In general (but see below) there's no (conceptual) problem producing a
semantic translation of the Quran for the education of non-Arabic
speakers, but it's best considered a commentary, and not actually the
Quran itself. IOW, "Sura #12 means (some description in English)"
rather than "Sura #12 is...". In fact many of the translations of are
titled that way (IOW, "The Meaning of the Quran" rather than "The
Quran").
Now there are some who insist that any translation at all is
forbidden, although the line between that and commentary is certainly
blurry. But it's not a universal doctrine, even though it's
essentially universal that the only real or authoritative Quran is the
Arabic one. Obviously various sects assign different value to
different translations, all while understanding that they are not the
actual Quran. And not even the strictest sects insist that all
Muslims must speak (and read) Arabic, which rather implies the need
for *some* method of translating the lessons of the Quran into the
language at hand.
To an extent they have a good theological point: look at all the
shenanigans associated with translations of the Christian holy books.
Of course Christianity doesn't have many materials which are usually
attributed directly to God (and many of those that are are copyings
and whatnot, whose originals are long lost).
wrote:
>In article <GamdnWB0gax9dBrM...@earthlink.com>,
> "Charles Hottel" <cho...@earthlink.net> writes:
>>
>> "Alistair Maclean" <alistair.j...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:9b0ca1e8-65bf-4edb...@googlegroups.com...
>>> On Thursday, 2 May 2013 12:10:55 UTC+1, BV BV wrote:
>>>> DID MUHAMMAD AUTHOR THE QURAN? Did Muhammad Author the Quran?
>>>
>>> No. At his time it was a loose collection of mearkings on scraps of cloth,
>>> leather, wood, bark and bone.
>>>
>>> Isn't it about time that you read about the history of Mo and his
>>> religion?
>>
>> Has anyone here read the Quran (Koran)? I bought a copy a few years ago but
>> have only glanced at it so far. I am mentioning this because when I went on
>> Amazon to see which version to purchase I found it pretty difficult to
>> decide based upon the reviews. I probably did not look at all of the
>> different versions, but on the ones that I did look at, there was always a
>> great controversy among the people making the reviews. It seemed to me that
>> the various Islamic factions disagreed vehemently over which was a correct
>> version. Even the version recommended by Saudi Arabia was stronly attacked.
>
>You read Arabic? If it wasn't in Arabic it isn't the Koran. There are
>no authorized translations and trasnslating it is forbidden.
>
>And people thought Catholicism was intolerant!!
of the Quran is the actual word of God (as communicated to Mohammed by
Gabriel - as I understand it, Gabriel, being an angel, communicated
God's word perfectly). No human translation could ever be that, as
you've imposed the interpretations of a human between the actual word
of God and the reader of the translation.
That being said, literal translations are pretty frowned upon, since
the language is often very colloquial Arabic, and a literal
translation would be flatly wrong. Many of the Semitic languages have
rather more fluid meanings associated with words, making translations
more problematic as well (since the meaning of verses can change based
on the situation to which they're being applied). That there are huge
debates as to the correct interpretation of the Arabic doesn't help
either.
In general (but see below) there's no (conceptual) problem producing a
semantic translation of the Quran for the education of non-Arabic
speakers, but it's best considered a commentary, and not actually the
Quran itself. IOW, "Sura #12 means (some description in English)"
rather than "Sura #12 is...". In fact many of the translations of are
titled that way (IOW, "The Meaning of the Quran" rather than "The
Quran").
Now there are some who insist that any translation at all is
forbidden, although the line between that and commentary is certainly
blurry. But it's not a universal doctrine, even though it's
essentially universal that the only real or authoritative Quran is the
Arabic one. Obviously various sects assign different value to
different translations, all while understanding that they are not the
actual Quran. And not even the strictest sects insist that all
Muslims must speak (and read) Arabic, which rather implies the need
for *some* method of translating the lessons of the Quran into the
language at hand.
To an extent they have a good theological point: look at all the
shenanigans associated with translations of the Christian holy books.
Of course Christianity doesn't have many materials which are usually
attributed directly to God (and many of those that are are copyings
and whatnot, whose originals are long lost).
Charles Hottel
May 7, 2013, 1:24:36 PM5/7/13
to
"Bill Gunshannon" <bi...@server1.cs.uofs.edu> wrote in message
news:auqi7l...@mid.individual.net...
What is your source for this? I would be surprised if more than a minority
of Muslims believe this.
Googling for: "quran authorized english translation" gives over 459,000 hits
Alistair Maclean
May 7, 2013, 2:33:28 PM5/7/13
to
On Monday, 6 May 2013 18:35:34 UTC+1, Charles Hottel wrote:
> Has anyone here read the Quran (Koran)? I bought a copy a few years ago but
> have only glanced at it so far. I am mentioning this because when I went on
> Amazon to see which version to purchase I found it pretty difficult to decide
> based upon the reviews. ... It seemed to me that the
> Has anyone here read the Quran (Koran)? I bought a copy a few years ago but
> have only glanced at it so far. I am mentioning this because when I went on
> Amazon to see which version to purchase I found it pretty difficult to decide
> various Islamic factions disagreed vehemently over which was a correct version.
> Even the version recommended by Saudi Arabia was stronly attacked.
I have attempted to read the Quoran but gave up after 5 chapters.
> Even the version recommended by Saudi Arabia was stronly attacked.
I got as far as the "I divorce thee" thrice bit and realised it was
too ambiguous to be taken seriously. It doesn't help that the Satanic Verses
(as they are called) invalidate the entire tome.
I also read a biography of Mo written by Karen Armstrong and concluded that it was interesting but largely and apologia. That book made it clear that the Quoran:
- can be variously interpreted because the original texts lacked vowels (I believe that the word used for virgin can also mean a sultana (grape NOT sultan's wife));
- has been adulterated over the centuries by various factions who have added new texts to justify their standpoints/actions;
- has to be read in the Arabic because translations lack the poetic quality of the original verse;
- is self-contradictory and can not, therefore, be the true word of an omnipotent and omniscient being;
- was made up on the run by someone who, if he existed, was a conniving, lying robber baron.
BTW, why do Adam and Eve (neither born of woman) have belly buttons?
Alistair Maclean
May 7, 2013, 2:39:46 PM5/7/13
to
On Tuesday, 7 May 2013 02:29:57 UTC+1, robert...@yahoo.com wrote:
> And not even the strictest sects insist that all Muslims must speak (and read)
> Arabic, which rather implies the need for *some* method of translating the
> lessons of the Quran into the language at hand.
I know Bangladeshi muslims who read and speak the Quoran but have no understanding of what any of it means; they don't understand Arabic. Which begs the point as to why waste time reciting something you don't understand? But then, only 30 years ago Roman Catholics were subjected to readings from the Bible in latin.
> And not even the strictest sects insist that all Muslims must speak (and read)
> Arabic, which rather implies the need for *some* method of translating the
> lessons of the Quran into the language at hand.
There is a substantial body of religious thought and interpretation (Haditha?) which acts as lore for muslims and is easily manipulated for individual gain.
Bill Gunshannon
May 7, 2013, 9:12:53 PM5/7/13
to
In article <22aa6211-4b5b-4ffd...@googlegroups.com>,
night to watch opera. How many of them do you think speak Italian or
German or whatever non-English language the opera happens to be in>
> But then, only 30 years ago Roman Catholics were subjected to readings from the Bible in latin.
I was waiting for this one to be brought up. Total hogwash on many
facets.
Catholics have been reading the Bible in their native tongues for
hundreds of years. And it wasn't in Latin in the first place!!
Oh, and the majority of Catholics, prior to The Second Vatican Council
most certainly did understand Latin. I still do. More than adequately
enough to read texts I have not seen before. But for serious translation
I keep my dictionary handy, right next to my Greek one.
> There is a substantial body of religious thought and interpretation (Haditha?) which acts as lore for muslims and is easily manipulated for individual gain.
Much the same for Judaism. They have an entire conversation that went
on between Cain and Abel that does not appear in any version of the
Bible or recognized ancient text. Not sure who was there to take down the
dictation, but there you have it.
Alistair Maclean <alistair.j...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tuesday, 7 May 2013 02:29:57 UTC+1, robert...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> And not even the strictest sects insist that all Muslims must speak (and read)
>> Arabic, which rather implies the need for *some* method of translating the
>> lessons of the Quran into the language at hand.
> I know Bangladeshi muslims who read and speak the Quoran but have no understanding of what any of it means; they don't understand Arabic. Which begs the point as to why waste time reciting something you don't understand?
You mean like Jews do? And then we have those Americans going out every
> On Tuesday, 7 May 2013 02:29:57 UTC+1, robert...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> And not even the strictest sects insist that all Muslims must speak (and read)
>> Arabic, which rather implies the need for *some* method of translating the
>> lessons of the Quran into the language at hand.
> I know Bangladeshi muslims who read and speak the Quoran but have no understanding of what any of it means; they don't understand Arabic. Which begs the point as to why waste time reciting something you don't understand?
night to watch opera. How many of them do you think speak Italian or
German or whatever non-English language the opera happens to be in>
> But then, only 30 years ago Roman Catholics were subjected to readings from the Bible in latin.
facets.
Catholics have been reading the Bible in their native tongues for
hundreds of years. And it wasn't in Latin in the first place!!
Oh, and the majority of Catholics, prior to The Second Vatican Council
most certainly did understand Latin. I still do. More than adequately
enough to read texts I have not seen before. But for serious translation
I keep my dictionary handy, right next to my Greek one.
> There is a substantial body of religious thought and interpretation (Haditha?) which acts as lore for muslims and is easily manipulated for individual gain.
on between Cain and Abel that does not appear in any version of the
Bible or recognized ancient text. Not sure who was there to take down the
dictation, but there you have it.
Bill Gunshannon
May 7, 2013, 9:20:09 PM5/7/13
to
In article <s4OdnVOmwopSpRTM...@earthlink.com>,
Well, you can start with this one:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_can_the_Quran_not_be_translated
>
> Googling for: "quran authorized english translation" gives over 459,000 hits
And we all now that Google is the most accurate source and has the full
approval of Allah.
Found this one with Google, too:
Flat Earth Society Says Evidence Of Round Planet Part Of Vast Conspiracy Theory
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/29/flat-earth-society-psychology_n_2038198.html
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_can_the_Quran_not_be_translated
>
> Googling for: "quran authorized english translation" gives over 459,000 hits
approval of Allah.
Found this one with Google, too:
Flat Earth Society Says Evidence Of Round Planet Part Of Vast Conspiracy Theory
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/29/flat-earth-society-psychology_n_2038198.html
SkippyPB
May 8, 2013, 12:03:18 PM5/8/13
to
On Tue, 7 May 2013 11:39:46 -0700 (PDT), Alistair Maclean
<alistair.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, 7 May 2013 02:29:57 UTC+1, robert...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> And not even the strictest sects insist that all Muslims must speak (and read)
>> Arabic, which rather implies the need for *some* method of translating the
>> lessons of the Quran into the language at hand.
>
>I know Bangladeshi muslims who read and speak the Quoran but have no understanding of what any of it means; they don't understand Arabic. Which begs the point as to why waste time reciting something you don't understand? But then, only 30 years ago Roman Catholics were subjected to readings from the Bible in latin.
>
I wouldn't put Roman Catholics in that same boat as the Bangladeshi
<alistair.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, 7 May 2013 02:29:57 UTC+1, robert...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> And not even the strictest sects insist that all Muslims must speak (and read)
>> Arabic, which rather implies the need for *some* method of translating the
>> lessons of the Quran into the language at hand.
>
>I know Bangladeshi muslims who read and speak the Quoran but have no understanding of what any of it means; they don't understand Arabic. Which begs the point as to why waste time reciting something you don't understand? But then, only 30 years ago Roman Catholics were subjected to readings from the Bible in latin.
>
Muslims. Prior to the 1960's when the mass was in latin (not the
bible) many people understood it. I certainly did. Most Daily
Missels had the English on one side and the Latin on the other. Still
does. People who went to Catholic schools got a healthy dose of Latin
and could tell you what most if not all of the latin meant. I even
went so far as to take 3 years of Latin in high school.
The Bible, in the USA and I'd guess Great Briton as well, has always
been published in English. The original language of the books of the
Bible were Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew. Almost the entire Old
Testament was written in Hebrew. But a few chapters in the prophecies
of Ezra and Daniel and one verse in Jeremiah were written in Aramaic.
The New Testament was written in Greek. The only place you'll find a
Greek Bible these days is in Greece and Cyprus.
>There is a substantial body of religious thought and interpretation (Haditha?) which acts as lore for muslims and is easily manipulated for individual gain.
--
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
Bumper Sticker: Constipated People Don't Give A Crap.
-- Unknown
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve
Charles Hottel
May 8, 2013, 1:52:38 PM5/8/13
to
news:autni9...@mid.individual.net...
Wow! Translations are not perfect! What news will break next? Water is
wet, details at 11p.m.
wet, details at 11p.m.
Robert Wessel
May 9, 2013, 7:49:48 PM5/9/13
to
about most of the world's holy books.
Bill Gunshannon
May 10, 2013, 8:46:14 AM5/10/13
to
In article <bfdoo8d3p13mo53mf...@4ax.com>,
Considering that no one alive today was there, how do you know that
they did? Oh, wait, you are relying on images created thousands of
years after their demise by the same people who depict all the biblical
characters as anglo-european when in fact the were all semites. I see....
they did? Oh, wait, you are relying on images created thousands of
years after their demise by the same people who depict all the biblical
characters as anglo-european when in fact the were all semites. I see....
Alistair Maclean
May 12, 2013, 5:59:31 AM5/12/13
to
On Friday, 10 May 2013 13:46:14 UTC+1, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>BTW, why do Adam and Eve (neither born of woman) have belly buttons?
> > > Of course you have many of the same complaints (as well as others)
> about most of the world's holy books. Considering that no one alive today
> was there, how do you know that they did? Oh, wait, you are relying on images
> created thousands of years after their demise by the same people who depict all
> the biblical characters as anglo-european when in fact the were all semites.
If those images were wrong I am sure that the Roman Catholic church would have corrected them. As an atheist, I don't believe in Adam or Eve nor do I believe that the RC got it right.
>>BTW, why do Adam and Eve (neither born of woman) have belly buttons?
> > > Of course you have many of the same complaints (as well as others)
> about most of the world's holy books. Considering that no one alive today
> was there, how do you know that they did? Oh, wait, you are relying on images
> created thousands of years after their demise by the same people who depict all
> the biblical characters as anglo-european when in fact the were all semites.
0 new messages