Do Muslims And Christians Speak The Same Language?

[RikkiTikkiTembo]

I can see simularities between God and Allah.. but I dont' think they are the same.. I was really glad to read this because my mom thinks they are the same... and I wanted to read what others think because I've never actually heard why people think they are the same.. just that they do. I honestly dont' know much about the Muslim faith..
Anyway the reason why I don't think they are the same is because of Jesus. Without Jesus you don't have the same beliefs.. Jesus is essential to Christianity. You can't leave Him out of the equation.

[heisonly1]

Very quickly not to get this thread completely off the beaten path.

Christianity is completely monotheistic. Deut. 6:4 "The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!"

Trinitarianism does not present three Gods. Anyone claiming this knows nothing about this doctrine. To put it very simply, trinitarianism presents one God that is manifest in three persons that are seperate and eternally distinct. It is one WHAT and three WHOS Isaiah 44:8 states that God knows of no other gods.

Islam and Christianity are both monotheistic.....they do not believe in the same God, but they both believe that there is only ONE God.

"Christianity is completely monotheistic. Deut. 6:4 "The Lord is our God, the Lord is one!""

Anyone claiming that the Shema presents "one God that is manifest in three persons that are seperate and eternally distinct," knows nothing about the context and true meaning of these verses.

"one God that is manifest in three persons that are seperate and eternally distinct," If each three pesons are seperate and eternally distinct and eternally share the same essence of which Son and spirit are functionally subordinate to God the father then these three persons are three Gods not one God.

Each person of the Trinity is God right?Think about it carefully.


"Islam and Christianity are both monotheistic.....they do not believe in the same God, but they both believe that there is only ONE God


Islam is the only religion in the world that holds the true understanding of pure Monotheism that has not been perverted by erroneous philosophies and innovations conjectured my mankind .The God worshipped By Muhammed and Jesus (peace be upon them both) is indeed the same One God, however the descriptions,conjectures,speculatons and erroneous concepts that developed/applied to after Jesus' departure from this world is what seperates Islam from Christianity from recognizing the same true God.

IN name of Allah, the Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Say: He is God, the One and Only,
God the eternal, Absolute,
He does not beget,
neither is He beggotten,
and there is none like unto Him
Quran112

[Fourty-Two]

Quite frankly for all its "arcaic vagueness" Robyn Banks posts are really the only ones which take a hollistic view of the argument, which is fundamentally one of perspective. Even within each of these religions there are varying perspectives or denominations. This is understandable as each of us experience reality in a way which is unique as our fingerprint.

Apologetics, you seem a little too focussed on right and wrong religions (in other words you are still staring at the pointing hand), the question is not the route taken but the destination. Tell me if the destination is a 4 walled building each side a different colour, if a Christian sees the side which is blue and says the building is blue and a Muslim a side that is red and states the building is red, who is right and who is wrong? Or more to the point: Who was bearing witness to the truth? The same applies for the gods of polytheistic religions; in no way are they incompatible with the Gods of a monotheistic ones - you only need to look at the stratafied Hindu pantheon to see an example of this. Only the superficial skin of tradition and doctrine (which we have come to know as religion), created by Man to take ownership of his perspective, that is incompatible.

Or is this simply the "philosophical prattle" you were reffering to?

Hired Gun:

Sura 2.62 Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in the one God and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

I guess the Quran can be as self-contradictory as the Bible. BTW put sura 5:70-1 into a historical context, it takes on a very different meaning.

[sdr77]

"Apologetics, you seem a little too focussed on right and wrong religions (in other words you are still staring at the pointing hand), the question is not the route taken but the destination. Tell me if the destination is a 4 walled building each side a different colour, if a Christian sees the side which is blue and says the building is blue and a Muslim a side that is red and states the building is red, who is right and who is wrong? Or more to the point: Who was bearing witness to the truth? The same applies for the gods of polytheistic religions; in no way are they incompatible with the Gods of a monotheistic ones - you only need to look at the stratafied Hindu pantheon to see an example of this. Only the superficial skin of tradition and doctrine (which we have come to know as religion), created by Man to take ownership of his perspective, that is incompatible."
Fourty-Two, I see in your arguement that it is assumed that all paths lead to God, in some fashion, from the statement "the question is not the route taken but the destination". (If I am assuming incorrectly, please forgive me). The problem with this is that Christianity is mutually exclusive in that Jesus said "I am the way , the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me". Jn 14:6. Jesus did not claim to be a way, but the way to God. It cannot be both ways, either Christianity is correct and is the only true way to the "destination", or if all routes do lead to the same destination then Christ was wrong making Him a liar or a lunitic, rendering Christianity fallacious. You cannot have both.

[Fourty-Two]

sdr,

Come on, you're still looking at the hand, your entire interpretation of a religion seems to hinge on the syntax of a 1900 y.o. passage, translated and interprited several times before reaching the form you present it in, written by an unknown [bold]man[/bold] 80 years after the events it purports to describe. I think this is a mistake made by many people across all religions.

But still all that aside, when you get your head around the whole concept (but not necessarily the subject lol) it is perfectly compatible with your quote. Think about it.

[apologetics]

Apologetics, you seem a little too focussed on right and wrong religions (in other words you are still staring at the pointing hand), the question is not the route taken but the destination. Tell me if the destination is a 4 walled building each side a different colour, if a Christian sees the side which is blue and says the building is blue and a Muslim a side that is red and states the building is red, who is right and who is wrong? Or more to the point: Who was bearing witness to the truth? The same applies for the gods of polytheistic religions; in no way are they incompatible with the Gods of a monotheistic ones - you only need to look at the stratafied Hindu pantheon to see an example of this. Only the superficial skin of tradition and doctrine (which we have come to know as religion), created by Man to take ownership of his perspective, that is incompatible.

Or is this simply the "philosophical prattle" you were reffering to?

42:

The destination is exactly what I am looking at. You seem to be unaware of what Jesus Christ stated about himself in the Bible....a book that Muslims have acknowledged (although placed subsurvient to the Koran) since Muhammad. As was pointed out by sdr, John 14:6 says all you need to know. Jesus Christ stated that I am theway, thetruth and thelife. He did not say that he was "A" way. He stated that he was "THE" way....implying something that is frown upon in our postmodernism....an absolute.

To place this into the proper context, we only need to understand that the Bible says about Jesus Christ (that he was God in human flesh) and what the Koran says about Jesus Christ (that he was a fully human prophet, but not even a prophet superior to Muhammad). It is interesting that Islam recognizes the sinless nature of Jesus Christ (but does not attribute the same to Mohammad), recognizes that he performed miracles (but does not attribute the same to Mohammad), but then gives him a subservient role to Mohammad. This is not logical. Now, if he was fully human and only fully human then he was trapped in the same sin nature that we all are trapped in, and the same sin nature that Mohammad was trapped in. If he was not, then he is ontologically superior to Mohammad and Islam is wrong.

Your comparison of monotheism and polytheism fails to understand the nature and essense of God. There cannot be more than one "god." A "god" is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. There cannot be more than one being who is all knowing and all present and all powerful. If there could be 2 or more they would overlap each other and their supposed distinctive natures would become irrelevent and indistinguishable.

[apologetics]

sdr,

Come on, you're still looking at the hand, your entire interpretation of a religion seems to hinge on the syntax of a 1900 y.o. passage, translated and interprited several times before reaching the form you present it in, written by an unknown [bold]man[/bold] 80 years after the events it purports to describe. I think this is a mistake made by many people across all religions.

But still all that aside, when you get your head around the whole concept (but not necessarily the subject lol) it is perfectly compatible with your quote. Think about it.

You do not understand that nature of the manuscript evidence supporting the Bible, nor the process by which it has been translated to us. The manuscript that we hold in our hands today is not a translation of a translation of a translation, etc. This is a popular view....but an incorrect view. Scholars have 5600+ manuscripts dating back to as early as 90 A.D. to use TODAY in translating the Bible TODAY. They are not dealing with last years version of the Bible to come up with a translation today. The problem for Islam is that there is NO documented manuscript trail by which to follow back to the autographa written by Mohammad and many scholars believe that the Koran was so corrupted by doctrinal in fighting that the document possessed by Muslims today might not even resemble the one written by Mohammand. If you can provide information regarding what Muslims believe to be the evidential basis for the manuscript possessed by Islam today, I would be happy to look it over.....

[heisonly1]

You do not understand that nature of the manuscript evidence supporting the Bible, nor the process by which it has been translated to us. The manuscript that we hold in our hands today is not a translation of a translation of a translation, etc. This is a popular view....but an incorrect view. Scholars have 5600+ manuscripts dating back to as early as 90 A.D. to use TODAY in translating the Bible TODAY. They are not dealing with last years version of the Bible to come up with a translation today. The problem for Islam is that there is NO documented manuscript trail by which to follow back to the autographa written by Mohammad and many scholars believe that the Koran was so corrupted by doctrinal in fighting that the document possessed by Muslims today might not even resemble the one written by Mohammand. If you can provide information regarding what Muslims believe to be the evidential basis for the manuscript possessed by Islam today, I would be happy to look it over.....

Before I respond to the misconceptions you raised related to the preservation of the Quran both in manuscript and memorization form, please provide evidence of a COMPLETED MANUSCRIPT as early as 90 A.D. that you claim scholars use to translate the Bible today. I'd be very interested to see this COMPLETED MANUSCRIPT dating back as early as 90 A.D.

[apologetics]

Before I respond to the misconceptions you raised related to the preservation of the Quran both in manuscript and memorization form, please provide evidence of a COMPLETED MANUSCRIPT as early as 90 A.D. that you claim scholars use to translate the Bible today. I'd be very interested to see this COMPLETED MANUSCRIPT dating back as early as 90 A.D.

Firstly, no where in my post did I use the term "completed," did I? However, you bring up a good point....clarity. I apologize for not being more clear. There are 5600+ manuscripts and manuscript fragments dating back to the last first century.

The earliest fragment possessed by scholars today is a small fragment of the Book of John and is contained in teh John Ryulands Library in Manchester, England. Paleographer C. H. Roberts of St. John's College in Oxford has dated this fragment between 90 A.D. and 150 A.D. Five other prominent paleographers have examined the fragment independently (Wulrich Wilcken, W. H. P. Hatch, Harold Bell, Frederic Kenyon and Adolf Deissmann) and all agree that the fragment is early 2nd century at the absolute latest. Deissmann has concluded that it is probable that the fragment dates back to the reign of Emperor Trajan (98-117 A.D.)

The problems for the late dating of the gospels is two fold: Firstly, this is a copy of John. Therefore, for this to be a copy, the original obviously goes back even further, and secondly, even the most skeptical scholar states that John is the LAST of the gospels to be written. With Mark being considered the first gospel to be written, evidence such as this have forced even liberal theologians such as J.N.D. Anderson to conclude that there is no longer any reason to logically believe that all four gospels were not fully completed by A.D. 70. Many conservative scholars will even concede what is believed by opponents of the bible that John is a product of the 90's....however this still puts ALL FOUR gospels well within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ's ministry. Curious thing is that there are NO KNOWN DOCUMENTS dated within this time period that state that Jesus did not live, that Jesus did not peform the miracles, that Jesus did not die through crucifixion.....and not a single one that claims that he did not rise from the dead or that the location of of tomb was known and shown to still contain his body.

The secondary problem facing opponents of the gospels are the writings of the early church fathers. If the Bible were to suddenly disappear today, the Bible could still be [b]completely[/i] recreated (with the exception of 11 verses from 3 John). This means that EVERY SINGLE verse of the gospels could be recreated from the writings of men who lived within 200 years of the death of Jesus Christ. Now, for this to be the case, these men would have had to read documents that were much older than they. By the year 200 A. D., the complete acceptance of the 4-fold gospels, and ONLY the for fold gospels had become axiomatic within the writings of many of the early church fathers, as had complete acceptance of approximately 20 of the 27 books contained in the New Testament today.

All of this fails to even address of the credel evidence that dates date back to within 3-5 years of the resurrection. For complete information of this see Gary Habermas, The Historical Jesus. All of this information only begins to scratch the surface of the documentary evidence enjoyed by Christianity.

When considering what was written about Jesus and when it was really written, it is interesting to compare it to Mohammad. Dr. Edwin Yamauchi, professor of Ancient History and Early Church History at Miami (Ohio) University points out that Mohammad lived from 570 A. D. to 632 A. D., however, the very first biography to be written about him was not written until 767. This is 145 years AFTER his death. But we are to believe that the information about Mohammad and what Mohammad really taught has been faithfully transmitted to us? Islam has a manuscript evidence problem from the very start.

Now, with all that known......I am anxiously awaiting all the evidence for the Koran and the EVIDENTIAL basis for the preservation of the Koran.....and please, do not just provide Muslim scholars.....

[Fourty-Two]

Indeed, I'm not sure a 6x9cm fragment constitutes a manuscript. I was also under the impression that the Rylands (I'm assuming this is what you are referring to) prapyrus was generally accepted to originate from 120-150 c.e. and the 90 c.e. date was more or less dismissed. I guess I live and learn
The number of documents "we" have today to translate today, has no bearing on the acuracy of an interpritation, meaning or social context. For instance in the translators introduction to Michel Foucault's "Discipline and Punish" Alan Sheridan explains that the concept of the original French title "Surveiller et Punir" could not be expressed accurately in English and, upon a suggestion by the Author, settled for the vague interpritation we have today. This is a translation problem between two very similar, contemporary, cultures with a more or less standardized dialect, you can see the problems that could occur accross vastly different cultures, languages (with their own varying dialects) etc. There has been speculation that this is actually responsible for the Virgin Birth myth, that Greek simply didn't have a word which adequately expressed a term describing certain judaic marriage practices at the time and settled for the closest thing. Then you have problems pertaining to definitions and time: if I use the word "nice" to describe Biblical content today I would be saying it is favourable or agreeable, if I said it in the the 16th century I'd be suggesting it was precise or accurate, and in the 14th century I would have been burned at the stake because I'd be saying it was was foolish, stupid and senseless.
You see, I don't need to dick about with how many manuscripts we have or how far back they date, just a simple understanding of the universal problems with translation to back up my statements does it nicely. To be perfectly frank the various versions of the bible is one of the best examples to demonstrate how vague translation actually is.

I'm not making a comparison between the Bible and Koran, so why do you bring it up? Are you attempting to change the argument? BTW, Mohammed didn't write down ANY copies of the Koran, as he was illiterate (if you bothered to read the Koran you should probably know this) and most of the variation came not from infighting but the fact it was written "scripta defectiva" and later, more accurately written versions relied on this for interpritation.

[Fourty-Two]

Apologetics, you are still stuck on the route and cannote differentiate between it and the destination because you are unable to look past the superficial and are stuck trying to think of everything in terms of right and wrong. This is not a black and white issue - it covers the gray area that perspective, as a rule, must generate. It is not necesary to know the intricate details (which you don't really seem to posess yourself) of the religions to understand they worship the same god.

The same applies to monotheism and polytheism, they are not mutually exclusive once you get past the superficial nature of religion, and realise that they are merely different descriptions of the same thing from different perspectives. Tell me, who was telling the truth regarding the colour of the building? The Christian or the Muslim?

The nature of god in this argument, as YOU see fit to define it, does not have any impact on this argument greater than that it offers your perspective on god, which is neither right nor wrong.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

I came across the following and thought it might be of interest to those on this thread:

NEWS FROM THE ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN MISSION CENTER (OCMC)
http://www.ocmc.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe information at the end of this email
===================================



From the Executive Director: Missions - Is this what the world needs now?
Feb 6, 2004



(Below is an editorial article from OCMC’s Fall 2003 Mission Magazine written by the Executive Director, Fr. Martin Ritsi.)



This past summer, an article was featured on the cover of the June 30, 2003 edition of Time magazine with the caption, “Should Christians Convert Muslims?” A subtitle of this went on to say that growing numbers of Evangelical missionaries are going to Muslim lands and, in light of this, asks, “Is this what the world needs now?” These questions are not uncommon. I remember my first journey to Africa and a discussion with a flight attendant who after learning I was a missionary told me, “I don’t think we should do missionary work. We should leave people to believe in God as they have found Him.” Ultimately, a response to this depends on what we believe about other religions and our own Christian faith. It is also at the heart of the primary objections to mission work mentioned in the Time article. Should we be converting Muslims? Does the world need missionaries now? These questions are pertinent to the work being done today through and by the Orthodox Christian Mission Center.



The Time magazine article opens with a lively description of a missionary to Muslims as she concludes a class in the United States to future missionaries. “Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him,” she says. “Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you.” The class then moves into a time of prayer and the missionary offers these words: “We pray that the weapon of mass destruction, Islam, be torn down. Lord, we declare that your blood is enough to forgive every single Muslim.” Later in the article another missionary is quoted as equating Islam in Iraq with Satan (…diplomacy does not work with Satan). And still another refers to Islam as “a very evil and wicked religion.” What is common among these missionaries is a view that Islam (and probably all religions outside of Christianity) is of the devil and that people following these religions are doomed to damnation.



Many people would recoil at such religious arrogance. In a book of essays by His Beatitude Anastasios (Yannoulatos), Archbishop of Tirana and all Albania recently released by St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Facing the World: Orthodox Christian Essays on Global Concerns, one essay gives an in-depth look at the historical development of Christian perspectives towards other religions and then reviews these perspectives from an Orthodox point of view. Though originally written in 1987, the essay seems to be almost written directly in response to the questions raised by the Time magazine article. The essay sheds light on the questions at hand as it explores these various viewpoints towards other religions.



Several different perspectives towards other religions exist in various Christian circles. These theories alternate from one extreme to another. One view, held by quite a few early Christians and the same as the apparent position of the missionaries presented in the Time article I have highlighted, is that other religions are the work of the devil. Later, a more moderate view arose that would say all human beings have the ability to recognize the existence of God. From this came the thought that pre-Christian religions were part of an evolutionary process. At the opposite end of the spectrum, His Beatitude notes, is a perspective which places Christianity as merely one of many attempts to understand that which is beyond understanding. This position asserts that Christianity cannot possess the full truth and can be nothing more than the ‘first-born’ among its brothers ( p. 132-137).



Where among these theories do the Orthodox lie? After taking us through a historical development of Orthodox theological views, Archbishop Anastasios brings us to a perspective that is both balanced and at the heart of the best Orthodox missionary efforts. This view, rather than discrediting all other religions, challenges us to acknowledge the inspiration that exists in them. Religions “are born out of humanity’s yearning for the ‘sacred,’ and they keep the gates of human experience open to the infinite….every human person has the ability to receive intimations of the divine will. The rays of divine glory that embrace the entire universe are received by everyone. All human beings benefit from the activities of the Holy Spirit – activities that promote life, love and truth.”(p. 151-152). In regards to Islam, the Archbishop even states in a footnote that of “…all the living religions, Islam is the closest, both spiritually and geographically, to Orthodox Christianity.” (p. 119).



To have this perspective requires maturity and sensitivity because concepts are easier to grasp when they are presented in black and white, but here there are definite shades of gray. There are elements of divine revelation in other religions, which means that other religions are not necessarily all bad, as the missionaries presented by Time seem to believe. This also raises many questions. What, for example, does this mean in regards to mission work and towards persons who follow these religions? Do they have enough revelation? Do we need to adopt the revelation that is in them and possibly absent from Christianity? Should we just leave other people to follow “God as they have found Him,” as the flight attendant mentioned to me on that trip to Africa?



Archbishop Anastasios clarifies in his essay that, for an Orthodox Christian, the criterion by which all religious ideas and principles are evaluated is Jesus Christ. In Christianity, a radically different message is revealed to the world and at the center of that message is the truth that God is love. In addition, God became a human being and, through his Passion and Resurrection, He shatters the power of death and elevates humanity’s nature to the right hand of the Father. A new creation begins and humanity, after Christ, becomes different from humanity before Christ (p. 143-144, 152). This is radically different from anything found in other religions because no other serious religious teacher claimed to be God and no other religious teacher could alter the course of human destiny. Thus, even though other religions may contain elements of divine revelation, there is something unique, something ultimate, something which has changed the course of all humanity that is found through Jesus Christ and the Christian faith. That means that the Christian message does have something to offer people regardless of their religious background. It is a light that shines to illumine all people and it is a well of eternal water ready to give drink to a thirsty world.



Where do these reflections leave us, then, in regards to mission work and the questions raised by the Time article? There are two important conclusions I would draw. The first is that Archbishop Anastasios’ perspective of the world and the world’s religions is not compatible with the attitudes and potentially destructive missionary activity that the Time article portrayed. Rather, it is the foundation of an Orthodox approach to other religions whereby one is encouraged to reach out with respect, love and with a sincere desire to understand and to acknowledge the good in people and in other religious ideas. Rather than focusing on equating another Faith with Satan, an Orthodox mission approach is to find that which is good and from there to lead a person to the ultimate revelation of Jesus Christ Himself. Secondly, this perspective leaves no room to question, “Is this what the world needs now?” Jesus Christ has come for the world. He has come that the world might have life and have it abundantly (John 10:10). There is no time or circumstance that can make this reality irrelevant or not needed at any moment.



To finally answer the question, “Missions, is this what the world needs now?” I will end with a quote from the conclusion of Archbishop Anastasios’ essay. “The world is asking us to reveal the beauty of the Christian message by conscientiously living its principles, in the light of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. The world is looking for us to reveal, in the course of our daily reality, the beauty, radiance, glory and power in a life that has been made new in Christ. The world is calling upon us to radiate the presence of the Holy Spirit….It longs for the virtual transformation of human existence and for a communion with the transcendent power of Love” (p. 153). Yes, this is what the world needs now!



Reference: Facing the World: Orthodox Christian Essays on Global Concerns, Archbishop Anastasios (Yannoulatos), St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Crestwood NY, 2003 - Translated by Pavlos Gottfried.

_______________________________________

And I offer the following as a summary, from the Spiritual Meadow:

Abba Ammonas came one day to eat in a place where there was a monk
of evil reputation. Now it happened that a woman came and entered the
cell of the brother of evil reputation. The dwellers in that place,
having learnt this, were troubled and gathered together to chase the
brother from his cell. Knowing that bishop Ammonas was in the place,
they asked him to join them. When the brother in question learnt this,
he hid the woman in a large cask and closed the lid. The crowd of monks
came to the place. Now Abba Ammonas saw the position clearly but for
the sake of God he kept the secret. He entered, seated himself on the
cask, and commanded the cell to be searched. When the monks had
searched everywhere without finding the woman, Abba Ammonas said,
"What is this? May God forgive you all!" After praying, he made
everyone go out, then taking the brother by the hand he said, "Brother,
be on your guard." With these words, he left.

[geo] Arsenios

[apologetics]

The number of documents "we" have today to translate today, has no bearing on the acuracy of an interpritation, meaning or social context.

No offense, but this statement shows a lack of what documents and document fragments exist, how many documents exist, what languagesthese documents exist in and how many their are in each language, and how many writings exist from early church fathers. The documentation for the Old and New Testament massively outweigh ANY OTHER DOCUMENT from antiquity. Not only this, but the copies that are extant today are almost non-existant when compared with ANY other document from antiquity.

For instance in the translators introduction to Michel Foucault's "Discipline and Punish" Alan Sheridan explains that the concept of the original French title "Surveiller et Punir" could not be expressed accurately in English and, upon a suggestion by the Author, settled for the vague interpritation we have today. This is a translation problem between two very similar, contemporary, cultures with a more or less standardized dialect, you can see the problems that could occur accross vastly different cultures, languages (with their own varying dialects) etc.

Only when the true facts of the manuscript evidence is known, can the complete inadequacy of your example above be fully known. Your argument needs to be drawn out to its logical conclusion. No language can be faithfully translated into another, no document from antiquity written in any language other than English means anything, effective and efficient communication between languages is futile and those studying and becoming conversant in other languages have wasted their time. This is obviously a fallacious conclusion.

The NT manuscripts exant today exist in Aramaic, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Arminian, Gothic, Georgian, Ethiopic and Nubian. Granted, these are copies of the originals, but all date within the first 500 years following the death of Jesus....and they all say the same thing. For your "translation problem" to hold any water, we should have seen vastly divergent theological concepts develop. However this has not been the case. Your example also fails to take into consideration the vast amount of information gathered through the collaborative efforts of the fields of history, archaeology, paleography, linguistics, etc. It is hardly a matter of translation and translation alone. With your belief in faulty translation, the study of any of these fields would be impossible outside of the primary language of the researcher.

You see, I don't need to dick about with how many manuscripts we have or how far back they date, just a simple understanding of the universal problems with translation to back up my statements does it nicely. To be perfectly frank the various versions of the bible is one of the best examples to demonstrate how vague translation actually is.

Your oversimplification of this issue is quite shocking. In addition, your comments about the "various versions" of the bible shows a lack of proper knowledge. There is one version of the Bible that has been translated into various languages. However, this is not a translation process that has had to rely on the previous translation. Translations have appeared for various reasons throughout history, but NONE have included information not previously included. Have any of these "versions" taught anything different than, say, the Latin Vulgate, Codex Vaticanus or Codex Alexandrinus? I would challenge you to provide one teaching of today's Christian Church that has been perverted through this "vague translation" process.

I'm not making a comparison between the Bible and Koran, so why do you bring it up? Are you attempting to change the argument?

You stated earlier, and I will quote:

...your entire interpretation of a religion seems to hinge on the syntax of a 1900 y.o. passage, translated and interprited several times before reaching the form you present it in, written by an unknown [bold]man[/bold] 80 years after the events it purports to describe. I think this is a mistake made by many people across all religions.

It was not I that brought up this subject. I just thought that if you were going to comment on it incorrectly, it should be pointed out.

BTW, Mohammed didn't write down ANY copies of the Koran, as he was illiterate (if you bothered to read the Koran you should probably know this) and most of the variation came not from infighting but the fact it was written "scripta defectiva" and later, more accurately written versions relied on this for interpritation.

As I have stated....the Qur'an has manuscript evidence problems from the start. The Qur'an is based on the information provided to ONE MAN and this man could not write. The Qur'an makes no claims of divinity for Mohammad, so we are to understand him as a [u]man[/i] and man only. But, we are asked, by Islam, to believe that the memory of this one man was not only faithfully transmitted to the next person faithfully in verbal form, but these teachings somehow survived intact until it could be written down? Sure..... I might as well just believe what Buddhism teaches about the original Buddha's teachings in the Tripitaka....even though these teachings weren't put into writing until 400 years later.....

The manuscript evidence between the two religions is central to any discussion of the validity of Christianity or the validity of Islam. If you cannot provide evidence for the validity of the teachings, then it is hardly worth discussing further. This becomes blind faith.