Jeez Ze do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? It makes me sad, honestly.
Buy on AliExpress.com
You're going to hell if you __________ (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter Bjerknes
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
That's a piss-poor example, though. For one, you know someone made the movie because that's cultural knowledge and we give the guys Academy Awards every year since before Chaplin. Ask the question of someone who has never seen a movie before and knows nothing about movie-making. You show a photograph to a tribe of sub-Saharan Africans, and they may not even recognize themselves as being in it.
Secondly, unlike movies, it's not like you have any other examples of other universes that were made by an existing God, or not, to back up your assumptions.
Secondly, unlike movies, it's not like you have any other examples of other universes that were made by an existing God, or not, to back up your assumptions.
And how do we know that the Qur'an which we read today is the same one which was in existence in the mid-seventh century?
Have you heard about the Sana'a manuscripts and what did the guy who first examine them had to say about it?
P.S: And don't you find it strange that the Yemen authorities do not allow further examination of these manuscripts?
Have you heard about the Sana'a manuscripts and what did the guy who first examine them had to say about it?
P.S: And don't you find it strange that the Yemen authorities do not allow further examination of these manuscripts?
If you go and look at the oldest Qur'an in record and compare it with any other copy today you won't see a single difference. I believe the oldest kept Qur'an is kept in Istanbul iirc. Other than that, there is a tradition in Islam of remembering the words of the Qur'an word to word by heart. It started during the life of the Prophet and it was a way to keep the book accurate and also so that the illiterate could learn it. Til this day people who have memorized the whole qur'an are called Hafiz-e-Qur'an.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafiz_(Qur'an)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafiz_(Qur'an)
An interesting thread among many religions is the timing of the "great reveal". It tends to cast people before x time into darkness and ignorance, like cavemen, and everyone after as being more capable of their own enlightenment or ignorance. And the great reveal often comes down to a single person, whether Muhammad or Joseph Smith.
For the time-eternal nature of God, I guess it makes more sense to see the bridge from the divine to humanity as being something much more bound to calendar dates in revolutionizing faith and therefore enlightenment. But it often struck me as very ethnocentric, very time-centric, and very cultural-centric -- i.e., to the degree that the human element of religion becomes far more potent than the diety itself.
Call me crazy. I just find it odd that for all the eternity humans place in the divine, we as a species often attribute our popular spiritual awakenings to singularities in time that seem to have a lot more in common with once-a-year department store sales than with the expanse of religious experience per se.
An old history teacher I had loved the old Voltaire saying, "History is but a pack of tricks we play on the dead." The analog is that the great religious separation between light and darkness, pinned to our calendars, is often a great trick we play on the dead.
For the time-eternal nature of God, I guess it makes more sense to see the bridge from the divine to humanity as being something much more bound to calendar dates in revolutionizing faith and therefore enlightenment. But it often struck me as very ethnocentric, very time-centric, and very cultural-centric -- i.e., to the degree that the human element of religion becomes far more potent than the diety itself.
Call me crazy. I just find it odd that for all the eternity humans place in the divine, we as a species often attribute our popular spiritual awakenings to singularities in time that seem to have a lot more in common with once-a-year department store sales than with the expanse of religious experience per se.
An old history teacher I had loved the old Voltaire saying, "History is but a pack of tricks we play on the dead." The analog is that the great religious separation between light and darkness, pinned to our calendars, is often a great trick we play on the dead.
Why is that threatening to you? Oh dear, I forgot to introduce myself. I'm actually a prophet 
It's a live-by-the-sword/die-by-the-sword problem. If prior generations can be cast into the darkness by the sudden spiritual enlightenment of future generations, who's to say they won't do the same to you? What does that make of your religious beliefs now? It's already been done before, so the precedent is already in place.
Like the husband who leaves his wife for another woman, and his new wife needs to realize she's shacked up with a person who has established a precedent for leaving his wife.
That's one of the great burdens I see in "big reveal" religions.
I don't think people are worried about that at all. First of all because they're only concerned about the present. And secondly they believe that whatever revelation they are privy to is the "ultimate" one, so there won't be anything that supersedes. Silly as that attitude is in historical perspective.
Yeah, this was a very expected answer
That copy in the Topkapi museum in Turkey was believed for a long time to be the oldest one. Muslims claim that it's from 650 AD but all analazys of the script done by non-Muslims date it in the late 8th century.
Carbon-14 tests date the Sana'a manuscripts from Yemen in 649-690 AD and it's sure that this is the oldest known existing version of the Qur'an. But after the German scientist (specialist in Arabic calligraphy and Koranic paleography) who first examined the manuscripts (not completely, because the Yemen authorities prevented him from doing it, and they still don't allow it), he said :
"These fragments revealed small but intriguing aberrations from the standard Koranic text. Such aberrations, though not surprising to textual historians, are troublingly at odds with the orthodox Muslim belief that the Koran as it has reached us today is quite simply the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God.
So many Muslims have this belief that everything between the two covers of the Qur'an is Allah's unaltered word. They like to quote the textual work that shows that the Bible has a history and did not fall straight out of the sky, but until now the Qur'an has been out of this discussion. The only way to break through this wall is to prove that the Qur'an has a history too. The Sana'a fragments help us accomplish this.
My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants. The Qur’an claims for itself that it is 'mubeen,’ or clear, but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense. Many Muslims will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Qur’anic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Qur’an is not comprehensible, if it can’t even be understood in Arabic, then it’s not translatable into any language. That is why Muslims are afraid. Since the Qur’an claims repeatedly to be clear but is not—there is an obvious and serious contradiction. Something else must be going on."
Of course, the muslim scholars immediately said that the Sana'a manuscripts are nothing more but a bad copy of the Qur'an.
I know you won't like this, but i share the opinion of the scholars who think that:
"The Islamic scripture was not revealed to just one man, but was a compilation of later redactions and editions formulated by a group of men, over the course of a few hundred years. The Qur'an which we read today is not that which was in existence in the mid-seventh century, but is a product of the eighth and ninth centuries. It was not conceived in Mecca or Medina, but in Baghdad. It was then and there that Islam took on its identity and became a religion. Consequently, the formative stage of Islam was not within the lifetime of Muhammad but evolved over a period of 300 years."
And this is why i mentioned the role of the scientists in the Qur'an.
That copy in the Topkapi museum in Turkey was believed for a long time to be the oldest one. Muslims claim that it's from 650 AD but all analazys of the script done by non-Muslims date it in the late 8th century.
Carbon-14 tests date the Sana'a manuscripts from Yemen in 649-690 AD and it's sure that this is the oldest known existing version of the Qur'an. But after the German scientist (specialist in Arabic calligraphy and Koranic paleography) who first examined the manuscripts (not completely, because the Yemen authorities prevented him from doing it, and they still don't allow it), he said :
"These fragments revealed small but intriguing aberrations from the standard Koranic text. Such aberrations, though not surprising to textual historians, are troublingly at odds with the orthodox Muslim belief that the Koran as it has reached us today is quite simply the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God.
So many Muslims have this belief that everything between the two covers of the Qur'an is Allah's unaltered word. They like to quote the textual work that shows that the Bible has a history and did not fall straight out of the sky, but until now the Qur'an has been out of this discussion. The only way to break through this wall is to prove that the Qur'an has a history too. The Sana'a fragments help us accomplish this.
My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants. The Qur’an claims for itself that it is 'mubeen,’ or clear, but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense. Many Muslims will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Qur’anic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Qur’an is not comprehensible, if it can’t even be understood in Arabic, then it’s not translatable into any language. That is why Muslims are afraid. Since the Qur’an claims repeatedly to be clear but is not—there is an obvious and serious contradiction. Something else must be going on."
Of course, the muslim scholars immediately said that the Sana'a manuscripts are nothing more but a bad copy of the Qur'an.
I know you won't like this, but i share the opinion of the scholars who think that:
"The Islamic scripture was not revealed to just one man, but was a compilation of later redactions and editions formulated by a group of men, over the course of a few hundred years. The Qur'an which we read today is not that which was in existence in the mid-seventh century, but is a product of the eighth and ninth centuries. It was not conceived in Mecca or Medina, but in Baghdad. It was then and there that Islam took on its identity and became a religion. Consequently, the formative stage of Islam was not within the lifetime of Muhammad but evolved over a period of 300 years."
And this is why i mentioned the role of the scientists in the Qur'an.
I don't think it crosses anyone's minds either. But I can assure anyone that the religious devotees and believers of long ago -- who came well before many of today's major faiths came into being -- were every bit as convinced with their hearts, minds, souls, bodies, sweat, and spirits that they, too, were following the one, the true, and the right way. (Just ask anyone who gave up their daughter as a Mayan blood sacrifice to the gods.)
I know that my English is very poor and I've said that before
but is it something i have to be a shame off
The only thing i care about is to make my self clear as possible as i can
Spelling or grammar mistakes are the only things concerning you in this issue!!!
you are pathetic and really don't deserve to be taken seriously
but is it something i have to be a shame off
The only thing i care about is to make my self clear as possible as i can
Spelling or grammar mistakes are the only things concerning you in this issue!!!
you are pathetic and really don't deserve to be taken seriously
Who wrote that?
'I of course have discovered this, but they'll tell you something different. Obviously this is what happened, but they don't believe that'
Now, the Sana'a manuscripts are interesting because they have two layers of script. This original script was washed off from the parchment so that it might be used again. It's nothing strange, it was a common practice back then.
But without applying special technical means the older script is not readable. All we know that it's also the Qur'an, and it's a version even older than the one dated in 649-690.
We can see the older script using ultraviolet light underneath the newer text. It couldn't have been done at the time of the first examinations. Now we can do it. But the Yemen authorities don't allow it.
Maybe they already did it and they didn't like what they read?
