Magus55

Shalom Iv'e heard Christians compare and read through different Bible versions and translations alot to compare. I currently only have the Living Bible, but want to eventually get NIV and KJV .

Paperstreet

olive, bet, vet, gimmel, daled, hey, vav, zion, het, tet

anyways

The bible/Koran/torah would be worthless if no one ever translated them. The people in power would only make up what is really said just so they can take advantage of the lower educated or people who don't understand the original language. Thats kind of why I don't understand why Synagogues still insist on using nearly 100% hebrew. I would go, and not understand a bit of it. The prayers were repetitive beyond belief. (one song had 1 word that you repeat at LEAST 100 times...) I wouldhave gotten much more out of each 3 hour friday night and saturday morning thing I had to attend. I doubt that anyone (including our lesbian rabbi, talk about liberal! ) understood completely what the hell we were chanting like robots.

Didnt Catholic services used to be in Latin until like 30 years ago?

Anyways, I think God should be able to compensate, and listen to other languages...

Magus55

What do you mean? I don't think there is any difference in what language you pray or sing in ( since God knows every language thats ever been or will be on Earth), the purpose of singing/praying in Hebrew is just to maintain the Jewish Heritage. Singing in Hebrew or English is identical when God hears it, since there is no distinction for Him. He knows all languages as though it were one.

Paperstreet

Thats exactly what I said...

Would 8 years of my life been better spent learning a language I used for 10 minutes at my Bar Mitzvah, and never understood the least bit... or learning the principles and traditions and other important things about the Jewish culture? If God doesnt care what language you speak, why cant we just conduct prayer services in our own language. We would get so much more out of it. (supposedly)

chimaira

in Islam one choose or one disavow free A you not to believe Coran say it "has to you your religion and has to me mine" kuran 110 v 5

Islam confirms the Torah and the Gospel so that you can find names of prophets biblical in Coran, it confirms but it copi not the Bible

.moreover Allah is not an idol of the kaaba Allah wants to say God for proof simply get an Arab bible and in genesis CH 1 for example you trouverer at the beginning God, written in Arabic in all the translations Arab of the Bible


Peace

hinduwoman

I found the Koran not to be so repulsive as I expected. Some portions of it are pretty sublime. But there are other portions which are clarion calls to convert the rest of the world by force to Dar-ul-Islam: Osama is being a good Muslim.

Many muslims do insist that Arabic is the only authentic way to read Koran. But there are plenty of Muslim apsotates who know arabic who are eager to assure you that the translations are exact and in some cases the orignal is even harsher than the translations. In www.faithforum.org there are heated debates on this Arabic thing --- all naturally over my head.

Chimaira, you say Kabbah is not an idol. By my book anyone who runs around a stone image and kisses it is doing exactly the same thing as Hindus do around their icons.

hinduwoman

Chimaira, if you are going to speak of the tolerance of your religion, please quote the whole verse instead of misleading others.

Say: O unbelievers!
[109.2] I do not serve that which you serve,
[109.3] Nor do you serve Him Whom I serve:
[109.4] Nor am I going to serve that which you serve,
[109.5] Nor are you going to serve Him Whom I serve:
[109.6] You shall have your religion and I shall have my religion.

That is the background of this famous quote that everyone is free to follow their own religion. Of course Muhammad is definite that the unbelievers are going to fry in hell. Again,

There shall be no compulsion in religion. True guidance is now distinct from error. He that renounces idol worship and puts faith in God shall grasp a firm handle that will never break. God hears all and knows all." (2:256)

Muhammad might speak of no compulsion, but this is not acceptance of others however apologetics might want to portray it.

That is why they always quote only part of the sura instead of the whole thing to give the impression that Islam accepts pluralism.

Besides you are leaving out very important backgound information. The Koran has been divided into early and late Suras, the Meccan and Medinan Suras . Meccan suras are when Muhammad was weak and had to tolerate other religions to survive. Median suras was when he had gained power and then it was throughly nasty stuff like

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

004.076
Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan

Far from allowing freedom, apostasy in Islam is punishable by death and that comes from the above verses and Hadiths.

chimaira

does not confuse, one do not adore a stone because have it turns around, initially one adore God read Coran and shows me or it east say to adore a stone ?

the divinity Al-Lat whose pronunciation can lend to confusion with
Allah the Almighty Sourate 53 Verse 19 That you seems about it [
divinities ] Lat and Uzza, Verset 20 like Manat, this different third?
Then the hadith: ` Abd-Allah ibn Mas`ûd (that Allah is
satisfied with him) said: When the Prophet entered in Mecque, -
Ibn ' Abû ` Umar added: the day of the Conquest -, there were
around Ka`ba three hundred and sixty idols. End of a rod which
it held with the hand, it pricked each idol while saying: The
Truth (Islam) came and the Error disappeared. Because the error
is intended to disappear. The Truth (Islam) came. And the
Forgery (the mécréance) can nothing start nor to renew. Number
of Hadith in Sahîh de Muslim [ Arab only ]: 3333 Doctor Hani
Ramadane. ' For Much of Westerners, the word ' Allah' evokes a
cruel divinity, the divinity of the Arabs who push the Moslems with
blind fanaticism. In fact this word ' Allah' let us find we it
in the Semitic languages and let us find we it in the Old Will and the
New Will. In the Old Will, root ' EL' is used to the Hebrews, to
the Semites with saying the divinity. One finds this term in
words like Gabriel, Mickael, Israel. God is called ' EL' or '
ELAH', and the name ' ELOIM' which is a form plural of ' ELAH' in fact
of ' Allah' returns several times to designate God of the Hebrews, it
is the plural of ' ELOAH'. Thus if the Christians and the
Westerners sought to include/understand what there is behind this word
' ALLAH', they would see that the Prophets of the Old Will when they
were addressed to God said ' Allah' as we say ' Allah'.
Moreover, in the New Will in Matthieu 27/46, Jesus addresses to
God and says ' ELI, ELI LAMA SABAQTANI' i.e. ' My God, My God, why you
to me have abandonné'. We other Moslems, we do not think that
Jesus pronounced these words, we do not believe in the crucifixion...
But what is interesting in this passage it is that he says '
ELI, ELI' i.e. in Arabic ' ILAHI' who means ' My Dieu'.
Therefore, Jesus the Son of Marie when it was addressed to God
said ' Allah' and used the terms which we use. Moïse, also,
when it was addressed to God also said ' Allah'. Thus it is
useful to recall that the Prophets did not know the ' Latin Déus'
from where the word ' Dieu' was drawn and which when they were
addressed to God said ' Allah' and thus the Moslems by saying ' Allah'
conform to a prophetic tradition which is thousand-year-old and which
is authentic and which shows that through the ages, that God always
named himself in the same way. (Hani Ramadane ' Extracted the
conference ' the unicity of Dieu') if as the orientalists do believe,
Allah would be a divinity as they say, why the prophet saws would have
destroyed his idol "Allah"? would secondo why have T-it also
says that the idolatrie it is the lie whereas it knew that Allah would
be an idol? thirdly as everyone knows, the prophet saws fought
l(idolatrie and the mecqois also knew it, therefore if Allah would be
an idol, the mecqois would have been prevailed about it near the
prophet saws for him to say "you fights the idolatrie whereas Allah is
the name of an idol, but there exists nothing of its in the biography
the historians paiens time the prophet saws. Here is, the truth



These unambiguous injunctions of Coran did not remain died letter, and the examples of tolerance abound in the history of Islam.
A religion which has as an axiom the free-referee, could only preach the tolerance. And then, wouldn't a religion which would persecute under pretext of be the "true religion" deny itself?

Then, why Islam is so often associated intolerance and fanaticism?
If the topicality and the presentation of the facts by the media play a part in the constitution of this bad image (all Arabic aren't terrorists in power?) that does not explain all, far from there.
"Islam is fanaticism, like Spain of the time of Philippe It and Italy of the time of Magpie V hardly knew it". This judgement of Renan goes back to 1862. It is necessary to see initially there ignorance, this ignorance of "the other", among that which is different. Does many believe to know Islam, but how much knows its true face? How much know these verses defending the tolerance? It is necessary to also see the subjectivity of the judgement there, because finally, it is not out of ground of Islam which existed this all the more horrible institution as it was legal: enquiry.
To condemn Christianity today because the enquiry acted as its name, does not have a direction. To give opinions on the history of Islam while taking out the events of their contexts, to judge them with the criteria of today, does not have more smell. "Religion, that crimes one makes on your behalf".
The religion is not the single motivation of people. One tends to forget it for Islam, religion which mixes the temporal one with the spiritual one. Islam has the broad back.
All these reasons explain why Islam, essentially tolerant, drag such an image of intolerance in Occident.

However, Islam is in the continuity of the other religions monotheists, while proclaiming his universality: there is not God of the Moslems, there is God, for whom all the men are equal. When Islam develops, thirteen centuries ago of that, the idea is a revolutionist. Moïse, Jesus and others, are envoys of God, just like Mohammad (Peace on them all). Jews and Christians form part of "People of the Book", and like such, are respected by the Moslems. Logical consequence, Jews and Christians had a privileged "right of hospitality" or dhimma, in the Arab countries: freedom of worship and habits, and military protection in exchange of a all the more reasonable royalty as Jews and Christians were not compelled with legal alms (zakât).
Should it be recalled that in the Occident of then, the good Moslem was the dead Moslem?
But in the imaginary collective of the Westerners, Islam remains the religion which was propagated with the point of the sabre, the religion of the Djihad, the "holy war".
In fact, étymologiquement, Djihad means effort: that of the community "to extend the rights of God on the ground". The prophet Mohammad (SAW), with the return of a military forwarding, declares "returned here to Us of small the Djihad to engage in the large one, which is the effort on the heart." (çad effort on ourselves) the fight of the man against itself, against his passions, constitutes the supreme Djihad. As for the Djihad soldier, it is a defensive fight against oppression in all its forms (that it is chocolate éclair or not), or with an aim of establishing the freedom of conscience: war where any excess is condemned.
The conversion of force thus constitutes an absolute misconception. "the hell is paved good intentions".
However, the theory of an Islam conqueror and dominator do not resist the examination of the historical facts: how to explain a so fast extension and at the same time if enracinée of Islam?
Why, later, the Mongols conquerors of the Islamic grounds, they ended up converting with Islam, religion of people which they dominated?
Not, the success of Islam is explained by the simplicity and the beauty of its dogmas, its adequacy with the spiritual aspirations of the men, but also by the social order and policy which it causes. And if the Moslems had had as a weapon only the warlike force, the grounds of Islam would never have been between 650 and the year thousand (roughly), the most civilized grounds and most progressive of the world.

Peace

lpetrich

Conquered people assimilating their conquerors has happened elsewhere -- those Mongols who stayed in China became assimilated into Chinese culture, and the Germanic barbarians who overran the Roman Empire also became assimilated.

And the Kaaba with its Black Stone is likely a pagan holdover that got an Islamic interpretation. The Black Stone itself is likely a meteorite -- and some meteorites have been venerated in sacred objects.

Also, I think that "chimaira" needs to find a better translator -- his/her "translations" look rather Babelfishy.

chimaira

And the Kaaba with its Black Stone is likely a pagan holdover that got an Islamic interpretation. The Black Stone itself is likely a meteorite -- and some meteorites have been venerated in sacred objects.

chimaira .
Simple assertions do not prove anything at least they can prove only one bias ,
what you advance is best the assertions of the anti-Moslems, one told me the same assertion when with the name "Allah" is saying that it was an idol of the kaaba, the orientalists them have chooses the version which delighted their hearts in order not to believe .

excuses I for the translation you would have a bond which gives me a good translator?

Peace .