‘Isa (Jesus) of the Qur’an is a product of fable, imagination and ignorance.

[Narnian]

What is it the Bible says? "The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth." (Genesis 8:21)
I'll leave you to your idle fancies and vain imaginings.

The KJV is a very bad translation. The word is not "imagination" but "intention"

Genesis 8:21 (English Standard Version) for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.

Lexicon:

rcy from (03335)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Yetser TWOT - 898a
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
yay'-tser Noun Masculine
Definition
form, framing, purpose, framework form pottery graven image man (as formed from the dust) purpose, imagination, device (intellectual framework)

Best stick to NRSV, ESV - these are the most up to date and accurate translations.

[smaneck]

ItIn the past few years there has been a wealth of research into the background for the Quran. Christophe Luxembourg is a good example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christoph_Luxenberg
The grapes and virgins mistranslation is hilarious.

It's not considered academic research. No one even knows who this guy is.

[smaneck]

The KJV is a very bad translation. The word is not "imagination" but "intention"

It reads the same in the Jewish translation of the Tanak. It is also how Martin Buber both translated and interpreted this passage in his book *Good and Evil.*

[Narnian]

It's not considered academic research.

Prove it.

No one even knows who this guy is.

The guy is in hiding, like anyone who criticises the Quran, because their lives are in danger.

[smaneck]

Good try, Muddy, but the Logos, which really means "truth", "order" or 'natural laws of the universe', and which the word "logic" stems from, is from the Zoroastrian "Asha", or Vedic "Rta", which goes back to the second millenium BC. The correspondence between 'truth', reality, and an all-encompassing cosmic principle (of Asha) is not far removed from Heraclitus' conception of Logos.[11 Duchesne-Guillemin, Jacques (1963), “Heraclitus and Iran”, History of Religions 3 (1): 34-49 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asha ]

I think there is good evidence that John's Prologue was heavily influenced by Philo and Greek philosophical ideas. But then so is the notion that the Qur'an is uncreated or the Haqiqat-i Muhammadiyya.
Just because an idea has been influenced by something doesn't mean the idea is wrong.

[smaneck]

Prove it.

The guy is in hiding, like anyone who criticises the Quran, because their lives are in danger.

Then why aren't Crone and Cohen in hiding?

This guy published under a pseudonym. If you do that it means your work doesn't go through academic peer review. Peer review is the way you vet academic work and separate the chaff from the grain.

There is no real evidence that this guy is a scholar, much less a professor.

[Dan Zebiri]

smaneck,

The quran, you have today IS AT BEST, ONLY THE FIFTH HAND TESTIMONY...

First, It was on what itself claims as the 'mother of the Book in heaven,

2nd) Then parts of that became parts of the transmission via the 'angel' to muhd your 'prophet',

3rd) then Muhd who had to memorize it and learn it correctly,

4th) then muhd's follower/s who themselves had to memorize the stuff from him, AFter that!

5th) Then, from THAT, what 3rd Caliph Othman edited, removed and rearranged in his latest revised standard version with the help of his editorail committee headed by Zaid b.Thabit! (After burning all the differing versions of the then existing qurans in an act of wanton destruction)!

So, don't come telling us that the quran you have TODAY, is the very same as what was in the 'ummul kitab' (mother of the book)!

It is even HIGHLY DOUBTFUL that what quran you have today even REMOTELY resembles the one in the seventh century of the time of the first 3 caliphs! After all that manual manipulation of it by human intervention and edition!

Dan.

[mudcake]

smaneck,

The quran, you have today IS AT BEST, ONLY THE FIFTH HAND TESTIMONY...

First, It was on what itself claims as the 'mother of the Book in heaven,

2nd) Then parts of that became parts of the transmission via the 'angel' to muhd your 'prophet',

3rd) then Muhd who had to memorize it and learn it correctly,

4th) then muhd's follower/s who themselves had to memorize the stuff from him, AFter that!

5th) Then, from THAT, what 3rd Caliph Othman edited, removed and rearranged in his latest revised standard version with the help of his editorail committee headed by Zaid b.Thabit! (After burning all the differing versions of the then existing qurans in an act of wanton destruction)!

So, don't come telling us that the quran you have TODAY, is the very same as what was in the 'ummul kitab' (mother of the book)!

It is even HIGHLY DOUBTFUL that what quran you have today even REMOTELY resembles the one in the seventh century of the time of the first 3 caliphs! After all that manual manipulation of it by human intervention and edition!

Dan.

LOL.. Nonsense dan..... most of your presumptions against the authenticity and preservation of the Quran derive from athur jeffery's thesis - "Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'ân: The Old Codices." which has been refuted here:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...ilJeffery.html

and here:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/

[barnasha]

It is even HIGHLY DOUBTFUL that what quran you have today even REMOTELY resembles the one in the seventh century of the time of the first 3 caliphs! After all that manual manipulation of it by human intervention and edition!

Dan.

Since the Quran was preserved by memory, there is more than compelling evidence that it has been faithfully preserved.

This is despite the initial arguments (at the time of codification) from people who learned different "versions" - of which many differences can easily be explained by the fact that the Quran purposefully changed throughout the lifetime of its revelation

the first two "steps" you mention seem to say that God and his angels can be imperfect vessels

the 3rd step is understandable

the 4th step i described in the second paragraph of my post

the 5th step is meaningless, since those differences were minute.

this has been pointed out in previous threads where this tired argument has been drawn out again.

Time to move on to your next canned argument which attacks islam or its sources...........................................................

[smaneck]

smaneck,

The quran, you have today IS AT BEST, ONLY THE FIFTH HAND TESTIMONY...]
First, It was on what itself claims as the 'mother of the Book in heaven,

Dan,

It is rather silly to list what is essentially the equivalent of a Platonic Ideal as your first testimony, isn't it? In any case the process by which the Qur'an was transmitted is much simplier than what you describe. Muhammad recited the various surihs of the Qur'an as He received them. I know of no evidence that He had to memorize them first. His followers would then either memorize them word for word or they would write them down on various materials. The Qur'an therefore originally consisted of scattered surihs, though they were individuals even in Muhammad's time who had memorized all of them. They didn't exist in any order, however. You are correct that the final written compilation of the Qur'an was acomplished by the third Caliph Uthman who was himsef a companion of the Prophet. The variants which were destroyed contained some minor variations in pronunciation, not content. Uthman was extremely cautious not to allow his own theological preferences to intrude in this compilation to the extent that he had the surahs arranged arbitarily from longest to shortest which was almost the opposite order of when they were revealed.

While most Muslims would not accept this, I think it is quite possible that some minor errors could have entered the Qur'an in this fashion. I think for instance Yahya should have been written Yohanna which is what you get by replacing two dots on the bottom with one dot on the top. (Originally Arabic had no dots.) None-the-less the transmission process was infinitely superior than the manner in which Jesus' teachings were preserved and transmitted in the first couple of centuries. The style of the Qur'an indicates to most scholars, whether Muslim or not, that it had a single author. And unlike Christianity there is no evidence that theological preferences shaped what was accepted into the final version of the canon.

warmest, Susan

[smaneck]

Since the Quran was preserved by memory, there is more than compelling evidence that it has been faithfully preserved.

I might add that one of the reasons that the Qur'an is easily conveyed by memory is that there is rhythm and rhyme to it. (I mean this literally, not metaphorically.) Not only does that make memorization easier, if one interpolates or removes anything it throws the rhythm and rhyme off.

[barnasha]

I might add that one of the reasons that the Qur'an is easily conveyed by memory is that there is rhythm and rhyme to it. (I mean this literally, not metaphorically.) Not only does that make memorization easier, if one interpolates or removes anything it throws the rhythm and rhyme off.

yes and things would easily seem out of place because of the way even the meanings are quilted together.

the quranic passages are very intertwined and quite often astounding in their elegance.

2:23 And if you doubt any part of what We have, bestowed from on high, step by step, upon Our servant, then produce a surah (i.e. revelation) of similar merit, and call upon any other than God to bear witness for you -if what you say is true!

[Narnian]

the quranic passages are very intertwined and quite often astounding in their elegance.

2:23 And if you doubt any part of what We have, bestowed from on high, step by step, upon Our servant, then produce a surah (i.e. revelation) of similar merit, and call upon any other than God to bear witness for you -if what you say is true!

That's easy. I can create BETTER suras than the Quran's. Here are some examples:

Yusuf Ali (9:5): But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

BETTER (9:5): But when the forbidden months are past, then make peace with the Pagans wherever ye find them, and encourage them, care for them, and support them; No matter whether they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity or not, and always open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

YUSUFALI (5:51): O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

BETTER (5:51): O ye who believe! take the Jews and the Christians and the Muslims for your friends and protectors: They are all friends and protectors to any human. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

Not a difficult task at all to create better verses than the ones souped up by the Quran!

[Dan Zebiri]

Too bad to prove you wrong susan.

You claim : there is no evidence that theological preferences shaped what was accepted into the final version of the canon.

Which shows your ignorance or deceit.

The quran subjects itself to the islamic theological polemic of Isma ('ismat') or ma'asum.

This is the PRESUMPTION that all the prophets of the quran are 'impeccable' or 'infallible' like what I already pointed out in my posts.

So, the stories of David and his 3 sins - Murder or Uriah, Adultery with Uriah's wife, Bathsheba, and coveting her are all deleted and deliberately expunged from the Quran.

Likewise, the fabrication of someone called 'as-samiri' to replace Aaron as the culprit who built the Golden Calf idol - and led Israel astray. 'Nabi Harun' was 'too infallible' to commit such s sin! According to this islamic polemic!

Also, the supposed replacing of Jesus Christ with some body else ('Judas'?!) on the Cross 2,000 years ago, is ALSO based on the same idea of ismat!

Same goes for Lot ('nabi Lot') and his incest with his daughters. All removed deleted from the quran.

Which is proof that the quran does twists facts around to suit its polemics and biases!

Instead of telling the truth and realities of these incidents based on the actual facts, it engages in embellishments instead!

Why should I take the quran's record, when we have much earlier eye witness testimonies about - for example- the actual life and times of Jesus Christ!

Dan.

[barnasha]

That's easy. I can create BETTER suras than the Quran's. Here are some examples:

you are not looking at the quran, but some interpretations in english.

random parts chopped out of the middle, no less.

parts that mean nothing without some context.


UP TO THE SAME OLD TRICKS, EH NARNIAN?

Yes, I can create a better painting than Monet. Just look at much more accurately I draw the shape of a lily pad with my pencil.
?