Poll: Signs of eloquence of Quran

[danieldemol]

Responses to Polls will be bias in a topic like this. I will respond with bias. Every positive response to this poll will be done arbitrarily. Making assumptions Those who say I don't know, are making a direct response with what they know, the others are just arbitrary.

Disagree, what assumptions do you think (or assume) I made?

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

Disagree, what assumptions do you think (or assume) I made?

In my opinion.

I didnt say you made assumptions.

 

[danieldemol]

I didnt say you made assumptions.

You said that, "Every positive response to this poll will be done arbitrarily. Making assumptions".

I'm one of those positive responses (if by positive you meant affirming it could have been done by humans).

Therefore by implication you are accusing me of making assumptions.

I'm interested to know what my assumptions are?

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

You said that, "Every positive response

Did you make a positive response? What was your response if you want to discuss this now (not the Bahai's position about Ilme Balagha of the Qur'an and Kithab al Akdhas because you have no clue about it and you will have to make a million assumptions out of thin air).

Thanks in advance. Lets see if your Tu Quoque ad hominem as any grounds at all.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

How could the various versions (King James, etc.) of the New Testament be exactly the same, yet worded differently? That would be a miracle. As it is, the bibles have contradictions (obvious mistakes).

Yup. My interest in religion is equal parts historical, sociological and psychological. The arguments through time about translating the bible are quite interesting, including the fact that at various points it has become a translation of a translation of a translation, etc.

 

[danieldemol]

Did you make a positive response? What was your response if you want to discuss this now (not the Bahai's position about Ilme Balagha of the Qur'an and Kithab al Akdhas because you have no clue about it and you will have to make a million assumptions out of thin air).

Thanks in advance. Lets see if your Tu Quoque ad hominem as any grounds at all.

Well first of all, since I haven't made an accusation of Bias it is not a Tu-Quoque (you also), it is actually a you only.

Second of all my positive response was, "Capable of a human that knows eloquence at a very high level that very little reach"

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

Well first of all, since I haven't made an accusation of Bias it is not a Tu-Quoque

A Tu Quoque, is when you make a you too statement like you did.

Second of all my positive response was, "Capable of a human that knows eloquence at a very high level that very little reach"

So how do you know this a human is capable? Did you study the ilme Balagha? Let's say the Mathaani or coupling in English for you to relate better. Have done any kind of work on that?

 

[danieldemol]

A Tu Quoque, is when you make a you too statement like you did.

'Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin Tū quoque, for "you also") is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy.'

Source: Tu quoque - Wikipedia

I did not intend to discredit your argument, i agree with you that throwing around terms of bias is ad-hominem (ie agreeing not discrediting your argument) then using it as a basis to encourage further introspection in you.

So how do you know this a human is capable? Did you study the ilme Balagha? Let's say the Mathaani or coupling in English for you to relate better. Have done any kind of work on that?

There was no need to do that as the observed historical evidence is that humans wrote the Quran.

So I make the following observations.

1) Humans wrote the Quran
2) The Quran is eloquent.

There is no need to make additional assumptions (such as that eloquence or supreme eloquence = divinity) as they are a non-sequitur.

So you see making assumptions is what Muslims (such as yourself) are doing, not what I'm doing. (This is not tue quoque as I agree with the argument that we shouldn't be making additional unwarranted assumptions, so I am arguing you only, *not* you also).

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin Tū quoque, for "you also") is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with their argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy.

Source: Tu quoque - Wikipedia

I did not intend to discredit your argument, i agree with you that throwing around terms of bias is ad-hominem (ie agreeing not discrediting your argument) then using it as a basis to encourage further introspection in you.

Nice cut and paste. You did it.

There was no need to do that as the observed historical evidence is that humans wrote the Quran.

That's irrelevant. The topic is about the Ilme Balagha.
'
You made a vote based on your bias, arbitrarily, without making any study.

 

[danieldemol]

Nice cut and paste. You did it.

Nope as it specifically says that Tu Quoque contains intention to discredit the argument. Agreeing with the argument and using it to encourage introspection is demonstrably not Tu-Quoque.

That's irrelevant. The topic is about the Ilme Balagha.

The topic of ilme Balagha is irrelevant because it fails to demonstrate how eloquence = divinity.

You made a vote based on your bias,

Ad-hominem.

without making any study.

Correction, without any irrelevant study.

Otherwise if eloquence = divinity it is on you to demonstrate how so without making additional assumptions

 

[firedragon]

The topic of ilme Balagha is irrelevant

That's the topic. If the topic is irrelevant, ...................

 

[danieldemol]

That's the topic. If the topic is irrelevant, ...................

Then the poll topic is different to the OP title.

The poll topic is (in my own words) does the eloquence of the quran = divinity?

This theme is reflected in the poll options;

Quran's eloquence is...

1. 
   Perfectly calculated words that can only be from God
   3 vote(s)
   20.0%
2. 
   Beyond human calculated words, but possibly from misguided higher intelligent beings
   0 vote(s)
   0.0%
3. *
   Capable of a human that knows eloquence at a very high level that very little reach
   1 vote(s)
   6.7%
4. 
   One human can't do it but it's capable of many humans who have advance knowledge of eloquence
   0 vote(s)
   0.0%
5. 
   Perfectly calculated words capable of only God or his exalted chosen ones
   0 vote(s)
   0.0%
6. 
   At a level capable of any human as it's not eloquent at all
   0 vote(s)
   0.0%
7. 
   At a level many humans can do, as it's eloquent, but not to a level only a few can reach
   4 vote(s)
   26.7%
8. 
   I don't know
   7 vote(s)

As you can see the theme of the poll is different to the theme of the title, which is only (again in my own words) Are there signs of eloquence in the arabic Quran?

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

Then the poll topic is different to the OP title.

The poll topic is (in my own words) does the eloquence of the quran = divinity?

This theme is reflected in the poll options;

Quran's eloquence is...

1. 
   Perfectly calculated words that can only be from God
   3 vote(s)
   20.0%
2. 
   Beyond human calculated words, but possibly from misguided higher intelligent beings
   0 vote(s)
   0.0%
3. *
   Capable of a human that knows eloquence at a very high level that very little reach
   1 vote(s)
   6.7%
4. 
   One human can't do it but it's capable of many humans who have advance knowledge of eloquence
   0 vote(s)
   0.0%
5. 
   Perfectly calculated words capable of only God or his exalted chosen ones
   0 vote(s)
   0.0%
6. 
   At a level capable of any human as it's not eloquent at all
   0 vote(s)
   0.0%
7. 
   At a level many humans can do, as it's eloquent, but not to a level only a few can reach
   4 vote(s)
   26.7%
8. 
   I don't know
   7 vote(s)

As you can see the theme of the poll is different to the theme of the title, which is only (again in my own words) Are there signs of eloquence in the arabic Quran?

In my opinion.

That's the topic. First time in my life I have heard someone say the topic is not relevant to the topic.

 

[danieldemol]

That's the topic. First time in my life I have heard someone say the topic is not relevant to the topic.

You are failing to see the nuance here.

The topic of the poll is subtly different from the topic of the title.

If the poll options reflected the subject title here is how they would potentially look;

1. The Arabic Quran is eloquent

2. The Arabic Quran is not eloquent

3. I don't know

4. Other (please explain)

Can you see the different sub topic that @Link has added to the polls and how Quranic eloquence is irrelevant to the sub topic?

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

s

You are failing to see the nuance here.

The topic of the poll is subtly different from the topic of the title.

If the poll options reflected the subject title here is how they would potentially look;

1. The Arabic Quran is eloquent

2. The Arabic Quran is not eloquent

3. I don't know

4. Other (please explain)

Can you see the different sub topic that @Link has added to the polls and how Quranic eloquence is irrelevant to the sub topic?

In my opinion.

).

 

[loverofhumanity]

Some one had made it poetic in English. That's not how Bahaullah wrote it.



The topic is not if anything is the word of God.



This is just preaching. You have not studied any of these documents. You are just preaching with lovely enticing words you think work on people. No it does not. For you to speak about human or any standards of grammar, you have to know the grammar.

This may work in your group, but not in a topic like this.

I cannot speak about the original Arabic. Only that the English translations of the Quran have power over my soul so that it accepts Muhammad and the Quran.

 

[firedragon]

I cannot speak about the original Arabic. Only that the English translations of the Quran have power over my soul so that it accepts Muhammad and the Quran.

Tks.

 

[England my lionheart]

I haven’t voted in the poll,there may well be eloquence in the Quran but in English it has little to none unlike Shakespeare Shelley or Keats,it would be interesting to see if they were translated into Classical Arabic what the reader of such would make of them.

 

[firedragon]

I haven’t voted in the poll,there may well be eloquence in the Quran but in English it has little to none unlike Shakespeare Shelley or Keats,it would be interesting to see if they were translated into Classical Arabic what the reader of such would make of them.

Far beyond Shakespeare.

 

[England my lionheart]

Far beyond Shakespeare.

In your opinion of course.