The Bible versus the KoranFollow

They are if you follow Dhabiha methods and there's no other form of sustenance around - and I'm pretty sure that there isn't, for a zombie.

Besdies, if Allah didn't want zombies to crack open skulls and slurp on the delivious goo inside, why would he have given them tongues?

Edited, May 16th 2009 12:57pm by Kavekk

Nobby, I didn't say you were wrong, it's just that I was raised to automatically think of them in that context and not of an English king.
Can't I make random observations anymore?

What jophiel said.

Exactly what I meant in the first place. (Not that I have quite the same credentials as he does regarding the subject).

Both are trash.

It's not really ironic. The dilemma was created entirely internally rather than externally, and it is therefore exactly what one would expect rather than the opposite.

Edited, May 17th 2009 6:51pm by Allegory

Teaching religion at the tip of a sword is the only way to go.

Sigh twas a joke.

Goddamnreligionhatingjokemakerscan'tlaughatthemselvessoratedownmothertruckingfools

Edited, May 18th 2009 9:27am by Goggy

Which weighs more, though?

You can translate it. You can walk over to Border's right now and buy an English copy. But only the Arabic versions count as "scripture" to Muslims.

You know, there is a very easy way to settle this.

So, at no point was the word slightly altered from its initial state in its initial transcription? That Muhammad had perfect memory, absorbed every single word perfectly and recounted it in utter perfection for the making of the Qur'an? Hmmm ..

Which is presumably exactly why the argument that you should read the Koran in Arabic is made. I wouldn't use the term "impossible" to refer to translations, but there's certainly some argument to be made that you'll get a more correct meaning if you read it in the language it was written in.


I'll also point out that with regards to the bible, you really can't do this anyway. Depending on which sections of the bible we're talking about, they were written in different languages "originally". Most of the oldest bits of the Old Testament were written in Hebrew. Some were written (or translated) into Aramaic. The New Testament was largely written in Greek. Bible scholars do learn all three languages in order to study the works, but even then there are problems. Hebrew and Aramaic writing changed over time (as has Greek, but it was relatively stable in the context of the Bible books we have). There are dialectical differences, which are quite noticeable. Standard writing techniques change over time as well. In Hebrew an extra squiggle above or below a word can radically change its meaning. If it's during the time period when that squiggle was used to denote X change in meaning of course. It could just be a meaningless stylistic element on the page at other times.

And that ignores simple transcription errors, of which there are many...


Does this make one more "worldly"? That's hard to say. I suspect that the spread or lack of spread of a belief structure has a lot more to do with the social issues of the day than which book was written in which language and whether or not the religion is "open" or "closed" in nature.

Of course the problem is that even if you speak Arabic, you still have to interpret Muhammad's words with your fallible human brain. And that the language I'm sure has changed in the past 1500 years. Or you could get an Imam to tell you what's what, but then you're relying on his interpretation, and subsequently your interpretation of his words. Maybe this is part of why they "begrudgingly tolerate" translations, in the article's words. It's an untenable dilemma. Like a burrito so big that even Jesus couldn't eat it.