There’s no question that Arabic has changed. There’s vernacular Arabic (spoken at home and on the street), formal Arabic (heard on newscasts and used in newspapers I believe) and classical Arabic. The Koran is written in classical Arabic. Is this really the bone of contention between you and Amy?Yemenis even had to hire kaffir scholars to translate the manuscripts from ancient Arabic to modern, which proves my point that even Arabic has changed over the last 1,400 years.
In fact, it does both: it affirms the Bible and at the same time claims it is corrupted.…
And the bit about the Quran not confirming the Holy Bible- obvious to all that infact it does.
…
On the one hand, Islam claims Judeo-Christianity and its sacred texts originate from God and from other apostles like Mohammed. But on the other hand, what if these religions and their sacred texts deny or contradict Islam? This would mean either one of two things.
First, Mohammed and Islam are in contradiction of what the Koran itself repeatedly declares to be God’s apostles and God’s scriptures. Or second, Judeo-Christianity and its sacred texts are incorrect on all points and issues where they contradict Islam. But if the Judeo-Christian apostles and scriptures, which the Koran affirms as God’s work, are in error, then they cannot be God’s work as the Koran claims. And that would mean that the Koran is in error for affirming them as God-given predecessors, in which case Islam would also be nullified.
In either case, if the Judeo-Christian beliefs and sacred texts contradict Islam and the Koran, then Islam is in error through contradiction, not just contradiction with Judeo-Christianity, but contradiction with itself because of the endorsement claims made by the Koran.
Islamic scholars attempt to get around this contradiction by claiming the Bible has been “corrupted”. But if that is so, then they have sabotaged their own evidence, and you can’t use error to prove truth. IOW, any idea that contradicts its own proof is false.– “Evidentiary Religions: Islam Introduction” biblestudying.net/islam1.html
Sounds like the same as with French and Korean.There’s no question that Arabic has changed. There’s vernacular Arabic (spoken at home and on the street), formal Arabic (heard on newscasts and used in newspapers I believe) and classical Arabic.
I don’t know. I think she is missing my point. The discussion began with someone saying that they only true Koran is in Arabic [classical Arabic, if you will]. I can accept this statement, but if I do, then I also have to accept the following:1. To be a true believer, a potential convert would have to understand classical Arabic; otherwise he would not know what to believe to become a Muslim; and/or,The Koran is written in classical Arabic. Is this really the bone of contention between you and Amy?
More like French and Latin or maybe even French and Old French?Sounds like the same as with French and Korean.
I don’t know. I think she is missing my point. The discussion began with someone saying that they only true Koran is in Arabic [classical Arabic, if you will]. I can accept this statement, but if I do, then I also have to accept the following:1. To be a true believer, a potential convert would have to understand classical Arabic; otherwise he would not know what to believe to become a Muslim; and/or, …
So Jesus was illiterate, is what you’re saying. Not sure how that’s going to hold water, but whatever.Maybe not change the Quran but the way it is taught? Some of the meanings of certain words are questionable- if taken as explained by muslims the Quran is incorrect. Such as the word for the unlettered prophet. Muslims say it is Mohammad- it in no way fits Mohammad.- fits Jesus like a glove:
7.157: “Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the Gospel;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper.”
And the bit about the Quran not confirming the Holy Bible- obvious to all that infact it does.
There are also those initial letters- has anyone figured those out yet?
How do you feel about a reformation in Islam?
yuksel.org/e/books/rtq.htm
Not sure what you mean the New Testament is availabe in it’s original greek.
So basically, you just believe whatever you want because you feel like it? Even though it contradicts known facts?These are only personal beliefs, not facts, because there is no original Koran to compare the current Koran with any more than there are original Gospels. You can believe anything you want about the existence of books in heaven, but the closest you have on earth is the Yemeni manuscripts which are not the same as the modern Koran. Yemenis even had to hire kaffir scholars to translate the manuscripts from ancient Arabic to modern, which proves my point that even Arabic has changed over the last 1,400 years. Then you have Caliph Uthman who had a Koran produced because various Muslim communities had begun to recite and write down their own versions with differences. He ordered all other manuscripts to be burned.
So we can see that even in such a short period of time after Mohammed that differences in Arabic were creeping into the Koran, both orally and written. For all their accusations that the Bible had been written by men with ulterior motives, what do Muslims have to offer? A Koran written by men with ulterior motives.
I keep hearing people talk about this supposedly “corrupt” Qur’an. But it’s not what it has been claimed to be. I’m not convinced there are actual differences in the text, just the script.There has been corrupted Qurans found. One that I know of. It was also written over other text to rewrite it. It was found in the mosgue of Sarna, in Yemen. They believe it was written and rewritten 70yrs after Muhammad’s death.
Of course what people are speaking today is different. What I’m saying is that the language has been preserved in its proper form, as has the understanding of it. And though Arabs don’t speak it, you’ll find thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people alive today who are fully fluent in ancient Arabic, and even Arabs who haven’t studied ancient Arabic can still understand the Qur’an. It’s not how they speak today, but they can still understand it.youtube.com/watch?v=-x1JsyFrpKg
There is NO language on earth that hasn’t changed over its history. To think languages don’t change is someone who doesn’t know history or refuses to know history.
There is only one language that I know of that has stayed pure, uncorrupted at least up to the 1980’s and not adopted any foreign words - Icelandic.Of course what people are speaking today is different. What I’m saying is that the language has been preserved in its proper form, as has the understanding of it. And though Arabs don’t speak it, you’ll find thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people alive today who are fully fluent in ancient Arabic, and even Arabs who haven’t studied ancient Arabic can still understand the Qur’an. It’s not how they speak today, but they can still understand it.
And someone showed me this same video (or a similar one, with the same clip plus all kinds of Christian ranting as well) about a week or so ago.
And I stand by what I said. The “mistakes” aren’t significant, especially since nobody knows what the purpose of this text actually was. What the text proves to me, actually, is that the Qur’an was the same then as it currently is. And since that a German so-called Qur’an expert was necessary to understand it doesn’t say much (to me) regarding the scholarship.
A few mistakes are made in the video–the narrator says that the fragments (because the “text” isn’t just a Qur’an, it’s apparently pages from lots of Qur’ans or notes or anything else) are written in shorthand. But what they show in the video isn’t “shorthand.” It’s just ancient Arabic script, which didn’t use the dots and dashes that are used today.
And pointing to the supposed differences in the text, I’m not convinced at all that there are actual differences, since I can read both texts and see the meaning. Simple differences (they only mentioned one, saying هو instead of الله which is an easy mistake to make since it doesn’t change the meaning and phrsaes like that are common, with either) can be attributed easily to human error (Biblical texts are riddled with them) that wasn’t caught by an editor.
I really do think Christians have taken these texts and run wild thinking that it exposes something new about the Qur’an when in fact, it doesn’t.
“Hundreds of thousands” compared to the billion or so isn’t much [but see below]. Besides, how can someone understand a language and not speak it? I think you are arguing in circles.Of course what people are speaking today is different. What I’m saying is that the language has been preserved in its proper form, as has the understanding of it. And though Arabs don’t speak it, you’ll find thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people alive today who are fully fluent in ancient Arabic, and even Arabs who haven’t studied ancient Arabic can still understand the Qur’an. It’s not how they speak today, but they can still understand it.
This is an astounding admission that no one knows what the purpose of the Qur’an is.And I stand by what I said. The “mistakes” aren’t significant, especially since nobody knows what the purpose of this text actually was.
I didn’t say he was a “Qur’an expert”, only that he was able to translate the ancient manuscripts. That the Yemeni authorities had to hire a kaffir says that in all of the Islamic countries, there wasn’t a single believer [then numbering in the hundreds of millions] who knew ancient Arabic, and you dismiss this as “not saying much”. I would think it would be of great concern in view of all the claims Islam makes about its foundational texts, most important that the Qur’an is the unalterable, perfect word of Allah. It also disproves your statement that “hundreds of thousands” can understand ancient Arabic. Where did these “hundreds of thousands” come from? None were around in 1972 when the documents were unearthed. We must conclude that sometime between Mohammed’s time and now there was a period [encompassing 1972] when no one understood ancient Arabic, and that the “hundreds of thousands” appeared sometime after 1972. Who did they learn it from?What the text proves to me, actually, is that the Qur’an was the same then as it currently is. And since that a German so-called Qur’an expert was necessary to understand it doesn’t say much (to me) regarding the scholarship.
Without supporting Sister Amy’s ultimate point about the Qur’an, I can say that in general this is usually how language learning works. Anyone who has learned a foreign language has probably experienced the frustration of understanding much more than they can speak. With time and much exposure and practice, if you work hard enough things can reach an equilibrium.“Hundreds of thousands” compared to the billion or so isn’t much [but see below]. Besides, how can someone understand a language and not speak it? I think you are arguing in circles.
This is not quite accurate. It is true that Icelandic has changed less than many other languages, and that native Icelandic speakers can read the old sagas with little difficulty, but there are still many loanwords in it. With regard to its unchanged character, the same is true to a greater degree of Lithuanian, which has preserved Proto-Indo European roots to a greater degree than any other language of Europe I took a seminar course in Lithuanian and Proto-Indo European that illustrated this point quite effectively: After only a few weeks of intensive study in both Proto-Indo European linguistics and Lithuanian, we read from the first printed Lithuanian book (Martynas Mazvydas’ 1547 catechism) with little difficulty.There is only one language that I know of that has stayed pure, uncorrupted at least up to the 1980’s and not adopted any foreign words - Icelandic.
An icelandic speaking person from today can read the ancient sagas with no difficulty. The words have not changed. When a new technology comes up they make an icelandic words for it.
You’ve got a few things wrong with your analysis, I think, but which I don’t have the facts to refute properly (just like I doubt you have them to support your position either.)“Hundreds of thousands” compared to the billion or so isn’t much [but see below]. Besides, how can someone understand a language and not speak it? I think you are arguing in circles.
…
This is an astounding admission that no one knows what the purpose of the Qur’an is.
I didn’t say he was a “Qur’an expert”, only that he was able to translate the ancient manuscripts. That the Yemeni authorities had to hire a kaffir says that in all of the Islamic countries, there wasn’t a single believer [then numbering in the hundreds of millions] who knew ancient Arabic, and you dismiss this as “not saying much”. I would think it would be of great concern in view of all the claims Islam makes about its foundational texts, most important that the Qur’an is the unalterable, perfect word of Allah. It also disproves your statement that “hundreds of thousands” can understand ancient Arabic. Where did these “hundreds of thousands” come from? None were around in 1972 when the documents were unearthed. We must conclude that sometime between Mohammed’s time and now there was a period [encompassing 1972] when no one understood ancient Arabic, and that the “hundreds of thousands” appeared sometime after 1972. Who did they learn it from?
The bottom line question to all of this is [at the risk of repetition] why would Allah establish “the one true religion for the whole world” in an esoteric language that only a few understand?
The different readings enhance the meaning, actually, without changing it. Very nuanced, and something I’m fairly sure you won’t understand unless you have a good foundation in صرف (Arabic morphology.) I think you probably copied and pasted this from somewhere else so I won’t bother responding.There is only one language that I know of that has stayed pure, uncorrupted at least up to the 1980’s and not adopted any foreign words - Icelandic.
An icelandic speaking person from today can read the ancient sagas with no difficulty. The words have not changed. When a new technology comes up they make an icelandic words for it.
Here is an example from 2 different Qurans, the verses for some reason are numbered different. May be the difference between Shia, Sunni, Ahmadiyya qurans:
Hafs -
they lied … 2:10
you (plural) say … 2:140
he gives them … 4:152
we give mercy … 2:58
he killed … 3.146
Warsh -
they were lied to … 2:9
they say … 2:139
we give them … 4:151
he gives mercy … 2:57
he was killed … 3.146
Yes an official body coins the new words,. Very interesting about the Navajo language. If there isn’t an offiicial body how do they agree on which body part goes with which automobile part?Linguistic purism movements such as the type supported by the Icelandic government (and others for their own national languages) are pretty interesting, in that they are not (strictly speaking) necessary. While Iceland apparently forms some sort of official body to coin “Icelandic” forms of loanwords, Navajo (a language with no such official regulating body) has done that naturally, for instance by using body part terms for automobile vocabulary (see A Neundorf “Terminology development in Navajo” in International Journal of American Linguistics, 1982).
Explain how *hafs- they lied … 2:10 * enhances warsh- they were lied to … 2:9. Note the same verses are numbered differently.The different readings enhance the meaning, actually, without changing it. Very nuanced, and something I’m fairly sure you won’t understand unless you have a good foundation in صرف (Arabic morphology.) I think you probably copied and pasted this from somewhere else so I won’t bother responding.
So believers need not necessarily study Islam seriously to be good Muslims?…Everyone who studies Islam seriously has to learn Arabic.
But one doesn’t have to become fluent in Arabic to be Muslim.
Here you have introduced a confusion factor, “Arabic as a first language.” What does being able to “speak Arabic as a first language” have to do with whether or not you need to know Arabic to be a believer?And huge numbers of Muslim populations in India, Pakistan, and Indonesia don’t speak Arabic as a first language.
What does this prove? Only that Arabic is some sort of universal language for Islamic theological centers.But like I said, if any of them go study Islam anywhere (in India, in Pakistan, in Indonesia, Mauritania, Syria, Saudi Arabia, or anywhere in the Muslim world) they must first learn Arabic. And they do, just like I am doing now, learning Arabic from the same grammatical texts which have been around for centuries like الاجرومية and الالبية.