Richard Dawkins: Answer My Questions Please.

[Ramadhan]

Given that there are hundreds of different languages and often multiple different attempts to produce the best and most accurate translation into each language, and the definition of a version is the result of a particular production of a given translation I should find it surprising if there were not just thousands, but tens of thousands of different versions.

I am very surprised that a PASTOR like you does not even know the fact there are so many bible versions is not JUST the results of translations, re-translations, and re-re-translations but also due to the fact that some bible versions contain 66 books, some 73 books, some 81 books, etc.
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and not calling you a liar (just in case you get offended and report me), I am only attributing it to either your lack of general knowledge about bible, or maybe simply due to forgetfulness.

How many different translations of the Qur'an are there?

I don't know how many translations of the Quran there are, but I know one thing for certain: there is only one qur'an in the world and it is the same qur'an that the prophet SAW taught us.

By the way, I know that you christians don't have the original bible (the oldest existing bible, codex sinaiticus is from around 350 AD, and it is not even the original, as no one know for sure what language the bible was written onb: koine greek? aramaic? hebrew?), so I am just pointing the fact that despite all the retranslations efforts, you christians will never know if what you have in the bible(s) now is the same as what was originally written.

 

[Woodrow]

I'm sorry. I didn't realize I was being vague. As you said, I wasn't talking about Christian theology. I was talking about what it is that Muslims accept as scripture. Either all Muslims accept the exact same scriptures or they don't. The only way that question would be vague is if you are vague as to what your scriptures actually are.




I'm talking about the totality of what Muslims consider scripture. Do all Muslims accept only the Qur'an as their scriptures? Don't some of them, but not all of them, accept other things such as the Hadith as scripture as well?

Peace Gene,

While most of us accept the Ahadith as being truth and what needs to be followed, they are not scripture in the Christian concept. We do not believe them to be the direct word of Allaah(swt) rather they are verified observations and quotes made by those closest to Prophet Muhammad(PBUH). They give us an account of how he lived the Qur'an. Because he was the one closest to the Qur'an we feel that he is the best example of how we should live as Muslims.

Yes we do have Muslims who reject the Ahadith (Ahadith is the plural of Hadith). Most of us can not understand how they can correctly follow the Qur'an if they do not believe they are required to follow the Authenticate and reliable Ahadith. The Qur'an states we are to follow the teachings of Muhammad(PBUH). The Ahadith are our source for that.

Among the possible 1/2 million books of Ahadith only 4 are accepted as having been found to be fully verified and reliable. But those verified as authenticate do contain many thousands of hadith, which need to be used as guidance in learning how Islam is to be followed. That does not mean the others are false, it means they have not been fully verified, there is a possibility some are in error. Therefore we can not use them as teaching guides. They are preserved because there is a possibility one day some will be verified by the finding of proof of continuity to the Prophet(PBUH) those that are found to be in error are still retained as an understanding of how some unverified practices came to be, among other reasons.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Peace Gene,

While most of us accept the Ahadith as being truth and what needs to be followed, they are not scripture in the Christian concept. We do not believe them to be the direct word of Allaah(swt) rather they are verified observations and quotes made by those closest to Prophet Muhammad(PBUH). They give us an account of how he lived the Qur'an. Because he was the one closest to the Qur'an we feel that he is the best example of how we should live as Muslims.

Woodrow, it appears that you have a mistaken idea of the Christian concept of scripture. It does NOT have to be the direct words of God to be considered scripture. Perhpas Muslims don't use the term "scripture" to refer to their holy writings. But you do have writings that are considered the authoritative source and guide for the practice of one's faith. Is it only the Qur'an that is God-ordained for that purpose in Islam? I thought that you (personally, I'm speaking) accepted the Ahadith as well?

Maybe I should start a new thread to explore this concept?

 

[Zafran]

Woodrow, it appears that you have a mistaken idea of the Christian concept of scripture. It does NOT have to be the direct words of God to be considered scripture. Perhpas Muslims don't use the term "scripture" to refer to their holy writings. But you do have writings that are considered the authoritative source and guide for the practice of one's faith. Is it only the Qur'an that is God-ordained for that purpose in Islam? I thought that you (personally, I'm speaking) accepted the Ahadith as well?

Maybe I should start a new thread to explore this concept?

Christians believe the bible is the inspired word of God - there is a dispute that occured in the 16th (reformation) century which ended up one group actually taking books out of it and rejecting them being part of the bible - so we have a 66 book and 73 book difference - any claim that the bible has not been changed is clearly wrong as christians cannot even agree on how many books there should be in the bible. 1000 years after christ one group decided that bible should have 66 books and the other christians for over 1000 years got it wrong. The same cannot be said for the Quran where 100% of the muslims accept it. Even with Muslim disputes nobody ever decided to change the Quran or take things out of it or add things to it - especially not after 1000 years of consensus.

 

[Ramadhan]

Perhpas Muslims don't use the term "scripture" to refer to their holy writings

We only consider holy if it's from God, hence we don't take ahadith as "holy".

Unlike christians who consider writings by unknown men as holy.

so we differ.

 

[Ramadhan]

so we have a 66 book and 73 book difference

The bible used by some orthodox christians have 81 books.

There are other variations too, and each group claims they have the "right" bible.

 

[Grace Seeker]

I am very surprised that a PASTOR like you does not even know the fact there are so many bible versions is not JUST the results of translations, re-translations, and re-re-translations but also due to the fact that some bible versions contain 66 books, some 73 books, some 81 books, etc.
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and not calling you a liar (just in case you get offended and report me), I am only attributing it to either your lack of general knowledge about bible, or maybe simply due to forgetfulness.

Or not believing that this is what you are referring to when mentioning "thousands". There are indeed different groups of Christians that accept different sets of books as being authoritative. But the number of different accepted canons does NOT number in the thousands, but only a handful. So, if you aren't referring to multiple translations and re-translations, what are you referring to which leads you to conclude that there are "currently thousands of Bible versions"?

By the way, I know that you christians don't have the original bible (the oldest existing bible, codex sinaiticus is from around 350 AD, and it is not even the original, as no one know for sure what language the bible was written onb: koine greek? aramaic? hebrew?), so I am just pointing the fact that despite all the retranslations efforts, you christians will never know if what you have in the bible(s) now is the same as what was originally written.

There are several issues in this part of your post. I'll only touch on a few.

no one know for sure what language the bible was written

Define "to know"? I don't "know" that Muhammad spoke Arabic because I wasn't there. But I say that I know he spoke Arabic because I accept it as true based on the integrity of the information that I do have. In that same way we do in fact know what language most books of the Bible were written in. The only book over which I have ever heard any serious questions raised is Matthew. The Old Testament was written predominately in Hebrew, with portions of Daniel and Ezra written in Aramaic. With regard to the New Testament, there is a split verdict as to whether Matthew was originally written in Aramaic or Greek, the oldest copies of it today are available only in Greek. The rest of the New Testament was most certainly written in Greek, even as a few phrases of Aramaic survive in the Greek text.

you christians don't have the original bible

"Original" bible. You do realize that there was never an original bible. The Bible was not written as a book. It is a library of books. There was an original Matthew. And there was an original Letter to the Hebrews. And there was an original Maccabbes. But the closest to an "original" Bible would have been the first time all of these disparate documents were grouped together and bound into one volume. So, even if we had all the originally penned autographs (something that Islam doesn't have either, since Muhammad couldn't write), we still couldn't have an original Bible the invention of the codex in the late 2nd century AD. In other words, the accusation that we don't have an original Bible, while true, is a spurious one, having less to do with our ability to recreate the original text of the various books than you seem to imagine.

 

[Grace Seeker]

The bible used by some orthodox christians have 81 books.

There are other variations too, and each group claims they have the "right" bible.

The "other variations" part is true. Wikpedia has a really easy way to see this in a nice graph they have produced: Wiki article "Biblical canon".

But as far as "each group claims they have the 'right' bible", you're thinking in Islamic terms again. Actually, for the Christian, the different lists of canonical books is not a claim to being "right" as much as it is providing information to those who seek to receive God's guidance as to what writings are considered authoritative places to look for it. You'll note the the Ethopian Church considers the canon to still be open, meaning that God might yet reveal something new to us that we would need to be aware of and use.

 

[Grace Seeker]

We only consider holy if it's from God, hence we don't take ahadith as "holy".

Unlike christians who consider writings by unknown men as holy.

so we differ.

We also have different definitions of the term "holy" apparently. In the Christian understanding of the term something doesn't have to be from God to be holy. All Christians are called to live holy lives, meaning lives that are set apart for God's purposes. That process of being set apart by or for God is the Christian understanding of the term "holy". Are not the ahadith something that are used to help the Muslim live a holy life? I thought this was their major function in Islamic society today?

 

[Atlast]

Hello all, I am new to the forums.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Hello all, I am new to the forums.

Hello, and welcome.

You picked a wierd thread to make your first post in. But you were probably drawn here by Richard Dawkins name in the title. We need to respect that, but seem to have drifted far from the OP. So, that this thread may return to a discussion of Richard Dawkins, I'm going to continue this other conversation on a new thread: "What Are The Scriptures Of Islam?"

 

[Ramadhan]

As I expected, GS is playing with words again.
With christianity, it does seem not possible to get to the issues in straightforward and logical manner.

Or not believing that this is what you are referring to when mentioning "thousands". There are indeed different groups of Christians that accept different sets of books as being authoritative

So, which one of those bible is the most authorotative one?
Are all bible versions the same?

I don't "know" that Muhammad spoke Arabic because I wasn't there. But I say that I know he spoke Arabic because I accept it as true based on the integrity of the information that I do have. In that same way we do in fact know what language most books of the Bible were written in.

the difference is, we certainly know who prophet Muhammad SAW was, but no one knows who the authors of the bible.
Do you, GS?
because plenty of bible scholars for the past more than thousand years certainly have not identified who they were.
And if you don't know who they were (and by the way, guessing is not good enough), how can you be certain what language(s) they wrote.

With regard to the New Testament, there is a split verdict as to whether Matthew was originally written in Aramaic or Greek, the oldest copies of it today are available only in Greek. The rest of the New Testament was most certainly written in Greek, even as a few phrases of Aramaic survive in the Greek text.

I am noting how you chose to use the adjective "most certainly" to denote that there is a degree of uncertainty.
Do you know that until now there is no unanimous decision among bible scholars for the past more than thousand years as to what language the NT was written in?
And do you know that the oldest surviving bible is codex sinaiticus?

"Original" bible. You do realize that there was never an original bible. The Bible was not written as a book. It is a library of books. There was an original Matthew. And there was an original Letter to the Hebrews. And there was an original Maccabbes. But the closest to an "original" Bible would have been the first time all of these disparate documents were grouped together and bound into one volume

Oh you know what we mean when we say "orginal bible". stop playing with words.
Ok, I will rephrase. None of the original books of the bible survived today.

something that Islam doesn't have either, since Muhammad couldn't write

I am amazed at your persistence in trying to paint something which is not true about islam, although you surely know the history of quran and the prophet SAW.
The prophet SAW did not wirte but he asked his sahaba to write and Usman ra compiled. On top of that, many sahaba memorized it by heart during the life of the prophet SAW. And we still have in existence today quran from the 1st hijrah century.

 

[Ramadhan]

But as far as "each group claims they have the 'right' bible", you're thinking in Islamic terms again. Actually, for the Christian, the different lists of canonical books is not a claim to being "right" as much as it is providing information to those who seek to receive God's guidance as to what writings are considered authoritative places to look for it. You'll note the the Ethopian Church considers the canon to still be open, meaning that God might yet reveal something new to us that we would need to be aware of and use.

It seems you have the view that all bible versions are equal and can be used. Is this view also shared by majority chrtistians?

 

[Ramadhan]

Are not the ahadith something that are used to help the Muslim live a holy life? I thought this was their major function in Islamic society today?

We use the ahadith to live our live as close as possible to that of prophet Muhammad SAW, the best example for mankind.

 

[Hugo]

It seems you have the view that all bible versions are equal and can be used. Is this view also shared by majority chrtistians?

It perhaps is splitting hairs but it depends what you mean by equal here. Different translations and different versions of the same translation are used with different ends. For example, one might use one for devotional reading which does not contain foot notes and references where as if you were doing detailed study those would be helpful. So no one would use say the translation called the Message for study because of its free nature, no one would use the Amplified version for reading in church because it inserts notes into the text to help the reader. The whole point is that one is trying to understand what the text is saying and one uses the appropriate tool or tools (commentaries, Greek Lexicons etc). Even for the Qu'ran in Arabic one cannot assume that every reader understands perfectly every single word and meaning because of course it is not modern Arabic but Arabic as used in the 7th century and Qu'ran translations themselves abound with foot notes and references (well the best ones do).

For the Christian and the Jew there are central ideas so they don't focus on every jot and tittle but want to see what God has to say. It may help you to see what this means if I recall a a story about the very famous Rabbi Hillel who lived around the time of Jesus. There used to be two great rabbis, Hillel and Shamai. Shamai was very strict and literal in his interpretations of the Torah, whereas Hillel was a lot more lenient and easy-going. They each had hundreds of followers and students who would regularly get into heated arguments. One day a man came to Rabbi Shamai and asked him "teach me the whole Torah on one leg" (meaning, teach it to me quickly, in the time I could stand to be on one leg). Shamai became very angry and had his students chase the man out of the house.

So the man went to Rabbi Hillel and asked him "teach me the whole Torah on one leg". Hillel looked at him curiously, and then thought for a long time. Eventually he took a piece of paper an wrote on it "love your fellow like yourself". He gave this note to the man and said "this is the whole Torah on one leg" the rest is commentary no go and read the commentary.

 

[Ramadhan]

It perhaps is splitting hairs but it depends what you mean by equal here. Different translations and different versions of the same translation are used with different ends. For example, one might use one for devotional reading which does not contain foot notes and references where as if you were doing detailed study those would be helpful. So no one would use say the translation called the Message for study because of its free nature, no one would use the Amplified version for reading in church because it inserts notes into the text to help the reader. The whole point is that one is trying to understand what the text is saying and one uses the appropriate tool or tools (commentaries, Greek Lexicons etc).

I see. Thanks for the confirmation.
So according to you, all christians are allowed to use all bibles, it's just a matter of which bible to use for which purpose.

Because many times I get different answers from christians, let me confirm again:

According to your explanation above, the Catholic church allows all catholics to use KJV?

And does your church (as you list your location as south of england, I assume you are anglican) also use New World Translation?:

Just a yes or no a would be sufficient, please.

It is pretty hard to decipher from your ramblings whether you mean yes or no actually.

 

[Hugo]

I see. Thanks for the confirmation. So according to you, all christians are allowed to use all bibles, it's just a matter of which bible to use for which purpose. Because many times I get different answers from christians, let me confirm again: According to your explanation above, the Catholic church allows all catholics to use KJV? And does your church (as you list your location as south of england, I assume you are anglican) also use New World Translation?: Just a yes or no a would be sufficient, please. It is pretty hard to decipher from your ramblings whether you mean yes or no actually.

Sorry about my ramblings but I will now be as clear as I can, the answer is yes, certainly, absolutely correct, it is indisputably and unequivocally true that any Christian or for that matter anyone at all in a society where freedom of thought and expression is valued can go into any book shop and buy and read any Bible translation or even a Ancient Greek one. More that that they can also by a Bible in almost any language from Sanskrit to Kreyol. Would you not agree that God's message transcends any language and he cannot be limited by any language. Thus if a person decides for Christianity today they can read the scriptures in their own language today also - that is perhaps the miracle of the Bible in that is translates and is wonderful in any language. I myself comes from a very small nation (about 3M people) with a language that is an isolate (belongs to no known language family) and when the Bible is read at home it sounds magnificent and beautiful and some of my fellow citizens will say "if there is a language of Heaven then we have it". The various major churches may recommend for practical purposes a particular Bible but I have never heard any one forbid others and even if they did it has no force in law or personal accountability

Peace an blessings on you

 

[Woodrow]

Sorry about my ramblings but I will now be as clear as I can, the answer is yes, certainly, absolutely correct, it is indisputably and unequivocally true that any Christian or for that matter anyone at all in a society where freedom of thought and expression is valued can go into any book shop and buy and read any Bible translation or even a Ancient Greek one. More that that they can also by a Bible in almost any language from Sanskrit to Kreyol. Would you not agree that God's message transcends any language and he cannot be limited by any language. Thus if a person decides for Christianity today they can read the scriptures in their own language today also - that is perhaps the miracle of the Bible in that is translates and is wonderful in any language. I myself comes from a very small nation (about 3M people) with a language that is an isolate (belongs to no known language family) and when the Bible is read at home it sounds magnificent and beautiful and some of my fellow citizens will say "if there is a language of Heaven then we have it". The various major churches may recommend for practical purposes a particular Bible but I have never heard any one forbid others and even if they did it has no force in law or personal accountability

Peace an blessings on you

In my early life as a Catholic we were pretty much discouraged from reading the Bible without the guidance of a Priest and if we did so we had to use the Latin Vulgate or the Douay-Rheims. It was considered quite sinful if (Heaven Forbid) we read the KJV or any other "Protestant" Bible.It may not have been forbidden by US law but it sure awakened the wrath of the Parish Priest.

 

[Hugo]

In my early life as a Catholic we were pretty much discouraged from reading the Bible without the guidance of a Priest and if we did so we had to use the Latin Vulgate or the Douay-Rheims. It was considered quite sinful if (Heaven Forbid) we read the KJV or any other "Protestant" Bible.It may not have been forbidden by US law but it sure awakened the wrath of the Parish Priest.

Don't want to embarrass you but how long ago was this and where? What you say was certainly true just before Martin Luther's time and for quite a while afterwards but I have not seen that kind of thing for a long long time though the church may have a preferred Bible for use in their services for obvious reasons. In a way to me what you describe is not unlike the insistence on reading the Qu'ran in Arabic - do you see it like that?

 

[Ramadhan]

Sorry about my ramblings but I will now be as clear as I can, the answer is yes, certainly, absolutely correct, it is indisputably and unequivocally true that any Christian or for that matter anyone at all in a society where freedom of thought and expression is valued can go into any book shop and buy and read any Bible translation or even a Ancient Greek one. More that that they can also by a Bible in almost any language from Sanskrit to Kreyol..... etc etc..

I think I need to be more specific when discussing things with you.
I did not mean whether christians are allowed to buy any bible and read them.

Ok, here's Im trying to be more specific:
Are new world translations bible allowed to be used in official services in catholic churches?