Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

shafique wrote:freza - the theologian comes up with an explanation for the contradiction, but agrees that the translations I posted are accurate.
In a nutshell the argument is 'did not hear' does not mean the opposite of 'did hear' - but rather means 'did hear, but did not understand'. Also the quote from Mat 13.13 shows the distinction between the words for 'hearing' and 'understanding'!
I understand that those 'with faith' will agree with such tortuous logic, but I have to say I remain unconvinced.
All it shows is that the Bible does contain contradictions which require some fancy logic to overcome.
Next you'll be trying to convince me there is a population problem!

Cheers,
Shafique

Nope, no fancy logic, but actual facts which you have glossed over.

and I meant that you choose not to accept an explanation that is backed up by other actual examples in the Bible. there is evidence that these words in question have been used in a different context but you can't see it? (kinda ironic considering the subject )

translation of the word applied correctly is the issue here. you assumed that there is only one applicable translation and that that sole application is the one that contradicts these two passages of the same event.

akoo or akouw means to hear *but* it also means, to comprehend, understand, perceive and obey. And it has been used as such in the Bible, there are SEVERAL examples, as found in the quoted by John Echert above and as found by simply looking the word up. (Acts 3:22, Acts 4:19, Galatians 4:21 are some examples). We agree on this.
Fwnh (phon) means: voice but it also means sound.
ouk means not, negative or refused.

Now you state that there must be a clear contradiction in the translation of this passage compared to another one when the problem seems to be that you refuse to see it translated as it was meant to be interpreted. There is no dispute that there are more than one meanings to the words in question. There is no dispute that it has been used in more than one way in the bible itself. So why insist that it was used in an erroneous way here? Now let's look at logic. Why would the same author contradict himself when relating this same account? It does not make any sense. It makes a lot more sense that different words were used to explain the same event.

Here's a passage that I find significant in this recurring theme around the word in question. And I'm quoting form the NKJV,
John 8:43 "Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word."
another version of it is: "Why don’t you understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot accept my teaching."

The issue here is not a problem with one's ears/hearing. Rather it's a profound admonition to follow and fully understand God's words. On the subject we're discussing it's an example of a differentiation between hearing and comprehending/obeying/accepting of truth with that key Greek word akouw which in this case is obviously not about being able to physically "hear"

If you were to say that this passage means that it's about literally not being able to hear, I would again say that your translation is wrong.

Ok, let's get this straight

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. ACTS 9.7

In this verse, the Greek word used is akou, and means 'to hear' - clearly says they heard a voice but saw no man.

And they that were with me, saw indeed the, light and were afraid; but heard not the voice of him that spake to me. ACTS 22.9

In this verse the same word is used 'akou' only here whilst it literally means 'to hear', you argue it should be interpreted as 'understand'.

But the scholar you quoted says:
As recorded by St. Matthew our Lord used this Greek verb interchangeably: “13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing (akouo) they do not hear (akouo), nor do they understand (suniami).

.. so the Greek to 'understand' is suniami and not akou.


Therefore in summary, to get round the literal contradiction we must believe that in 22.9 akou does not mean 'hear' but in 9.7 it does.


I continue to be impressed with the level of faith of Christians that the Bible hasn't been corrupted - 10/10 for effort.

I hope you don't mind too much if I choose not to believe your interpretation.

Cheers,
Shafique

Wow, talk about taking things out of context! Sorry Shafique but you can not use errors to back up your allegations of supposed errors. The bona fide Bible scholar that I quoted explained that akouo has several meanings, and presented examples of this fact...which you proceeded to ignore.

but here in the quote that you took out of context he is clearly referring to the use of the word akou to have two meanings (in the same sentence no less!) he was certainly NOT referring to the word understand suniami. (btw, "understand" as you can see comes in a variety of words, there is no one absolute Greek word that is used exclusively for "understand" in the Bible but rather the use depends on varying applications and circumstances. A simple lookup on a Greek Lexicon will prove this. ex. yet another word that means "understand"is found below.)

let's back up again and examine John Eckert's explanation some more:

Some further examples of this two-fold way of hearing or understanding this Greek word (akouo) are the following:
St. Paul writes the following in his first letter to the Corinthians: “14:2 For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands (akouo) him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit.
As recorded by St. Matthew our Lord used this Greek verb interchangeably: “13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing (akouo) they do not hear* (akouo), nor do they understand (suniami).

on 1Corinthians 14:2 akou clearly is translated to mean: UNDERSTAND.
on Matthew 13:13 Eckert is referring to the second ackouo* as meaning: understand. as in they have the means (physically hearing) but choose not to use them to: understand/perceive.

yet another previous example that you ignored: John 8:43
I'm using the KJV since it's your fav. Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. or Why don’t you understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot accept my teaching.

in this case understand is not akou, nor is it suniemi but rather the word ginosko.
however, hear is akou, but it is quite obviously not literal, that a person can not hear but rather that he/she can not perceive/understand/accept.

freza wrote:who determines what is a metaphor and what is not in the Quran? A metaphor must be interpreted, so why claim the Quran requires no interpretation? What is your criteria for what is a metaphor and what is not? And why criticize the Bible for exactly this, its metaphorically language and its need for proper interpretation?

shafique wrote:The Quran itself - as I stated before, the Quran is internally consistent and does not contain contradictions. The Quran itself says there are clear verses and metaphoric ones:
The Quran also says that the after life will be 'like nothing we can imagine' - and also says in a few places that the descriptions of the after-life are metaphorical. I'll get the quotes for you and post separately.

ok. pls quote where it says this, clear vs metaphoric.

freza - I have nothing more to add on these two verses. If you have some new information about the Greek language, please let me know - otherwise it is closed.

Nothing to see here, please move on.

Cheers,
Shafique

double post

freza wrote:

freza wrote:who determines what is a metaphor and what is not in the Quran? A metaphor must be interpreted, so why claim the Quran requires no interpretation? What is your criteria for what is a metaphor and what is not? And why criticize the Bible for exactly this, its metaphorically language and its need for proper interpretation?

shafique wrote:The Quran itself - as I stated before, the Quran is internally consistent and does not contain contradictions. The Quran itself says there are clear verses and metaphoric ones:
The Quran also says that the after life will be 'like nothing we can imagine' - and also says in a few places that the descriptions of the after-life are metaphorical. I'll get the quotes for you and post separately.

ok. pls quote where it says this, clear vs metaphoric.

Sure thing - Chapter 3 v 7:

He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:freza - I have nothing more to add on these two verses. If you have some new information about the Greek language, please let me know - otherwise it is closed.

Nothing to see here, please move on.

Cheers,
Shafique

ummmm. right.
so you won't even acknowledge that you took the scholars words out of context or that the key word in question has several meanings, as a proven fact (as is the norm in most languages). mmkay.

shafique wrote:Sure thing - Chapter 3 v 7:

He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.

Cheers,
Shafique

ok, what I get from reading it straightforward is that perverse people seek hidden or metaphorical meanings out of the Quran for the intention of discord? Why? Why are metaphors described in this negative light? No one knows it's hidden meaning? But you have described some passages as metaphors, why is it that you know? "none will grasp the Message except men of understanding." this seems contradictory to the previous sentences. pls explain.

There are clear verses that are the basis of the Quran. These are unambiguous.

There are some allegorical verses which talk about creation, the nature of God etc. The after life and its descriptions are by necessity allegorical, for the Quran states:


We will raise you into a form of which you have not the slightest knowledge. Surah Al-Waqiah (Ch. 56: V.61)

See how God gives you various shapes in the womb. Surah Al-Imran (Ch. 3: V.6)

Your first creation and your second creation will be identical. Surah Luqman (Ch. 31: V.28)


If I cannot have 'the slightest knowledge' of what form of being I will be in the afterlife, then that precludes that I will see, feel or sense in the way I do on earth - because I can experience these things and therefore it cannot be like that in the afterlife.

So, all the descriptions of heaven/hell are allegorical/metaphorical.

I interpret the verses above to say that after death, our souls will go through the same sort of transformation we all underwent in the wombs of our mothers. However, as 3.7 says, only God knows the truth.

3.7 does not say we should not ponder over the meanings of the metaphorical verses, but rather states clearly that they are peripheral to Islam and the Quran and that only the perverse will cause disruption by focussing on the metaphorical verses and ignore the basis of the Quran - which details how to live with one another and how to relate to the Creator.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:
If I cannot have 'the slightest knowledge' of what form of being I will be in the afterlife, then that precludes that I will see, feel or sense in the way I do on earth - because I can experience these things and therefore it cannot be like that in the afterlife.

i actually laughed at this logic, full laughed out loud..

ebonics - do you believe the laws of physics and matter etc will apply in the life after death? Seeing requires light, eyes and matter off which light will bounce off and be received by the eyeball, sending neurons firing up the optic nerve and decoded in the visual cortex.

I don't believe we will have eyes, brains or any material body in the after life - and I don't believe there will be photons or atoms in that place.

I'd be interested if you believe otherwise.

Cheers,
Shafique

completely agree,

so whats this talk of virgins, boys, gold this, silver that, comfortable couches, food, trees...

arent these things all made of atoms?

ebonics wrote:completely agree,

so whats this talk of virgins, boys, gold this, silver that, comfortable couches, food, trees...

arent these things all made of atoms?

They are all metaphors - its like describing a colour to a blind person, you say it is a 'hot' colour, or a 'cold' colour. Describing heaven as a garden through which rivers flow, where life will be easy, with pure companions and non-intoxicating wine etc - are all metaphors.

This is quite common in everyday life - when/if you have kids you will know that you often need to simplify concepts to fit the capacity of understanding of the recipient.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:

ebonics wrote:completely agree,

so whats this talk of virgins, boys, gold this, silver that, comfortable couches, food, trees...

arent these things all made of atoms?

They are all metaphors - its like describing a colour to a blind person, you say it is a 'hot' colour, or a 'cold' colour. Describing heaven as a garden through which rivers flow, where life will be easy, with pure companions and non-intoxicating wine etc - are all metaphors.

This is quite common in everyday life - when/if you have kids you will know that you often need to simplify concepts to fit the capacity of understanding of the recipient.

Cheers,
Shafique

is that personal interpretation? because i could swear every lecture i watched spoke of it as literal?


"do not committ "zina" , it will reduce your chances with the never ending virgins of heaven" and not exactly in those words...

It's what I have been taught 56v61 means and there are many Hadith that make it clear that we won't have physical bodies in the after-life.

I am told that the Arabic meaning of the verse makes it clear that this is the case - would you mind looking up the verse and telling me what you think it means.

(There are some muslims who do have some weird beliefs - in my opinion - eg some believe that the 'houris' of heaven are actually females and they came down to earth from Heaven at the time of Adam and fathered the other humans at the time. So I would not be surprised if some muslims believe there will actually be virgins, wine etc in heaven.)

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:There are clear verses that are the basis of the Quran. These are unambiguous.

There are some allegorical verses which talk about creation, the nature of God etc. The after life and its descriptions are by necessity allegorical..

got that, some things are allegorical some are not. same as in the Bible.

If I cannot have 'the slightest knowledge' of what form of being I will be n the afterlife, then that precludes that I will see, feel or sense in the way I do on earth - because I can experience these things and therefore it cannot be like that in the afterlife.

I agree with ebonics, this is not an explanation. Not having slightest knowledge means just that. It's quite absolute. Why then will you assume some knowledge of what you have been told you haven't the slightest knowledge of and by God no less?

"He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. So allegorical writings are NOT part of the foundation? But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah." This is clearly saying that to interpret allegories is for the perverse! Why would a perverse person even bother with the Quran? A person who seeks to understand the Quran profoundly is not what I would call perverse, on the contrary, they would be interested in deepening the understanding of the basis for their belief. "And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding."This is vague and telling at the same time. Believe as in having Faith. But don't you criticize the faith of others? In knowledge of what? general intelligence? Knowledge of religion? Knowledge of what exactly? Perverts can be smart too you know. I can't get over how the label of perverse is there for people that seek deeper knowledge..seems such a strange thing to state. It wouldn't seem strange if it said something like "those who intend to twist the meanings of allegorical language" but it doesn't state this...

3.7 does not say we should not ponder over the meanings of the metaphorical verses, but rather states clearly that they are peripheral to Islam and the Quran and that only the perverse will cause disruption by focussing on the metaphorical verses and ignore the basis of the Quran

where does it state this clearly? And if the Quran is nothing but goodness and nothing but the word of God, how can its metaphors not be part of its foundation? Makes little sense.

freza wrote:got that, some things are allegorical some are not. same as in the Bible.

Yes.

freza wrote:

If I cannot have 'the slightest knowledge' of what form of being I will be n the afterlife, then that precludes that I will see, feel or sense in the way I do on earth - because I can experience these things and therefore it cannot be like that in the afterlife.

I agree with ebonics, this is not an explanation. Not having slightest knowledge means just that. It's quite absolute. Why then will you assume some knowledge of what you have been told you haven't the slightest knowledge of and by God no less?

Yes - not having the slightest knowledge is absolute. Therefore any explanations of the afterlife can only be metaphors that will not reflect reality - in the same way that a blind man who hears descriptions of colour will only really experience colour when he is given the facility of sight. That is not to say that you can't try and explain what colour is to him - but at the end of the day, however good the explanations he hears, he will still have no idea what colour is until he experiences sight for the first time.

freza wrote:"He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. So allegorical writings are NOT part of the foundation? But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah." This is clearly saying that to interpret allegories is for the perverse! Why would a perverse person even bother with the Quran?

The Quran is saying that those who focus on the allegorical and ignore the clear verses are doing so only to be obstructive. It is clear that the basis of the Quran is the unambiguous verses.

The Quran is more than a set of instructions though - there are more verses enjoining believers to study nature than there are verses stating what man should or should not do (the law bearing verses).

freza wrote:A person who seeks to understand the Quran profoundly is not what I would call perverse, on the contrary, they would be interested in deepening the understanding of the basis for their belief.

I repeat, it does not say that one should not study the Quran deeply, but says that those who focus on the ambigous/allegorical verses and ignore the fundamental teachings are the ones that are perverse. Note that all the allegorical verses do not change how a Muslim should act towards others or pray to God - therefore they are just in the realm of 'theoretical'.

freza wrote:"And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding."This is vague and telling at the same time. Believe as in having Faith. But don't you criticize the faith of others? In knowledge of what? general intelligence? Knowledge of religion? Knowledge of what exactly? Perverts can be smart too you know. I can't get over how the label of perverse is there for people that seek deeper knowledge..seems such a strange thing to state. It wouldn't seem strange if it said something like "those who intend to twist the meanings of allegorical language" but it doesn't state this...

The Perversity is only where the clear verses are over-looked and the focus is on the allegorical verses. That would not be a bright thing to do - for a pervert or non-pervert

freza wrote:

3.7 does not say we should not ponder over the meanings of the metaphorical verses, but rather states clearly that they are peripheral to Islam and the Quran and that only the perverse will cause disruption by focussing on the metaphorical verses and ignore the basis of the Quran

where does it state this clearly? And if the Quran is nothing but goodness and nothing but the word of God, how can its metaphors not be part of its foundation? Makes little sense.

Where does it say it clearly? The verse states that the clear verses are the foundation of the Quran - they clearly instruct on how to deal with other people, animals and how to live one's spiritual life. The allegorical verses deal with metaphysical aspects of creation and the afterlife, they don't impact on the clear instructions on how to behave and pray.

The metaphors are therefore not part of the foundation of the Quran, but part of the beautiful ramparts and embellishments of the edifice that is Islam. It is all good - but to argue about whether the window on right of the building is perfectly aligned or not is peripheral to the fact that the building is covered and provides shelter - the walls and the roof are the clear verses, the decorations and position of the windows are the allegorical verses (to use an allegory of my own)

And, as you say, allegories are used by previous prophets as well.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Yes - not having the slightest knowledge is absolute. Therefore any explanations of the afterlife can only be metaphors that will not reflect reality - in the same way that a blind man who hears descriptions of colour will only really experience colour when he is given the facility of sight. That is not to say that you can't try and explain what colour is to him - but at the end of the day, however good the explanations he hears, he will still have no idea what colour is until he experiences sight for the first time.

But a color is a reality for those that see. Knowing about Afterlife according to the Quran is NOT something that can be explained because no one living has knowledge of it unlike seeing people who know colors and can explain it or try to explain it to the blind. Also metaphors are used throughout ancient religions and works of literature and philosophy to explain and transcend mysteries OF LIFE as this is what matter in the human experience. Why use metaphors solely to explain afterlife and you state later, creation/nature you say? Creation can't entirely be considered metaphysical when the universe is still physically expanding eons after creation. I get the feeling that metaphors are in the Quran in more ways than these examples and some might be "borrowed" but used differently as the Quran has borrowed so much of the Bible, right?

shafique wrote:I repeat, it does not say that one should not study the Quran deeply, but says that those who focus on the ambigous/allegorical verses and ignore the fundamental teachings are the ones that are perverse. Note that all the allegorical verses do not change how a Muslim should act towards others or pray to God - therefore they are just in the realm of 'theoretical'.

Isn't this stating that some people might focus on non-significant things that are in the end "theoretical" for their own purposes - to twist the Quran in another direction and this would perverse the important aspects or the "foundation" of the Quran? Well then that sounds like what some people have done with the Bible. People that you defend for some reason.

shafique wrote:And, as you say, allegories are used by previous prophets as well.

Yes, so then why do you criticize allegorical language in the Bible and the need for scholars to interpret it? When you yourself have interpreted words in the Quran. You have stated before that you don't think the Bible should have to be interpreted, that it should be taken literally. But the Quran has things that are not literal. How can you explain this double standard?

freza wrote:But a color is a reality for those that see. Knowing about Afterlife according to the Quran is NOT something that can be explained because no one living has knowledge of it unlike seeing people who know colors and can explain it or try to explain it to the blind.

Knowledge of the afterlife is a reality for the author of the Quran - God. Therefore He uses metaphors that can make some sense to humans.

freza wrote:Also metaphors are used throughout ancient religions and works of literature and philosophy to explain and transcend mysteries OF LIFE as this is what matter in the human experience. Why use metaphors solely to explain afterlife and you state later, creation/nature you say? Creation can't entirely be considered metaphysical when the universe is still physically expanding eons after creation. I get the feeling that metaphors are in the Quran in more ways than these examples and some might be "borrowed" but used differently as the Quran has borrowed so much of the Bible, right?

I don't believe God has to borrow from earlier revelations - earlier scriptures are records of revelations by God to earlier Prophets, but all of these have been corrupted to some degree. None of the earlier scriptures have a guarantee of purity contained in them.

freza wrote:Isn't this stating that some people might focus on non-significant things that are in the end "theoretical" for their own purposes - to twist the Quran in another direction and this would perverse the important aspects or the "foundation" of the Quran? Well then that sounds like what some people have done with the Bible. People that you defend for some reason.

I don't defend anyone that misuses religion - be it the Quran or the Bible. I'm not sure what gave you that impression. To be clear - misuse in this sense would be to focus on the allegorical verses and not follow the clear injunctions of the Quran. I totally agree that Christian violence and intolerance was a misuse of the Bible - but I see this as distinct from interpretations of the text for theological reasons.

freza wrote:

shafique wrote:And, as you say, allegories are used by previous prophets as well.

Yes, so then why do you criticize allegorical language in the Bible and the need for scholars to interpret it? When you yourself have interpreted words in the Quran. You have stated before that you don't think the Bible should have to be interpreted, that it should be taken literally. But the Quran has things that are not literal. How can you explain this double standard?

No - I have on the contrary stated that I also choose which verses to interpret literally and which to interpret metaphorically - I have been clear on this point. We just have different views on which verses are metaphorical and which are literal.

For example, we both agree that the prophecies of the 2nd coming of Elijah - descending in a blazing chariot - are metaphorical and were fullfilled in John the Baptist. Jews however reject this interpretation and insist that Elijah needs to bodily return. Therefore you and I agree on one metaphorical interpretation and disagree with the Jewish interpretation.

On the other hand, you take Jesus' claim of being 'Son of Man' metaphorically, but 'Son of God' literally. I take both metaphorically.

When Jesus says 'I have only come to the Lost Tribes of the House of Israel' - I take him at his word.

Therefore there is no double standard - I use the same technique and just choose different verses from you.

I would also point out that you don't need scholars to interpret the Quran - the clear verses are clear and are the foundation of Islam. Scholars and ordinary people have full access to all of the Quran and all who understand Arabic can consult dictionaries and lexicons for all the words in the Quran. Interpreting the metaphorical verses is something that you can take into account other peoples views on them - but there aren't definitive views and many verses have many layers of meanings (but remember these are all about the metaphysical). Scholars are there to give insights and opinions - but they don't change what the clear verses of the Quran evidently say.

On the point of needing scholars to interpret the allegorical verses of the Bible - that is stretching the point. I have pointed out contradictions that aren't in parables or allegories - describing what happened on the road to Damascus is not an allegory, but a description of the event. I don't see why putting a different meaning of the word 'to hear' is an allegory.

In listing contradictions in the Bible, I have not quoted any parables.

And anyway - my intention was to show that we should not take everything in the Bible literally and need to interpret what is in there. I maintain that my interpretation is valid - you would view it as heretical. (The Bible is not literally the word of God, contains some human mistakes - some intentional but many unintentional, and in any case the final selection of the books of the Bible were done by 'scholars' called together by Constantine - and they selected the books according to their view of Theology)

Cheers,
Shafique

Talking about interpretations of scripture, this old article appeared as a 'top story' on the BBC News website today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3205727.stm

It's about what the Bible says about being Gay. Makes interesting reading - Christians using the Bible to justify both sides of what is a clear cut argument for most people - is Homos.e.xuality against God's law or not?

Both sides have 'scholars' on their teams, so it is an interesting one to watch - and still hasn't been resolved yet. The African protestants (who now send missionaries to England to convert the people to Christianity!) are anti-gay, whilst the 'western' churches are pro-gay.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:It's what I have been taught 56v61 means and there are many Hadith that make it clear that we won't have physical bodies in the after-life.

I am told that the Arabic meaning of the verse makes it clear that this is the case - would you mind looking up the verse and telling me what you think it means.

you are told wrong, ill give you a word for word translation when i get a free chance.

shafique wrote:Knowledge of the afterlife is a reality for the author of the Quran - God. Therefore He uses metaphors that can make some sense to humans.

or the true mortal authors of the Quran..

shafique wrote:I don't believe God has to borrow from earlier revelations - earlier scriptures are records of revelations by God to earlier Prophets, but all of these have been corrupted to some degree. None of the earlier scriptures have a guarantee of purity contained in them.

The Quran not only borrowed heavily from the Bible but has even borrowed from Jewish traditions. But you know this.

shafique wrote:I don't defend anyone that misuses religion - be it the Quran or the Bible. I'm not sure what gave you that impression.

you don't? the Quran, according to what you have explained, warns against those that want to bend or misuse some of its message by focusing on certain aspects while ignoring the fundamental one. Yet when I and others criticize offshoot groups like the JW who base their flimsy ideology on fixations rather than foundations, you label us as intolerant and haters. hhmmm

shafique wrote:No - I have on the contrary stated that I also choose which verses to interpret literally and which to interpret metaphorically.

Of course, to your own convenience.

shafique wrote:On the point of needing scholars to interpret the allegorical verses of the Bible - that is stretching the point. I have pointed out contradictions that aren't in parables or allegories - describing what happened on the road to Damascus is not an allegory, but a description of the event. I don't see why putting a different meaning of the word 'to hear' is an allegory.

It is not an allegory but it has a deeper meaning that is consistent with a theme that runs through out the Bible. Can see, can hear but doesn't capture, perceive or act upon. It is a fact that the word in question has different meanings and has been used in its variations in the Bible. That you choose to ignore this, is telling, but not surprising.


I do see a lot of contradictions and double standards in your thoughts. You certainly do not apply the same rules that you use to judge the works of the Bible as you do to observe the Quran. Not by a long shot. If you don't mind seeming so biased, then I guess you'll continue on your quest. What I find disappointing is that these critiques are not at all signs of uniqueness of an inquisitive individual, but rather they are the norm of what I have heard from other people of your faith with the same exact accusations and arguments and they state these things because that's what has been instructed onto them not because they've reached their own conclusion.

freza, you say you criticise JW for 'flimsy' interpretations. Can you please elaborate on what interpretations are flimsy.

What about the issue of whether being gay is a sin or not - see my post above - is it not the case there are scholars on both sides of the argument, both quoting from the Bible. Which side is right, and how did you decide?

At least we now agree that the Bible needs to be interpreted and that we both agree on some verses and disagree with others. It appears that this is no different from groups within the Christian community.

Had Arius and his followers won the arguments in the Council of Nicea, then the Bible would not contain the references to Trinity etc. The point is that he was in the Council at the time and his views were valid Christian views at the time.

The difference between the Bible and the Quran is that the Quran is internally consistent and Muslims take their faith from what is written in the Quran. The Bible in its current form was selected by theologians based on their belief of Christianity - the books selected were those which tied in with their beliefs, rather than their beliefs coming from the book.

The Quran corrects many of the errors that are in the Bible - eg. Lot's wife does not transform into a pillar of salt, but stays behind when Lot and the rest of the family leaves. The honour of Israelite prophets is restored - Lot is not a drunkard who sleeps with his daughters, nor do prophets offer their virgin daughters to thugs.

So to say that the Quran borrows from the Bible shows an amazing lack of research, or a prejudice based on writings by opponents of Islam.

You also continue to ignore the big fact that the Quran is internally consistent on the main points of religion - how to live one's life vis-a-vis other people and how to worship God and attain ultimate salvation. I have not seen you address these fundamental issues in your various critiques of Islam.

The Bible has textual issues and additions (Mark 16 is universally acknowledged by scholars as an addition, for example). I don't hold this against the Bible - it is what it is, and doesn't claim to be the literal word of God. The Quran, by contrast, does claim to be the literal word of God and has been preserved as so.

Therefore, you should concede, on the factual basis of textual integrity the Quran is the same text that was dictated by Muhammad and compiled in his lifetime and not one letter has changed - but the Bible has issues over content, integrity and internal contradictions stemming from human failings of recollection and textual additions. Also the compilation of the Bible took place some 300 years after Jesus' ministry and to this day we have many different interpretations of some core beliefs of Christianity - of which Trinity is just one.

Muslims are by no means unified in their theology, but the Quran is pure, accessible and hence open to scrutiny. Despite all the divisions amongst Muslims, the integrity of the Quran is remarkable from a human perspective, but expected when you consider that the Quran claims to be from God and God says in it that He will protect the Quran from any corruption. Therefore, the textual integrity of the Quran is a prophecy fulfilled (references to Yemeni Qurans which use old scripts have not shown there have been different Qurans in existence).

That said, I am interested on where you stand on what God says about gays in the Bible (the Quran says it is a sin - so agrees with the views of the African Christians).

Cheers,
Shafique

double post

freza wrote:
I do see a lot of contradictions and double standards in your thoughts. You certainly do not apply the same rules that you use to judge the works of the Bible as you do to observe the Quran. Not by a long shot.

You see a lot of contradictions and double standards - perhaps you can help me understand my weakness then.

From my perspective, I have said the Quran contains clear verses and allegorical verses. I have said the Bible contains allegorical verses as well as clear verses (such as 'I have come only to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel').

Where there are alleged contradictions in the Quran, I have not changed the meaning of a word to suit my argument.

I take Jesus' words at face value in the Bible, and like you reject many literal interpretations of Biblical verses. I don't reject any verses of the Quran, but that is because it claims to be all the word of God. So I would not call this double standard - what I am doing for the Bible is following your example and not following all the verses literally.

However, you seem to believe that you have many examples of my double standards - I'd be interested in a list of a few of these, as I don't really want to be unfair and apply double standards.

freza wrote:
If you don't mind seeming so biased, then I guess you'll continue on your quest. What I find disappointing is that these critiques are not at all signs of uniqueness of an inquisitive individual, but rather they are the norm of what I have heard from other people of your faith with the same exact accusations and arguments and they state these things because that's what has been instructed onto them not because they've reached their own conclusion.

So, you have discussed with Muslims in the past and I am no different from them in critiquing the Bible. Is that really surprising? The Quran is clear that Islam is the fulfilment of Biblical prophecies and therefore Muslims will have a common view of Christians - in the same way I am sure that all Christians will give Jews similar arguments why they are wrong to stay with Judaism and reject Jesus as their Messiah.

A Muslim trying to convince a Christian that Islam is a true religion will use pretty much the same line of reasoning a Christian will use when trying to preach to a Jewish person (the new prophet fulfils the prophecies in your book, brings a new law, but does not fulfil all the prophecies literally as you were expecting etc etc). The Jews continue to reject Jesus and believe that their interpretation of the OT is correct, the Christians disagree with them.

Christians will continue to reject the Quran and insist that their interpretation of the OT and NT is correct - Muslims will disagree with them.

So you see, we have a lot in common!

Cheers,
Shafique

Will you drop your council of Nicea argument already. It's tired! And really is that all you have? I stress again, how original my dear! When the fact of Jesus being the basis of Christianity not because he was one more Jewish prophet but because he was the true prophet (according to some), the son and God brought to flesh and resurrected, that is what really matters to Christians. Do you really need more? C'mon now!

Re: Quran, 1st I think that Islam is a very beautiful religion, I've said it before. But when it comes to the Quran I don't think it is very original nor that it was written by God, nope. I think it's mostly imagination, was put together according to men and it was copied from the Bible - the inspiration of it, and from stories, Jewish legends that Mohammad heard from his wives, associates, during his travels and encounters with other cultures etc. I think that Mohammad suffered from a brain malady and probably had seizures that brought on some weird visions which he thought were from God. I find it very strange that he was one really sinful prophet. I'm not sure if he ever repented from his sins. That's such a Christian thing to say, isn't it? ha. Christianity is often accused of inherent misogyny, I think there is some truth in this accusation. But Jesus' teachings were meant to be quite the opposite, his message was all-inclusive. That some Christian groups took steps back into misogyny when they were first arising at the helm of men, it's a shame really, but not surprising. Mohammad's treatment of women is hhmm...well...From underage s.ex to s.ex slaves to wife beatings etc. It could be argued this behavior was the norm around his time, things were vastly different back then. Well yes, but didn't he establish strict moral codes that completely went against what he actually practiced at one point or another? I can't seem to reconcile how this troubled sinful prophet created such a great religion.

Re: JW. You've read up a lot on the big Christian denominations but the one you admire, the one that you use to support some of your critiques, you don't know much about? Very odd. Well let's see, when did Jesus return to earth according to the JW? Did he return in 1874 or 1914? Maybe you know because the JW have kinda gotten confused about the exact date themselves. He returned to earth invisibly. But is he still here? *cough* How do you feel when a JW says that only 144,000 Witnesses (and no one else) will go to heaven? Wait, didn't some people that become JW before the 1930s get their last minute ticket to heaven too? Yup. How many JW are there now a days, a few million...ok, but they won't all get to go to heaven because in the Bible it says that only 144,000 will get to go..in the Bible according to the wacky! You still want to talk about flimsy ideologies or not? How about next time you bring up the JW, you do so to uncover their inconsistencies...

Re: Homose.xuality. Some Christian groups condemn it - I think it's within their right as a group to uphold certain moral standards as they see fit. And frankly if people don't like it, they can just leave the group, right? Having said this, I think that Christianity's fundamental message is that of acceptance of everyone, regardless of their place in life, gender, sexual orientation, etc. and to exclude people based on their differences goes against what Jesus taught. The principle message of Jesus is that of love and salvation. This doesn't mean that he overlooked sin and evil. But I don't think he equated homosexuality with evil, not even sure if he equated it with sin. Scholars are not sure themselves, you're right. Then again, not all things of the Bible have an explanation, (parts of it are still mysterious ad evolving). But I do think that in these issues the stronger message cancels the lesser arguments and the stronger message in this case is that of acceptance/inclusion.

I find it very strange that he was one really sinful prophet. I'm not sure if he ever repented from his sins. That's such a Christian thing to say, isn't it? ha. Christianity is often accused of inherent misogyny, I think there is some truth in this accusation. But Jesus' teachings were meant to be quite the opposite, his message was all-inclusive. That some Christian groups took steps back into misogyny when they were first arising at the helm of men, it's a shame really, but not surprising. Mohammad's treatment of women is hhmm...well...From underage s.ex to s.ex slaves to wife beatings etc. It could be argued this behavior was the norm around his time, things were vastly different back then. Well yes, but didn't he establish strict moral codes that completely went against what he actually practiced at one point or another? I can't seem to reconcile how this troubled sinful prophet created such a great religion.

that is the bottom line


everytime shafique goes " we consider muhammad the purist human to ever live" i didnt know weather to laugh or cry

freza wrote:Will you drop your council of Nicea argument already. It's tired!

I agree it's an old argument - but happens to be the truth though. No problems - I understand it makes you mad.

freza wrote:Re: Quran, 1st I think that Islam is a very beautiful religion, I've said it before. But when it comes to the Quran I don't think it is very original nor that it was written by God, nope. I think it's mostly imagination, was put together according to men and it was copied from the Bible

Great - we agree that Islam is beautiful religion. You've got to hand it to the 'authors' of the Quran though - they made prophecies that came true and managed to preserve the Quran, and (as you say) give the details of a beautiful religion.

It's a shame you believe the misinformation about the Prophet, pbuh - I'm disappointed, but not surprised. I'm happy to deal with each of the accusations - but perhaps that is best done in another thread rather than one talking about the integrity of the Quran.

[Edit - however, what you have written is interesting - Islam is a great religion, but you have questions over the actions of the Prophet. Ok - then you should have no issues with people following the religion - as it is 'great' and 'beautiful'. As long as we don't go against these principles taught in the Quran, you have no issue with this. Is this a correct interpretation of what you are saying?]

As for JW - you obviously deny they are Christians and say they are a Cult - and yet they base their teachings on the Bible. You demonstrate a lot of hatred for one who calls themselves a Christian!

freza wrote:Re: Homose.xuality. Some Christian groups condemn it - I think it's within their right as a group to uphold certain moral standards as they see fit.

The problem is freza is that you keep saying there is consensus in Christianity when it comes to the interpretation of the Bible. Yet you quite clearly admit that many Christian Biblical scholars clearly believe that God condemns all hom.o.se.xuals whilst you apparently disagree with these scholars.

You put your interpretation above those of all the African priests, scholars and yes, the Catholic church.

The Bible is therefore open to interpretation and therefore comes down to a personal choice as to which interpretation to believe in.

I just submit that I am within my right to take Jesus at his word when he says 'I have come unto the Lost Tribes of the House of Israel' or when he says 'Why callest me good? There is none good but God' or when he refers to himself as 'Son of Man'.

It is interesting that in a thread about Quranic and Biblical integrity you state that Islam is beautiful, but say you have problems with the Prophet, pbuh. So the teachings are pure and beautiful, but you have problems with the messenger who brought the message.

Are you saying you agree with the Quranic instructions then (as it is beautiful) and have no further need to examine the teachings/integrity of the Quran - but want to move on to examining the personality and actions of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)? [I'm happy to do so, but let us clear up that you agree with me that the Quran's teachings in terms of how humans should deal with each other and how to pray to God cannot be faulted]

In a way, I am surprised that attacks against the Prophet didn't rear their heads sooner - but no matter, the false accusations have all been refuted by Christian historians, but perhaps you are not aware that the accusations against Muhammad, pbuh, are wrong. (I presume you don't believe that Jews drink the blood of Christian children etc - beliefs that were disseminated in the past and, shockingly, believed)

Finally, why does it feel that every time I ask you for direct references (in this case to where I have applied 'double standards') you resort to mud-slinging?

Cheers,
Shafique

ebonics wrote:

that is the bottom line


everytime shafique goes " we consider muhammad the purist human to ever live" i didnt know weather to laugh or cry

I challenge you to find a quote from me saying this in this or any other recent thread.

btw 'purest' is the correct spelling.

However, this is the belief of Muslims - but we have been instructed not to make a big deal of this point - all Prophets are pure and sinless, we make no distinction between the veracity of prophets. Muhammad, pbuh, is the 'seal' of the Prophets because he brought the final religion.

However, as with freza, it is interesting that you call a misrepresentation/slander of the Prophet, pbuh, the 'bottom line' in a thread that is about the Quran vs Bible!

Wow - talk about playing the player and not the ball!!

Freza says Islam is a beautiful religion - do you disagree with her? She is saying that the Quran's message is beautiful - for Islam is defined as what the Quran teaches - which ends the discussion with her over the Quran, and we seem to agree that the Bible needs interpretation.

Cheers,
Shafique