Koran dated to before Muhamad birth.

[Augustus]

Let me read your link. I dislike make comments on statements especially at the tail end of a book. Even reading the first few pages I can see Donner is attempting to establish ground work well before this statement is made. I would like to see his process in it's entirety before see his possible conclusions.

Fair enough. It's not really important as I'm trying to guess what you are referring to rather than highlighting something specifically chosen for its cogency.

If you have your own example it would probably be better anyway, as it is something you chose yourself for your own reasons rather than being someone else's guesswork.

 

[Shad]

Fair enough. It's not really important as I'm trying to guess what you are referring to rather than highlighting something specifically chosen for its cogency.

If you have your own example it would probably be better anyway, as it is something you chose yourself for your own reasons rather than being someone else's guesswork.

I have provided a few examples already. Those verse I would call plagiarism under the modern view of traditional Islam (infallibility, etc). Other parts like stories of Moses that are not found in Judaism can not be plagiarism. I differ from Outhouse in the sense that I try to be very specific rather than general thus making a general statement on the complete text.

 

[Shad]

The attempt to slap all sorts of things through twisting of your very own words and fantasy onto someone else has always been the greatest lie ever told, if it makes you right, by attributing lies to me and adding all sorts of stuff to someone, so be it. I forgive you, you don't realize what you do. I'm not concerned with my image, credibility, and what the lower academists think. People have also been doing that to "God" for quite some time.

Lies such as what?

The authorship, messenger doesn't matter, as well as the language... What matters is the meaning, in which you're focused on differences rather than similarities. Divide rather than unity.

What you dismiss is relevant. Only an amateur believes the sophistry you put forward.

The texts are not historical or meant to be in any way. Stick to that. You don't know their meaning. Only their external and epistemic meaning. Living on the outside of their meaning, not the inside. Outhouse and not inhouse.

Parts of the Bible are very historical.

Say the one that rejects the language of the text but focuses on English while making up BS to usurp another religion.

Religions seek the outward, and that's where they stay, outside of the truth.

True. However that does not mean one religion has anything to do with another.

The attempt to desconstruct mythological texts in a historical way, traditional way is misleading. They are internal poetry and symbolism, nothing more.

You are completely wrong.

The traditional view leads to disconnect, and not connect; differences and not similarities; divide and not unity.

No this view produces results, you view produces sophistry

Traditional/fundamental scholars, professionals, philosophers are not much different than traditional/fundamental religionists. Both are blind and possess knowledge, and not knowing. Their logic brain gates are closed off to more. It is a shame, that brilliant men and women with great potential can never expand and find more.

You are still in the later camp while being obvious to being in that camp. It is a shame people spends so much time on sophistry such as what you spout

Everything is connected and linked, I am sorry you are closed to that.

*Yawn* More sophistry.

 

[Unification]

Lies such as what?



What you dismiss is relevant. Only an amateur believes the sophistry you put forward.



Parts of the Bible are very historical.

Say the one that rejects the language of the text but focuses on English while making up BS to usurp another religion.



True. However that does not mean one religion has anything to do with another.



You are completely wrong.



No this view produces results, you view produces sophistry



You are still in the later camp while being obvious to being in that camp. It is a shame people spends so much time on sophistry such as what you spout



*Yawn* More sophistry.

Thus saith El Shaddai,

"Lies such as what?"
Sophistry you have used. Debate why they are not similar or not influenced by Sanskrit literature, stop adding differences, language, scholars, selection bias, and whatever else you have done to justify your tradition that had nothing to do with what was brought up initially.

"Parts of the bible are very historical."
Which ones?

"Only an amateur believes the sophistry you put forward."
You put forward all of the sophistry, through all of your own additions, and then slap what you added yourself onto another. It was like this:

Me: 1+1=2.
El Shaddai: "no, you are wrong... I'm going to add my own 1 on top of that to the equation. 1+1+1 does not equal 2."

Only you have added 4-5 different and irrelevant variables in order to label someone else as "sophistry."

Link: Brahma's wife and sister is Sarasvati. Abraham's wife and sister is Sarah.
El Shaddai: nope, I don't like those scholars, they have been proven wrong before." "Nope... "Brahma," "wife," "and," "sister," "is," "Sarasvati," "Abraham," "Sarah" are all English and thus you are wrong."

Link: the River Sarasvati has a tributary named Ghaggar. Sarah's maidservant is Hagar.
El Shaddai: "nope, you are wrong because there are differences also, selection bias."

Link: Sarasvati is Goddess of Speech. Abraham harkens to the voice of Sarah.
El Shaddai: "nope you are wrong, I'm going to make it about mathematical theorem of language, and ignore that not only is speech spoken and lives in the lives of people, but also translated from language to language, that English comes from PIE, and that their are such things as religious literature and that Sanskrit religious literature and Hebrew religious literature claim a divine language, and that mathematical traditional theorems wouldn't apply. . Even to names and numbers."

"That does not mean one religion has anything to do with another."
True, when the texts are viewed outwardly, historically, traditionally and not as poetic internal wisdom, knowledge.

"The one who rejects the language of the text."
I reject you making "similar" and "influence" from Sanskrit literature all about language to suit yourself and steering away from the original and only topic creating all sorts of confusions, assumptions, and additions created by only yourself.

Debate why they are not similarities and influenced from Sanskrit literature. None of your additions are required and are completely irrelevant. Including the different "external" interpretations per different religion.

 

[Unification]

Not in the case you are attempting to make. You are attempting to deconstruct the texts, traditions, peoples and environment to an oversimplification of religion. This is in order to usurper one religion in order to provide credibility for your own view, nothing more. the oversimplication of your argument is the very weakness which makes it untenable.



Irrelevant. Religions seek the divine this does not mean each religion is based upon your favour of choice.



Nope as there are long standing traditions for my view and none for your own.



Nope. Even a lie believed as a truth has meaning and value to people. As is the case with Paul's letters. The lie is in the authorship, the value and meaning is within the text.



No, it has no relation to Indo-European. You are using speculation as evidence, not actual evidence.



Hebrew isnt which is the language of one the texts you are using is written in.



Loanwords can be traced properly in order to establish a link, you have made no such case.



Fine by me since those are all relevant to this thread and your claims.

"Loanwords can be traced properly in order to establish a link, you have made no such case."

This is like saying since there is lack of fossil evidence to establish a link, There is no case for evolution... It is false and assumptive.

No different with the evolution of language and it's initial source.

 

[Unification]

Google is crap, if you use this as a source it shows you are willing to believe anything you read on the internet. Let's see credible studies or research papers from professions. You know what professionals are right? Those people you ignore, in case you forgot.

It shows that one can read whichever they search for on the internet and they are their own source choosing which is of value to them and which isn't.

For one... No one needs any historians, scientists, scholars, archaeologists, professionals to say that a book of parables, dark sayings, ancient mythology, allegory, symbolism was not history or ordinary language. The texts state so itself. Should we call one knowledgeable, professional, and scholarly for pointing out the evident and obvious?

Two... traditionalist's always choose their own "credible" professionals and usually label everything else as heretic. Ironically, traditional/external religion does the same. I already know the traditional view, I am just not enslaved to a system that allows virtually little to no conscious expansion. Should we sign away our own right to freedom of our own mind? Should we seek knowledge or to know? I don't live in a box full of limitations and fear that my traditional mindset may be wrong and fight for it at all costs because I worry about my credibility and flock.

One sees what they want to see and doesn't see what they don't want to see. It doesn't matter what research is provided to a closed, enslaved, limited, and boxed external mind.

 

[Shad]

It shows that one can read whichever they search for on the internet and they are their own source choosing which is of value to them and which isn't.

Nope, my views are based on academic work, your views are not. It is made by amateurs that have no idea what they are talking about.

For one... No one needs any historians, scientists, scholars, archaeologists, professionals to say that a book of parables, dark sayings, ancient mythology, allegory, symbolism was not history or ordinary language. The texts state so itself. Should we call one knowledgeable, professional, and scholarly for pointing out the evident and obvious?

These are not obvious since you take tiny similarities like using a number, you ignore if the number if flawed or what the number is talking about, to count your hits. The only thing obvious is that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the tets you are talking about.

Two... traditionalist's always choose their own "credible" professionals and usually label everything else as heretic. Ironically, traditional/external religion does the same. I already know the traditional view, I am just not enslaved to a system that allows virtually little to no conscious expansion. Should we sign away our own right to freedom of our own mind? Should we seek knowledge or to know? I don't live in a box full of limitations and fear that my traditional mindset may be wrong and fight for it at all costs because I worry about my credibility and flock.

Yawn. Typical drivel from those that reject academy when it upsets their religious ideology, nothing more. It is also egotisical to claim you are above academic thought and everyone working within this scope. Your views are no different from a crackpot with a cardboard sign on the side of the street claiming the world will end.

One sees what they want to see and doesn't see what they don't want to see. It doesn't matter what research is provided to a closed, enslaved, limited, and boxed external mind.

Exaactly, you see what you want to see. However when it comes down to scrutinizing your view it doesn't even stand up to simple linguistic analysis

 

[Shad]

"Loanwords can be traced properly in order to establish a link, you have made no such case."

This is like saying since there is lack of fossil evidence to establish a link, There is no case for evolution... It is false and assumptive.

No different with the evolution of language and it's initial source.

There is a major difference hence why there are language groups of which Hebrew and Sanakit are not in the same group at all. There are fossil links so your comparison is flawed.

Try again, son.

 

[Shad]

Thus saith El Shaddai,

"Lies such as what?"
Sophistry you have used. Debate why they are not similar or not influenced by Sanskrit literature, stop adding differences, language, scholars, selection bias, and whatever else you have done to justify your tradition that had nothing to do with what was brought up initially.

Your whole case is based on parallelism in English, nothing more. I already pointed out that you are comparing Gods to people. You omitted the fact that the first-born was not the first born.

"Parts of the bible are very historical."
Which ones?

The conquest of the area by Assyria, Babylon and Peria are historical.

"Only an amateur believes the sophistry you put forward."
You put forward all of the sophistry, through all of your own additions, and then slap what you added yourself onto another. It was like this:

Me: 1+1=2.
El Shaddai: "no, you are wrong... I'm going to add my own 1 on top of that to the equation. 1+1+1 does not equal 2."

Nope. You are saying 1+1*2+5-3 is the same math as 1+1*3+10-1 is the same since both contain 1+1. However you ignore the rest.

Only you have added 4-5 different and irrelevant variables in order to label someone else as "sophistry."

Parallelism is fallacious thus sophistry, Nice try.

Link: Brahma's wife and sister is Sarasvati. Abraham's wife and sister is Sarah.
El Shaddai: nope, I don't like those scholars, they have been proven wrong before." "Nope... "Brahma," "wife," "and," "sister," "is," "Sarasvati," "Abraham," "Sarah" are all English and thus you are wrong."

Sara is his half-sister thus not the same. Also one figure is a God, the other is not. The names have different meaning. Again you could the hits, ignore the misses.

Link: the River Sarasvati has a tributary named Ghaggar. Sarah's maidservant is Hagar.
El Shaddai: "nope, you are wrong because there are differences also, selection bias."

More parallelism based on a similarity in a name from two different languages. Also a tributary is part of the system of the first while Hagar is completely unrelated to Sara.

Link: Sarasvati is Goddess of Speech. Abraham harkens to the voice of Sarah.
El Shaddai: "nope you are wrong, I'm going to make it about mathematical theorem of language, and ignore that not only is speech spoken and lives in the lives of people, but also translated from language to language, that English comes from PIE, and that their are such things as religious literature and that Sanskrit religious literature and Hebrew religious literature claim a divine language, and that mathematical traditional theorems wouldn't apply. . Even to names and numbers."

Hilarious. Listening to one's wife does not make her the Goddess of speech. Also listening to Sara led Abraham to sin.

"That does not mean one religion has anything to do with another."
True, when the texts are viewed outwardly, historically, traditionally and not as poetic internal wisdom, knowledge.

Knowledge is included in the former subjects you dismissed. You play loose with the word knowledge. Two text containing wisdom does not by default means it is from your religion, Hand-weaving nonsense.

"The one who rejects the language of the text."
I reject you making "similar" and "influence" from Sanskrit literature all about language to suit yourself and steering away from the original and only topic creating all sorts of confusions, assumptions, and additions created by only yourself.

You used language, English, as your primary source of parallelism. Now you dismiss it when it shows these are not linked with the two source languages. Double-standards.

Debate why they are not similarities and influenced from Sanskrit literature. None of your additions are required and are completely irrelevant. Including the different "external" interpretations per different religion.

No need as you have failed to establish your case.e]

 

[groves200]

Sure it is to 95% accuracy.

But as I already stated it could be fact and muslims would not accept it.

Of course not. But they do believe Mohamed flew into heaven on his horse, and returned to earth. How he got through earths atmosphere where the Space Shuttle has been known to lose some tiles from the superheated re-entry- ... on a HORSE - l do not know...

 

[Unification]

Nope, my views are based on academic work, your views are not. It is made by amateurs that have no idea what they are talking about.



These are not obvious since you take tiny similarities like using a number, you ignore if the number if flawed or what the number is talking about, to count your hits. The only thing obvious is that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the tets you are talking about.



Yawn. Typical drivel from those that reject academy when it upsets their religious ideology, nothing more. It is also egotisical to claim you are above academic thought and everyone working within this scope. Your views are no different from a crackpot with a cardboard sign on the side of the street claiming the world will end.



Exaactly, you see what you want to see. However when it comes down to scrutinizing your view it doesn't even stand up to simple linguistic analysis

I see everything you see, including all of the science, testing, academic... but allow for expansion of mind and am not enslaved to obey a particular stagnant traditional system that has my mind conditioned.

 

[Shad]

I see everything you see, including all of the science, testing, academic... but allow for expansion of mind and am not enslaved to obey a particular stagnant traditional system that has my mind conditioned.

Which makes you a crackpot. thanks for admitting it.

 

[Unification]

There is a major difference hence why there are language groups of which Hebrew and Sanakit are not in the same group at all. There are fossil links so your comparison is flawed.

Try again, son.

Being dead and robotic in a mathematical paradigm of language, you are right. I don't view life, connection of human beings, and speech existing within one and shared ....as dead, robotic, and mathematical.

But, traditionally and mathematically, I don't see how one can make that conclusion on Cymatics and the phenomena of speech.

 

[Unification]

Your whole case is based on parallelism in English, nothing more. I already pointed out that you are comparing Gods to people. You omitted the fact that the first-born was not the first born.



The conquest of the area by Assyria, Babylon and Peria are historical.




Nope. You are saying 1+1*2+5-3 is the same math as 1+1*3+10-1 is the same since both contain 1+1. However you ignore the rest.



Parallelism is fallacious thus sophistry, Nice try.



Sara is his half-sister thus not the same. Also one figure is a God, the other is not. The names have different meaning. Again you could the hits, ignore the misses.



More parallelism based on a similarity in a name from two different languages. Also a tributary is part of the system of the first while Hagar is completely unrelated to Sara.



Hilarious. Listening to one's wife does not make her the Goddess of speech. Also listening to Sara led Abraham to sin.



Knowledge is included in the former subjects you dismissed. You play loose with the word knowledge. Two text containing wisdom does not by default means it is from your religion, Hand-weaving nonsense.



You used language, English, as your primary source of parallelism. Now you dismiss it when it shows these are not linked with the two source languages. Double-standards.



No need as you have failed to establish your case.e]

"Hilarious. Listening to one's wife does not make her the Goddess of speech. Also listening to Sara led Abraham to sin."

No one said it did, stop assuming please. The similarity is of speech and voice.

 

[Unification]

Which makes you a crackpot. thanks for admitting it.

If I'm a "crackpot" from your own admission, because I'm not enslaved to a lower-educated traditional swampy constitution of yours, so be it.

 

[Shad]

If I'm a "crackpot" from your own admission, because I'm not enslaved to a lower-educated traditional swampy constitution of yours, so be it.

More sophistry that continually false to produce any reason, logic or evidence for stated claims. It is the hallmark of ideas that can not pass scrutiny so instead of think perhaps the idea is flawed the support just rejects science, history, tradition, language, etc as all wrong. Hubris at it's finest.

 

[Shad]

"Hilarious. Listening to one's wife does not make her the Goddess of speech. Also listening to Sara led Abraham to sin."

No one said it did, stop assuming please. The similarity is of speech and voice.

Again ignoring the misses and only counting the hits, selection bias.

 

[Shad]

Being dead and robotic in a mathematical paradigm of language, you are right. I don't view life, connection of human beings, and speech existing within one and shared ....as dead, robotic, and mathematical.

But, traditionally and mathematically, I don't see how one can make that conclusion on Cymatics and the phenomena of speech.

Hilarious. You do not understand how people create conclusions using different methods but your own claim is based on the simplest of these methods.

 

[Unification]

More sophistry that continually false to produce any reason, logic or evidence for stated claims. It is the hallmark of ideas that can not pass scrutiny so instead of think perhaps the idea is flawed the support just rejects science, history, tradition, language, etc as all wrong. Hubris at it's finest.

False, I do not reject any of those. I reject someone who creates lies, fantasy, and assumptions on another.

You're in the same boat that you refer to. You reject everything that isn't your own tradition. Of course, not Shad's traditions are possibly flawed... Not possible. Shad's traditions and academia are perfect, flawless, and the ONLY way.

 

[Unification]

Again ignoring the misses and only counting the hits, selection bias.

As you are ignoring the similarities and counting the differences, selection bias.

I don't disagree that there are differences.

When, for the hundredth time... It was about similarities in the first place.