River

No.

The Qur'an mentions that Adam was made from an admixture of Water and Clay. The concept of humans being made from "a drop of semen" or being made from blood is still correct. These are different levels.

As, you might know...a pen can be made of plastic as well as being made of atoms or molecules. Different levels and stages. Stop being a wise arse. You keep regurgitating the same stuff over.

River

My statements are as well supported as yours......and probably more so.

River

- Doctor X

the variant editions of the Qur'an or different alleged order is all part of Islamic history. No surprises. The content has always been meticulously preserved. The Qur'an did not come down over night. It came down in fragments in 23 years. The Qur'an that is used today is not the form in which it was chronologically dictated. The order is based on what Gabriel told the Prophet right before he died. Thus, any manuscript before Gabriel's command may exist. But the text in terms of content is the same. Some words were given diacritical marks as aides when reciting the Qur'an but other than that it was not as drastic as what nonmuslims say. The Crook and Crone theory "Hagarism" is not fully developed and formulated and still at its infancy. I believe a Syriac-Aramaic reading of the Qur'an may possibly be beneficial (i.e the "white raisins" interpretation is interesting). I dont know why nonmuslims make it look like an earth-changing event.

River

Obviously, it works very well. But it works even better for the sake of Islam. Remember , Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) has always stated that Islam is not a new religion but a restoration of all original truths and mythological archetypes. So if books like OT , NT , Nag Hammadi, Avesta or Gospel of Thomas say things that are in the Qur'an it would verify the honesty of the Islamic message.


As far as Criteria is concerned....I am not quite sure....I asked a similar question before to the Christians but didnt get an answer. I guess if a Scripture from a foreign land ends up confirming things said by another culture or time period, it confirms it authenticity of truth and claims of divinity of source. But on the flip side, cynics would call out plagiarism

River

Soul Invictus

Again, I am not familiar in the least with Islam, however it seems you're inferring that there is a connection between taboo, non-mainstream proverbial "Christian" texts and Islam. Are there similar references found in between these various texts and the Quran, as your quote alludes to? If so, I think that would make an interesting idea for Christians to entertain with respect to the scope of what they are tolerant to.

Doctor X

River:

Other than it rather contradicted the claim you made earlier:

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Contradicted by the above information again. Furthermore your Garbiel appears to be unable to get his story straight. Most unfortunate.

Now, you can believe whatever you want, but you cannot make the text as special as you wish it to be with mere confessions of faith contradicted by the history you admit.

Of course, this admonishion applies to the NT and OT and any other "sacred" text, frankly.

Now for your next post. . . .

This is, of course, a rather common tactic. You will find it used by the Assyrians as the moved populations about in mass deportations--"we are returning you to your original place and your real gods."

Indeed, some Christians try to make the OT say what it does not in order to "capture" its history and majesty--a majesty granted to it by those who wish to believe in it.

No it would not. Your conclusion does not follow the premise. Now, if the Pentateuch says things that are in The Protocals of the Elders of Zion it would then verify the honesty of the racist message?

I would hope not.

Indeed, that the Koran copies traditions in the OT no more "verifies" the Koran than the P writer copying the J writer "verifies" his version in the OT or that Mt and Lk copying Mk "verifies" them.

"Garbage in . . . garbage out."

The Genesis Creation Myths "copy" from earlier creation myths . . . this must verify them . . . even though they give mutually exclusive stories?

On another thread, I offered some information on the mythic nature of the patriarchs. So . . . the Koran propagates a myth . . . not exactly an endorsement of truth!

Thus:

Methinks you misue the word "confirm." That a scripture copies another does not "confirm" it as indicated above. If anything, it makes the copying text suspect when it propagates myth.

Furthermore, your use of the term "cynics" is merely Poisoning the Well; it does not add to your argument.

Nevertheless, thank you for addressing the issue.

I am afraid as much as you would like to incorporate the NT into the Koran to retroject the Koran into the NT and make Junior and his Merry Men muslims, the evidence indicates otherwise. I would suggest you cease trying to convince "the faithful" of something you cannot demonstrate with scholarship.

Now, you may very well feel that the Koran is a "new and improv'd" message. Fine. You make take some solace that the same "faithful" you wish to convert or castigate stand on textual feet of clay as well.

--J.D.

lpetrich

River:
The Qur'an mentions that Adam was made from an admixture of Water and Clay. The concept of humans being made from "a drop of semen" or being made from blood is still correct. These are different levels.

Except that human flesh has VERY little silicon in it, and clay is largely rock, which is mostly various metal silicates. Our bones, despite being very mineral, are calcium hydroxide phosphate (hydroxyapatite). Our flesh is mostly a mixture of a variety of compounds of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, some phosphorus and sulfur, and trace amounts of other elements.

And if the Koran is such a great science textbook, then why doesn't the Koran tell us about the more common chemical elements and why earth, air, fire, and water are not "real" chemical elements but more like states of matter? Like:

"Light naphtha air", which burns to make water.

Air contains two kinds of airs: an air that makes things burn and rust by combining with those things, and an air that's much more standoffish.

Char is a elemental substance.

Living flesh is composed of complicated combinations of char, light naphtha air, fire air, and standoffish air.

And how the Greek atomists were right, except that the particles are particles of these elements.

And as a minor digression, the reason that the oceans do not fill up is that water boils off, becoming a kind of air dissolved in the air -- and comes back out as clouds and rain and snow.

There are many important discoveries of modern science that can be expressed in pre-scientific language without much difficulty, why doesn't the Koran contain them?

The approximate sphericity of the Earth.

That "shooting stars" are really little specks hitting the air at great speed.

That the stars are like the Sun: giant fireballs, burning in a way that is unlike ordinary burning.

The Moon and the planets are Earthlike objects, and the planets, like the Earth, move around the Sun.

Evolution (descent with modification).

Natural selection.

Humanity's descent from long-ago apes, like the descent of dogs from wolves and cows from wild oxen.

Anatomical homologies -- a bird's wings are its front limbs, just like our arms and a dolphin's flippers.

The heart is not the seat of thought and emotion -- the brain is where it's all at. The heart pumps blood into the rest of the body; it soaks through the flesh and then returns.

And the same can be said about the Bible, also advertised as The Ultimate Textbook.

EstherRose

After much thought, I realized that I have different criteria depending on the culture and type of writing. Before some of you jump on me for bias, cultures which produce a lot of solid writing in known writing styles I will probably not challenge as much as a culture with little or cryptic writing. The difficulties in the translation process will cause me to question a text. The provenience of the text is also important. Judging the contents of such texts is also different. I don’t believe there is a “one size fits all” way to judge anything from the ancient world. Each piece has its own unique qualities upon which it needs to be weighed.

River

[QUOTE]Originally posted by lpetrich
[B]River:
The Qur'an mentions that Adam was made from an admixture of Water and Clay. The concept of humans being made from "a drop of semen" or being made from blood is still correct. These are different levels.

Except that human flesh has VERY little silicon in it, and clay is largely rock, which is mostly various metal silicates. Our bones, despite being very mineral, are calcium hydroxide phosphate (hydroxyapatite). Our flesh is mostly a mixture of a variety of compounds of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, some phosphorus and sulfur, and trace amounts of other elements.

-----------------------------


River says:

The Qur'an says ADAM was made from clay. However, it says human species were made from water.



---------------------------------

And if the Koran is such a great science textbook, then why doesn't the Koran tell us about the more common chemical elements and why earth, air, fire, and water are not "real" chemical elements but more like states of matter? Like:

"Light naphtha air", which burns to make water.

--------------------------------



River says:

Who said the Qur'an is a science textbook? certainly not me. However, it does contain numerous scientific phenomena that have been confirmed in the 20 th century. The Qur'an is a book of " Signs".



--------------------------------
Air contains two kinds of airs: an air that makes things burn and rust by combining with those things, and an air that's much more standoffish.

Char is a elemental substance.

Living flesh is composed of complicated combinations of char, light naphtha air, fire air, and standoffish air.

And how the Greek atomists were right, except that the particles are particles of these elements.

And as a minor digression, the reason that the oceans do not fill up is that water boils off, becoming a kind of air dissolved in the air -- and comes back out as clouds and rain and snow.

There are many important discoveries of modern science that can be expressed in pre-scientific language without much difficulty, why doesn't the Koran contain them?



------------------------------------



River says:


The Qur'an is a book of Guidance. Its primary purpose is not to teach man science. God created man and gave him the senses and so , man should teach other men the sciences.
---------------------------------


Evolution (descent with modification).

Natural selection.

Humanity's descent from long-ago apes, like the descent of dogs from wolves and cows from wild oxen.

Anatomical homologies -- a bird's wings are its front limbs, just like our arms and a dolphin's flippers.



--------------------------

River says:

You are humorous and quite silly. How can you place descent with modification in simple terms so the audience wouldnt get frustrated in an ancient Scripture. It is something that scientists of modern times hasnt mastered.


Damn.....some people have no common sense.