Is Swine Hallal
-
Peace PB,
-
- Was the Prophet Israel...a Messenger? Yes or no?
Yes He is a messenger. ll the prophets are the God's messengers.
- Can you provide the ayat where Allah gave the prophet Israel permission to make something haram which Allah didn't? Yes or no?
You ask a wrong question, the God's messengers forbid or make lawfull for themselvers according what the God forbids or make lawfull and this is one aspect of their mission (the Reading).
- Doesn't the above ayat preclude believers from making something halal, haram? Yes or know?
Idem, it is a bad question. The dutty of believers is also to make lawful or to forbid according what the God and his messenger make lawful and forbad (the Reading).
393 All food was lawful to the children of Israel except that which Israel had made haram to himself, before the Taurat was revealed. Say Bring then the Taurat and read it, if you are truthful.
- Do you know what food Israel made haram for himself? Yes or no?
Yes. The Reading authenticates the previous scriptures (6145 = 393 see my previous post), the God's way remains the same for all messengers.
- Did you know if the COI, followed suit and made haram for all of them what Israel had made haram for himself? Yes or no?
Bad question, what COI did doesn't matter but what is decreed upon them is stated clearly in the Reading.
- A. Do Messengers recite what they wish or?
B. Do they recite what Allah reveals/commands them to recite?
A or B?
B
- A. Can a prophet err in judgement? Yes or no?
Yes But his mission remains intact, He deliver only what the God inspired to him (the same answer for the question 6)
B. Can a Messenger err in judgement? Yes or no?
Yes, But his mission remains intact, He delivers only what the God inspired to him. The God doesn't allow to any messenger to deliver any thing other than His commands.
The reading is a good example.
Salam
-
-
Peace Tay, All
Priest, your argument is solid except for the fact that it disagrees with the grammar.
I don't think that PB's argument is that solid, especially since it creates contradiction as shown many times by many members here. To clearly see the contradiction, let's be a little specific this time
6146 And to those who were Jews We made unlawful every animal having claws, and of oxen and sheep We made unlawful to them the fat of both, except such as was on their backs or the entrails or what was mixed with bones this was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion, and We are surely Truthful.
From this verse, it is clear that oxen's and sheep's meat are not forbidden, but so does their blood. However this would create a contradiction with 6145 when coupled with 55. PB argues that blood is never intended for food, however I think everybody here understand that 6145, which mentions blood, is about prohibion of eating the mentioned things and therefore about food. It is true that things dedicated to other than Allah can be other than food, however the context of 6145 clearly shows that in this particular verse it is about food.
Tanveer, the position that "khanzir" means "flesh of swine" is weakened by the qualifier "rijisun". I've not read any explanation that justifies this apparent contradiction. The animal is not intrinsically foul, nor is it's flesh. Sure, it is a scavenger of sorts, but so are many other animals that are not distinctly forbidden. Until it can be conclusively proven that pig meat is intrinsically foul, the contradictions stands.
Then 590 would also be a contradiction, since it calls intoxicants, gambling, altar and arrows as "rijsun" and we need to prove conclusively that they all are intrinsically foul. Actually the reading mentions that there is some good in intoxicants. Also in 995 Allah calls some people "rijsun". I am quite certain that those people are not intrinsically foul. My point is that what is called "rijsun" does not necessarily means that it is intrinsically foul. So taking "khanzir" to mean "flesh of swine" is not a contradiction because when Allah calls it "rijsun" it does not mean that swine is created bad, but Allah just considers it as abomination.
That's just my understanding.
Peace
-
Peace rachmanadi,
Then 590 would also be a contradiction, since it calls intoxicants, gambling, altar and arrows as "rijsun" and we need to prove conclusively that they all are intrinsically foul. Actually the reading mentions that there is some good in intoxicants. Also in 995 Allah calls some people "rijsun". I am quite certain that those people are not intrinsically foul. My point is that what is called "rijsun" does not necessarily means that it is intrinsically foul. So taking "khanzir" to mean "flesh of swine" is not a contradiction because when Allah calls it "rijsun" it does not mean that swine is created bad, but Allah just considers it as abomination.
Well said brother, the term rijsun is relative and specific only to the meat of pig for us human. But the pig itself is edible by other animals.
-
Peace Rachmanadi,
I have no problem with you disagreeing, as I'm sure you'll have no problem with my view that no one has proven pork to be bad/foul/ill-seeming, whether intrinsically or not. However one wants to translate "rijisun", one should conclusively prove that pork fits this description, per 1736, that's all I'm saying. Calling something an abomination with no explanation as to why is tantamount to blind faith, and this is not what is endorsed by the Qur'an, in my humble opinion.
Peace,
Tay -
PEACE, MARIE,
Peace PB,
-
- Was the Prophet Israel...a Messenger? Yes or no?
Yes He is a messenger. ll the prophets are the God's messengers.
- Can you provide the ayat where Allah gave the prophet Israel permission to make something haram which Allah didn't? Yes or no?
You ask a wrong question, the God's messengers forbid or make lawfull for themselvers according what the God forbids or make lawfull and this is one aspect of their mission (the Reading).
- Doesn't the above ayat preclude believers from making something halal, haram? Yes or know?
Idem, it is a bad question. The dutty of believers is also to make lawful or to forbid according what the God and his messenger make lawful and forbad (the Reading).
393 All food was lawful to the children of Israel except that which Israel had made haram to himself, before the Taurat was revealed. Say Bring then the Taurat and read it, if you are truthful.
- Do you know what food Israel made haram for himself? Yes or no?
Yes. The Reading authenticates the previous scriptures (6145 = 393 see my previous post), the God's way remains the same for all messengers.
- Did you know if the COI, followed suit and made haram for all of them what Israel had made haram for himself? Yes or no?
Bad question, what COI did doesn't matter but what is decreed upon them is stated clearly in the Reading.
- A. Do Messengers recite what they wish or?
B. Do they recite what Allah reveals/commands them to recite?
A or B?
B
- A. Can a prophet err in judgement? Yes or no?
Yes But his mission remains intact, He deliver only what the God inspired to him (the same answer for the question 6)
B. Can a Messenger err in judgement? Yes or no?
Yes, But his mission remains intact, He delivers only what the God inspired to him. The God doesn't allow to any messenger to deliver any thing other than His commands.
The reading is a good example.
Salam
-
No, Israel was not a messenger, he was only a prophet and not all prophets were Messengers. Allah, in Al-Quran, names His Prophet-Messengers i.e Musa, Ishamel, Jesus, Muhmammad, Yunus, Ilyas, Lut etc. Please post the ayat where Allah names Israel as Messenger.
-
Not a wrong question at all. If you are going to assign something to a Messenger, then, you are obligated to prove it. What Messenger, on his own, made something haram? The Messengers brought a Message; the Message is the direct word of Allah to people; the Message is not the ideas/words of the individual. My question still stands Can you provide the ayat where Allah gave the prophet Israel permission to make something haram which Allah didn't? Yes or no?
-
Not a bad question at all. The ayat, specifically, orders believers not to make haram what Allah didn't. What about that isn't perfectly clear? While the duty of believers is to obey what is haram and what is halal, their duty is not to on their own make something haram or halal which Allah did not. The Messengers, brought wahy/the words of Allah, hence, Allah, is not going to contradict Himself. My question still stands Doesn't the above ayat preclude believers from making something halal, haram? Yes or no?
MARIE Yes. The Reading authenticates the previous scriptures (6145 = 393 see my previous post), the God's way remains the same for all messengers.
If what you say is true, was the Messenger Lut, also forbidden to animal with claws and the fat of oxen and sheep, he was a Messenger? Yes or no? Israel, was not a Jew, hence, 6146, cannot apply to him. True or false? Before he made some food haram for himself, no foods, according to ayat 393, were haram to him or the COI. True or false?
-
Not a bad question at all. Both you and S. Carrot, if I am not mistaken, per ayat 393, stated that the prophet Israel made something haram for himself and not the COI at large. There is no evidence that what he imposed upon himself was also imposed on the COI. True or false? If true, then, post the ayat where this evidence can be found. Also, you have yet to tell us, exactly...what food stuff he made haram for himself. Please do this.
-
If B is your answer, then, ayats 393 and 587 contradict.
MARIE A. Yes But his mission remains intact, He deliver only what the God inspired to him B. Yes, But his mission remains intact, He delivers only what the God inspired to him. The God doesn't allow to any messenger to deliver any thing other than His commands. The reading is a good example.
Wrong on both counts
Main Entry FALLIBLE capable of making a mistake/error.
Main Entry ERROR an act or condition of imprudent deviation from a code of behavior an act involving an unintentional deviation from truth an act through ignorance, deficiency, or accident departs from or fails to achieve what should be done.
18110 Say I am only a HUMAN BEING like you; it is revealed to me that your god is one God, therefore whoever hopes to meet his Lord, he should do good deeds, and not join any one in the service of his Lord.
4719 So know that there is no god but Allah, and, ask protection for YOUR FAULT and for the believing men and the believing women; and Allah knows the place of your returning and the place of your abiding.
661 O Prophet! why do you forbid that which Allah has made lawful for you; you seek to please your wives; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Clearly, ayat 661, proves that while in the capacity of Muhammad/The Prophet, he erred in judgement. He held some thing to be forbidden what Allah clearly had made lawful, and Allah called him on it. By any standard of rational thought/logic, what he did constitutes an error in judgement. He was a human being and ALL HUMAN BEINGS ERR.
Main Entry INFALLIBLE incapable of error unerring.
One of the Messengers said the following
761 He said O my people! there is NO ERROR in me, but I am an apostle from the Lord of the worlds.
Clearly, then, the human being to whom A MESSAGE came through, cannot be both fallible and infallible, hence, the only rational explanation is that when a Messenger was reciting wahy/revelation/--A/The Message, he could not err when doing that, because what he was being given was infallible, because its source, Allah, is infallible.
Please go back and answer the questions which you avoided.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
-
- No, Israel was not a messenger, he was only a prophet and not all prophets were Messengers. Allah, in Al-Quran, names His Prophet-Messengers i.e Musa, Ishamel, Jesus, Muhmammad, Yunus, Ilyas, Lut etc. Please post the ayat where Allah names Israel as Messenger.
Are you sure you have read your quran... Even I have read verse 4164 that says NOT ALL Messengers have been named
And messengers We have mentioned unto thee before and messengers We have not mentioned unto thee; and Allah spake directly unto Moses;
.
-
- No, Israel was not a messenger, he was only a prophet and not all prophets were Messengers. Allah, in Al-Quran, names His Prophet-Messengers i.e Musa, Ishamel, Jesus, Muhmammad, Yunus, Ilyas, Lut etc. Please post the ayat where Allah names Israel as Messenger.
If you refute that the prophet of the God is not of the messenger of the God, then it is useless to continue this discussion.
Brother PRIEST_BOKMEI To ponder on the Reading need more than few minutes.
Salam
-
peace Tay,
I just want to clarify your position you're saying since it is not demonstrateable to you that pig meat is 'rijsun/fisqun' then all the arguments put forth against the "swine=halal" view are fruitless?
Perhaps rather than hinging your understanding on a subjective point, it would be more fruitful to refute the solid points put forth. Also, please share with us what evidence you would expect to see to "conclusively prove" pig meat is intrinsically rijsun/fisqun.
Thanks.
Wakas
-
Peace Tay,
Tanveer, the position that "khanzir" means "flesh of swine" is weakened by the qualifier "rijisun". I've not read any explanation that justifies this apparent contradiction. The animal is not intrinsically foul, nor is it's flesh. Sure, it is a scavenger of sorts, but so are many other animals that are not distinctly forbidden. Until it can be conclusively proven that pig meat is intrinsically foul, the contradictions stands.
The contradiction is self-created by yourself, by implying that pork is NOT "rijsun", which is not supported by any evidence and is purely subjective.
If The God says pork is "rijsun", then it is "rijsun".
At the time of revelation of Al-Qur'aan, there was no "conclusive proof" of various facts mentioned in it such as the microscopic stage of embryology, the invisible barrier between two seas, the internal waves in oceans, and other cosmic phenomenon, yet all these facts were later proved by modern science, thereby confirming what The God was saying all along. Please see the following link
http//asadi.95mb.com/koranfiles/
There have been preliminary scientific studies, published in reputable scientific journals that demonstrate statistically significant correlation between consumption of pork and the incidence of cirrhosis, liver cancer, multiple sclerosis and vascular diseases, thereby showing how pork can be "rijsun" for humans. Please see the following link
http//www.islamset.com/hip/pork/Amin_Nanji.html
When more scientific studies confirm the findings of these preliminary scientific studies, it will be conclusive scientific proof that pork is "rijsun" for humans. For me the word of The God is conclusive enough.
Regards,
Tanveer
-
PEACE, TAY,
Priest, your argument is solid except for the fact that it disagrees with the grammar. This is a contradiction, albeit, passive. I do recall a while back, however, in my inquiries of brother Ayman concerning the influence of the Qur'an on the Arabic language, it was concluded that the Qur'an should be considered the catalyst of the Arabic language, as there is no evidence of any sort of structured written language pre-dating the Qur'an. That being said, one must wonder how it is that we can judge the Qur'an's grammatical structure when the Qur'an itself pre-dates all grammatical rules. The answer, I would surmise, is tasreef. It would be educational for all if we could locate all, if any, similar grammatical inconsistencies in the modern understanding of the Qur'an.
The grammar argument which some have raised, is based upon the notions of grammar established by men. No rules of supposed grammar, can overide clear ayats. As you say here
TAY "Tanveer, the position that "khanzir" means "flesh of swine" is weakened by the qualifier "rijisun". I've not read any explanation that justifies this apparent contradiction. The animal is not intrinsically foul, nor is it's flesh. Sure, it is a scavenger of sorts, but so are many other animals that are not distinctly forbidden. Until it can be conclusively proven that pig meat is intrinsically foul, the contradictions stands".
Now, I ask you, what supposed rules of grammar can overcome the obvious facts which you stated above? Those, who are proffering the grammar argument, simply don't understand the internal grammar of Al-Quran like they think they do. Whatever the Quranic grammar is, it cannot contradict the obvious Quranic facts.
Looking forward to your reply.
-
TANVEER,
Give up, bro, you're argument is becoming more and more like a pig with wings and claws...just fiction.
The contradiction is self-created by yourself, by implying that pork is NOT "rijsun", which is not supported by any evidence and is purely subjective.
Your position contradicts the ayat where Allah says that, He created ALL things ahsana--good. The Dict. of the Holy Quran, pg. 124.
-
PEACE, RACHMANADI,
I don't think that PB's argument is that solid, especially since it creates contradiction as shown many times by many members here. To clearly see the contradiction, let's be a little specific this time
6146 And to those who were Jews We made unlawful every animal having claws, and of oxen and sheep We made unlawful to them the fat of both, except such as was on their backs or the entrails or what was mixed with bones this was a punishment We gave them on account of their rebellion, and We are surely Truthful.
From this verse, it is clear that oxen's and sheep's meat are not forbidden, but so does their blood. However this would create a contradiction with 6145 when coupled with 55. PB argues that blood is never intended for food, however I think everybody here understand that 6145, which mentions blood, is about prohibion of eating the mentioned things and therefore about food. It is true that things dedicated to other than Allah can be other than food, however the context of 6145 clearly shows that in this particular verse it is about food.
Some blood, invariably, will get into some of the meat we eat, however, blood, as I stated before, is not a species animal for food. In addition, the blood can be drained and what remains can be cooked off. Even the fat, which was made haram to the Jews, was still permissable to eat, if, it adhered to the backs of sheep and oxen.
Tanveer, the position that "khanzir" means "flesh of swine" is weakened by the qualifier "rijisun". I've not read any explanation that justifies this apparent contradiction. The animal is not intrinsically foul, nor is it's flesh. Sure, it is a scavenger of sorts, but so are many other animals that are not distinctly forbidden. Until it can be conclusively proven that pig meat is intrinsically foul, the contradictions stands.
Then 590 would also be a contradiction, since it calls intoxicants, gambling, altar and arrows as "rijsun" and we need to prove conclusively that they all are intrinsically foul. Actually the reading mentions that there is some good in intoxicants. Also in 995 Allah calls some people "rijsun". I am quite certain that those people are not intrinsically foul. My point is that what is called "rijsun" does not necessarily means that it is intrinsically foul. So taking "khanzir" to mean "flesh of swine" is not a contradiction because when Allah calls it "rijsun" it does not mean that swine is created bad, but Allah just considers it as abomination.
Intoxicants, arrows, gambling, are not created species of animal for food.
-
PEACE, MARIE,
- No, Israel was not a messenger, he was only a prophet and not all prophets were Messengers. Allah, in Al-Quran, names His Prophet-Messengers i.e Musa, Ishamel, Jesus, Muhmammad, Yunus, Ilyas, Lut etc. Please post the ayat where Allah names Israel as Messenger.
If you refute that the prophet of the God is not of the messenger of the God, then it is useless to continue this discussion.
Brother PRIEST_BOKMEI To ponder on the Reading need more than few minutes.
Salam
Marie, enough already with the "how I need to ponder more" baloney. Whenever you and S. Carrot, cannot come up with answers to defend your positions, you want to blame me and go off on tangents. The truth is...you need to study more and that is o.k. You cannot go around making things up about Allah or His Prophets or His Messenger-Prophets. Can you or can you not prove that Israel was a Messenger? Yes or No? Not all of the prophets of Allah were Messengers, this is simply a Quranic fact. Now, do you reject this? Yes or no?
If you choose not to continue this discussion, please don't blame me. It is your own lack of knowledge which is to blame.
-
- No, Israel was not a messenger, he was only a prophet and not all prophets were Messengers. Allah, in Al-Quran, names His Prophet-Messengers i.e Musa, Ishamel, Jesus, Muhmammad, Yunus, Ilyas, Lut etc. Please post the ayat where Allah names Israel as Messenger.
Are you sure you have read your quran... Even I have read verse 4164 that says NOT ALL Messengers have been named
And messengers We have mentioned unto thee before and messengers We have not mentioned unto thee; and Allah spake directly unto Moses;
You may read, but you don't comprehend very well and, as a result, you have completely misunderstood the ayat. The ayat is stating that, there have been Messengers, of whom...we do not know their NAMES. We know the name Israel, hence, if he was a Messenger, he would have been identified as such, just as Lut, Jesus, Muhammad, Musa, Ilyas, Yunus, Ishmael, were. Get it?
-
Peace Wakas & Tanveer,
Wakas, you asked
you're saying since it is not demonstrateable to you that pig meat is 'rijsun/fisqun' then all the arguments put forth against the "swine=halal" view are fruitless?
Not at all. Tanveer asked me what contradictions I saw in the argument and I obliged.
Perhaps rather than hinging your understanding on a subjective point, it would be more fruitful to refute the solid points put forth
I'm not hinging anything bro. Did you read my post at all? I clearly stated that I want no part of this debate. I was simply answering the requests of Tanveer and Priest Bokmei.
Also, please share with us what evidence you would expect to see to "conclusively prove" pig meat is intrinsically rijsun/fisqun.
Perhaps something other than what can be said of any other meat - something that clearly demonstrates it's inherent foulness.
Tanveer, you stated
The contradiction is self-created by yourself, by implying that pork is NOT "rijsun", which is not supported by any evidence and is purely subjective.
You're asking me to prove a negative? Can you prove that purple unicorns don't exist?
Ask me to prove that cigarettes are not foul and I'd be hard pressed. Emphysema, lung cancer, heart disease, can all be directly correlated with smoking cigarettes.
But pork is another story.
If The God says pork is "rijsun", then it is "rijsun".
That is, if the God says pork is "rijsun". That's the crux of this debate, isn't it?
At the time of revelation of Al-Qur'aan, there was no "conclusive proof" of various facts mentioned in it such as the microscopic stage of embryology, the invisible barrier between two seas, the internal waves in oceans, and other cosmic phenomenon, yet all these facts were later proved by modern science, thereby confirming what The God was saying all along.
Believe me I've read them all. Fascinating stuff. However, none of those topics deals with food restrictions.
When more scientific studies confirm the findings of these preliminary scientific studies, it will be conclusive scientific proof that pork is "rijsun" for humans.
I hope so, otherwise we'll all be following blindly that which we have no knowledge of.
For me the word of The God is conclusive enough.
Me too. And the word of God instructs us to verify all information, to not follow blindly. That's all I'm doing, bro. I'm trying to stay objective. I don't eat pork and I don't plan on eating pork, so there's nothing at stake for me except getting to the core of the guidance offered.
Peace,
Tay -
PEACE, WAKAS,
I just want to clarify your position you're saying since it is not demonstrateable to you that pig meat is 'rijsun/fisqun' then all the arguments put forth against the "swine=halal" view are fruitless?
I am not speaking for Tay, but of course they are fruitless. The entire argument of Tanveer, Marie, S. Carrot and some others, rests upon the notion that...the flesh of pig is haram because it rijsun/fasqun. Lack of demonstrable Quranic proof is...blind following. 733 and 1736, makes blind following haram.
Perhaps rather than hinging your understanding on a subjective point, it would be more fruitful to refute the solid points put forth. Also, please share with us what evidence you would expect to see to "conclusively prove" pig meat is intrinsically rijsun/fisqun.
To conclusively prove that, "pig meat is intrinsically rijsun/fisqun", overcome this ayat
327 Who made good/ahasana ...everything that He has created, and He began the creation of man from dust.
Your position contradicts the ayat where Allah says that, He created ALL things ahsana--good. The Dict. of the Holy Quran, pg. 124.
Main Entry HASANA to be handsome make good seem good or beautiful be excellent good
Looking forward to your reply.
-
PEACE, TAY,
I think you quite understand the truth of things now. If not, what else do you wish me to overcome?
-
SaLaM Tay
Lack of demonstrable Quranic proof
What kind of a proof are u looking for? When God is saying why u shouldnt eat the flesh of pig and gives the reason why you shouldnt eat it, isnt that enough proof?
Priest's hilarious argument rests on a wrong interpretation of the word Khanzeer. That plus his lack of knowledge in Quran and its Language doesnt help him understand.
-
- No, Israel was not a messenger, he was only a prophet and not all prophets were Messengers.
Only a Prophet ?...
ALL Prophets are Messengers, can't you read your own quran
When you admitt Israel is a Prophet, you are also admitting he is a Messeger because according to your Quran, every "Nabi" is a "Rasoul" but not every "Rasoul" is a "Nabi".
"The people used to be one community when God sent THE PROPHETS as bearers of good news, as well as warners. HE SENT DOWN WITH THEM THE SCRIPTURE, bearing the truth, to judge among the people in their disputes" 2213
You admitted that Israel is a Prophet and ALL prophets comes with the scripture.
I'm supprised you said Israel was ONLY a Prophet and NOT a Messenger. You've been too busy eating Pork instead of ready your quran
.....
-
Peace Priest_Bokmei & Jaxal, All,
Priest, you stated
The grammar argument which some have raised, is based upon the notions of grammar established by men. No rules of supposed grammar, can overide clear ayats.
I hear your argument, but I'm not convinced that the grammar is not important so long as it is consistent within the Qur'an itself. The method of tasreef is the only true criterion since the Qur'an is surely the only true criterion.
Now, I ask you, what supposed rules of grammar can overcome the obvious facts which you stated above? Those, who are proffering the grammar argument, simply don't understand the internal grammar of Al-Quran like they think they do. Whatever the Quranic grammar is, it cannot contradict the obvious Quranic facts.
You've raised excellent points throughout, Priest, which is why I remain undecided on the matter. Something's gotta give. You say it's the grammar, your opponents say it's the comprehension.
I think you quite understand the truth of things now. If not, what else do you wish me to overcome?
With all due respect, you have not overcome the grammatical contradiction. You've only tossed it aside calling those who have brought it to our attention ill-equipped to understand the grammar, yet we have no alternative understanding. I wish you to overcome this contradiction by finding, within the Qur'an, another occurrence of a grammatical error or inconsistency. This would certainly seal the deal.
Jaxal, you stated
What kind of a proof are u looking for?
The conclusive, verifiable kind. God does not ask us to accept things "because God said so". We are asked to think, ponder, reflect, to use our God-given abilities to understand the guidance, not to simply regurgitate it. This is what seperates us from animals. A cheetah does not have the capacity to understand why it doesn't eat vultures. It simply doesn't eat them.
When God is saying why u shouldnt eat the flesh of pig and gives the reason why you shouldnt eat it, isnt that enough proof?
This whole debate revolves around whether or not God is saying what you suggest is being said.
Priest's hilarious argument rests on a wrong interpretation of the word Khanzeer.
Wrong according to whom? Do you have any proof that the term "khanzir" was used to describe pigs in 7th century Arabia? Do you have any proof that the 7th century Arabs even knew what a pig was? Language evolves, bro, sometimes at the same time in 2 different places.
For instance
"I smoked a fag."
UK translation "I had a cigarette."
US translation "I killed a homosexual."As you can see, there is a vast difference between the 2 understandings, and that is right now, simultaneosly. Imagine someone trying to translate " I smoked a fag" in the year 3400!!
All I'm saying is that I feel obligated to do my damn best to get to the right understanding. When my maker confronts me, I feel I will be held accountable for having reached my own conclusions.
Thus far, I remain undecided. I'm sorry if that bothers you or anyone else.
Peace,
Tay
