PDA

View Full Version : Scientific Errors



Shukri18
03-27-2009, 06:32 AM
Salam,
When I was in high school, I went to a Catholic school. We were required to read and study the bible. I noticed many scientific and mathematical errors. When I confronted my teacher she felt as if I was mocking her religion and kicked me out of her class, but now that I am in the adequate environment would much appreciate it if someone were to explain the scientific errors:)

First off:
-Firmament, Its Biblical usage generally refers to the two apparent spheres of "heaven" as well as a solid roof over the earth, but how far above the atmosphere does this "roof" exist, "Dillow and other creation scientists, having rejected the
idea that "the water above the firmament" refers to terrestrial
clouds, have not really objected to locating "the water above" on
the top side of the firmament. This location is fine with them
because having taken the firmament itself out of its biblical and
historical context, they have redefined the firmament as mere
atmosphere (or a space between the earth and the sun). Their cano
py of water then sits literally above the atmosphere until it falls
as rain in the time of Noah. But even if this canopy theory
did not ignore the historical and biblical context which defines the
firmament as rock-solid, it would still be falsified by Gen 1: 14-17.
Gen 1:14-17 tells us that the sun, moon, and stars were
places in the firmament, so that if "the water above" is literally
above the firmament, then it must be above the sun, and hence
could not be a canopy of water beneath the sun. If the biblical
text is accepted in the straightforward way that creation scientists
way they want to accept the Bible, then defining "the water
above the firmament" as a water canopy below the sun is not
possible. Nor is it possible to define the firmament as
atmosphere, for the sun, moon, stars are not in the atmosphere."
does satellites in oribt competly break this soild roof?
-wrong deffiniton of illumination and moon, in the Genesis the moon is referred to as a light, scientificly the moon is just a reflection of the sun's light.
-The earth is flat,
Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
جوري
03-27-2009, 11:47 AM
interesting post Jazaki Allah khyran..
yeah I too went to catholic school.. it really sucked.. glad it is way behind me..

wal7mdlilah

:w:
Reply

Silver
03-27-2009, 12:01 PM
I went to a catholic school too...but I liked it. About 60% of the sudents were muslims.
Christians were required to study the Bible just one hour every week...
Reply

Whatsthepoint
03-27-2009, 01:27 PM
Originally Posted by Lara
I went to a catholic school too...but I liked it. About 60% of the sudents were muslims.
Christians were required to study the Bible just one hour every week...
Why go to a Catholic school if you're a Muslim?
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
GreyKode
03-27-2009, 01:35 PM
^I wonder about that too.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
03-27-2009, 01:36 PM
Originally Posted by Shukri18
I noticed many scientific and mathematical errors.
Could you tell us more about these?
Reply

Silver
03-27-2009, 04:40 PM
Why go to a Catholic school if you're a Muslim?
That's just the way it is in Lebanon. Parents are more concerned about the academic level of the school.
If you go to a muslim school they won't try to convert you to Islam and if you go to a christian school they don't try to convert you to christianity. You don't have to attend religion classes if you don't want to.
There are religion classes in christian, muslim and public schools. It's only 1 hour a week. Religion is not discussed outside these classes.
Most religious schools are like that in Lebanon. They're more like secular schools.
Reply

Shukri18
03-28-2009, 01:49 AM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Why go to a Catholic school if you're a Muslim?
Better education then a regular public school.
Reply

Shukri18
03-28-2009, 02:08 AM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Could you tell us more about these?
"He made a molten sea, ten cubits from one brim to the other: it was round all about, and its height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about" [I Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2]
That equation says absolutely that the pool had to be 31.4 feet, not 30 feet.
Another error is the value of pi. The mathematical number Pi is the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference. The value of Pi truncated at 10 digits is 3.14159. The bible itself gives us a different value of Pi.
and then it is mentioned in Book of Ezra Ch.2: V.1 and Book of Nehemiah Ch.7:V.6, the context being that when the people returned from exile (from Babylon after released from the captivity), a list of the people is given in Ezra Ch.2:V.2-63 and in Nehemiah Ch.7:V7-65, the list of names and the number of people released is given. In these 60 verses, there are no less than eighteen times the numbers given different. The names are the same but the number of the people released is different. No less than 18 Contradictions in 60 verses of these two chapters. Further it is mentioned in Book of Ezra, Ch.2:V.64, that the total congregation (if we add up) it comes to 42’360. In Nehemiah Ch.7:V.66, it adds up to the same, 42’360. BUT, if you add up all these verses, in Ezra, it does not come to 42’360, but it comes to 29’818. And if you add up Nehemiah, it does not come to 42’360, it comes up to 31’089.
as for scientific errors [wrote out a few in the first post, not quite sure if you read it all?!?]
one that struck me was how the bible described light.
"divided the light from the darkness" (1:3-4). Light, however, is not something that can be separated from darkness. Light is an electromagnetic radiation from an energy source like the sun or stars, and darkness is merely the absence of light.

We know today that the color characteristics of animals is purely a matter of genetics, so a modern, scientifically-educated person would never write anything as obviously superstitious as this tale of Jacob's prosperity.
"Then Jacob took fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the rods. He set the rods that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the rods, and so the flocks produced young that were striped, speckled, and spotted"(30:37-39, NRSV).
Reply

Azy
03-29-2009, 01:35 AM
Is it acceptable to post alleged scientific errors of any scripture in this thread, or only Biblical?
Reply

salamfromrom
03-29-2009, 12:17 PM
Azy feel free to post anything you want. But Keep in mind that the "scientific Miracles of the QUr'an" as explained by those such as Dr. Zakir Naik are based upon an incorrect interpretation of the Arabic Language and they are wrong. It's a shame that this "Scientific Miracles in the Qur'an" way of thinking has taken root and is misleading people muslims and non muslims alike.

Salam
Reply

salamfromrom
03-29-2009, 12:24 PM
For Azy:

Many of the "scientific Miracles in the Qur'an" are actually features of Quranic imagery. What you have come across on the internet are people claiming these verses as scientific descriptions, when in fact, they are not. It is a vast ignorance of the Quranic Arabic that makes people assert such things. What these verse constitute are examples of Arabic literary technique. The Quran is employing a metaphor, not a technical description in these verses. The metaphors may be common to other verses, or unique.

The Qur'an is not a science book. Don't listen to the erroneous interpretations and try and appreciate the Quran more from a literary perspective. To do that, I suggest you try and read translations of pre-Islamic poems, where the use of imagery was heavy for Arabs. Eyes are compared to ostrich eggs, skin is described like milk. The pre-islamic Arabic language was heavy in the usage of imagery. You can further read articles by Mustanir Mir, or the tafseer by Amin AHsan Islahi, and works by Neal Robinson in his Discovering the Quran for such wealth of information.
-a knowleadgeable brother said that, and I posted it for you.
Salam a leikum
Reply

Shukri18
03-29-2009, 08:54 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
Is it acceptable to post alleged scientific errors of any scripture in this thread, or only Biblical?
I didn't post these "alleged scientific errors" just to bash the bible. I only posted it so someone could correct me, and to give me a clear understanding of it.
If you have any confusion or scientific errors you've found in the Koran feel free to post it, and I or someone with greater knowledge then I would love to help you out.
Reply

جوري
03-29-2009, 08:59 PM
Originally Posted by Shukri18
I didn't post these "alleged scientific errors" just to bash the bible. I only posted it so someone could correct me, and to give me a clear understanding of it.
If you have any confusion or scientific errors you've found in the Koran feel free to post it, and I or someone with greater knowledge then I would love to help you out.
He has been refuted on every topic he has participated in, he doesn't post with either intellectual or scientific integrity, just merely to get a rise out of everyone.. we keep him here for amusements' sake I have come to accept!

:w:
Reply

Shukri18
03-29-2009, 09:25 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
He has been refuted on every topic he has participated in, he doesn't post with either intellectual or scientific integrity, just merely to get a rise out of everyone.. we keep him here for amusements' sake I have come to accept!

:w:
lol.
Thanks sister, that does explain a lot.
Reply

جوري
03-29-2009, 10:06 PM
Originally Posted by Shukri18
lol.
Thanks sister, that does explain a lot.
Baraka Allah feeki-- I appreciate your posts and insights (proud to have you as a sister)..

:w:
Reply

Azy
03-29-2009, 10:45 PM
Originally Posted by Shukri18
I didn't post these "alleged scientific errors" just to bash the bible. I only posted it so someone could correct me, and to give me a clear understanding of it.
If what brother salamfromrom says is true and that many statements in the Quran which appear contradictory or incorrect are simply poetic, would it be fair to consider similar statements in the Bible in such a literal way?
Reply

جوري
03-29-2009, 10:56 PM
The Quran tells in more than one chapter:

3: 7
He it is who has bestowed upon thee from on high this divine writ, containing messages that are clear in and by themselves - and these are the essence of the divine writ - as well as others that are allegorical.* Now those whose hearts are given to swerving from the truth go after that part of the divine writ** which has been expressed in allegory, seeking out [what is bound to create] confusion,*** and seeking [to arrive at] its final meaning [in an arbitrary manner]; but none save God knows its final meaning.**** Hence, those who are deeply rooted in knowledge say:
"We believe in it; the whole [of the divine writ] is from our Sustainer - albeit none takes this to heart save those who are endowed with insight.

*The above passage may be regarded as a key to the understanding of the Qur'an. Tabari identifies the ayat muhkamat ("messages that are clear in and by themselves") with what the philologists and jurists describe as nass - namely, ordinances or statements which are self-evident (zahir) by virtue of their wording (cf. Lisan at-'Arab, art. nass). Consequently, Tabari regards as ayat muhkamat only those statements or ordinances of the Qur'an which do not admit of more than one interpretation (which does not, of course, preclude differences of opinion regarding the implications of a particular ayah muhkamah). In my opinion, however, it would be too dogmatic to regard any passage of the Qur'an which does not conform to the above definition as mutashabih ("allegorical"): for there are many statements in the Qur'an which are liable to more than one interpretation but are, nevertheless, not allegorical - just as there are many expressions and passages which, despite their allegorical formulation, reveal to the searching intellect only one possible meaning. For this reason, the ayat mutashabihat may be defined as those passages of the Qur'an which are expressed in a figurative manner, with a meaning that is metaphorically implied but not directly, in so many words, stated. The ayat muhkamat are described as the "essence of the divine writ" (umm al-kitab) because they comprise the fundamental principles underlying its message and, in particular, its ethical and social teachings: and it is only on the basis of these clearly enunciated principles that the allegorical passages can be correctly interpreted. (For a more detailed discussion of symbolism and allegory in the Qur'an. see Appendix 1.)

**Lit., "that of it".

***The "confusion" referred to here is a consequence of interpreting allegorical passages in an "arbitrary manner" (Zamakhshari).

****According to most of the early commentators, this refers to the interpretation of allegorical passages which deal with metaphysical subjects - for instance, God's attributes, the ultimate meaning of time and eternity, the resurrection of the dead, the Day of Judgment, paradise and hell, the nature of the beings or forces described as angels, and so forth - all of which fall within the category of al-ghayb, i.e., that sector of reality which is beyond the reach of human perception and imagination and cannot, therefore, be conveyed to man in other than allegorical terms. This view of the classical commentators, however, does not seem to take into account the many Qur'anic passages which do not deal with metaphysical subjects and yet are, undoubtedly, allegorical in intent and expression. To my mind, one cannot arrive at a correct understanding of the above passage without paying due attention to the nature and function of allegory as such. A true allegory - in contrast with a mere pictorial paraphrase of something that could equally well be stated in direct terms - is always meant to express in a figurative manner something which, because of its complexity, cannot be adequately expressed in direct terms or propositions and, because of this very complexity, can be grasped only intuitively, as a general mental image, and not as a series of detailed "statements": and this seems to be the meaning of the phrase, "none save God knows its final meaning".

Does the bible make the same claim?
Reply

Azy
03-29-2009, 11:49 PM
No, but that doesn't change the fact that the Bible does use metaphors extensively.

Isaiah 40:11 for example:-
"He tends his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young."

I've used "four corners of the earth" in conversation, even though it is quite apparent the earth is hexagonal.
Reply

Shukri18
03-30-2009, 03:57 AM
Originally Posted by Azy
No, but that doesn't change the fact that the Bible does use metaphors extensively.

Isaiah 40:11 for example:-
"He tends his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young."

I've used "four corners of the earth" in conversation, even though it is quite apparent the earth is hexagonal.
Yes in literary terms the Bible does utilize metaphors, imagery, similes, figurative language etc.
James. 1.23-24: "Anyone who listens to the words but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror, and after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like."
Prov. 10.26: "Like vinegar to the teeth, and smoke to the eyes, so are the lazy to their employers."

Rather then attempting to correct sister Skye and I; please correct or at least try to correct me on the scientific and mathematical errors.
Reply

Azy
03-30-2009, 12:20 PM
What I'm saying is that things you take as being scientific or mathematical error could quite easily seen as creative use of language.

You said "If the biblical text is accepted in the straightforward way that creation scientists want to accept the Bible...". Yes, of course if you do this you will encounter problems, but then all you're doing is arguing against their interpretation of the text. Asking people to correct you doesn't make much sense in light of that.
The Bible consists of descriptions written by men, it does not claim to be the literal word of God as does the Qur'an.

Anyway.
"ten cubits from one brim to the other: it was round all about... and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about".
We don't know if the author intended to convey an exact measurement or an approximation. Also, I would call an orange round or a roti round, two different and imprecise descriptions. The article in question might not be a perfect circle.

I'm not even going to try with Ezra and Nehemiah, I can't be bothered wading through all those figures. Some people claim to have resolved it but I'd say they just can't count.

"divided the light from the darkness" could well be figurative.

"-wrong deffiniton of illumination and moon, in the Genesis the moon is referred to as a light, scientificly the moon is just a reflection of the sun's light."
Qur'an 10:5 "He it is Who appointed the sun a splendour and the moon a light..."
Reply

جوري
03-30-2009, 03:35 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
"-wrong deffiniton of illumination and moon, in the Genesis the moon is referred to as a light, scientificly the moon is just a reflection of the sun's light."
Qur'an 10:5 "He it is Who appointed the sun a splendour and the moon a light..."
5) He it is who has made the sun a [source of] radiant light and the moon a light [reflected],'° and has...


http://www.geocities.com/masad02/010


all the best
Reply

Azy
03-30-2009, 03:51 PM
That may be the gist of the phrase, but even Asad put the word 'reflected' in brackets as it's not in the original text.
Reply

جوري
03-30-2009, 03:51 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
That may be the gist of the phrase, but even Asad put the word 'reflected' in brackets as it's not in the original text.
Asad's translation & interpretation of Quran is one of the most bona-fide and coherent translations.It is scrupulously referenced so he does not give his opinion rather quotes some of the greatest scholars after the manifestation of the Quran
http://www.scribd.com/doc/10720330/M...mad-Asad-Islam

if you desire to actually read the Quran, and have a cohesive discussion of contents, using several sources and well sakhr (arabic dictionary) or any other you deem 'credible' I have no problems with that whatsoever (as time consuming as that would be).
But don't come teach us (especially) Arabic speakers of the contents therein, least of which from snippets from atheist websites and then throw a temper tantrum when there is as well other credible translations that are just as merited that differ on meaning!

all the best
Reply

Azy
03-30-2009, 05:25 PM
Then you recognise the issue. Shukri18 is criticising the English translation of the Biblical text.
Reply

جوري
03-30-2009, 05:35 PM
but you don't have two biblical texts that are the same.. as well there are many chapters missing between the protestant and catholic bible.. further the 'original' bible if there is such a thing isn't even written in the tongue or language of Jesus, whereas the Quran has always been the same, even if the translations are off, you can always go back to the archetype and correct your stance.. also you'll find that even though in Islam sunnis makeup 90% and the rest are 10% we all still use the exact same Quran..
one thing you don't appreciate I believe about the Quran is that it is written like a poem.. can you imagine the difficulty of making an entire text with some verses revealed twenty yrs apart to follow in syntax meaning and rhyme?

can you do this with the bible, one chapter if not actually every chapter?


Media Tags are no longer supported


Media Tags are no longer supported


Media Tags are no longer supported


ALL THE BEST!
Reply

Azy
03-30-2009, 07:17 PM
If people want to watch the videos they could follow links, there's no need to jam up the thread with them.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
but you don't have two biblical texts that are the same.. as well there are many chapters missing between the protestant and catholic bible..
The dead sea scrolls hold a copy of the OT which is about 95% the same as current versions and dates ~AD100, I don't think that's too shabby given it's age.
The OP hasn't looked at a Hebrew copy as far as I can tell, ancient or otherwise, accurate or not.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
further the 'original' bible if there is such a thing isn't even written in the tongue or language of Jesus, whereas the Quran has always been the same
There is no 'original' Quran either, we only have it on trust that the document handed down is the same as the pieces dictated during his life.
Reply

Follower
03-30-2009, 07:39 PM
firmament = expanse

Genesis 1
16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

Not sure what your problem with the moon's reflected light? It is a lesser light, not the source of light.

Don't try so hard to dipute the Bible. LOL! The Quran says the earth is flat!
015.019
YUSUFALI: And the earth We have spread out (like a carpet); set thereon mountains firm and immovable; and produced therein all kinds of things in due balance.
PICKTHAL: And the earth have We spread out, and placed therein firm hills, and caused each seemly thing to grow therein.
SHAKIR: And the earth-- We have spread it forth and made in it firm mountains and caused to grow in it of every suitable thing.

a round earth:
Isaiah 40
22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Job26
7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing.

Job 38
13That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

LOL!! Just sounds better then "bouncing the ball so hard that the wicked fall off of it"!!!

Four corners of the earth - north, south, east, west

your pool queston:
http://www.learnthebible.org/molten_sea_value_of_pi.htm

The Bible never claims to be a science book, but a guide for your salvation, a way to get close to GOD. When a scientific statement is made it is consistant with science, but written so man from the earliest of time could understand it.
Reply

جوري
03-30-2009, 07:53 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
If people want to watch the videos they could follow links, there's no need to jam up the thread with them.
You care about the jamming of the forum because? Are you fostering its existence with pocket change? This is my form of da3wa in reference to a point I have made, if you don't like it, you don't have to click on it just the same.. further this section is entitled 'Comparative religion' any media clips are acceptable here if they are of relevance!
The dead sea scrolls hold a copy of the OT which is about 95% the same as current versions and dates ~AD100, I don't think that's too shabby given it's age.
Have you actually read it? I'd really love to see a few excerpts from it since you have it in your library and find such great similitude between them and the current versions:

Israeli scholar challenges accepted wisdom on Dead Sea Scrolls, claiming Essenes never existed

By MATTI FRIEDMAN , Associated Press
Last update: March 17, 2009 - 11:13 AM


http://www.startribune.com/world/413...Unciaec8O7EyUr




Isra-lis Continue To Hide and Obfuscate Dead Sea Scrolls And What They Say About Yeshua!
http://zionistgoldreport.wordpress.c...-about-yeshua/

A few links on the matter of which you are now and like on every thread expert =)


The OP hasn't looked at a Hebrew copy as far as I can tell, ancient or otherwise, accurate or not.
The OP like myself attended catholic school and studied their bible as well attended their mass! other than that she is not merely speaking of the OT!
There is no 'original' Quran either, we only have it on trust that the document handed down is the same as the pieces dictated during his life.
Yeah there are four original copies of the Quran for a mostly oral tradition society and unlike the bible started being scribed during the time of the prophet on old bones and such and later compiled in the order the prophet dictated.. as an example the first verse revealed doesn't appear in chapter I.. thus we know that it is all true to the way it was intended to be! you should re-visit old threads as I really do get annoyed with refractory denseness!

all the best
Reply

Azy
03-30-2009, 08:38 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I'd really love to see a few excerpts from it since you have it in your library and find such great similitude between them and the current versions:
Garry Brantley's assessment.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Israeli scholar challenges accepted wisdom on Dead Sea Scrolls, claiming Essenes never existed
Unsure about the relevance of this...
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
The OP like myself attended catholic school and studied their bible as well attended their mass!
Being experts on the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic Bible why on earth do you both then criticise it's English translation, considering how much we are scolded when we do the same with the Quran?
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Yeah there are four original copies of the Quran for a mostly oral tradition society and unlike the bible started being scribed during the time of the prophet on old bones
I think our definitions of 'original' differ. There is no copy of the Quran which was wholely compiled by, or under the supervision of, the Prophet.
Reply

Azy
03-30-2009, 08:50 PM
Not seen [this] before. Comments?
Reply

جوري
03-30-2009, 08:54 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
I don't want Garry's assessment, I want yours--Did you read it?
Don't read an assessment of a cliff note and then come speak to me with bravado!

Unsure about the relevance of this...
The relevance is, there is alot of talk of the actual content of the dead sea scrolls, given that the Jews took them and hid them disabling all kinds of other scholars to have a proper assessment of content!

Being experts on the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic Bible why on earth do you both then criticise it's English translation, considering how much we are scolded when we do the same with the Quran?
You have missed something very basic a central theme to 'Christianity' not mentioned in the bible yet deduced, I say by that same token that makes Gods of Men should everything else be equally examined to see what it is that drove an allegedly Monotheistic religion into the throws of paganism using that text!
By the way I can understand a great deal of Aramiac more than any Christian here on board, unless they were originally from Iraq!

I think our definitions of 'original' differ. There is no copy of the Quran which was wholely compiled by, or under the supervision of, the Prophet.
Arabia was an oral society, and still continues to be, the same way I can recite suret Ar'Rahman by heart as was done millenniums ago with the exact same integrity without having ever to open a page of the Quran which is exactly how I have come to memorize it and such is the case with millions of Hafith world wide.. can we say the same about the 'Bibles'

all the best
Reply

جوري
03-30-2009, 08:55 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
Not seen [this] before. Comments?
Submission org is a Quran only sect, I don't really need to read content to know what they think!

all the best
Reply

Azy
03-30-2009, 09:41 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
The relevance is, there is alot of talk of the actual content of the dead sea scrolls, given that the Jews took them and hid them disabling all kinds of other scholars to have a proper assessment of content!
Aren't the vast majority now viewable in the Israel Museum?

I don't see how the fact that I've not read the original scrolls means that you can claim all these people are wrong when I'm guessing you haven't seen them and compared them to the modern bible either. Otherwise you'd actually present some evidence to dispute that they are accurate to the degree stated.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Arabia was an oral society, and still continues to be, the same way I can recite suret Ar'Rahman by heart as was done millenniums ago with the exact same integrity without having ever to open a page of the Quran which is exactly how I have come to memorize it
All the same, there's no way that you can show those words are the words that came out of the Prophet's mouth.

None of this explains why we're criticising the English translation.

Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Submission org is a Quran only sect, I don't really need to read content to know what they think!
I take it then that you have compared the Tashkent Quran to your own copy and found it to be in complete agreement.
Reply

جوري
03-30-2009, 09:53 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
Aren't the vast majority now viewable in the Israel Museum?
Who knows what is being shown and what is being withheld?.. however question remains, have you visited any museum or read excerpts of them? I ask because like on every subject you display such authority, which I am not sure where stemming from? It isn't very forth coming to appear a scholar on a subject where again you are literally commenting on cliff notes that someone has summarized for you!

I don't see how the fact that I've not read the original scrolls means that you can claim all these people are wrong when I'm guessing you haven't seen them and compared them to the modern bible either. Otherwise you'd actually present some evidence to dispute that they are accurate to the degree stated.
I am not the one who made the statement of 90+ accurate to the current versions? it was you! Thus logic would dictate you'd have to back it up with something other than a random blogger's opinion, as you can see if you scroll back, other people have differing opinions!
Again, something about research, and scientific integrity is missing here..
I wouldn't write on the Quran if I haven't actually read it..


All the same, there's no way that you can show those words are the words that came out of the Prophet's mouth.
yeah they are.. his actual words (the hadiths) and the Quran are very different.. thus anyone with half a brain can distinguish the difference between a Quranic recitation and the anything else whether coming out of the prophet or not.. there is no dispute... The Quran is its own testament!
However anyone can write a passage and stick it in the bible, which is in fact what has been done!
None of this explains why we're criticising the English translation.
Try not to go off on tangents then-- other than that, obviousely 'something has been lost in the translation'!
I take it then that you have compared the Tashkent Quran to your own copy and found it to be in complete agreement.
I have seen the copy in Egypt and it is in complete agreement as it is one of the four originals..

try again!


all the best
Reply

Azy
03-30-2009, 10:11 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Who knows what is being shown and what is being withheld?.. however question remains, have you visited any museum or read excerpts of them? I ask because like on every subject you display such authority, which I am not sure where stemming from?
I'm simply restating what scholars of the field have said.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
yeah they are.. his actual words (the hadiths) and the Quran are very different.. thus anyone with half a brain can distinguish the difference between a Quranic recitation and the anything else whether coming out of the prophet or not.. there is no dispute... The Quran is its own testament!
You speak of scientific integrity and then make a pronouncement like that?

That is not evidence.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I have seen the copy in Egypt and it is in complete agreement as it is one of the four originals..
That's not what I asked, is it?
Reply

جوري
03-30-2009, 10:24 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
I'm simply restating what scholars of the field have said.
Actually that isn't what scholars on the field have said..
Also parroting the opinion that voices yours doesn't equal sound research or professional integrity!
Not only have you not read the OT but you haven't the 'dead sea scrolls' exactly why should anyone care what you think?
What do you reckon we ought to base it on?
You speak of scientific integrity and then make a pronouncement like that?
That is indeed a statement free of personal prejudices, a challenge of the Quran was to bring a sura like it even if it were the shortest which is suret Al kawathar composed only of three verses.
The criteria for language, syntax, rhyme transcendence and meaning.

Do read:
The issue you brought up relates to the Qur'anic challenge to "produce a surah like it". [On the subject, I thought I might mention that M. M. Al-Azami, the author of a decisive refutation on missionary and orientalist polemic on the Qur'anic preservation is now in the process of writing a book called "The Qur'anic Challenge: A Promise fulfilled". Shaykh Al-Azami is a renowned scholar in both the Western and Islamic world, with a PhD from Cambridge University, he is also a Professor Emeritus at King Saud University in Riyadh Saudi Arabia.]. The challenge is really quite simple: "if you think this Qur'an is fabricated, then why don't you write your own book and follow that? See if that enjoys the same success as the word of God."

This challenge was given to the arabs at the time of the Prophet saws whose poetry was their most salient skill and they used to recite their poetry with pride. They were the masters of arabic poetry and there were none to compare with them. Yet they tried and were unsuccessful in producing a scripture like the Qur'an, and they recognized their failure in this regard very quickly. Nowadays, people who are ignorant of the arabic language think that they will easily be able to cook up something like the Qur'an. The fact of the matter is - the masters of arabic poetry have already tried and failed; the only reason why these modern challengers have not recognized their failure is because they are truly ignorant of the literary devices to begin with, and thus are unequiped to compare their meek compositions with the word of God.

One example of a book written in arabic by a challenger in called 'The True Furqan". Dr. Ali Ataie makes some interesting comments on this composition in his introduction to his 'Gospel of Jesus':
The True Criterion?

A book was just recently released by Wine Press Publishing called “Furqanul Haq,” or “The True
Criterion.” The editorial review on Amazon.com reads: “Arabic and English side-by-side on
every page. Prose and poetry of the highest caliber in classical Arabic with English interpretation.
It contains 77 surahs (chapters) dealing with as many subjects which are beautifully written and
easily understood. Love, Light, Peace, Truth, Repentance, Women, Marriage, Fasting, Prayer,
Abrogation, The Sacrifice, Inspiration, Paradise, The Scale and The Excellent Names are some of
the chapters written in the unique style of the Quran.” Sounds good, right? The problem: This is
not the Qur’an!

Apparently, some poor Arab Christian on his last evangelical leg decided to plagiarize many of
the chapters of the actual Qur’an and made minor changes in order to “Christianize” the text. The
despicability and deception of such a move is surpassed only by its desperation. The Bible isn’t
working for them; they have to use OUR scripture in order to convert people to their religion. I’m
flattered, but still very offended.

After Muslim readers made a big hue and cry about the book to Amazon, one Christian
commented: “I don’t understand why this book offends Muslims. Doesn’t the Koran say that
infidels should try to produce something like the Koran in order to prove that they can’t? Well,
we did!” The verse in question is: “And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time
to time to Our servant, then produce a Surah like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers
besides Allah, if your doubts are true” (al-Baqarah 2:23).

The crucial part of this verse that our Christian friend failed to recognize is the phrase “besides
Allah,” meaning without the help of Allah’s Word. In other words, don’t copy wholesale from the
Qur’an and make a few minor textual adjustments and claim that you have produced something
comparable to it. -- That is called forgery. Reminds me of the Words of God: “But when Our
Clear Signs are rehearsed unto them, those who rest not their hope on their meeting with Us, Say:
‘Bring us a reading other than this, or change this.’ Say: ‘It is not for me, of my own accord, to
change it: I follow naught but what is revealed unto me: if I were to disobey my Lord, I should
myself fear the penalty of a Great Day to come’” (Yunus 10:15). If I copied down verbatim a
Shakespearian Sonnet with the exception of a few words here and there that I added on my own,
can I possible say that I have produced a Sonnet equal to that of the English Master? Certainly
not.

The detractors of the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace) accused him of forging the
Qur’an from the Bible. Yet there isn’t even a SINGLE verse in the entire Qur’an that is near
identical to a verse in the Bible. -- “When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah
knows best what He reveals in stages,- they say, ‘Thou art but a forger:’ but most of them
understand not” (an-Nahl 16:101). It’s true that some of the stories are similar, but that is because
the Qur’an confirms as well as corrects certain Biblical narrations that had been fabricated by the
hands of men. This is why the Qur’an is the Criterion! The Qur’an lay outside all of the familiar
categories of Arabic rhyme and prose. It is a miracle of language, rhetoric, poetry, and is
absolutely inimitable.

Last example: Allah reveals, “O mankind! Here is a parable set forth, listen to it! Those on whom,
besides Allah, ye call, cannot create even a fly, if they all met together for the purpose” (al-Hajj
22:73)! “Wait a minute,” you might say, “Scientists today have cloned livestock! A fly would be
no problem.” Cloned yes, but create? Never. Allah is referring to the creation of a fly out of
nothing, just as He creates. Taking an animal’s DNA, its entire genetic make-up and a substance
that GOD created Himself, and using it to clone a sheep or cow does not constitute creation. The
same applies to “Furqanul Haq.” You cannot rival God’s miracle by using His miracle to do so!

News of this book has led me to a very interesting and important project. Obviously, the
“Furqanul Haq” is not the Qur’an. But what if I were to do the same thing to the Christian
scripture? What if I took elements present in the four canonical Gospels and harmonized them
into a single account and “Islamicized” the text in a few places? Why not? Certainly Christians
are constantly demanding from us to produce the true Gospel of Jesus Christ (or at least our
version of it) in light of our rejection of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament as God’s
infallible Word. It would be a bitter taste of their own medicine. Besides, this is exactly what the
evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did themselves! My resulting work has been named:
“???????? ?????????? ?????? ???????,” (Greek for Alethinos Evangelion Iaysus Christos)
- “The True Gospel of Jesus Christ” or simply “Injeel-ul-Haq.” (Gospel of Jesus, pp. 2-3)
In additon to the points mentioned by Dr. Ataie, whenever I discuss this issue, I begin with an important definition -that of the Qur'an. When the Qur'an challenges others to produce something like it, the prerequisite is that someone understand what the Qur'an is to be able to attempt the challenge. The 'Qur'an' literally means a recitation. The Qur'an was not revealed to Prophet Muhammad saws as a book, nor was it dispersed or preached primarily in written form - it was through recitation that is was primarily recieved and dispersed. Thus, anyone attempting to answer the challenge must produce for us a recitation - not just a written composition. So let us see if these critics can produce for us a recitation that matches the quality of such:
http://quran.islamway.com/mishary1424/025.mp3
http://quran.islamway.com/matrood/002.mp3
http://quran.islamway.com/ayyoubharam/024.mp3

There are probably thousands of other recitations forum members could link you to. Let these critics try tp produce anything that has the power of these recitations. When, I listen to these recitations, understanding their meaning as well, I'm gripped by their power and beauty. I get a feeling of immense tranquility when I listen to these recitations that I never get listening to anything else. And its not just me or other Muslims raised as Muslims. Those who convert to Islam having read much of the Qur'an experience the same undescribable feeling when listening to the Qur'an.

And I'm not ignorant of the compositions of the critics either. I have read many of their attempts to answer the Qur'anic challenge in arabic, and have tried many times reciting them out-loud but in vain, as each word feels like an obstacle to the one trying to recite with tajweed. These compositions are unrecitable and are no different from the average written pieces of arabic composed by human beings (in many cases the critics' compositions do not even meet the standard of acceptable written arabic).

My above explanation has focused on the literary style of the Qur'an, although one must remember that to produce something like the Qur'an involves other things as well. Briefly, I'll mention them. The composition must be able to match the Qur'an in terms of purity of the message - it must call human beings to something recognizable as truth and free from defects. The message itself must also be free of discrepancies/inconsistencies. The message must be universal and practical - beyond the bounds of culture and time, and must appeal to human beings so to attract followers from across the world as the Qur'an has. The message must be comprehensive in that it gives human beings guidance in every sector of life, be it social, physical, mental, emotional, political, environmental, and of course spiritual. It must stand the test of time, and be able to stand up in the face of logical and scientific criticism. It must be deep enough to invite centuries of works expounding on its meanings (just as the number of Tafsirs of the Holy Qur'an are more than hundreds of thousands).

These are just some of the basic aspects of the challenge. I expect Dr. Al-Azami will have much more detail for us in his up-coming work, inshaa'Allah.
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...nge-quran.html



That's not what I asked, is it?
You ask alot of non-questions-- as silly as you are silly!
from the lowest common denominator I am read on the subjects I gauge.. and that is why you are always two steps behind, the moment I post it, you google it and then come contradict me, not based on solid research knowledge or expereince but just out of love of negating a Muslim!


all the best!
Reply

Shukri18
03-30-2009, 10:41 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
What I'm saying is that things you take as being scientific or mathematical error could quite easily seen as creative use of language.

You said "If the biblical text is accepted in the straightforward way that creation scientists want to accept the Bible...". Yes, of course if you do this you will encounter problems, but then all you're doing is arguing against their interpretation of the text. Asking people to correct you doesn't make much sense in light of that.
The Bible consists of descriptions written by men, it does not claim to be the literal word of God as does the Qur'an.

Anyway.
"ten cubits from one brim to the other: it was round all about... and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about".
We don't know if the author intended to convey an exact measurement or an approximation. Also, I would call an orange round or a roti round, two different and imprecise descriptions. The article in question might not be a perfect circle.

I'm not even going to try with Ezra and Nehemiah, I can't be bothered wading through all those figures. Some people claim to have resolved it but I'd say they just can't count.

"divided the light from the darkness" could well be figurative.

"-wrong deffiniton of illumination and moon, in the Genesis the moon is referred to as a light, scientificly the moon is just a reflection of the sun's light."
Qur'an 10:5 "He it is Who appointed the sun a splendour and the moon a light..."
Okay first off Azy I did not post this forum to criticize the Bible, but rather to gain a better understanding of it. I would like to believe that I came off with this topic with the utmost respect for Christianity and the Bible. Which is why I stated CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, but you would rather be defensive and make imprudent claims about the quran.
As for that quote from the quran, my friend don't put up small bits of the quran and say its justified, because in the quran Allah does describe the moon as a reflection of the sun's light.
The quote you have just proves the figurative language that is used in the quran. Way to go having one of your points proving my claims correctly:)
Reply

Azy
03-30-2009, 11:02 PM
Originally Posted by Shukri18
Okay first off Azy I did not post this forum to criticize the Bible, but rather to gain a better understanding of it. I would like to believe that I came off with this topic with the utmost respect for Christianity and the Bible. Which is why I stated CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, but you would rather be defensive and make imprudent claims about the quran.
If you look back at the previous posts you'll find 5 off-topic posts by your friend including personal slights on myself, leading to her defensive comments about a line I posted.

I did not make any claims initially, but presented one line to illustrate that if viewed superficially the same argument could be made against it.
Originally Posted by Shukri18
The quote you have just proves the figurative language that is used in the quran. Way to go having one of your points proving my claims correctly:)
How do you figure that? It show that your claims related to the scientific inaccuracy of the Bible are only true if you take them absolutely literally, which we know you probably shouldn't.

I don't see why you think I would be defensive about Biblical claims, I have nothing to defend.
Reply

جوري
03-30-2009, 11:17 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
If you look back at the previous posts you'll find 5 off-topic posts by your friend including personal slights on myself, leading to her defensive comments about a line I posted.
Don't make false allegations, and feign knowledge in a field where you are not even superficially read and then come indirectly hide behind 'off topic' !


all the best
Reply

Azy
03-30-2009, 11:26 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Not only have you not read the OT but you haven't the 'dead sea scrolls' exactly why should anyone care what you think?
You seem to care enough to respond to nigh on every post I make. Why on earth would you think I hadn't read the OT?
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
That is indeed a statement free of personal prejudices, a challenge of the Quran was to bring a sura like it even if it were the shortest which is suret Al kawathar composed only of three verses.
The criteria for language, syntax, rhyme transcendence and meaning.
It's not a challenge that can be objectively judged.

By the way, does that challenge only apply to Arabic writings?
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
"if you think this Qur'an is fabricated, then why don't you write your own book and follow that? See if that enjoys the same success as the word of God."
What a bizarre claim to make considering the man-made Bible was the dominant religion for so long and has 2 billion followers.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
You ask alot of non-questions-- as silly as you are silly!
Taqqiyah in action? You are very evasive when it suits you.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
you google it and then come contradict me, not based on solid research knowledge or expereince but just out of love of negating a Muslim!
Why on earth would anyone do serious research to refute something based on faith? Surely that's an exercise in futility.
Reply

Azy
03-30-2009, 11:27 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Don't make false allegations
What's false about them?
Reply

جوري
03-30-2009, 11:36 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
You seem to care enough to respond to nigh on every post I make.
Indeed but not about you.. or are you so vain to think you are the only one who browses a forum?

Why on earth would you think I hadn't read the OT?
Evident from your writing and the things you quote to support your writing!


It's not a challenge that can be objectively judged.
You are not the one who decides what objectivity is..
sort of like you can't have a writer's block if you have never been a writer!
By the way, does that challenge only apply to Arabic writings?
That is the miracle of the Quran.. A far richer language than any other.. but if you can write a book of guidance poetically in totality and have it cover every aspect of man's life, politics, economics, social structure, inheritance ideas and beliefs abd have it stand the test of time then by all means do so, we'll be waiting!


What a bizarre claim to make considering the man-made Bible was the dominant religion for so long and has 2 billion followers.
Do all Christians and their multiple bibles concur? Why do Catholics disagree with protestants or Mormons or Quakers etc
According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (year 2000 version), global Christianity had 33,820 denominations with 3,445,000 congregations/churches composed of 1,888 million affiliated Christians.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_d...nity_are_there
most of them considering the others complete heretics.. Does that equal dominant or divided in your dictionary?

Taqqiyah in action? You are very evasive when it suits you.
ataqwa ila ahel ataqwa, I owe you no artful prudence, as you have done nothing to earn it!


Why on earth would anyone do serious research to refute something based on faith? Surely that's an exercise in futility.
You write often based on faith, you only allege it's scientific to suit your own purposes and I have exposed you in many a posts doing just that.. Even the times when I sense a genuine change in you or a natural desire to learn it is quickly lost to one of your nonsensical posts!

all the best
Reply

جوري
03-30-2009, 11:37 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
What's false about them?
what is true about them?
Reply

Azy
03-31-2009, 12:52 AM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Indeed but not about you.. or are you so vain to think you are the only one who browses a forum?
Why bother, you basically insulted me and sidelined me into a Quranic dispute when I was quite happy to discuss the actual topic with the OP. Where's the benefit for other forum users?
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
You are not the one who decides what objectivity is..
Most bizarre and glaringly obvious statement ever.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
A far richer language than any other..
Again, subjective.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Do all Christians and their multiple bibles concur? Why do Catholics disagree with protestants or Mormons or Quakers etc
Essentially they're all descended from the same collection of writings so I think it's fair to say that those original texts have had quite some success. Besides, if you only count Catholics you're still at 1.2 billion.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (year 2000 version), global Christianity had 33,820 denominations
Yeah there's a discussion of those wild statistics here.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
You write often based on faith, you only allege it's scientific to suit your own purposes and I have exposed you in many a posts doing just that.. Even the times when I sense a genuine change in you or a natural desire to learn it is quickly lost to one of your nonsensical posts!
Don't patronise me. I have a natural desire to learn, but why would I turn that to something like religion?
Plenty of people here are highly critical of other faiths shimmying their way round the inconsistencies in scripture but blinded by self-righteousness and incapable of critical self-analysis. There are genuine problems that will never be addressed objectively by believers and they're not part of some western/scientific/atheist conspiracy to discredit Islam. So long as you are a Muslim you will never consider the Quran with the scientific integrity that you accuse me of lacking.
Reply

جوري
03-31-2009, 01:37 AM
Originally Posted by Azy
Why bother, you basically insulted me and sidelined me into a Quranic dispute when I was quite happy to discuss the actual topic with the OP. Where's the benefit for other forum users?
You mistake exposing you where you overtly err for insults.. Perhaps you should reflect on your own private time why so many people on board seem to feel the same way about your posts as I do?
further, it is a child that mumbles and a man that speaks his mind.. why the hit and run? Why say does this apply to others (on an Islamic forum) if you really only meant to discuss the bible?

Most bizarre and glaringly obvious statement ever.
I have no idea what this means!
Again, subjective.
it is actually not-- if you know something on the study of languages.

Essentially they're all descended from the same collection of writings so I think it's fair to say that those original texts have had quite some success. Besides,
You need to back up what you write.. it is fair to say from something other than Gary or Larry or Steve's conclusions on cliff notes that haven't been scrutinized by many? ( I do detest going in circles) don't you?


if you only count Catholics you're still at 1.2 billion.
Yeah there's a discussion of those wild statistics here.
isn't it amazing for everything you post I can find a contradictory site?

There are between 1 billion and 1.8 billion Muslims, making Islam the second-largest religion in the world, after Christianity.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
who is actually taking head count in secluded places?

except in islam as per article though I personally contend 90% not 85% are sunnis..
the Sunni (85%) and Shi'a (15%).
how many sects are there in Christianity again? I'd visit my previous post-- so suffice it to say.. I think we out number them...considering the majority of them contend the others are heretics.. how about you go asking Unitarians is Catholics are following Christianity or protestants whether Mormons are actually Christian? You count them under one banner but they are as different as can be!
as for the Catholics, they are already complaining:

Muslims more numerous than Catholics: Vatican
http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNew...68682420080330
further what is your point with numbers? is this an argumentum ad populum ? if such is the case why aren't you Christian?

Don't patronise me. I have a natural desire to learn, but why would I turn that to something like religion?
I don't know what this epiphany means?

Plenty of people here are highly critical of other faiths shimmying their way round the inconsistencies in scripture but blinded by self-righteousness and incapable of critical self-analysis. There are genuine problems that will never be addressed objectively by believers and they're not part of some western/scientific/atheist conspiracy to discredit Islam. So long as you are a Muslim you will never consider the Quran with the scientific integrity that you accuse me of lacking.
I can't count how many things are wrong with that statement, but I have had a long day so I'll cut it short.
There was a period in my life when I was an agnostic.. I didn't pray or consider myself Muslim until my early twenties (which wasn't that many yrs back).. I discovered Islam not while under the influence of some great scholar or pressure from parents and community and especially not while living in Saudi Arabia, but in my dorm room as a med student.. so don't come and speak to me of 'so long as I am Muslim I won't consider' such and such.. as you don't know the first thing about me! or other Muslims for that matter..
plus do you think I am stupid? You don't think I can tell genuine desire from genuine deception..
Do you Think Eric (from the forum) can be likened to someone like Alapiana? You can tell much about folks from their writing!
And lastly don't speak to me of problems in the Quran when all you have read are snippets of it on the websites of your choosing, further augmenting your lack of interest is any source that negates what you quote even if they are deemed equally credible.. There is a whole study which you can't even begin to fathom.
Not all headaches are treated with Aspirin, some are treated with electrophoresis.. are you studied enough and learned enough to know when and to tell the difference? Try to carry that analogy through when discussing with me, or any practicing Muslim their religion or what you conceive to be problems therein!


all the best!
Reply

Whatsthepoint
03-31-2009, 11:47 AM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
it is actually not-- if you know something on the study of languages.
Do tell!
Reply

جوري
03-31-2009, 01:12 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Do tell!
Do your own research 'whatisthepoint' about world languages specifically Arabic and Chinese.. I am so tired of giving with such fidelity to this forum, I am actually starting to understand why the wise amongst left not for a hiatus but for good!

all the best
Reply

Whatsthepoint
03-31-2009, 06:46 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Do your own research 'whatisthepoint' about world languages specifically Arabic and Chinese.. I am so tired of giving with such fidelity to this forum, I am actually starting to understand why the wise amongst left not for a hiatus but for good!

all the best
You amde a strong claim (Arabic is objectively a far richer language than any other) and I'd like you to support with with at least a shred of evidence, either from yourself or someone else.
Reply

جوري
03-31-2009, 07:00 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
You amde a strong claim (Arabic is objectively a far richer language than any other) and I'd like you to support with with at least a shred of evidence, either from yourself or someone else.
You should enroll in a university course such as
http://www.bucknell.edu/x2976.xml
if the study of language so interests you and pose questions to your preceptor:

Which language is most expressive, most complex in terms of parsing and constituent structure , most poetic, most historical etc and see how they answer you?
That is how most people (myself included) learn, by way of formal education inside academia not through google-- there is nothing subjective about it.. There is simply criteria that is met!

all the best
Reply

Azy
03-31-2009, 07:08 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
why the hit and run? Why say does this apply to others (on an Islamic forum) if you really only meant to discuss the bible?
"Indeed but not about you.. or are you so vain to think you are the only one who browses a forum?" Would seem to imply you do not post about me or solely for my benefit, so that leaves... others.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I have no idea what this means!
I don't know what this epiphany means?
Useful.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
it is actually not-- if you know something on the study of languages.
"...the famed linguist, Prof George Babiniotis (whose dictionary adorns most literate Greeks’ bookshelves) and Irvine University of California who place Cretan as the richest language on the globe."
It was the French center’s 40 researchers who identified Oubykh as the world’s rarest language...
The Caucasian tongue is also “among the richest, if not the richest, language we know in terms of the sounds you have to make to speak it,” Bouquiaux added.

"English is the richest language with the largest vocabulary in the world."
"Hindi is Our Mother language and is the Language of the Nation. It is said that it is the richest Language as far as grammar is concerned."
German is usually considered the richest language. Dr. Lomb, K., Polyglot: How I learn languages p.104

I imagine those people know something on the study of languages.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
You need to back up what you write..
You mean maybe I should have included an Amazon book review?
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
You count them under one banner but they are as different as can be![2]
further what is your point with numbers?[1]
1. You have the shortest memory of anyone I've spoken to. Reread Ansar's interpretation of the claim that you posted.
"if you think this Qur'an is fabricated, then why don't you write your own book and follow that? See if that enjoys the same success as the word of God."
I don't think all that time as the world's most populous denomination is a bad innings. I would also suggest that if the Quran had been revealed in the modern day it would probably not have found as many adherents.

2. There may well be many variants of Christianity now, but it's fair to say Luke and chums should get some credit for them all.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
There was a period in my life when I was an agnostic.. ..I discovered Islam not while under the influence of some great scholar or pressure from parents and community and especially not while living in Saudi Arabia, but in my dorm room as a med student.. so don't come and speak to me of 'so long as I am Muslim I won't consider' such and such.. as you don't know the first thing about me! or other Muslims for that matter..
What are you trying to tell me? Am I to understand that coming to this decision without influence lends it some kind of rational credibility?
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
plus do you think I am stupid? You don't think I can tell genuine desire from genuine deception..
Obviously not.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
You can tell much about folks from their writing!
I would be the first to admit that language has never been my forte and have more trouble than most translating my thoughts into meaningful sentences. I've always been very good with abstract ideas, numbers and technical skills and bad with communicating, much to my friends' perpetual frustration. Don't assume that when someone is not as good at one thing, you can apply that to everything.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
And lastly don't speak to me of problems in the Quran when all you have read are snippets of it on the websites of your choosing, further augmenting your lack of interest is any source that negates what you quote even if they are deemed equally credible.. There is a whole study which you can't even begin to fathom.
I've read the whole thing, not in one go mind and not in Arabic obviously, but I have been through it all. You're hardly immune from confirmation bias and I'm not as swayed by it as you might think. If it appears that way I might well be being argumentative as your approach to my posts brings that out.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Not all headaches are treated with Aspirin, some are treated with electrophoresis.. are you studied enough and learned enough to know when and to tell the difference? Try to carry that analogy through when discussing with me, or any practicing Muslim their religion or what you conceive to be problems therein!
Understood, but I still don't see the point in your constant posturing as if you have the monopoly on integrity when the basis of your standpoint is faith, not reason.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
03-31-2009, 07:29 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
You should enroll in a university course such as
http://www.bucknell.edu/x2976.xml
if the study of language so interests you and pose questions to your preceptor:

Which language is most expressive, most complex in terms of parsing and constituent structure , most poetic, most historical etc and see how they answer you?
That is how most people (myself included) learn, by way of formal education inside academia not through google-- there is nothing subjective about it.. There is simply criteria that is met!

all the best
Wouldn't it atke someone who hs studied several languages besides Arabic to answer your question? As far as I am aware you only know English, French. Arabic and probably some medical Latin so what makes you qualified to make judgements about the richness of languages?
that's why I asked you to provide an opinion from someone who is qualified.
Ok at least you decided on some basic criteria though you have no way of knowing which language meets them best, but I'm guessing (merely guessing) ancient greek or Latin would do quite fine. Also several othr languages, depending on how far you want to go with your criteria, which are set extremely wide (grammar) and also poeticity and historicity can be very subjective.
Reply

جوري
03-31-2009, 07:30 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
"Indeed but not about you.. or are you so vain to think you are the only one who browses a forum?" Would seem to imply you do not post about me or solely for my benefit, so that leaves... others.
This statement has no relevance whatsoever to 'why the hit and run' and yes I don't usually reply with you in mind!

linking me to a dictionary does positively nothing if you can't articulate yourself in a 'useful' manner.. there is more to the English language than putting words together!

As per my reply to 'whatisthepoint' learning certain criteria takes proper schooling and academia not a google search, thank you for proving my point and it is precisely why I didn't quote third party praise on the matter!

I imagine those people know something on the study of languages.
You mean maybe I should have included an Amazon book review?
See my above reply! and my previous post!


1. You have the shortest memory of anyone I've spoken to. Reread Ansar's interpretation of the claim that you posted.
"if you think this Qur'an is fabricated, then why don't you write your own book and follow that? See if that enjoys the same success as the word of God."
What does that mean? Ansar's opinion and research though profound aren't the only ones that can be brought to the table..again, what is your point?

I don't think all that time as the world's most populous denomination is a bad innings. I would also suggest that if the Quran had been revealed in the modern day it would probably not have found as many adherents.
The Quran wasn't meant to be revealed modern day.. the age or miracles is a done deal!
A question should be posed.. why was this revealed in this particular point in time?
Moses (p) brought miracles a time when magic in Egypt was popular, that has led the soothsayers of the pharaoh to abandon their ways to follow Monotheism in spite of painful torture from the pharaoh, it wouldn't necessarily have worked during the time of Jesus, when "medicine' not magic was popular and his miracles healed lepers amongst others, well beyond what medicine folks at the time could offer, like-wise Prophet Mohamed brought the miracle of language to folks who epitomized their time in poetry and language used to have their poetry hung on the kaaba yet the most articulate of them couldn't bring a chapter like it even (as stated before) the shortest one composed only of three verses, you'll need to understand something on the matter to see why something is useful to its particular point in time and not some other period which exceeded all expectations. Why would a God want this to be revealed to those people and not something else if he is so capable of something else? Something about human psychology and nature should be addressed!
The last 'miracle' which is the Quran unlike others which can not fall short to dead witnesses and has the staying power, given that it is in the form of a book which is transcendent and its challenge still continues un-opposed modern day!

2. There may well be many variants of Christianity now, but it's fair to say Luke and chums should get some credit for them all.
You can give them all the credits you want, it is inconsequential to me or my understanding of religion!


What are you trying to tell me? Am I to understand that coming to this decision without influence lends it some kind of rational credibility?
Obviously not.
Finding God is a solo Journey, your opinion is your own and does not affect me in any form or fashion, my reply was a direct response to yours assuming that 'so long as I am a Muslim' I am unable to ---, when you don't actually know what it took for me to be Muslim. Or what it took anyone else.. further, it isn't really up to you to decide what is rational and what isn't-- your belief in God or lack thereof is a belief just the same, even less rational when employing a universal negative and then dancing around with florid language to justify it!

I would be the first to admit that language has never been my forte and have more trouble than most translating my thoughts into meaningful sentences. I've always been very good with abstract ideas, numbers and technical skills and bad with communicating, much to my friends' perpetual frustration. Don't assume that when someone is not as good at one thing, you can apply that to everything.
I am waiting still to see the one thing you are good at.. and my religion does dictate that every soul is here to fulfill a purpose.. so goog luck!

I've read the whole thing, not in one go mind and not in Arabic obviously, but I have been through it all. You're hardly immune from confirmation bias and I'm not as swayed by it as you might think. If it appears that way I might well be being argumentative as your approach to my posts brings that out.
I don't think you have, and can tell you why in more than one go as incidents arise.. it is the way you are unable to tie things together.. a person who is really well read on the subject can tie things.. you can't and neither can 'whatisthepoint' though he doesn't feign having read it and has this (otherwise admirable) yet annoying habit to my person of hammering everything to death, was still unable to tie points made in suret al-baqara to suret Ar'rahman.. that is just as an example.. but that is how a person can tell!


Understood, but I still don't see the point in your constant posturing as if you have the monopoly on integrity when the basis of your standpoint is faith, not reason.
And where does reason lie in your brand of faith?
My faith is based on logic, save for the parts that should be left to (trust) of the one that made the other 90% components incontestable!

all the best!
Reply

Joe98
03-31-2009, 10:34 PM
Originally Posted by Shukri18

Gen 1:14-17 tells us that.....

Isaiah 11:12

Revelation 7:1
Job 38:13

Jeremiah 16:19

Daniel 4:11
If you wish to find fault with Christianity, there is no point quoting from the old testament.

Christians live by the teachings in the new testament. The old testament is bit like a history of what went before.

If you want to faults with the bible, it has to be from the new testament.
-
Reply

Azy
04-01-2009, 12:41 AM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
This statement has no relevance whatsoever to 'why the hit and run'
It does. If you still don't get it then I don't know what I can do to make in more clear.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
linking me to a dictionary does positively nothing if you can't articulate yourself in a 'useful' manner.. there is more to the English language than putting words together!
You seemed to find trouble understanding a perfectly simple sentence.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
As per my reply to 'whatisthepoint' learning certain criteria takes proper schooling and academia not a google search, thank you for proving my point and it is precisely why I didn't quote third party praise on the matter!
I didn't see that coming. You implied that Arabic is undisputedly the richest language as it meets certain criteria. Unless all those quotes are part of a strange and concerted anti-Arabic conspiracy it would appear to at least shed some doubt on that claim.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
What does that mean? Ansar's opinion and research though profound aren't the only ones that can be brought to the table..again, what is your point?
You seem to have disassembled my point and answered various parts in a strange order. Ansar's opinion might not be the only one, but it's the only one you referred to, so it's the only one I responded to.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
The Quran wasn't..
..really relevant to the point I was trying to make.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
my reply was a direct response to yours assuming that 'so long as I am a Muslim' I am unable to ---, when you don't actually know what it took for me to be Muslim.
It's irrelevant what it took, unwavering belief in the supernatural origins of scripture and scientific integrity concerning the examination of that scripture do not go hand in hand.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
it isn't really up to you to decide what is rational and what isn't
You do say some odd things, of course I don't decide what is rational.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
-- your belief in God or lack thereof is a belief just the same, even less rational when employing a universal negative and then dancing around with florid language to justify it!
If you're talking about faith on the basis of evidence for the consistency of our reality and experience then yeah, but that's not generally what people mean when they say 'belief'.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I don't think you have
Well that doesn't change the fact does it?
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
it is the way you are unable to tie things together.. a person who is really well read on the subject can tie things..
I wouldn't consider reading it through once in fits and starts as 'well read' and I'm not really surprised I can't tie things together.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
My faith is based on logic, save for the parts that should be left to (trust) of the one that made the other 90% components incontestable!
I don't get it, if it's all logical then why have you let me waste all this time on the board arguing against the truth when I could have been easily shown the correct path?

Why not just show me, logically, that God exists and that God is Allah, then the rest of the world and I can have a chance at avoiding the hell-fire.
Reply

جوري
04-01-2009, 01:11 AM
Originally Posted by Azy
It does. If you still don't get it then I don't know what I can do to make in more clear.
Must be one of those things you, yourself, & Second person pronoun know but is Orphic to the rest of us..

You seemed to find trouble understanding a perfectly simple sentence.
Half of what you write is given to frivolity!

I didn't see that coming. You implied that Arabic is undisputedly the richest language as it meets certain criteria. Unless all those quotes are part of a strange and concerted anti-Arabic conspiracy it would appear to at least shed some doubt on that claim.
Again, there is a criteria which should be met.. when you enroll in formal classes they will teach you what that is...


You seem to have disassembled my point and answered various parts in a strange order. Ansar's opinion might not be the only one, but it's the only one you referred to, so it's the only one I responded to
..really relevant to the point I was trying to make. .
Quoting Ansar was to cement part of my opinion not in lieu of it!

It's irrelevant what it took, unwavering belief in the supernatural origins of scripture and scientific integrity concerning the examination of that scripture do not go hand in hand.
Again, everything to do with the origin of life has a supernatural explanation. There is nothing scientific, least which can be duplicated to that extent that would make what you think or deem 'scientific' any more credible!

You do say some odd things, of course I don't decide what is rational.
If you're talking about faith on the basis of evidence for the consistency of our reality and experience then yeah, but that's not generally what people mean when they say 'belief'.
'Belief' is any cognitive content held as true and where some confidence has been placed.. the definition varies from person to person though the meaning of the word remains the same.

Well that doesn't change the fact does it?
Changes everything.. I don't like wasting people's time, I expect the same courtesy- Do you attend class where you are required to have studied some historical piece, sit there argue about it with your preceptor and when he busts you as not being read, you decide 'well it doesn't change the fact does it?'
Are you kidding me?

I wouldn't consider reading it through once in fits and starts as 'well read'
What does 'I wouldn't consider reading it through once in fits and starts as 'well read'-- mean? or am I supposed to decipher code here with your writing and if/when questioned you decide to hand me a dictionary?
and I'm not really surprised I can't tie things together.
Then why the charade?

I don't get it, if it's all logical then why have you let me waste all this time on the board arguing against the truth when I could have been easily shown the correct path?
You have free will, do with it as you please!
My chosen job here isn't to prove you one way or the other, rather pose questions and point out the flaws in what you (plural) write!

Why not just show me, logically, that God exists and that God is Allah, then the rest of the world and I can have a chance at avoiding the hell-fire.
Pls tell me what would I gain by doing that? Were you yourself able to show anyone logically not just that God doesn't exist but have a viable answer to account for everything in existence and its drive forth, its sentience its form?

I think this verse in the Quran sums it best for me
18:(6) But wouldst thou, perhaps,' torment thyself to death with grief over them if they are not willing to believe in this message ?°
18:(54) THUS, INDEED, have We given in this Qur'an many facets to every kind of lesson [designed] for [the benefit of] mankind.'
However, man is, above all else, always given to contention:
I will tell you this much though, if you truly from your heart had a desire to find and seek truth it will find you and you'll find it.. but I think your mind is already made up and there is no room save for scorn and sarcasm
....
Now if you'll excuse me as I have a migraine.. perhaps you can save your wit for tomorrow when (hopefully) I am feeling a little better..

All the best!
Reply

Azy
04-01-2009, 02:02 AM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Again, there is a criteria which should be met.. when you enroll in formal classes they will teach you what that is...
So you're going to make a statement, providing no evidence, contrary to your own rants about substantiation?
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Again, everything to do with the origin of life has a supernatural explanation.
That is your own assumption, not derived from any evidence or logic.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Changes everything.. ...you decide 'well it doesn't change the fact does it?' Are you kidding me?
You misunderstand. Your belief that I haven't read something doesn't change the fact that I have.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
What does 'I wouldn't consider reading it through once in fits and starts as 'well read'-- mean? or am I supposed to decipher code here with your writing and if/when questioned you decide to hand me a dictionary?
Fits and starts is a very common English phrase meaning roughly 'not all at once'.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
You have free will, do with it as you please!
I think you missed the point again. Thus far nobody has shown me a logical reason to think Islam is truth.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Pls tell me what would I gain by doing that?
That warm fuzzy feeling inside that you helped billions of people reach paradise? I don't know, pick something.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Were you yourself able to show anyone logically not just that God doesn't exist
Whatever happened to burden of proof being on the claimant?
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
but have a viable answer to account for everything in existence and its drive forth, its sentience its form?
Many moons ago, the cause of lightning was unknown and attributed to God's anger. We don't have definite answers for those things but that doesn't mean we should automatically assume we never will or that acceptance of God is the default position. How much has mankind discovered in the last 100 years?
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
18:(6) But wouldst thou, perhaps,' torment thyself to death with grief over them if they are not willing to believe in this message ?°
Is that the Islamic version of "I'm alright Jack"?
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
but I think your mind is already made up and there is no room save for scorn and sarcasm
My mind is perfectly hospitable to strangers when suitable reasoning is used.
Reply

جوري
04-01-2009, 02:35 AM
Originally Posted by Azy
So you're going to make a statement, providing no evidence, contrary to your own rants about substantiation?
That is your own assumption, not derived from any evidence or logic.
The only difference is that I am educated on the matter through formal schooling, rather than 'Isn't it in such and such museum' after avowing with fervency that it is 90% true to the original!

You misunderstand. Your belief that I haven't read something doesn't change the fact that I have.
My belief is based on your arguments which are incoherent at best, and at worst seem to plagiarize crap on various websites to a T, telling me that you've not an original thought to name your own to save your dear life!

Fits and starts is a very common English phrase meaning roughly 'not all at once'.
really?
'I wouldn't consider reading it through once in fits and starts as 'well read'-
Not sure that makes it any clearer, perhaps we can get a reader consensus here on meaning?

I think you missed the point again. Thus far nobody has shown me a logical reason to think Islam is truth.
Thus far no one has shown millions of smokers that smoking is hazardous to their health:




amazing ain't it?
It isn't anyone's job to make you 'believe' anything!


That warm fuzzy feeling inside that you helped billions of people reach paradise? I don't know, pick something.
But here I am to tell you and repeatedly, that I don't give a D*** what becomes of you or others like you.. why is that so difficult to comprehend?. Shouldn't your ever brilliant mind assure you, that if I had a desire to convince anyone of anything, I'd start by traveling to their forums-- spreading the word there? Do you think I am on an Islamic forum because I desire to convert a kaffir?


Whatever happened to burden of proof being on the claimant?
Indeed.. go ahead and prove that 'God doesn't exist because--' we are listening!

Many moons ago, the cause of lightning was unknown and attributed to God's anger. We don't have definite answers for those things but that doesn't mean we should automatically assume we never will or that acceptance of God is the default position. How much has mankind discovered in the last 100 years?
A how has always existed, one that man was meant to discover over and over, but you won't have a deep down "wherefore" to anything..
and by that token, no one is asking you to accept the 'default' posotion you are free to create whatever answer that pleases you or await for when science comes with a complete answer for you.. I know too much about science however on a molecular level to give to emotive words of atheists. Plus I have heard the arguments a million times over, just as you are unconvinced with the other point of view should you carry that inference over as to why your position and stance on the matter isn't any more convincing?!.. Further honestly what do you care what other people think or believe? you're almost busting at the seams over what folks desire for a life style... that is just not natural, you should address why you care so much and why you are here..
A person who desires to learn tries on some level to desegregate from his cognitive conservatism to gauge why it is that there are not just millions but billions of adherents and growing from all walks of life, especially at a time when Islam is maligned so.
Since you already have the answer to everything I suggest you take a break, live and let live-- I am not sure at this stage you are able to bring anything new to the table!

Is that the Islamic version of "I'm alright Jack"?
Not at all, it is a Quranic consolation that every soul is held in pledge by its own deed :
74:38) Every human being will be held in pledge for whatever he has wrought –
and that I am not nor should be aggrieved by your desire to be an atheist.. as stated prior it is your free will and that is the fork on the road where we part ways!


My mind is perfectly hospitable to strangers when suitable reasoning is used.
Irrelevant!

all the best
Reply

Azy
04-01-2009, 12:17 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
The only difference is that I am educated on the matter through formal schooling
Then it shouldn't be too hard to back up your statements, or is there one standard for yourself and one for everyone else?
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Not sure that makes it any clearer
Try "I have read it 1 time, but not in 1 sitting". Any better?
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Indeed.. go ahead and prove that 'God doesn't exist because--' we are listening!
I think this is the problem. You told me your faith was based on logic, but you appear to have based that logic on an assumption without providing any evidence. You have made the implicit assumption that God exists.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
gauge why it is that there are not just millions but billions of adherents and growing from all walks of life
I thought we'd covered argumenta ad populum.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Not at all, it is a Quranic consolation that every soul is held in pledge by its own deed :
74:38) Every human being will be held in pledge for whatever he has wrought –
and that I am not nor should be aggrieved by your desire to be an atheist.. as stated prior it is your free will and that is the fork on the road where we part ways!
"CALL THOU (all mankind] unto thy Sustainer's path with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the most kindly manner"
Reply

جوري
04-01-2009, 01:11 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
Then it shouldn't be too hard to back up your statements, or is there one standard for yourself and one for everyone else?
Go ahead and give me the diagnosis to this
using google and surely I'll grant you the same courtesy-- I am not sure why anyone would bother go to school all together if we can all be scholars from a two second search?

Try "I have read it 1 time, but not in 1 sitting". Any better?
Perhaps you are accustomed to substandards?.. I don't like to engage mediocrity!


I think this is the problem. You told me your faith was based on logic, but you appear to have based that logic on an assumption without providing any evidence. You have made the implicit assumption that God exists.
You have made an argument as well based on 'faith', you have faith that God doesn't exist but haven't provided any evidence to his non-existence, You made an argument (if I can call it that) like wise based on assumption. Not only have you not proven that he doesn't exist but you haven't given us any logical reason(s) as to how everything came to be using science.. Do you understand what it means to hold a universal negative? You are not merely one step behind, you are two steps behind!

I thought we'd covered argumenta ad populum.
Correction, I covered it, after your rant about Christianity and its branches!

"CALL THOU (all mankind] unto thy Sustainer's path with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the most kindly manner"
'Call them' doesn't mean put a gun to their head? correct? You've been warned and that is all anyone can do for you!

all the best
Reply

Whatsthepoint
04-01-2009, 01:24 PM
Skye, what formal education in the field of lingusitic studies have you aquired?
Reply

جوري
04-01-2009, 01:29 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Skye, what formal education in the field of lingusitic studies have you aquired?
In my under-grad along with my major (molecular biology) I have minored in chem, and art history and took six courses in languages plus the history of.. how about you and your good pal?

all the best
Reply

جوري
04-01-2009, 01:33 PM
An addendum to AZY from my previous post.. you forgot this:

IN THE NAME OF GOD, THE MOST GRACIOUS, THE DISPENSER OF GRACE:

(1) SAY: "O you who deny the truth!

(2) "I do not worship that which you worship,

(3) and neither do you worship that which I worship! 1

(4) "And I will not worship ~hat which you have [ever] worshipped,

(5) and neither will you [ever] worship that which I worship. 2

(6) Unto you, your moral law, and unto me, mine !" 3

Do you see how I can tell you are not read? :rolleyes:

All the best!
Reply

Whatsthepoint
04-01-2009, 01:40 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
In my under-grad along with my major (molecular biology) I have minored in chem, and art history and took six courses in languages plus the history of.. how about you and your good pal?

all the best
Well the system here is different than in the US, and the school I go to doesn't enable you to take 6 courses in languages, but I took 3 foreign language classes in which I'm rather fluent, plus I am fluent in my mother tounge and 2 languages that are closely related to it and I can read an additional of 3 slightly less related languages to my own, as well as a fair portion of 3 languages related to the ones I took classes of.
Reply

جوري
04-01-2009, 01:46 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Well the system here is different than in the US, and the school I go to doesn't enable you to take 6 courses in languages, but I took 3 foreign language classes in which I'm rather fluent, plus I am fluent in my mother tounge and 2 languages that are closely related to it and I can read an additional of 3 slightly less related languages to my own, as well as a fair portion of 3 languages related to the ones I took classes of.
Great -- you can take as many or as little as you want here, plus outside of academia you can take courses at say the french institute or German institute.. my father as well is fluent in 7 languages plus wrote the first comprehensive Swahili/Arabic dictionary..

We are a family that loves words.. other than that in introduction courses they cover things like
1-The most difficult language being Chinese
2-Poorest language German
3-richest language
4-most evolved Semitic language
5-Romantic languages
etc etc

All the best!
Reply

Whatsthepoint
04-01-2009, 02:05 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Great -- you can take as many or as little as you want here, plus outside of academia you can take courses at say the french institute or German institute.. my father as well is fluent in 7 languages plus wrote the first comprehensive Swahili/Arabic dictionary..

We are a family that loves words.. other than that in introduction courses they cover things like
1-The most difficult language being Chinese
2-Poorest language German
3-richest language
4-most evolved Semitic language
5-Romantic languages
etc etc

All the best!
I find it hard to believe anyone would present this as facts, apart from no. 4, they all depends on several factors and are subjective, the criteria itself would have to be subjective, I don't know what you hard or who told you what but I am certain categories 1 through 3 and 5 are not universally accepted in the lingusitic scientific community.
Reply

جوري
04-01-2009, 02:35 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
I find it hard to believe anyone would present this as facts, apart from no. 4, they all depends on several factors and are subjective, the criteria itself would have to be subjective, I don't know what you hard or who told you what but I am certain categories 1 through 3 and 5 are not universally accepted in the lingusitic scientific community.
people who set criteria try to make it as scientific as possible, even if it appears to the naked eye like a random thing:
Can you tell the difference off hand between:
schizophrenia, Schizophreniform, Schizotypal and Schizoid personalities? They all seem so grossly related save for the thin line criteria that defines them..
A group of scholars in the field get together and decide what that is and then they disseminate it throughout academia.. They do that in almost everything from surgery to Pathology to languages.

I am only relaying what I was formally taught.. (quite possible it has changed through the yrs) but I doubt it!

All the best
Reply

Azy
04-01-2009, 04:18 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I am only relaying what I was formally taught..
What you did was make an assertion that Arabic is objectively the richest language and that it would be quite obvious to any linguist or philologist. You have failed to show that any professionals share this opinion let alone a consensus among them, that languages can be categorised objectively as to their richness or even what the criteria for such a categorisation might be.

Surely given the unquestionable veracity of your claim it would be trivial to find a dozen or so academics who are in complete agreement rather than "I did a minor history of language course".
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
You have made an argument as well based on 'faith', you have faith that God doesn't exist but haven't provided any evidence to his non-existence
That's quite simply false. I haven't faith that God doesn't exist, I don't know whether or not God exists and wouldn't claim to know or believe either way.

Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Not only have you not proven that he doesn't exist but you haven't given us any logical reason(s) as to how everything came to be using science..
Why on earth should it fall to me to prove that he does not exist? You made the initial implicit claim that God does exist, and that "My faith is based on logic" but decline to furnish us with a description of how you logically went from agnosticism to believing in God.

I asked you to show me in logical terms that God exists, but instead you have skipped ahead to the assumption that he does exist. That's not basing your faith on logic.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Correction, I covered it, after your rant about Christianity and its branches!
Very true but it wasn't actually what I was arguing in my post, though it seems you were in yours.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
'Call them' doesn't mean put a gun to their head? correct? You've been warned and that is all anyone can do for you!
No it's not. You claim to have a perfectly reasonable and logical explanation that shows God exists, and the Quran is true. What you could do for me is tell me what it is.


Just out of curiosity, if I haven't read the message in it's original form (i.e. Arabic), am I classed as having received the message?
Reply

جوري
04-01-2009, 04:29 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
What you did was make an assertion that Arabic is objectively the richest language and that it would be quite obvious to any linguist or philologist. You have failed to show that any professionals share this opinion let alone a consensus among them, that languages can be categorised objectively as to their richness or even what the criteria for such a categorisation might be.

Surely given the unquestionable veracity of your claim it would be trivial to find a dozen or so academics who are in complete agreement rather than "I did a minor history of language course".
I take it you drowned me in bull because you couldn't find an answer on the 'world wide web' to a simple pathology slide? What is that? You need to purchase Robbins review of pathology-- after having learned something about histology? through formal proper education -- Yeah I thought so!

It would be easy for me to assert a point through a google search such as what you have done earlier, you see all you needed was this

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...guage&aq=f&oq=

to find out more than one source on the matter..
but that is the method of unlearned, which is actually exactly what you are!
Further I have said nothing to a 'minor in languages'.. I said I have taken several courses on languages. Unlike you I don't feign degrees I don't actually have or hide behind a web search when having no appropriate understanding of the subject or how to sort through it..


That's quite simply false. I haven't faith that God doesn't exist, I don't know whether or not God exists and wouldn't claim to know or believe either way.
That is what an atheist is-- Someone who denies the existence of god through unwavering faith!
You either consider that God exists or you don't.. which is it?


Why on earth should it fall to me to prove that he does not exist? You made the initial implicit claim that God does exist, and that "My faith is based on logic" but decline to furnish us with a description of how you logically went from agnosticism to believing in God.
I said my faith is based on logic save for the portion of it that falls on trust.. do re-read here
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
My faith is based on logic, save for the parts that should be left to (trust) of the one that made the other 90% components incontestable!
I don't owe you an explanation otherwise of my journey ( I have also said something of that matter that finding God is a solo journey).. You on the other hand are not only impressing upon us a universal negative but you haven't gone the extra mile to provide us with how it all came to be either from:


or


the two alleged 'scientific' stances on the matter.. or generously taught us in a likewise logical scientific fashion why that should dispel the "God did it myth"!

I asked you to show me in logical terms that God exists, but instead you have skipped ahead to the assumption that he does exist. That's not basing your faith on logic.
and I have repeatedly told you, logically or not, I have no interest in starting a long theological/scientific debate with you -- how many times must I state it for it to take hold?

Very true but it wasn't actually what I was arguing in my post, though it seems you were in yours.
Perhaps you should re-visit what you initially wrote
Originally Posted by Azy
What a bizarre claim to make considering the man-made Bible was the dominant religion for so long and has 2 billion followers.
.
.. or do you have difficulty with both comprehension, reading and writing?


No it's not. You claim to have a perfectly reasonable and logical explanation that shows God exists, and the Quran is true. What you could do for me is tell me what it is.
I have never made either claim, I stated (see above and previous) I have reached the decision that God exists through logic, and the Quran certainly is its own testament to the truth, one can employ more than one formula to reach the same conclusion Why should my route be more or less impressive than Dr. Jeffrey Lang or Dr. Laurence B. Brown (it is a personal quest) -- I will not slave however, over exegesis with you anymore than I (as in previous threads) can enclose an entire medical compendium for you, or teach you parsing and linguistics or how to drive a stick shift or revive someone in Vfib, or spoon feed you Jello (who the hell do you think you are?) and I have so much as told you that nothing would give me greater pleasure than seeing you rot in hell!

Just out of curiosity, if I haven't read the message in it's original form (i.e. Arabic), am I classed as having received the message?
You are forewarned in the same manner smokers are forewarned by the surgeon general on the box which they purchase.. any further reading on the matter will have to be done on your own private time!

all the best!
Reply

Muhaba
04-01-2009, 06:32 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
What you did was make an assertion that Arabic is objectively the richest language and that it would be quite obvious to any linguist or philologist. You have failed to show that any professionals share this opinion let alone a consensus among them, that languages can be categorised objectively as to their richness or even what the criteria for such a categorisation might be.

Surely given the unquestionable veracity of your claim it would be trivial to find a dozen or so academics who are in complete agreement rather than "I did a minor history of language course".
That's quite simply false. I haven't faith that God doesn't exist, I don't know whether or not God exists and wouldn't claim to know or believe either way.

Why on earth should it fall to me to prove that he does not exist? You made the initial implicit claim that God does exist, and that "My faith is based on logic" but decline to furnish us with a description of how you logically went from agnosticism to believing in God.

I asked you to show me in logical terms that God exists, but instead you have skipped ahead to the assumption that he does exist. That's not basing your faith on logic.
Very true but it wasn't actually what I was arguing in my post, though it seems you were in yours.
No it's not. You claim to have a perfectly reasonable and logical explanation that shows God exists, and the Quran is true. What you could do for me is tell me what it is.


Just out of curiosity, if I haven't read the message in it's original form (i.e. Arabic), am I classed as having received the message?

You should study the Quraan, preferably starting with the last chapters and going backward. this is because the last chapters were revealed first and they are shorter so you can study them in very little time. you can also read their commentary at this website: http://www.quranenglish.com/tafheem_quran/

If you want guidance and are sincere in your search, God will definately help you.
Reply

Azy
04-01-2009, 08:51 PM
From the Ask A Linguist section of The Linguist List, a website where members of the public pose questions to professional linguists.

Dear Linguists,
Is the concept of a 'rich' language still existing? Is there a way one can know how rich or strong a language is?

Richness, is a very difficult quality to define and is one that linguists don't bother themselves with, partly because we really don't know what it means and partly because it lends itself to well to judgments of cultural superiority.
Herbert Frederic Stahlke, Professor Emeritus - Ball State University

The term "rich" is a term linguists often avoid (like the plague) - It's much too loaded.
Elizabeth J Pyatt Ph.D (Linguistics) - Pennsylvania State University
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
That is what an atheist is-- Someone who denies the existence of god through unwavering faith!
You either consider that God exists or you don't.. which is it?
That may be what an atheist is, but it's not what I am.
I neither believe in nor deny God's existence, as a former agnostic you should understand that.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I have reached the decision that God exists through logic
I said my faith is based on logic save for the portion of it that falls on trust..
Then don't pretend that knowledge of God or the legitimacy of the Quran as divine is scientific or based on logic. Your logic is predicated on faith, as such the logical steps you make might be valid but the conclusion is only accurate if your premises hold true.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Perhaps you should re-visit what you initially wrote
.. or do you have difficulty with both comprehension, reading and writing?
Obviously you do, that is not an argument ad populum because I was not suggesting the Bible was true as it had many followers, but that it was successful.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I have so much as told you that nothing would give me greater pleasure than seeing you rot in hell!
You're a great example of what is wrong with faith.
Reply

alcurad
04-01-2009, 09:10 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
Your logic is predicated on faith, as such the logical steps you make might be valid but the conclusion is only accurate if your premises hold true.
Azy, what logic is Not predicated on faith?
that is, what are axioms if not assumptions based on faith,,
Reply

Azy
04-01-2009, 09:27 PM
Originally Posted by alcurad
Azy, what logic is Not predicated on faith?
that is, what are axioms if not assumptions based on faith,,
This is correct but there are faiths based on experience and evidence, and there are faiths based on other things.
Reply

جوري
04-01-2009, 11:22 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
From the Ask A Linguist section of The Linguist List, a website where members of the public pose questions to professional linguists.
Dear Linguists,
Is the concept of a 'rich' language still existing? Is there a way one can know how rich or strong a language is?

Richness, is a very difficult quality to define and is one that linguists don't bother themselves with, partly because we really don't know what it means and partly because it lends itself to well to judgments of cultural superiority.
Herbert Frederic Stahlke, Professor Emeritus - Ball State University

The term "rich" is a term linguists often avoid (like the plague) - It's much too loaded.
Elizabeth J Pyatt Ph.D (Linguistics) - Pennsylvania State University
Interesting indeed-- When classifying a melanoma, a pathologist has the good fortune to use of two elements to his/her pathological staging, either to measure thickness, such as in Breslow, looking for depth in mm or uses Clark's classification aka (level of invasion-- whether limited to epidermis, papillary, reticular or subcutaneous etc etc.. Are they both correct? absolutely!.. a wise pathologist usually doesn't withhold or dismiss the research of other pathologists even if new and improved methods arise, it certainly doesn't nullify what is previously established and in his/her report might even go as far as to provide the clinician with both classifications where the clinician can then choose what s/he may to employ appropriate treatment-- thus referring me to a quote written by someone disillusioned or disenchanted with a term, doesn't do much for me (sorry)!


Try to translate that to your mind, the next time you google me from a website to cement a point you are trying to cement ( as irrelevant and auxillary as it is to the topic and as a sudden point of interest to deflect away from the real problem (which is you alleging to have read and comment on topics you've not even remotely skimmed through) !.. I always knew I could give you some 24,000 site to a point I am making it isn't that difficult, but instead I urged you to get a proper education and I still hope it is something you'll consider.. You'll go out there in the world and make a fool of yourself repeatedly where you can be more painfully scrutinized not just by a mere screen name on a public blog but for failure to distinguish and weed through a myriad of information thrown at you!


That may be what an atheist is, but it's not what I am.
I neither believe in nor deny God's existence, as a former agnostic you should understand that.
Agnosticism is a place of vacillation to most people.. it is a rest house but not a permanent solution!

Then don't pretend that knowledge of God or the legitimacy of the Quran as divine is scientific or based on logic. Your logic is predicated on faith, as such the logical steps you make might be valid but the conclusion is only accurate if your premises hold true.
To me God, the Quran are an undisputed fact based on sound reasonable judgment of a criteria which I have set up with a particular confidence interval. You are not the one who is to dictate to me what I should take into consideration or weed out in the process. What works for me, does not work for everyone.. Many a colleagues modern day, still consider 'Psychiatry' to be a nonsensical branch of medicine based on alot of quackery and that is certainly their prerogative.. but there is a science even to something as hypothetical and colorful as mental disorders!


Obviously you do, that is not an argument ad populum because I was not suggesting the Bible was true as it had many followers, but that it was successful.
Your meanings evolve as you post, I say it is good to keep a certain margin given how many times you end up with a foot in your mouth!
You're a great example of what is wrong with faith.
You are a great example of why kids should stay in school =)

all the best!
Reply

Chuck
04-02-2009, 01:16 AM
Originally Posted by Azy
From the Ask A Linguist section of The Linguist List, a website where members of the public pose questions to professional linguists.

Dear Linguists,
Is the concept of a 'rich' language still existing? Is there a way one can know how rich or strong a language is?

Richness, is a very difficult quality to define and is one that linguists don't bother themselves with, partly because we really don't know what it means and partly because it lends itself to well to judgments of cultural superiority.
Herbert Frederic Stahlke, Professor Emeritus - Ball State University

The term "rich" is a term linguists often avoid (like the plague) - It's much too loaded.
Elizabeth J Pyatt Ph.D (Linguistics) - Pennsylvania State University
That may be what an atheist is, but it's not what I am.
I neither believe in nor deny God's existence, as a former agnostic you should understand that.
Then don't pretend that knowledge of God or the legitimacy of the Quran as divine is scientific or based on logic. Your logic is predicated on faith, as such the logical steps you make might be valid but the conclusion is only accurate if your premises hold true.
Obviously you do, that is not an argument ad populum because I was not suggesting the Bible was true as it had many followers, but that it was successful.
You're a great example of what is wrong with faith.
Reply

جوري
04-02-2009, 01:30 AM
Originally Posted by Chuck
:haha: brilliant.. I am not a fan of ganging up on people, but I really enjoyed this .. Thank you, don't mind if I use it along with my other fav.



for those days when I wanna fill my life with drivel

:w:
Reply

alcurad
04-02-2009, 02:51 AM
now now,,
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-02-2006, 03:40 AM
  2. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 06-01-2006, 10:15 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-20-2006, 07:23 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-15-2006, 06:40 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!