Richard Dawkins: Answer My Questions Please.

[Hugo]

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?

As far as I know the Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible (in the United States), the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Version and the New Jerusalem Bible are the most commonly used in English-speaking Catholic churches, the Challoner revision of the Douay–Rheims is often the Bible of choice of English-speaking Traditionalist Catholics, it being a translation of the Latin Vulgate, which is itself a translation from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts by the efforts of Jerome (345–420), whose translation was declared to be the authentic Latin version of the Bible by the Council of Trent.

The only difference here is that Catholics accept the Old Testament Apocrypha although as far as I can remember I have never head any of its books read or referred to in a church service. None of the NT apocrypha is accepted.

 

[Grace Seeker]

The only difference here is that Catholics accept the Old Testament Apocrypha although as far as I can remember I have never head any of its books read or referred to in a church service.

I have, and in protestant churches even, not just Catholic churches.

 

[Ramadhan]

As far as I know the Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible (in the United States), the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Version and the New Jerusalem Bible are the most commonly used in English-speaking Catholic churches, the Challoner revision of the Douay–Rheims is often the Bible of choice of English-speaking Traditionalist Catholics, it being a translation of the Latin Vulgate, which is itself a translation from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts by the efforts of Jerome (345–420), whose translation was declared to be the authentic Latin version of the Bible by the Council of Trent.

The only difference here is that Catholics accept the Old Testament Apocrypha although as far as I can remember I have never head any of its books read or referred to in a church service. None of the NT apocrypha is accepted.

Woww... you DO have the talent of making really long and winded replies without actually answering the question. I don't know if that's admirable, though.

I did not ask what bibles the catholic church is using, and I am sure you know that.

let me ask you again:

Does the catholic church allow its priests to use the New World Translation bible in the services of the catholic church?

(I assume the answer is yes, since you and grace seeker have said on record here that all bibles are the same and can be used by any christian, but I am just making sure)

 

[Hugo]

I have, and in protestant churches even, not just Catholic churches.

Interesting, can you give us a bit more information, was it read from the lecture as a normal scripture reading, were they preached on etc?

 

[Hugo]

Woww... you DO have the talent of making really long and winded replies without actually answering the question. I don't know if that's admirable, though. I did not ask what bibles the catholic church is using, and I am sure you know that. let me ask you again: Does the catholic church allow its priests to use the New World Translation bible in the services of the catholic church? (I assume the answer is yes, since you and grace seeker have said on record here that all bibles are the same and can be used by any christian, but I am just making sure)

Is it really necessary to snipe like this, my reply was 141 words and your further question was 104 words. You must know I guess that the New World Translation was published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in 1961 and distributed by Jehovah's Witnesses - if you want to learn more I suggest you go to Wikipedia which also contains a short critical review and a large number of other references including some by distinguished Greek and Hebrew scholars. But as I have said before there is nothing to stop anyone buying a copy if they so wish. Whether it would be forbidden for use in a Catholic church I cannot say and all one can do is consider its qualities as a translation and whether shall we say bias has entered the text just as you would do if you looked at a translation of the Qu'ran.

 

[Grace Seeker]

(I assume the answer is yes, since you and grace seeker have said on record here that all bibles are the same and can be used by any christian, but I am just making sure)

That misrepresents what I have said.

I don't know whether that is because you did not understand my previous comments or have intentionally obfiscated it, but I'll not clarify here as this thread is about Richard Dawkins and NOT about the Bible. I was wrong to participte as I did in getting it off topic. I've repented of that and only responded this time because your comments misrepresent what I said and I would not want others to be mislead by such a comment.

Interesting, can you give us a bit more information, was it read from the lecture as a normal scripture reading, were they preached on etc?

Not read as the lection for the day, but read from as setting part of the context for the sermon.


As I said to naidamar, I think I have been abusing this thread with off topic conversations for far too long. So, if you wish more information PM me.

 

[Grace Seeker]

---deleted---

 

[Ramadhan]

Is it really necessary to snipe like this, my reply was 141 words and your further question was 104 words. You must know I guess that the New World Translation was published by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society in 1961 and distributed by Jehovah's Witnesses - if you want to learn more I suggest you go to Wikipedia which also contains a short critical review and a large number of other references including some by distinguished Greek and Hebrew scholars. But as I have said before there is nothing to stop anyone buying a copy if they so wish. Whether it would be forbidden for use in a Catholic church I cannot say and all one can do is consider its qualities as a translation and whether shall we say bias has entered the text just as you would do if you looked at a translation of the Qu'ran.

Thanks.

This just confirms that what you try to convince others (every bibles are the same) is not the same with what you actually believe (not all bibles are the same).

 

[Ramadhan]

double post.

deleted.

 

[Hugo]

Thanks. This just confirms that what you try to convince others (every bibles are the same) is not the same with what you actually believe (not all bibles are the same).

If we try to convince others of anything it is that the message is always the same and focused on the death and resurrection of Jesus. But if you pick up any two Bible and locate the same verse one gets the same message, indeed when I look up the same verse in German or Welsh or Arabic I get the same message. Would not this be true for translations of the Qu'ran?

The point seems to me that everyone needs help with the Qu'ran because it is written in 7th century Arabic so it would be no good using a modern Arabic dictionary you would have to use Lexicons which give word meanings and examples that were contemporary to its creation - of which there are many in both English and Arabic so one has to dig out the meaning it will not necessarily be obvious because shades of meaning will almost certainly have changed over time - is this not true?

Some other question which I would value your view on? Can the message of Islam only be carried in Arabic? Does God only speak 4th Century Arabic, is it the language of Heaven? Is God only able to hear prayers in Arabic?

 

[جوري]

The point seems to me that everyone needs help with the Qu'ran because it is written in 7th century Arabic so it would be no good using a modern Arabic dictionary you would have to use Lexicons which give word meanings and examples that were contemporary to its creation - of which there are many in both English and Arabic so one has to dig out the meaning it will not necessarily be obvious because shades of meaning will almost certainly have changed over time - is this not true?

what is the difference in your mind between '7th c' Arabic and modern Arabic, perhaps you can expound on that?

The message of Islam is transcendent and non-convoluted as evinced by the number of non-Arabic speaking Muslims to those in whom Arabic is a mother tongue.

By the way what is the message of Christianity? I was speaking with a copt last week and he commented on how protestants are heretics and didn't want me to get him started on Catholics .. that seems to go against the idea of unity which you so love to evoke!

all the best

 

[Ramadhan]

If we try to convince others of anything it is that the message is always the same and focused on the death and resurrection of Jesus. But if you pick up any two Bible and locate the same verse one gets the same message, indeed when I look up the same verse in German or Welsh or Arabic I get the same message

You talk one thing, but reality says another.
Is your cognitive dissonance (caused by trying to believe trinity) so bad that you so want to believe something which is not true?

You say all bibles are the same and can be used by any christians, and when I asked if the catholic church allows the use of New World Translation bible, you cannot answer that, and still have not answered until now.

You say all christians get the same message, and yet christians are extremely fragmented even over fundamental messages, eg: protestants believe jesus is divine, and yet jehovah witness say jesus is not divine. catholics believe in mary and saints, and yet protestants say it is totally against jesus teaching.

Maybe you want to convince yourself that all christians believe in the same thing, but the reality is a soundingly NO.

The point seems to me that everyone needs help with the Qu'ran because it is written in 7th century Arabic

The Qur'an was revealed in arabia in the 7th century.
or did you expect that the qur'an was already printed in the 21st century english when it was revealed?
There are now numerous translations and tafseers for the Qur'an to help people to understand, but we do still have the original form as was revealed, as Allah SWT himself in the Qur'an says that He safeguard the Qur'an from corruption, and even orientalists and enemies of islam cannot do nothing but agree that the Qur'an has not changed.

In contrast, the "orginals" of NT do not exist. With the exception of Paul, the authors of other NT books are unknown.
Funnily enough, in the OT jesus was conversing in greek, while speaking in aramaic or hebrew would be far more likely.

Can the message of Islam only be carried in Arabic? Does God only speak 4th Century Arabic, is it the language of Heaven?

Although the message of islam is for the whole of mankind, the Qur'an was revealed to prophet Muhammad SAW (who was unlettered) in 7th century arabia.
Do you expect that the message conveyed in greek? latin?
Just like christians today who, in folly effort to justify bible, insist in saying that jesus spoke and taught in greek?

Is God only able to hear prayers in Arabic?

You know that it is not true, and since no question is ever stupid, then the idiot must be the one who ask the question.
By the way, I make my dua (prayers/supplications) in bahasa Indonesia if that interests you.

 

[Trumble]

Funnily enough, in the OT jesus was conversing in greek, while speaking in aramaic or hebrew would be far more likely.

I'm not aware of the NT (which I assume you mean) stating anywhere what language Jesus taught in.. although certainly aramaic seems the most lost likely. I'm not sure what is so funny, though.. the reason the NT was written in Greek is because it was the lingua franca of it's day, not to mention probably the first language of certainly the later authors. It simply makes sense that the books of the NT were written in the language that would enable the maximum number of people to read and understand them. Unlike the Qur'an, they do not claim to be the direct word of God.

Although the message of islam is for the whole of mankind, the Qur'an was revealed to prophet Muhammad SAW (who was unlettered) in 7th century arabia.
Do you expect that the message conveyed in greek? latin?

The question does rather come to mind that if that message was for the whole of mankind why it was not revealed to a rather more substantial proportion of them at that time? Would not simultaneous revelations in say, Latin, Chinese and Sanskrit have spread that message considerably more rapidly than waiting hundreds of years for translations which could never be totally 'authentic' anyway?

 

[Ramadhan]

I'm not aware of the NT (which I assume you mean) stating anywhere what language Jesus taught in.. although certainly aramaic seems the most lost likely. I'm not sure what is so funny, though.. the reason the NT was written in Greek is because it was the lingua franca of it's day, not to mention probably the first language of certainly the later authors. It simply makes sense that the books of the NT were written in the language that would enable the maximum number of people to read and understand them.

For ordinary books like Harry Potter, maybe it does not matter what language it is in, but for books who claim to be divine in its origin (christians claim all bible authors are inspired by god), and for books whose claims hold serious matter of heaven and hell, it is unquestionably important to know exactly what Jesus said.
Translations never captured the exact meanings of the original words.

For you who does not believe in the existence of god, maybe this is trivial, but for those who believe in god and afterlife, it is the most important thing in life because it determines your fate after you die.

The question does rather come to mind that if that message was for the whole of mankind why it was not revealed to a rather more substantial proportion of them at that time?

Are you saying that God should have sent multiple messengers at the same time?

Actually, muslims believe that Allah SWT sent thousands of prophets throughout human history to lead their respective people/nations towards to straight path and tawheed (oneness of god), and prophet Muhammad SAW is the last prophet and messenger.
I actually have an opinion that buddha was one of the prophets, who unfortunately, made into a demigod long after his death by buddhists.
the same applies to jesus and christianity.

 

[Trumble]

For ordinary books like Harry Potter, maybe it does not matter what language it is in, but for books who claim to be divine in its origin (christians claim all bible authors are inspired by god), and for books whose claims hold serious matter of heaven and hell, it is unquestionably important to know exactly what Jesus said.

That rather depends on what the exact meanings were. I agree with you regarding the Qur'an, as it is claimed to be the direct word of God, and hence essential that the original words in the original language be preserved. If the Bible authors were merely 'inspired', however, surely the language is irrelevant, indeed the Christian could argue they were inspired by God to produce the best translation possible preserving the precise meaning. To mean that would seem more than sufficient, Jesus himself taught in simple parables to the 'common' people; anything theologically controversial came rather later. Lastly, of course, the fact that Christianity is still here as the worlds largest religion suggests that 'unquestionably important', even if true, is a very long way from 'essential'.

Are you saying that God should have sent multiple messengers at the same time?

Actually, muslims believe that Allah SWT sent thousands of prophets throughout human history to lead their respective people/nations towards to straight path and tawheed (oneness of god), and prophet Muhammad SAW is the last prophet and messenger.
I actually have an opinion that buddha was one of the prophets, who unfortunately, made into a demigod long after his death by buddhists.
the same applies to jesus and christianity.

I'm saying God should have done anything, but I am querying possible reasons an obviously more effective route of spreading such an important message was not taken.

Regarding the Buddha, he could only be considered a 'Prophet' according to the following definition;

A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression.

His teachings are fundamentally incompatible with the existence of the omniscient and omnipotent God of whom, I assume, you think he might have been a prophet. Such an interpretation can only be made while accepting the existence of the historical figure while totally rejecting every record and subsequent interpretation of his teachings. While I'll happily admit that we certainly don't have those word for word, I can see no possible theological or historical justification for doing so. To be honest, the roots of such an idea seem to me to be far more likely some attempt to 'help' Buddhists to convert to Islam than a serious scholarly suggestion.

 

[Ramadhan]

That rather depends on what the exact meanings were. I agree with you regarding the Qur'an, as it is claimed to be the direct word of God, and hence essential that the original words in the original language be preserved. If the Bible authors were merely 'inspired', however, surely the language is irrelevant, indeed the Christian could argue they were inspired by God to produce the best translation possible preserving the precise meaning. To mean that would seem more than sufficient, Jesus himself taught in simple parables to the 'common' people; anything theologically controversial came rather later. Lastly, of course, the fact that Christianity is still here as the worlds largest religion suggests that 'unquestionably important', even if true, is a very long way from 'essential'.

It depends on what is term as christians.
There are literally thousands of christianity branches who denounce other as not being christians. You ask a catholic, and they will tell you that a southern baptist is not a christian. You ask a jehovah witness and they will tell you that an anglican is not a christian.
The differences between those denominations are more than just trivial, and they are the direct result of thousands of bible versions and translations who differ in contents and meanings, and having NO ORIGINALS to compare with.

This is no laughing matter, because the faith(s) determine your fate in after life.
a jehovah witness will say that an eastern orthodox will not be saved and vice versa.

I'm saying God should have done anything, but I am querying possible reasons an obviously more effective route of spreading such an important message was not taken.

You can query and dispute God as much as you want after you die, which might be a little bit too late for you.

His teachings are fundamentally incompatible with the existence of the omniscient and omnipotent God of whom, I assume, you think he might have been a prophet. Such an interpretation can only be made while accepting the existence of the historical figure while totally rejecting every record and subsequent interpretation of his teachings. While I'll happily admit that we certainly don't have those word for word, I can see no possible theological or historical justification for doing so

It is interesting to note the contradiction in your statement. You admit there is no authentic records of Buddha's original teachings and yet you are readily reject that he might have been a prophet and messenger of God.

To be honest, the roots of such an idea seem to me to be far more likely some attempt to 'help' Buddhists to convert to Islam than a serious scholarly suggestion.

You are wrong.
according to a hadiths sahih, Allah has sent 124,000 (if im not mistaken) messengers and prophets to lead their own respective nations/people towards the straight path.
Not all muslims share the opinion that Buddha was a prophet, and this is actually the first time I am telling a buddhist about my opinion that Buddha was a prophet.
I certainly has no desire to "convert" you to Islam.
You have been here long enough, and if you are here only to debate and argue without learning one bit about Islam after more than four years, then it is not my job nor any other muslims' to show you the straight path.

 

[Trumble]

You ask a catholic, and they will tell you that a southern baptist is not a christian. You ask a jehovah witness and they will tell you that an anglican is not a christian.
The differences between those denominations are more than just trivial, and they are the direct result of thousands of bible versions and translations who differ in contents and meanings, and having NO ORIGINALS to compare with.

I'm not so sure they wouldn't call each other Christians, although obviously particularly the Catholic/Protestant divide has been both broad and on occasion extremely bloody. Their core beliefs, though are the same and undoubtably distinctly 'Christian', compared to all other religions. I'd suggest having the originals is no guarantee either; what of the Sunni and Shia split? Again, much blood has been been spilled but while a few would claim the others are not muslims, the majority would accept that they are. I'm not at all sure that the part about 'thousands of Bible versions and translations that differ in context and meanings' is true either. Are you able to identify any differences in fundamental beliefs between the principle Christian divisions that depend upon different content of the Bible 'versions' (translations are not in themselves 'versions', any more than those of the Qur'an are) they consider acceptable?

This is no laughing matter, because the faith(s) determine your fate in after life.
a jehovah witness will say that an eastern orthodox will not be saved and vice versa.

They may well, but no muslims will say neither will be saved (whatever that means). One or the other might be right.. who knows? The unchanged nature in itself of the Qur'an makes it no more or less convincing IMHO. We have lots of literature from well before the 7th century that is universally accepted as 'unchanged' as far all significant content is concerned. On the subject of what happens after death, Plato's Phaedo springs to mind; some have suggested that if Socrates/Plato had presented much of that content as religion rather than philosophy it would probably still be around in that form to this day!

It is interesting to note the contradiction in your statement. You admit there is no authentic records of Buddha's original teachings and yet you are readily reject that he might have been a prophet and messenger of God.

There is no 'contradiction' as just because we do not have what the Buddha said word for word there is no reason to assume or even surmise what he actually said was something completely different and contradictory to what Buddhists have believed he said for over two millennia. Buddhism is completely incompatible with any of the Abrahamic religions from the root upwards. I would reject the idea that the Buddha was a prophet of God for much the same reason I reject that he was a space alien or that he was a time traveller from the distant future, not because I can logically disprove any of those things but simply because there is no evidence whatsoever they are true.

A claim such as yours would be seen as bizarre in relation to something like the works of Plato, Aristotle or even Homer from either side of the same period. All are being 'interpreted' to this very day, just as Buddhist scripture is and the Qur'an is but in all cases there is no serious reason to assume the fundamentals of those works are any different from what people over the centuries have always believed them to be.

Allah has sent 124,000 (if im not mistaken) messengers and prophets to lead their own respective nations/people towards the straight path.

In which case we must assume that the vast majority have been spectacularly unsuccessful, surely? Why were 124,000 needed but before a supposed 'final' revelation?

Not all muslims share the opinion that Buddha was a prophet, and this is actually the first time I am telling a buddhist about my opinion that Buddha was a prophet.
I certainly has no desire to "convert" you to Islam.

Sorry, I think I was unclear on that. The suggestion that the Buddha, not mention assorted other religious figures, may have been one of these prophets is not original to yourself and I merely gave my thoughts on where such beliefs may have originated, in the absencxe of any scholarly basis.

 

[Ramadhan]

I'm not so sure they wouldn't call each other Christians, although obviously particularly the Catholic/Protestant divide has been both broad and on occasion extremely bloody. Their core beliefs, though are the same and undoubtably distinctly 'Christian', compared to all other religions. I'd suggest having the originals is no guarantee either; what of the Sunni and Shia split? Again, much blood has been been spilled but while a few would claim the others are not muslims, the majority would accept that they are. I'm not at all sure that the part about 'thousands of Bible versions and translations that differ in context and meanings' is true either. Are you able to identify any differences in fundamental beliefs between the principle Christian divisions that depend upon different content of the Bible 'versions' (translations are not in themselves 'versions', any more than those of the Qur'an are) they consider acceptable?

As I have demonstrated earlier in this thread, even the hypocrite like Hugo could not do anything but acknowledge that catholic church would never in million years use new translation bible; if the differences were trivial, wouldn't every church allow the use of each other bible versions?
As for sunni and shia, both use the same qur'an.
you go to tehran, they recite exactly the same qur'an as those in makkah.

There is no 'contradiction' as just because we do not have what the Buddha said word for word there is no reason to assume or even surmise what he actually said was something completely different and contradictory to what Buddhists have believed he said for over two millennia. Buddhism is completely incompatible with any of the Abrahamic religions from the root upwards. I would reject the idea that the Buddha was a prophet of God for much the same reason I reject that he was a space alien or that he was a time traveller from the distant future, not because I can logically disprove any of those things but simply because there is no evidence whatsoever they are true.

Using your line of thinking, you cannot fault christians for saying that jesus is god, because they also claim that their scriptures say so, despite no existing original teachings, which is exactly the same situation as you and buddha.

In which case we must assume that the vast majority have been spectacularly unsuccessful, surely? Why were 124,000 needed but before a supposed 'final' revelation?

the prophets were sent only to convey the message and to lead by example. They are not responsible for decisions made by individuals whether to follow in the straight path or to stray and follow their whims and desires.
Humans are not robots, and humans are given intelligence and free will.
eg. none of us here can force you to follow Islam, although we certainly have some of the very knowledgeable muslims, and you have been here for more than four years.
you have been given everything by god: opportunity to learn islam, intelligence to accept truth, unbelievable Islamic knowledge, and yet you have the freewill to accept or reject Islam, and so far you have been rejecting.

Sorry, I think I was unclear on that. The suggestion that the Buddha, not mention assorted other religious figures, may have been one of these prophets is not original to yourself and I merely gave my thoughts on where such beliefs may have originated, in the absencxe of any scholarly basis.

I am sure it is not orginals to myself and I am sure many muslims have thought about it, but I have yet to read/heard any scholars of Islam officially saying that Buddha was one of the prophets of God.
For me, it is my own conclusion based on my limited knowledge of Islam

 

[Trumble]

As I have demonstrated earlier in this thread, even the hypocrite like Hugo could not do anything but acknowledge that catholic church would never in million years use new translation bible; if the differences were trivial, wouldn't every church allow the use of each other bible versions?

The differences are not trivial, but that does not make them fundamental to what constitutes being a Christian. I'm not even sure that any of the major Christian groups only 'allow' some Bibles to read, rather than just prefering particular versions; maybe one of our Christian posters could clarify that.

As for sunni and shia, both use the same qur'an.
you go to tehran, they recite exactly the same qur'an as those in makkah.

Exactly my point. Even if the fundamental scripture is common, and acknowledged as unchanged, it is no guarantee that different groups/sects will not evolve.

Using your line of thinking, you cannot fault christians for saying that jesus is god, because they also claim that their scriptures say so, despite no existing original teachings, which is exactly the same situation as you and buddha.

It's not up to me to fault Christians for believing anything. But, just as with the case with Buddhism, I find it unlikely almost to the point of impossibility that meaning could have been fundamentally misunderstood for so long. I think it's up to those who claim otherwise to produce convincing evidence, rather than Christians or Buddhists to justify believing what they do.

the prophets were sent only to convey the message and to lead by example. They are not responsible for decisions made by individuals whether to follow in the straight path or to stray and follow their whims and desires.
Humans are not robots, and humans are given intelligence and free will.

Other than the obvious, Mohammed, Jesus, Moses, etc, how much evidence is there that any of these 144,000 conveyed any message? There are plenty of historical figures who led by example of good deeds, of all religions and none, but are we to assume Christian saints and Buddhist sages as well as their Islamic equivalents are all such 'prophets' who were fundamentally misunderstood?

you have been given everything by god: opportunity to learn islam, intelligence to accept truth, unbelievable Islamic knowledge, and yet you have the freewill to accept or reject Islam, and so far you have been rejecting.

I am pleased you have avoided the not infrequent error here of accusing atheist posters of 'rejecting God'!

I am sure it is not orginals to myself and I am sure many muslims have thought about it, but I have yet to read/heard any scholars of Islam officially saying that Buddha was one of the prophets of God.
For me, it is my own conclusion based on my limited knowledge of Islam

With respect, I suggest it is a limited knowledge of Buddhism rather than of Islam that is relevant here.

 

[FollowerOfChrist]

Even though there's a lot of things I don't agree with Richard Dawkins about, everytime he debates with an Islamic thiest, I take his side EVERYTIME. Because even as an athiest he believes Jesus was executed.