• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

YART: Any Muslims here? I have two serious questions...

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: AnyMal
bluemax - very interesting indeed. However, I do have to ask you. Aren't you relying on Bible a bit too much? The reason I am asking is that as most know the earliest copy of Bible known to date was written around 5th century A.D., there are actually two know copies, one is written in Greek and another one in Latin. Considering that events that it describes took place many centuries prior, how can you verify its validity? Another concern would be the translation; it is not neccessery to interpret anything in the manner that suit's your cause, all you have to do is to change one word or even syntax and the text will take on the whole new meaning.
Click to expand...

The proof-positive was the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ancient copies of some of the same text in the Bible. Translated once again, it has been found that the Bible has NOT been changed throughout the ages, though many had tried.

When King James was doing his translation he posted guards behind every penman to make sure they didn't add or remove anything. Quite fascniating stuff. It coordinates with history as well, such as when they talk about events being "in the third year of the reign of Xerxes" and that kind of stuff. Lets you check with other sources.
Snippets of very early Biblical documents are still out there and not that difficult to find.

Just because the Bible wasn't assembled into a single book until well after Jesus' death, doesn't mean that all those scrolls at the time didn't exist, or were simply memorized stories from generation to generation. Like all three Star Wars stories being sold in a single large book instead of three seperate ones. 🙂 (An example that hits home for me.)
 
Originally posted by: bluemax
Originally posted by: AnyMal
bluemax - very interesting indeed. However, I do have to ask you. Aren't you relying on Bible a bit too much? The reason I am asking is that as most know the earliest copy of Bible known to date was written around 5th century A.D., there are actually two know copies, one is written in Greek and another one in Latin. Considering that events that it describes took place many centuries prior, how can you verify its validity? Another concern would be the translation; it is not neccessery to interpret anything in the manner that suit's your cause, all you have to do is to change one word or even syntax and the text will take on the whole new meaning.
Click to expand...

The proof-positive was the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ancient copies of some of the same text in the Bible. Translated once again, it has been found that the Bible has NOT been changed throughout the ages, though many had tried.

When King James was doing his translation he posted guards behind every penman to make sure they didn't add or remove anything. Quite fascniating stuff. It coordinates with history as well, such as when they talk about events being "in the third year of the reign of Xerxes" and that kind of stuff. Lets you check with other sources.
Snippets of very early Biblical documents are still out there and not that difficult to find.

Just because the Bible wasn't assembled into a single book until well after Jesus' death, doesn't mean that all those scrolls at the time didn't exist, or were simply memorized stories from generation to generation. Like all three Star Wars stories being sold in a single large book instead of three seperate ones. 🙂 (An example that hits home for me.)
Click to expand...

I was not aware that Dead Sea scrolls translation was available publicly. Can you point me in the right direction? I would love to read it. I was under the impression that Catholic Churh has placed a taboo on those scrolls for fear that they will reveal "something" that would make their role in Chistianity less significant. Of course, those were only the speculations I've heard, as I was never able to find any documents to support this rumor.

Don't get me wrong, my questions are in no way intended to demean or question your believes. In fact, as someone who failed at religion miserably, I do admire people who are able to uphold their faith regardless of what life hands them. I do believe that faith is rooted within human conscious, meaning you can fool anyone but yourself. In short, you are your own judge.
 
Just like you have different main streams in Christianity (Catholics, Protestants, Anglicists) you also have different groups in the Islamic world, between which there are many differences, often on a (local) cultural basis. Although unlike the Bible the Quran has not changed since the original, the interpretation has been a matter of discussion from the start. A large group indeed does follow a believe that Jews and Christians are people of the Book, and should be left alone unless they mess with you first, to the example of one of the first really powerful imams.
Christians also follow a believe which is based on peace and turning the other cheek when struck. Do you see Bush turning the other cheek though? 'Following' a religion and actually practicing it is something entirely different. People will do what they want, and explain stuff to fit their needs. Saints are basically the Catholic variety of having multiple gods like the Romans did, although people will claim they are not worshipped and that it is therefor allowed, eventhough they do address them in their prayers like they have some inhuman power.
In the same way a lot of Muslims practice their religion as they see fit.

There are also groups which use other parts of the Quran to state that Jews and Christians are people who reject the true religion by refusing to convert, and that they are therefor enemies of the Islam. (Although by stating it like that they again ignore other parts, among which one between the specific parts they use which claims that, in order to be able to say they reject it, they first have to be introduced to the Quran, and have to have the opportunity to actually decide themselves. People who have not had the chance to learn about the Islam before their deaths will be judged as the person they were, and will after death be introduced to the Islam so they can still choose.

But again, purely a matter of interpretation, and reading what you want to read.
 
Originally posted by: bluemax

The proof-positive was the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ancient copies of some of the same text in the Bible. Translated once again, it has been found that the Bible has NOT been changed throughout the ages, though many had tried.

When King James was doing his translation he posted guards behind every penman to make sure they didn't add or remove anything. Quite fascniating stuff. It coordinates with history as well, such as when they talk about events being "in the third year of the reign of Xerxes" and that kind of stuff. Lets you check with other sources.
Snippets of very early Biblical documents are still out there and not that difficult to find.

Just because the Bible wasn't assembled into a single book until well after Jesus' death, doesn't mean that all those scrolls at the time didn't exist, or were simply memorized stories from generation to generation. Like all three Star Wars stories being sold in a single large book instead of three seperate ones. 🙂 (An example that hits home for me.)
Click to expand...

Some, not all. And the stories in the Torah had been told for centuries, if not millenia, before being put to paper for the first time, so they can in no way be seen as an eyewitness story of what happened.
 
Skyclad1uhm1 - No religion is immune from those that will try to interpret it's teachings and use it to pursue some sort of agenda. As you pointed out, it's easy to preach but not follow, which was one of the main reasons for my personal break from church. However, that would be whole another thread 😉

The reason I started this thread in the first place (as mentioned previously above), was not to exploit Christianity vs Islam vs Judaism controversy. Quite opposite, I am trying to understand the unknown. There is this veil of mystery that surrounds Islam and other non-christian religions that is present here in America. If only we could have more information and it was accurate, we could aleviate many anymosities among the confessions. As I stated before, I am not religious, but I would like to see all world's religions come to terms with each other since they have such profound influence in people's lives. Besides, most everyone agree that they have much more in common then some would have us believe.

Consider this thread a dialogue of sorts, where anyone can come in and comment or ask questions. My hat's off to all ATOT'ers who kept this discussion civilized and hopefully setting an examples for future.
 
As if it will stay civilized when people feel their religion is under attack 😉

The basis of a lot of religions is order, of having a purpose in life and a way to reach it. What happens when people and their own ideas and ideals embrace a religion is the opposite though, and chaos reigns supreme.
 
I agree, excellent thread. Most threads on religion in ATOT just make me mad - but there's some intelligent and thoughtful stuff here.
 
Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Just like you have different main streams in Christianity (Catholics, Protestants, Anglicists) you also have different groups in the Islamic world, between which there are many differences, often on a (local) cultural basis. Although unlike the Bible the Quran has not changed since the original, the interpretation has been a matter of discussion from the start. A large group indeed does follow a believe that Jews and Christians are people of the Book, and should be left alone unless they mess with you first, to the example of one of the first really powerful imams.
Christians also follow a believe which is based on peace and turning the other cheek when struck. Do you see Bush turning the other cheek though? 'Following' a religion and actually practicing it is something entirely different. People will do what they want, and explain stuff to fit their needs. Saints are basically the Catholic variety of having multiple gods like the Romans did, although people will claim they are not worshipped and that it is therefor allowed, eventhough they do address them in their prayers like they have some inhuman power.
In the same way a lot of Muslims practice their religion as they see fit.

There are also groups which use other parts of the Quran to state that Jews and Christians are people who reject the true religion by refusing to convert, and that they are therefor enemies of the Islam. (Although by stating it like that they again ignore other parts, among which one between the specific parts they use which claims that, in order to be able to say they reject it, they first have to be introduced to the Quran, and have to have the opportunity to actually decide themselves. People who have not had the chance to learn about the Islam before their deaths will be judged as the person they were, and will after death be introduced to the Islam so they can still choose.

But again, purely a matter of interpretation, and reading what you want to read.
Click to expand...

in what manner are you stating the Bible has been changed? Language or content?
 
Originally posted by: Stark

in what manner are you stating the Bible has been changed? Language or content?
Click to expand...

The Bible consists of loose texts, selected by a man. Hardly any 'original' texts are available, let alone textures in the original language rather than translations, and even after it was put together part of the content was subject to change. Even a tiny change like kill -> murder can make a huge difference.

The original texts of the NT would have been in Hebrew, or in very rare cases in Latin, yet the oldest sciptures of the NT are all in Greek, a language very uncommon in that region, and one which a Jewish writer (Jesus and his apostles considered themselves Jews) would not have used.

Encyclopaedia Biblica part IV - Text and Versions (page 4980):

The N T was written by Christians for Christians ; it
was moreover written in Greek for Greek-speaking
communities, and the style of writing (with the exception,
possibly, of the Apocalypse) was that of current
literary composition. There has been no real break in
the continuity of the Greek-speaking church, and we
find accordingly that few real blunders of writing are
met with in the leading types of the extant texts. This
state of things has not prevented variations ; but they,
are not for the most part accidental. An overwhelming
majority of the ' various readings ' of the MSS of the
N T were from the very first intentional aZtwntions.
The N T in very early times had no canonical authority,
and alterations and additions were actually made where
they seemed improvements. The substitution of
$XepouLv~v for GrKaroubv?]v in Mt. 6 I and the addition of
the doxology to the Lords Prayer a dozen verses later
are not palzographical blunders, but deliberate editing.
Click to expand...

And on page 4993:

No fvadz?tion of the origin or literary history of the
Latin versions seems to have been known even to
Augustine or Jerome ; it remains an open
question whether the first translation was
made in Roman Africa, in Italy, or in Gaul.
What is certain is that by the middle of the fourth
century, Latiti biblicd MSS exhibited a most confusing
variety of text, caused at least in part by revision from
later Greek MSS a:; well as by modifications of the
Latin phraseology. This confusion lasted until all the
? Old Latin ? (or ? ante-Hieronymian ?) texts were sup-
planted by the revised version of Jerome (383-400 A. D. ),
which was undertaken at the request of Pope Damasus
and ultimately became the Vulgate of the Western
church.
Click to expand...

In part III page 643 and 646 there is more on the origin of the texts as well as changes later on.

After discussions between Muslims and Christians in the 19th century the church decided to leave out verse 4 and part of verse 3 of John 5 in the Revised Version of 1881, as it claimed an angel would appear in a certain place in Jerusalem from time to time and heal the sick people bathing there.

2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.

3 In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.

4 For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
Click to expand...

This happened more than once, they also left out words in 1 John 5:7 in the Revised Version. Sure, in a lot of more recent version those parts have been put back in, but since we have no original scriptures, how much of the Bible can be really trusted? Most of it dates from around the 4th century.
 
Muslim here
At work right now, so I cant type all I want, hold on for a few hours as I get home...then I'll answer these questions and the ones that have also come up.
 
Originally posted by: yellowfiero
I was not aware that Dead Sea scrolls translation was available publicly. Can you point me in the right direction?
Click to expand...

LINK
Click to expand...

There is some WEIRD stuff in that book! The rape of Eve by God and His angels??? I'm not sure who the Gnostics are but man... oh man...
 
About the accuracy of the text of the Bible.... I personally don't know. But one thing that is very funny/easily pointed out is the statue of Moses in the Vatican (the one by Michaelangelo). Ever notice that it has horns? Supposedly comes from where the Bible was mis-translated into Italian at the time--"rays of light" being mis-translated into "horns".

While we have "fixed" this obvious mistake.... other less obvious ones could have sifted through. What if they just didn't "screw up" (like the above case).... but what if cultural differences in words/meanings led to a shift? Such as kill/murder (as someone else mentioned). Also, there is supposedly great debate about the meaning of "adultery" (the meaning of the word now versus in 0AD).

But in any event, with ANY holy book, you are forced to interpret..... HOPEFULLY, you'll read it yourself instead of blindly taking what someone has told you. Because, as Orson Scott Card pointed out in "Shadow of the Hegemon", everyone has two sets of beliefs--the ones they SAY they believe, and the ones they really hold dear to their hearts (and truly live by). I try to encourage everyone I meet to read all they can in the way of religious writings--and make their own informed decision. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Stark
oh sure, make me get out my books to refute you!!

I'll have to reply when I get home.
Click to expand...

Home yet?

Btw, to go further in on question 1: Jews do not see Jesus as a prophet, which means that in the eyes of the Muslim world they reject a prophet send by God (Allah). Same with Muhammed. Christians see Jesus as Messiah, while even the Bible has Jesus saying that there will come one after him, while the Messiah would be the last to come. Muslims believe Jesus will one day return as Messiah, but that that will be at the end of times, and that he is a 'normal' prophet now. Jesus also said he had not come to change any of the old laws, yet Christians suddenly claim that his coming changed them already, and that a lot of old laws therefor suddenly are not valid anymore. If he himself specifically denied that, why still change your believes and customs unless you yourself want to, rather than you wanting to follow your religion? That, errors/strange things in the NT, and the fact the Christian world does not see Jesus as a prophet and refuses to acknowledge Muhammed means they are also seen as people who strayed from the true path.

The fact that the term 'People of the Book' came into existance shows that there were sane people around in those times who saw that one born into a religion will embrace it until shown wrong, and that they can be decent people too. The fact that there was already discrimination based on religion back then, eventhough several leaders forbade it, shows that people have not changed much, that man back then had selfish little bastards among them just as well as we do now.
 
Originally posted by: HokieESM
About the accuracy of the text of the Bible.... I personally don't know. But one thing that is very funny/easily pointed out is the statue of Moses in the Vatican (the one by Michaelangelo). Ever notice that it has horns? Supposedly comes from where the Bible was mis-translated into Italian at the time--"rays of light" being mis-translated into "horns".
Click to expand...

Not really. The statues in the Vatican were there LONG before they became "Christian" statues... they simply renamed them without any change. As I mentioned earlier, "Peter" started out as "Mars, the bringer of War". Things have always been a little mixed up in the Vatican, which is why the Catholic faith is so different from Protestant. The whole Protestant movement started when Martin Luther read the entire Bible several times and not only made the conclusion that what the Catholic church was doing was wrong, he nailed his findings up on the door of the sanctuary for all to see. I can only imagine the uproar.... 😛

But in any event, with ANY holy book, you are forced to interpret..... HOPEFULLY, you'll read it yourself instead of blindly taking what someone has told you. Because, as Orson Scott Card pointed out in "Shadow of the Hegemon", everyone has two sets of beliefs--the ones they SAY they believe, and the ones they really hold dear to their hearts (and truly live by). I try to encourage everyone I meet to read all they can in the way of religious writings--and make their own informed decision. 🙂
Click to expand...

True to some degree... if you actually read the ENTIRE Bible, it interprets itself. What may not be explained in one short verse or even a chapter is sometimes explained in an entirely different "book". A good example is how some things in Revelation are VERY closely tied in with the book of Daniel.
The danger comes when we use our OWN interpretation and wind up with stuff like "secret rapture", "pergatory", "going to heaven or hell immediately upon death" and other stuff like that.
We can't, and shouldn't, speculate on our own understanding. If one verse doesn't make sense, read the whole chapter it's in. If the chapter doesn't make sense yet, read the whole book. If (for some crazy reason) the BOOK doesn't make sense, you could tackle the whole darn Bible or jsut check the concordance for other related sections. 😉

Even the Waco Whackos made the mistake of misinterpreting one tiny section of verse and took it too far (misinterpreted because they didn't study it) and blindly followed one very charismatic man to their deaths.

Sadly, this still happens today in Christianity as well as Islam.
 
Originally posted by: AnyMal
Originally posted by: GeneValgene
abraham, considered the father of both the jewish nation and the muslim world, had two sons...ishmael through his maidservant hagar, and isaac, through his wife sarai. tradition holds that the descendants of ishmael make up the muslim world and the descendants of isaac make up the jewish nation....so i guess the tension today has its roots much further back.

there is debate as to whether the isaac or ishmael was the one chosen by God. here is a link to a muslim website explaining the controversy

Ishmael or Isaac?
Click to expand...

So, essentially we are talking about the largest case of sibling rivalry here? Not trying to make fun here, but it sure sounds like it..
Click to expand...

I once asked myself that question too. How could too groups with quite a few similarities hate each other so much? Then I was told your answer. It was some sort of sibling rivalry. Both came from the same father and one son went in one direction with his followers and the other son did the same with his followers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top