Not my problem
Thank you
To put you right about the scripture you keep trying to rubbish, sigh ... give me strength
Is Islam a myth?
- Thread starter muhammad_isa
- Start date
Oh? What is that exactly? What is stopping you from showing us why the Qur'an is wrong?
I've already said .. it's not the scripture that I'm arguing about, so much as the interpretation .. the dogma.
Need I remind you again of the Unitarian creed?
..yet you think that you OWN Christianity .. you are a true Roman
Sixth time:
Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Matt 16:18
They had to be something? Why don't you read the gospels?
No, you are using scripture out-of-context where it suits, and disregarding it where it does not.
No. I think I KNOW the scripture you research from wikipedia
What a complete waste of time this is ...
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Then why issue FATWA against a scholar attempting to do precisely that?
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Nor do I, but I see HUGE similarity.Deviation
OK .. so you interpret this verse as meaning "the trinitarian gentile church"
That was Peter's job, and not Jesus', was it?
..and don't forget Jesus spoke Aramaic, and the gospel was written in Greek.
There is a whole heap of issues when in comes to interpreting verses of scripture.
I'm glad that I don't have to rely on just the Bible
I'm not issuing any fatwas. Don't confuse religion with politics.
This attitude of "Muslims are unreasonable and Christians aren't" is a load of nonsense.
We don't have to look far into our history to see bad behaviour from BOTH nations.
But not the parts you like?
You keep forgetting what you said earlier on the same day:
Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Matt 16:18
This is just silly now, imo
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
I didn't accuse you personally of issuing anything. Like myself, you are not high enough in the game to be able to issue anything. I merely pointed to a known factual point of recent history.
The attitude of "Christians are unreasonable and Muslims aren't" is equally a load of nonsense - that is rather the whole point.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
That's not fair. I don't expect you to be a spokesman for your faith, either.
We are all on paths of learning, we are all here attempting to understand, and none of us is a perfect example of our faith. But knocking each other back down in some egoistic attempt at one-upmanship is a waste of time and effort that could be better used building each other up. That requires tolerance, tolerance isn't optional.
Ok thanks. I've edited that out.
You are right, and I apologise
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
The Peshitta preserved the Aramaic, and an English translation is available. Greek on the other hand was the lingua franca of the entire region (in addition to Latin) at the time, and the Jewish Bible had already been translated into Greek (Septuagint) about a hundred years before Jesus and was used widely by his time, so having Greek used is no big surprise and is understood scholastically.
I don't think so. More likely it was translated from Greek.
I understand that most of the NT was written in Greek .. so words like "church" or "rock" are a translation, and we can't be sure if what Jesus actually said implied something different.
Words are tricky .. they have implied meanings, and translators can't always capture intended meanings.
Anyhow, assuming that it is "spot on", still different sects/creeds will claim that it means THEIR church
For me, this particular verse does not show that Jesus intended to start a new religion.
- wikipedia -
More controversy within the Christian camp.
Last edited:
It should be noted that the Peshitta was written in Syriac, an Aramaic dialect, similar to but not the same as the Galilean Aramaic that Jesus would have learned while growing up.
Perhaps the cold is making us argumentative?
I agree that God listens to those who are sincere, regardless of their ethnicity & religion.
I personally find theological discussion very interesting. Sometimes I get upset, when people disrespect prophets or God.
..but overall, it's not my loss.
My loss is when satan causes me to do more bad deeds than good. I then have to endure the consequences.
It is very hard atm, with covid and winter putting extra pressure on. Patience is a virtue, but it's not easy. That's for sure.
I agree that God listens to those who are sincere, regardless of their ethnicity & religion.
I personally find theological discussion very interesting. Sometimes I get upset, when people disrespect prophets or God.
..but overall, it's not my loss.
My loss is when satan causes me to do more bad deeds than good. I then have to endure the consequences.
It is very hard atm, with covid and winter putting extra pressure on. Patience is a virtue, but it's not easy. That's for sure.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
See RabbiO's response.
The Interlinear Bible is a direct translation, although there are a few carry over grammatical errors done deliberately (I've seen them, just not committed to memory), but by and large (on the order of 99.999%) it is direct word for word translation from both Greek and Hebrew.
The KJV is what I cut my teeth on, and still my go to, and the history behind that translation brings to light some of the issues you point to. A lot of folks are not aware the Puritans, the same ones chased out of England to found Plymouth colony, are the ones that instigated the KJV. I've forgotten the names of the men involved, but the Archbishop of the COE convinced the King that if a vernacular English Bible was to be printed, then they (COE) should also be allowed to participate and have the final say. So while Puritan scholars did do a good bit of the heavy lifting from the Textus Receptus (to my understanding still the oldest complete manuscript), COE scholars also contributed and in the case of disputed translation the Archbishop had the final say...and why words such as "church" and "bishopric" made their way into the final version. Note too, the Catholic Church hurriedly created their own English language version when word got to the Pope that the English were working on a vernacular translation, and why we now have the Douay Bible.
To head off protests that there were earlier English translations, yes there were, and they were sectarian and privately translated. The KJV was sponsored by the court of King James with participation from the COE, though as I said it was instigated by the Puritans.
I also have a reprint of the 1611 KJV in my collection, and it includes intertestamental Apocrypha and a letter from the translators to the King and another letter to the people. Worthwhile if you can find a copy. (I love it for the "KJV only for me!" crowd - ask if they've read Bel and the Dragon? It's in the 1611 KJV)
APOCRYPHA KJV (kingjamesbibleonline.org)
OK, so do you read the Qur'an in the proper Arabic? I have read those Muslims who claim it is only accurate in the original language.
That's an occupational hazard everywhere you turn.Anyhow, assuming that it is "spot on", still different sects/creeds will claim that it means THEIR church
That is your prerogative, as long as you understand others may have a different prerogative.
Islam has none? I already pointed to the Battle of the Camel, the first schism in Islam, for intents and purposes immediately after the death of the Prophet.
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
OK, but it did preserve a lot of the idioms and figures of speech that often pass by an English reader.
I can read the Qur'an in Arabic, but only understand a few words. My daughters studied in Nottingham UK and are quite proficient.
I use a translation alongside the Arabic, by Marmuduke Pickthall, an English convert around the time of the first world war.
Any disputes should be taken to a professor in classical Arabic, yes.
Islam has plenty of controversial opinions.
Where you find human beings, you will find argument. We are all sinners, but knowingly "lying" about God is a serious sin.
I prefer to remain neutral in sectarian disputes between Arabs and Asians etc.
Some things do not frighten me .. such as explaining tawhid [ the Oneness of God ]
..but other things such as what does "the hand of God" mean in the Qur'an? Is it meant literally?
I can give an opinion, but I have no wish to argue about the exact nature of God ..
..because I don't know, and pretending one does is a bad idea.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
"Hand of Allah" and "Mohammad's hand" are not different. The Merciful was guiding the Prophet (ṣallā -llāhu ʿalayhī wa-ʾālihī wa-sallama) all the time.