Origins of the Quran/Islam - various academic perspectives

[outhouse]

No it isn't as you ignore that people could actually believe in these figures within Arabia thus it is part of their traditions as well

Does not matter what they believe.

The FACT remains the bible was the MAJOR source of influence for the koran.

If there was no bible the koran would factually never exist.

 

[Shad]

LOL I did not use that word.

Irrelevent as you clear said an Arabic version. If there is an Arabic version than there is a previous version that was not Arabic. That means it was translated.

I stated very very clearly, Arabic version.

ver·sion
[ˈvərZHən]
NOUN

1. a particular form of something differing in certain respects from an earlier form or other forms of the same type of thing:

[/QUOTE]

Cherry picking. You ignore this fact that destroys your argument

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/version

3. a translation.

Now if there is a version of the Bible in Arabic that means it was a translation.

 

[outhouse]

You changed your argument again.

The FACT we have an Arabic version

is not changed in any way .

 

[outhouse]

this fact that destroys your argument

No it does not

#3 is a partial definition.

#1 is the actual context, thanks for playing


Not only that translations do not have to be word for word in any accuracy.


Pretty hard to believe you have to debate the definition of VERSION out of context to what it obviously means. Its showing desperation if you ask me.

 

[Shad]

Plagiarized text often contains different material then the original version.

No it does as it would not be plagiarism. I guess you have no idea what plagiarism is

Ideas are taken, not whole stories when someone plagiarized content.

That is plagerism

Maybe you don't understand there is a difference from copy and plagiarize

No I do. Remember I am not the one that think copy and plagiarism means the same thing, that was you.

 

[Shad]

No it does not

#3 is a partial definition.

No it isn't. It is the definition you ignored since it specifical refutes your argument.

#1 is the actual context, thanks for playing

No it doesn't since the parameter of Arabic and Bible show 3 is correct not 1. You could claim the Quran is 1 since it is different than the Bible thus not the Bible at all but then you previous claim is moot. However by including Bible and a language in your argument you already set the parameter which refutes your argument. Try again

 

[outhouse]

FACT.

the koran contains the biblical god, and biblical people, and biblical mythology.


So its safe to say the koran contains biblical ideas.

 

[Shad]

FACT.

the koran contains the biblical god, and biblical people, and biblical mythology.

So, never argued that it didn't.

So its safe to say the koran contains biblical ideas.

Never said it didn't.

I question your conclusions as each was unsubstantiated. You created conclusions that were not connected by the above premises.

 

[outhouse]

This is a good read. So here we cannot say the bible was plagiarized, but we can say Abrahamic traditions were plagiarized.



http://wn.com/quran_copied_apocrypha!_blatant_plagiarism!

Quran copied Apocrypha! Blatant Plagiarism!

The Apocryphal gospels which are plagiarised by the Koran include: The Gospel of James, or Protevangelium (140-170 AD) The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (5th Century- 6th Century AD) The History of Joseph the Carpenter (5th Century AD) The Gospel of The Nativity of Mary The Arabic Gospel of The Infancy of The Saviour (5th Century AD) The Infancy Gospel of Thomas (80-105 AD) All of theses Gospels have stories which were inserted into the 7th Century Koran. Its Undeniable that Christianity had a huge influence upon Islam and the formation of the Koran. As Mohammad knew nothing of Jesus who lived 600 years earlier he had to rely on the Apocryphal stories in his Koran



This is all similar to what a heretical priest would find valuable.

 

[outhouse]

The Quran, the central religious text of Islam, contains references to more than fifty people and events also found in the Bible.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Nobody created anything.

Our space and universe formed from a singularity. The universe is chocked full of small singularities.

We don't need to attribute mythology to a natural event.

There's one big problem with your position. If there is no universal reason why the universe exists, and is populated with life, then everything else is relatively meaningless.

..but that is not how it appears to be. We have intelligence and are able to make conclusions and decisions. To believe consciousness and intelligence evolved from 'nothingness' require a HUGE leap of 'blind faith'

 

[use_your_brain]

No one has found such an entity in order to evaluate or learn anything about it. All "knowledge" of God are either baseless claims made by humans or flawed logical arguments.

We able to know the God via His creations. the attributes of God displayed in science and nature. The universe is the tangible evidence of His existence. So far there is no a single scientist able to explain where the very beginning of the matter in our universe came from. yet there must be something/'someone' provided it at first before it came into existence .

 

[Shad]

This is a good read. So here we cannot say the bible was plagiarized, but we can say Abrahamic traditions were plagiarized.



http://wn.com/quran_copied_apocrypha!_blatant_plagiarism!

Quran copied Apocrypha! Blatant Plagiarism!

The Apocryphal gospels which are plagiarised by the Koran include: The Gospel of James, or Protevangelium (140-170 AD) The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew (5th Century- 6th Century AD) The History of Joseph the Carpenter (5th Century AD) The Gospel of The Nativity of Mary The Arabic Gospel of The Infancy of The Saviour (5th Century AD) The Infancy Gospel of Thomas (80-105 AD) All of theses Gospels have stories which were inserted into the 7th Century Koran. Its Undeniable that Christianity had a huge influence upon Islam and the formation of the Koran. As Mohammad knew nothing of Jesus who lived 600 years earlier he had to rely on the Apocryphal stories in his Koran



This is all similar to what a heretical priest would find valuable.

Again with your unsubstantiated claim of plagiarism knowing full well these heretical beliefs were within Arabia and the border regions at the time. It is amazing you denounce academy you ramble on about when it helps you case but not when it does.. You have a bias which is namely Muhammad willingly plagiarized and deceived people rather than even entertaining the idea you even agreed with that these tradition were part of his environment.

 

[Shad]

There's one big problem with your position. If there is no universal reason why the universe exists, and is populated with life, then everything else is relatively meaningless.

..but that is not how it appears to be. We have intelligence and are able to make conclusions and decisions. To believe consciousness and intelligence evolved from 'nothingness' require a HUGE leap of 'blind faith'

Off-topic, irrelevant and illogical tripe. You believe that both existed without evidence yet dare to say we have no reason when there is evidence of both developing in nature without God.

We able to know the God via His creations. the attributes of God displayed in science and nature. The universe is the tangible evidence of His existence. So far there is no a single scientist able to explain where the very beginning of the matter in our universe came from. yet there must be something/'someone' provided it at first before it came into existence .

Off-topic, irrelevant and illogical tripe. the universe could be that something thus God is not required. Negation does not provide any detail as you never examined God at all. I could do the same with fairies... Negation does not make something exist. Try again son.

 

[use_your_brain]

Off-topic, irrelevant and illogical tripe. You believe that both existed without evidence yet dare to say we have no reason when there is evidence of both developing in nature without God.



Off-topic, irrelevant and illogical tripe. the universe could be that something thus God is not required. Negation does not provide any detail as you never examined God at all. I could do the same with fairies...

so, You simply rely on COULD BE. As I say none able to explain who what created the universe at the very beginning, except in religious sense. It is the limit of science domain.

 

[use_your_brain]

Again with your unsubstantiated claim of plagiarism knowing full well these heretical beliefs were within Arabia and the border regions at the time. It is amazing you denounce academy you ramble on about when it helps you case but not when it does.. You have a bias which is namely Muhammad willingly plagiarized and deceived people rather than even entertaining the idea you even agreed with that these tradition were part of his environment.

what is wrong with plagiarizing the good thing?

 

[Shad]

so, You simply rely on COULD BE. As I say none able to explain who what created the universe at the very beginning, except in religious sense. It is the limit of science domain.

No. I put forward other possible explanation, mind you I accept none, that you ignore since your presupposition does not allow such a possibility. You have been in indoctrinated to only make one conclusion only. Religion explains nothing about the universe since most are based on primitive writing about things they didn't understand at all. After all your book religion claims the sun sets in a pool of water.... Not mine.

 

[Shad]

what is wrong with plagiarizing the good thing?

Plagiarism hold the parameter of intent to willfully deceive people. Outhouse is arguing the Muhammad was a conartist that fooled people with Islam. Do you really want to agree with the view that Muhammad was a complete fraud and you follow a religion made up by such conartist.

 

[use_your_brain]

Plagiarism hold the parameter of intent to willfully deceive people. Outhouse is arguing the Muhammad was a conartist that fooled people with Islam. Do you really want to agree with the view that Muhammad was a complete fraud and you follow a religion made up by such conartist.

As long as he plagiarized the good thing then I would follow it.

 

[Shad]

As long as he plagiarized the good thing then I would follow it.

Then you agree that Muhammad never received any revelation from God, he was a conartist using religion to fool the gullible into following him for his personal advancement and benefit.

I do not think you understand what plagiarism is.