-=[ Correction/Modification to FM Translation of AlQuraan ]=-
-
si di...just send Layth a PM/email with the link. Not sure if he's active much however, so perhaps an email may be better.
-
I did so, still awaiting a response.
-
Salam / Peace,
Sorry for my delayed response.
The Monotheist Translation has been a work in progress for over 10 years now with constant amendments/improvements when errors or misinterpretations have been detected - I would ask that the rhetoric be toned down as we are servants of the Almighty until the day we die (God willing).
I have looked into the matter and the argument of the translation of 2929 being inaccurate does hold water.
The word "sexually" and "highway robbery" are indeed in error.
I would amend to "You approach the males, and you sever the way, and you bring vice into your place." But the only response from his people was to say "Bring us the retribution of God, if you are being truthful!
P.S. to show you how easy it is to make an error, you used the word "God" in your suggested translation which is not in the Arabic text.
-
Thank you Layth,
I apologize for my impatience and rudeness in this matter. I hope you can find the kindness to forgive me in your heart. I regret and feel embarrassed about causing such a scene.
Peace
ps the word God may not be in it explicitly though in many other verses "l-sabla" refers to Gods path/Gods ways as I pointed out in other topics I posted on this issue. I can find peace in your translation however it allows even that interpretation of Gods path. It does not obstruct that understanding. I like your translation even better as it both allows the interpretations for obstructing Gods path and the obstruction of Lut and his visitors.
-
Salam all,
I have uploaded the latest revision of "The Qur'an - A Monotheist Translation" in the link below.
Kindly review if you have any comments/observations that can be factored in before the revised file is sent to the publisher this Monday.
http//free-minds.org/sites/default/files/quran.pdf
-
Salam,
I would either change the title to "The Qur'an - A Monotheist Homophobic Translation"
or
remove the references to homosexuality in the index.
Peace.
-
Salam,
I would either change the title to "The Qur'an - A Monotheist Homophobic Translation"
or
remove the references to homosexuality in the index.
Peace.
Are you a homosexual by chance?
-
Pretty shameless question, but I will still answer it. No, I'm not homosexual, I'm heterosexual. I'm one of those that sees the fallacy in thinking God is so narrow-minded to judge people based on a sexual orientation.
-
Can you please render malaikatu and all the other quranic words were "angels" are put as "powerful energies"
That's what malaikatu are, powerful energies created by the THE GOD.
My proof would be the fact this word is consistent from the root mim lam kaf in having "powerful/possessing ascribed to it, and let's face it angels and cherubs are in which books?
Anything along those lines I think people would agree?
-
Hi Nonmushirk,
I agree "powerful energies" or "controllers" is the meaning of the word. Although I don't object to the use of the word Angel. To me that's exactly what angels are. See my post on the analogy between electrons/angels.
Peace
-
During my translation work, I noticed the freeminds quran curiously translates Quran into revelation in
4144 And had We made it a non-Arabic revelation, they would have said "If only its verses were made clear!" Non-Arabic and Arabic, say "For those who believe, it is a guide and healing. As for those who disbelieve, there is deafness in their ears, and they are blind to it. These will be called from a place far away."
Is there any reason to translate http//corpus.quran.com/wordimage?id=61978 into revelation instead of a literal translation of Quran? I have seen this "concealing" of the literal translation in other translations as well, most likely to avoid the inconsistency of a Quran that is in the process of being revealed while referring to itself as an already written text.
This part is very poorly translated as well " Non-Arabic and Arabic, say " Which is incorrect since that part of the verse is still interrogative!
-
Bump.
-
into revelation instead of a literal translation of Quran?
A literal translation would be "reading/recitation" not "Quran".
This part is very poorly translated as well " Non-Arabic and Arabic, say " Which is incorrect since that part of the verse is still interrogative!
http//corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=41&verse=44#(41441)
-
What use have candles and glasses when the owl refuses to see?
-
What use have candles and glasses when the owl refuses to see?
Glasses on an owl doesn't make much sense. ;D
In any case, if you are the owl and cannot see, I am agreeing with part of your post for which I linked to corpus, to show an alternative translation.
-
Glasses on an owl doesn't make much sense. ;D
In any case, if you are the owl and cannot see, I am agreeing with part of your post for which I linked to corpus, to show an alternative translation.
It's a local saying, don't worry about it. Corpus quran btw also translates it as Quran not as revelation.
-
I have a question about verse 2157 "For those there will be contacts from their Lord and a mercy, they are the guided ones."
Why is the word "alawtun" translated as contacts? I know it's from the word salat, but doesn't the word salat mean support in some verses of the Qur'an? For example verse 3356 says that God and the angels will SUPPORT the Prophet, but the free-minds translation says the same thing here "God and His angels make contact with the prophet. O you who believe, you shall make contact with him, and comply completely."
This doesn't make sense.. don't you guys think 'support' would be a better translation?
Peace.
-
Salam,
I can think of "reaching-out" as possibly fitting in better. "support" deviates too much from the root of the word.
That would indeed make more sense. Will this be applied to the Monotheist translation?
I noticed the author of this article also believes "reaching-out" is the best English translation https//sites.google.com/site/icrqsonweb/articles/true-salat
Peace be with you.
-
Salaam runninglikezebras,
You made some interesting points, but I'm not personally convinced.
I am assuming that the story of the people of Lot was well established before the Quran was revealed, and that the established account already claimed that the society was destroyed because it was sexually liberal, having no shame about sodomy. The Quran does not 'correct' that interpretation, despite correcting many other misconceptions that had crept into the faith. The Quran confirms what came before it, and corrects any errors people have introduced.
It seems rash to dismiss a very well established account on the basis that the Quran does not reiterate the charge of sodomy explicitly. Your earlier statements, where you reject any god that considers sodomy a sin, demonstrate that you have a theological need to conclude that sodomy is halal. You appear to be clutching at straws to achieve this though.
If sodomy is halal, and the accepted account of the destruction of Sodom is just homophobic propaganda, you would expect that to be made clear in the Quran. The absence of any correction to that effect suggests that there was nothing to correct - the established view was generally sound, and sodomy is haram.
If I've misunderstood your position, forgive me. I am genuinely interested in understanding it. If you can point me to other material, beyond the comments you've made in this thread, I'd be grateful.
Cheers
