Quran - Word for Word.
-
Well, at least you escaped. It's much better now than when I first came to this thinking back in 96. Back then, only submission.org was available.
YIKES! elektro
so did you take it all literally or just ignore parts of it?
peace,
sugar -
Well, I never accepted code 19 nor RK's messengership. I was too occupied with the hadith issue which took me a long time to get over. Fortunately for me, by the time I dumped hadith (early 97), Kashif Ahmed Shehzada came on to the scene and his articles on al-quraan were amazing. I didn't bother with submission.org since.
-
Peace,
I don't care what RK says or claims, this still doesn't take away the patterns. But it is about the Quran itself. I also first believed submission.org, and also Edip's articles saved me. Now i'm even beyond Edip's thinking. I still believe in the pattern, and it is amazing. As the pattern doesn't prove RK's view on the Quran, the pattern is loose from any view on the Quran. If you believe in the code, doesn't mean you have to support RK's views, that is nonsense.
But we're getting offtopic here.............. D -
I was too occupied with the hadith issue which took me a long time to get over.
lol i rejected ahadith within a week yay
i had always had a problem with them as a child .
even before I had heard of submission.org i used to reject loads of ahadith that I had read anyway ignore
It's ironic how RK's followers believe the Quran had been unaltered yet RK removed 2 verses, after re-evaluating the evidence the only compelling evidence they had to remove the verses where the hadiths they quoted on (coz the "code" gets kinda wacky at that point > , ironically hadith is the very thing they tell us all to reject. ;D
peace,
sugar -
Peace,
They have found a new way to calculate that shows the 2 verses are part of the Quran. This was found by non-submission.org people. And like i said, the pattern is not founded on RK findings. You have to seperate these two, and look at it objectively. The code is a verification method, nothing more. God promised protection, the code didn't protect it.
-
They have found a new way to calculate that shows the 2 verses are part of the Quran.
lol exactly how many versions of "code 19" have been discovered?
i remember reading an article in submission.org which said that the 'satanic cults' (in other words us) have created many of there own versions of code 19.
peace,
sugar -
Is it settled? By two guys who do no more than rant and ramble? What kind of a scientist are you, Phoenix?
;D
I thought it was, since someone has yet to counter their arguments. The best understanding so far, for me, is that the Quran has not been preserved word for word, but not many changes have been made. But minor changes are still changes. -
We are still finding out all the ways. In the end only the scientific ones will stand. And who cares what submission says...............
-
Peace,
They have found a new way to calculate that shows the 2 verses are part of the Quran. This was found by non-submission.org people. And like i said, the pattern is not founded on RK findings. You have to seperate these two, and look at it objectively. The code is a verification method, nothing more. God promised protection, the code didn't protect it.
peace
why can't it be a possibility that those verses aren't part of the quran? if some of it has been changed, why not those two verses?
And sorry, I'm just as skeptical as Sugar. I can't believe this "new" code unless i can see it for myself.
-
I do believe myself Rk's finding still stands and that the two verses are not included, i just shared something i just heard. And that the two verses aren't part, is indeed more likely and even honest as it is almost impossible to keep a scripture THAT clean. That would be more a miracle then the Quran itself.
-
i don't believe those verses are false.
There are various versions of the Arabic Quran that are out there. They differ in many aspects (be they vocal, diacritical pointsor, graphic, etc) but I don?t think that matters because they all convey the same message.
I do believe that the exact words are preserved.
I aint gonna waste any more time trying to work out if those verses are really false. They don't sound "false" and those two verses do not decree any law/s so it aint that important to me and they won't help me progress.
peace,
sugar -
There are various versions of the Arabic Quran that are out there. They differ in many aspects (be they vocal, diacritical pointsor, graphic, etc) but I don?t think that matters because they all convey the same message.
I do believe that the exact words are preserved.
I aint gonna waste any more time trying to work out if those verses are really false. They don't sound "false" and those two verses do not decree any law/s so it aint that important to me and they won't help me progress.
peace Sugar
yes, the message is more important than the words. And only the people who want to understand it will understand it.
And that's what I don't get about those two verses. Even if they were part of the original quran, the exclusion of those verses cannot be used against his ideas because they are hardly the backbone of the quranic message.
and if you do believe the exact words are preserved, what do you think about all the other versions of the quran. And what about the early manuscripts that were destroyed by the early muslim leaders when compiling the quran?
they have only slight differences, but they still prove that it hasn't been preserved word for word. -
yes, the message is more important than the words. And only the people who want to understand it will understand it.
How do you understand the message if not through the words?
And that's what I don't get about those two verses. Even if they were part of the original quran, the exclusion of those verses cannot be used against his ideas because they are hardly the backbone of the quranic message.
RK had very convoluted ideas.
and if you do believe the exact words are preserved, what do you think about all the other versions of the quran. And what about the early manuscripts that were destroyed by the early muslim leaders when compiling the quran?
Wow, where did you get these stories from , Phoenix? How do you authenticate these tales?
they have only slight differences, but they still prove that it hasn't been preserved word for word.
If in fact those books are al-quraan, sure. But they're not.
-
what do you think about all the other versions of the quran. And what about the early manuscripts that were destroyed by the early muslim leaders when compiling the quran?
they have only slight differences, but they still prove that it hasn't been preserved word for word.i do believe that an unaltered copy of al-quran is out there somewhere and i am sure one of these many versions of "code 19" will confirm that in the future.
peace,
sugar -
There never was a true Bible. Bible comes from biblia, meaning collection. The Bible is a collection of chosen books and manuscripts that fitted the Chrsitian doctrine. But i you refer to like the Psalms of David, yes those are changed. But not in comparison to the Quran. Only minute details of the Quran has changed. Not big changes as with other books.
-
Wow, where did you get these stories from , Phoenix? How do you authenticate these tales?
;D
this is where i got them fromMany Muslims believe that Abu Bakr, the first Caliph (reigned 632-634) ordered the first compilation of the different fragments of the Qur?an, from odd parchements, pieces of bone, and the memories of Muhammad?s followers. Shi?as reject the idea of Abu Bakr?s compilation of the Qur'an, claiming it was Ali who made the compilation of Qur'an immediately after the death of Muhammad. Uthman (Caliph 644-656) ordered a compilation of the Qur?an due to disputes arising about recitation. The relation of this compilation to that of Abu Bakr?s reign is not clear. If Abu Bakr?s compilation were in existence, it is not clear how disputes arose which required Uthman to compile the Qur?an. Some traditions consider the first compilation to be the basis of the second (which requires the first to be incomplete), others that the first never existed, and others still that the two compilations were made independently but were found to be identical. The Qur?anic compilation of Uthman?s reign was completed between 650 & 656, about 20 years after Muhammad?s death, and about 40 years after the first revelations. Muslim?s consider that the text of this compilation, known as the ?rasm?, is the same text as that of the Qur?an today. Uthman ordered all alternative copies to be destroyed. The oldest physical text of the Qur?an is to be found on inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock, built in 691. Some Qur'anic fragments have been dated as far back as the seventh or eighth century. The oldest fragments yet found are from San?a in the Yemen. Both the San?a fragments and the Dome inscriptions differ slightly from the current text (only in diacritics). The oldest comprehensive copy of the text is from the ninth century, over one and a half centuries after Muhammad?s death.
Critics argue that the absolute political and religious authority of the caliphs would have allowed them to easily add or remove text during the compilation process, (as later caliphs may have tried to do so after).
Supporters of the Qur'an claim its initial circulation as a spoken text, and claim that the several hundred companions perfectly memorized the Qur'an. Islamic sources suggest that Muhammad would recite the Qur'an in its entirety (that is, including both the earliest and the most recent elements) once every Ramadan but twice in the year he died. Also, The Qur'an was not only transmitted orally but also were written down by the four scribes selected by Muhammad. Some supporters of Quran argue that the claimed consistency and mathematical structure of Quran shows that Qur'an should have had one author. Some non-Muslim academics reject the notion that the Qur'an of today is markedly different from the Qur'an recited at the time of Muhammad's death. See Qur'an for further information about Compilation of Qur'an.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Islam
but if this isn't reliable information, I will be more than happy to recant.
-
There never was a true Bible. Bible comes from biblia, meaning collection. The Bible is a collection of chosen books and manuscripts that fitted the Chrsitian doctrine. But i you refer to like the Psalms of David, yes those are changed. But not in comparison to the Quran. Only minute details of the Quran has changed. Not big changes as with other books.
peace
by Bible, I meant the message brought by Jesus.