The Qur'an or the Gospels: Which is more authentic?

[Dawnofhope]

I voted for the quran being the author of the quran although Its easy to understand why people think he plagiarised the other scriptures.

I think what you meant to say was we can be more certain the Quran reflected what Muhammad said than the Gospels what Jesus said. I agree with your choice.

About a quarter of the Quran is refers in some way to biblical characters and events. Muhammad taught relatively uneducated nomadic tribesmen on the Arabian peninsula to stop worshipping their many Gods and turn towards the One true God that the Christians and Jews worshipped. He educated them about the history of the God of Abraham.

The question of plagiarism is one for each to consider in the light of what’s written in the Quran and Bible. I personally believe Muhammad’s Teachings to have been a Revelation from God. I would have no such expectation for you to believe such a thing.

To see that the quran is the authentic teachings of muhammed one needs to separate the verses written in mecca and those written in medina/yathrib.

Historic context is crucial to understanding any religious text so this distinction you suggest is necessary.

The medina verses were more violent with more rules, this would be important because of the growing numbers of followers so there would be the need to be clear on things like the share of booty for example or share of inherita

That’s a useful observation, thank you.

Btw, I’m from New Zealand. I see from another thread you have a son living here.

 

[England my lionheart]

I think what you meant to say was we can be more certain the Quran reflected what Muhammad said than the Gospels what Jesus said. I agree with your choice.

About a quarter of the Quran is refers in some way to biblical characters and events. Muhammad taught relatively uneducated nomadic tribesmen on the Arabian peninsula to stop worshipping their many Gods and turn towards the One true God that the Christians and Jews worshipped. He educated them about the history of the God of Abraham.

The question of plagiarism is one for each to consider in the light of what’s written in the Quran and Bible. I personally believe Muhammad’s Teachings to have been a Revelation from God. I would have no such expectation for you to believe such a thing.



Historic context is crucial to understanding any religious text so this distinction you suggest is necessary.



That’s a useful observation, thank you.

Btw, I’m from New Zealand. I see from another thread you have a son living here.

Yes and I'll be there in 11 days for 6 months, I get summer there and miss winter here, winner winner

 

[Muffled]

Quran not only reflects the correct teachings of Muhammad revealed on him by G-d but also the correct and core teachings of Jesus and his life account.

Regards

I believe there has to be some way to authenticate that or otherwise we just have to take it at face value.

I believe that is so but I also believe Muslims are quite confused about what Muhammad said.

 

[Muffled]

Its true the Quran addresses key issues where Christianity has strayed. Particularly in regards the divinity of Christ, the trinity, the son-ship of Jesus. However Muslims (not Muhammad) are in error to say the gospel the Christians have is a false gospel. Through both the gospels and the Quran any errors in theology can be corrected. To reject either the Quran or the Gospels is an error in itself.

I believe in this Christianity is correct and Islam has strayed.

I believe Muslims have a three God belief that is contrary to the Qu'ran and they should desist from it. As a Christian I believe in one God and the Trinity.

I believe the Qu'ran affirms this.

 

[Muffled]

I think what you meant to say was we can be more certain the Quran reflected what Muhammad said than the Gospels what Jesus said. I agree with your choice.

About a quarter of the Quran is refers in some way to biblical characters and events. Muhammad taught relatively uneducated nomadic tribesmen on the Arabian peninsula to stop worshipping their many Gods and turn towards the One true God that the Christians and Jews worshipped. He educated them about the history of the God of Abraham.

The question of plagiarism is one for each to consider in the light of what’s written in the Quran and Bible. I personally believe Muhammad’s Teachings to have been a Revelation from God. I would have no such expectation for you to believe such a thing.



Historic context is crucial to understanding any religious text so this distinction you suggest is necessary.



That’s a useful observation, thank you.

Btw, I’m from New Zealand. I see from another thread you have a son living here.

I believe there is no evidence to support that view.

 

[England my lionheart]

I believe there is no evidence to support that view.

There is if you look, we know Muhammed existed, we also know that the quran was authored AFAIK by him, some in mecca and some in medina/yathrib.

If you separate these verses, the medina quran so to speak are more a reaction to its growing numbers of followers,a more controlling scripture, I'm in no way saying they were inspired by a god,i was just saying Muhammed were authentically his.

 

[Augustus]

There is if you look, we know Muhammed existed, we also know that the quran was authored AFAIK by him, some in mecca and some in Medina/yathrib

If you separate these verses, the medina quran so to speak are more a reaction to its growing numbers of followers, a more controlling scripture

The Meccan/Medinan chronology is certainly not established fact and alternative methods of dating Quranic surahs are something contemporary scholars are looking at.

 

[CG Didymus]

I know that you don't believe the Christian fundamentalists. Why not study what some of the modern Bible scholars are saying if you don't believe the Baha'is?

I actually agree with the Fundamental Christians. If the Bible is the Word of God, it should be inerrant and infallible and the literal truth. If it isn't any of those things, than maybe it isn't the words of God, but the words of men speaking as if it is the word of God.

If Baha'u'llah is who he claims to be, everything he says should be the truth. But then, not just him, Abdu'l Baha also. And the Bab too. Although Baha'is don't talk too much about what the Bab said. But, there is enough things I don't agree with that came from Abdu'l Baha, that it makes it hard for me to believe his father was the return of Christ and Buddha and Krishna and Muhammad and Moses and Zoroaster and whom ever else is on the manifestation list. But, I do enjoy your threads and threads started by some of the other Baha'is. So Baha'is have that going for them... Which is nice.

 

[siti]

The question of plagiarism is one for each to consider in the light of what’s written in the Quran and Bible. I personally believe Muhammad’s Teachings to have been a Revelation from God. I would have no such expectation for you to believe such a thing.

But the question of plagiarism is surely key to establishing "authenticity" - if Muhammad's words were really plagiarized copies or rewrites of earlier Christian works then in what sense are you suggesting they might be considered authentic? And you know that we have considered carefully a few passages from the Qur'an in the light of historical evidence - the cave story, the infancy of Jesus - and found that there were certainly versions of these stories in circulation before Muhammad supposedly dictated his "revelation" of them. You seem to be mistaking "reliable transmission" for "authenticity" - they are not the same and if large/important portions of the Qur'an are derived from earlier Christian (or other) sources (as it seems they were), they are not truly authentic even if the Qur'an we have today correctly transmits the dictations of the Prophet.

In the case of the Gospels, we are fairly sure that these accounts were written several decades after the supposed events took place. There is a remarkable correspondence (or rather series of correspondences) between the Gospel narrative and earlier Hebrew prophecies. Are we to believe that the authors wrote down the narrative and then - quite by surprise - noticed that many events were "prefigured" in Hebrew scripture? Or is it more likely that they were guided by the messianic prophecies of Hebrew scripture as they formulated their narratives? And if the latter is the case, even if we have a reliable transmission of (at least some of) what Jesus taught - in what sense is the context of the Gospel account against which they are set authentic?

All in all I don't really think this "authenticity" question gets us very far. Both documents are, and always were, works of human invention - no matter whose words they really contain.

I voted neither.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

How did I vote but not say anything? Maybe I was late for work or something.

Anyway...

I don't consider either truly authentic, but the Quran does seem more "personal", like someone is actually going through at least something similar to the story being told. From adrian's POV regarding "authenticity", I would lean towards the Quran.

However, I consider authenticity to be reflective of reality. Neither does it for me. The bible, OT and NT, is just a collection of trolls baiting each other on a message board, going into flame wars about how the other viewpoint is crap and will ensure the deaths of all who hold to it. The Quran tends to sanitize characters to a degree because they need to be "role models" or whatever, which I could agree with in part, but I admire the more flawed characterizations in the bible more. Also, the Quran makes people prophets that in all honesty I can't figure out why. Adam? What did HE do? It's like giving a medal to someone who goes to the bathroom. Sure, you can, but no one else cares.

 

[England my lionheart]

The Meccan/Medinan chronology is certainly not established fact and alternative methods of dating Quranic surahs are something contemporary scholars are looking at.

Maybe, but reading the alledged medina suras it makes sense Imo.

 

[Dawnofhope]

But the question of plagiarism is surely key to establishing "authenticity" - if Muhammad's words were really plagiarized copies or rewrites of earlier Christian works then in what sense are you suggesting they might be considered authentic? And you know that we have considered carefully a few passages from the Qur'an in the light of historical evidence - the cave story, the infancy of Jesus - and found that there were certainly versions of these stories in circulation before Muhammad supposedly dictated his "revelation" of them. You seem to be mistaking "reliable transmission" for "authenticity" - they are not the same and if large/important portions of the Qur'an are derived from earlier Christian (or other) sources (as it seems they were), they are not truly authentic even if the Qur'an we have today correctly transmits the dictations of the Prophet.

In the case of the Gospels, we are fairly sure that these accounts were written several decades after the supposed events took place. There is a remarkable correspondence (or rather series of correspondences) between the Gospel narrative and earlier Hebrew prophecies. Are we to believe that the authors wrote down the narrative and then - quite by surprise - noticed that many events were "prefigured" in Hebrew scripture? Or is it more likely that they were guided by the messianic prophecies of Hebrew scripture as they formulated their narratives? And if the latter is the case, even if we have a reliable transmission of (at least some of) what Jesus taught - in what sense is the context of the Gospel account against which they are set authentic?

All in all I don't really think this "authenticity" question gets us very far. Both documents are, and always were, works of human invention - no matter whose words they really contain.

I voted neither.

I am really talking about reliable transmission and although I agree authenticity may not be the best word, I did define it. You seem to agree the Quran has been more relaibly transmitted than the gospels.

The question of reliable transmission is important if its Divinely revealed or less important if its simply human invention as you say.

The question of potential external sources of inspiration could be useful to rule out Divine Inspiration. I believe there are too many unanswered questions to do that. Muhammad's iliteracy and the lack of availability of bibles translated into Arabic would make a straight lift more difficult. Besides there are significant variations in the retelling of known stories.

 

[siti]

I am really talking about reliable transmission and although I agree authenticity may not be the best word, I did define it. You seem to agree the Quran has been more relaibly transmitted than the gospels.

If it is a question of degrees then I suppose so - the major difference is the number of decades between the supposed utterances - neither Jesus nor Muhammad seems to have personally written anything down at all - and the compilation of their sayings. In the case of the Qur'an this may have been as short as a decade or two, whilst in the case of the Gospels it may have been several decades - even close to a century - after Jesus (reportedly) died before the Gospels we (i.e. Christians) recognize today were compiled. Standardization of the texts took much longer - a couple of centuries or more for the Gospels and textual variations in earlier copies lead scholars to conclude a lack of reliable transmission of "the words of Jesus" whereas the general consensus is that the Qur'an more reliably records the words of Muhammad because there appears to be little variation (for the most part) among the earlier copies of the Qur'an that have been found. So yes - in that sense - the transmission of the text of the Qur'an is more consistent than that of the Gospels.

The question of reliable transmission is important if its Divinely revealed or less important if its simply human invention as you say.

I'm not sure about this point - if it is divinely revealed why couldn't God divinely protect the intent of the message even if the actual words have been lost in transmission? If it is of human origin then we surely have no idea what either Jesus or Muhammad really said - we can only be either more or less confident of what some of their early followers claim they said.

The question of potential external sources of inspiration could be useful to rule out Divine Inspiration. I believe there are too many unanswered questions to do that. Muhammad's iliteracy and the lack of availability of bibles translated into Arabic would make a straight lift more difficult. Besides there are significant variations in the retelling of known stories.

Muhammad's illiteracy would explain the variations - he was aware - in some detail - of Christian traditions that were known to be circulating in Arabia around his life time. He could easily have listened very carefully to readings or recitations of these traditions and incorporated them (imperfectly) in his own dictations. Indeed, hadith suggests that some parts of the Qur'an were "revealed" precisely to clarify variant versions of Christian traditions - the "sleepers in the cave" story is one such example. And the content of that tale is quite obviously too bizarre to be actually true - so it is either a parable - in which case it already existed and there was no need for it to be revealed, or Muhammad really thought it to be literally true - in which case Muhammad was not only fallible but also gullible and very much mistaken. But if we are insisting that the Qur'an is a reliable and authentic record of the word of God as revealed to Muhammad, then we have to answer the question: why would God feel the need to reveal yet another version of an ancient fairy tale that had already been in circulation for many centuries?

 

[CG Didymus]

If it is a question of degrees then I suppose so - the major difference is the number of decades between the supposed utterances - neither Jesus nor Muhammad seems to have personally written anything down at all - and the compilation of their sayings. In the case of the Qur'an this may have been as short as a decade or two, whilst in the case of the Gospels it may have been several decades - even close to a century - after Jesus (reportedly) died before the Gospels we (i.e. Christians) recognize today were compiled. Standardization of the texts took much longer - a couple of centuries or more for the Gospels and textual variations in earlier copies lead scholars to conclude a lack of reliable transmission of "the words of Jesus" whereas the general consensus is that the Qur'an more reliably records the words of Muhammad because there appears to be little variation (for the most part) among the earlier copies of the Qur'an that have been found. So yes - in that sense - the transmission of the text of the Qur'an is more consistent than that of the Bible.

I'm not sure about this point - if it is divinely revealed why couldn't God divinely protect the intent of the message even if the actual words have been lost in transmission? If it is of human origin then we surely have no idea what either Jesus or Muhammad really said - we can only be either more or less confident of what some of their early followers claim they said.

Muhammad's illiteracy would explain the variations - he was aware - in some detail - of Christian traditions that were known to be circulating in Arabia around his life time. He could easily have listened very carefully to readings or recitations of these traditions and incorporated them (imperfectly) in his own dictations. Indeed, hadith suggests that some parts of the Qur'an were "revealed" precisely to clarify variant versions of Christian traditions - the cave story is one such example. And the content of that tale is quite obviously too bizarre to be true - why would God reveal yet another fairy tale that had been in circulation for many centuries already?

Going beyond Adrian's questions in these threads, I'm wondering how it ties into the Baha'i Faith. Each religion has to build upon the previous one to form the Baha'is concept of "progressive" revelation. So Christianity had to build on Judaism and Islam on Christianity. They seem to me to be changing and negating the previous religions more than building on them... like showing where the others fall short, or went wrong.

Christianity, to get established, had to claim to be the authentic word of God. They couldn't say it is of human origin, but, for me, I could easily see how it could be. But the important thing is not necessarily the things Jesus said, but what they say he did, rising from the dead. That's huge for Christians and something that the Baha'is, and I suppose Islam too, doesn't want to have literally happened. What I've heard is that Islam says it was a body double, or that he never really died on the cross? But whichever, the Baha'i come in with he died and the writers made up a resurrection story... and then the ascension.

For Baha'is, all those verses have to be symbolic. I don't see that. If all that resurrection stuff didn't happen, then all those gospel writers had to all be in on reporting something that they all made up? Or, that others made up and it was passed on by tradition? So, for me, if that's not authentic, I don't care what they say about what Jesus said, they made up something that never happened... that is in a literal, historical sense. And, like I said, I don't see how the gospel writers wrote all those things about the resurrection, and somehow, only meant them symbolically. Do you have any thoughts on this?

 

[siti]

Going beyond Adrian's questions in these threads, I'm wondering how it ties into the Baha'i Faith. Each religion has to build upon the previous one to form the Baha'is concept of "progressive" revelation. So Christianity had to build on Judaism and Islam on Christianity. They seem to me to be changing and negating the previous religions more than building on them... like showing where the others fall short, or went wrong.

Christianity, to get established, had to claim to be the authentic word of God. They couldn't say it is of human origin, but, for me, I could easily see how it could be. But the important thing is not necessarily the things Jesus said, but what they say he did, rising from the dead. That's huge for Christians and something that the Baha'is, and I suppose Islam too, doesn't want to have literally happened. What I've heard is that Islam says it was a body double, or that he never really died on the cross? But whichever, the Baha'i come in with he died and the writers made up a resurrection story... and then the ascension.

For Baha'is, all those verses have to be symbolic. I don't see that. If all that resurrection stuff didn't happen, then all those gospel writers had to all be in on reporting something that they all made up? Or, that others made up and it was passed on by tradition? So, for me, if that's not authentic, I don't care what they say about what Jesus said, they made up something that never happened... that is in a literal, historical sense. And, like I said, I don't see how the gospel writers wrote all those things about the resurrection, and somehow, only meant them symbolically. Do you have any thoughts on this?

That all makes sense to me.

If we were really discussing "authenticity" then we would have to decide whether we believe (for example) that Jesus really said "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me" as he breathed his last on the cross. Because if he did that's pretty remarkable - he had the presence of mind to quote from the Psalms as he died - not only that, but a passage that also provides a significant portion of the detail of the trial and crucifixion narrative - the scorn and ridicule (almost verbatim), the dividing of his garments by casting lots, the piercing of his hands and feet...etc. For a Christian this is all proof positive of Christ's Messiahship - he was telling his followers "look - it was all prophesied in advance"...

...but a more skeptical view might be - well of course they put all that into the account - they were reading the scroll of the Psalms as they concocted the Gospel account - and putting its words, not his and certainly not God's, into Jesus' mouth as they did so...in which case, one has to seriously doubt the authenticity of anything these late first/early second century (or later) authors claimed to be the words of Christ - regardless of how reliably (or unreliably) their writings may have come down to us.

And if the details of the death and resurrection narrative have been cobbled together from earlier Jewish tradition (etc.), then how do we know there even was a resurrection at all - real or symbolic? It might all just be a rehash of earlier traditions...which seems to me to be the most plausible explanation of all...and if that is the case then there is no need to reinterpret the Gospel or the Qur'an (Baha'i style) - we can just accept them as what they are - a collection of progressively evolving religious traditions - of human rather than divine origin. And in that sense, wouldn't that make them all - no matter how divergent in details - equally "authentic"?

[Late edit: I have changed my vote to "both equally authentic" having argued with myself about it along the lines of the argument in this last paragraph - I have decided that I think they are both equally authentic encapsulations of human-originated religious traditions]

This authenticity/reliable transmission argument all seems to me to be the equivalent of arguing about whether "Mother Goose" really wrote the original version of "Puss in Boots"...who wrote it is irrelevant to the content of the story, and yet "authorship" seems to have attained the paramount position in determining the value of the text. This seems to me fallacious - unless, of course, God really was the original "author". But then - and I have raised this question before - if that is true, how can any human pen-man, no matter how eloquent, claim authenticity for the thoughts of God after they have been (of necessity) processed through the frail mental faculties of a human mind and then encoded in human speech and writing?

And to be honest, I think it - i.e. the side-taking argument about whose tradition is the most "authentic" - devalues both the writings themselves and the traditions that have grown up around them.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I actually agree with the Fundamental Christians. If the Bible is the Word of God, it should be inerrant and infallible and the literal truth. If it isn't any of those things, than maybe it isn't the words of God, but the words of men speaking as if it is the word of God.

If Baha'u'llah is who he claims to be, everything he says should be the truth. But then, not just him, Abdu'l Baha also. And the Bab too. Although Baha'is don't talk too much about what the Bab said. But, there is enough things I don't agree with that came from Abdu'l Baha, that it makes it hard for me to believe his father was the return of Christ and Buddha and Krishna and Muhammad and Moses and Zoroaster and whom ever else is on the manifestation list. But, I do enjoy your threads and threads started by some of the other Baha'is. So Baha'is have that going for them... Which is nice.

If we can have thoughtful and respectful discussions about religion and all its diversity where we can learn from each other, then my goal on RF is achieved. It doesn’t matter in the slightest if participants agree with the Baha’i perspective or not. If Bahá’u’lláh is who He says He is then nothing either of us say or do will prevent its truth being universally established.

 

[Dawnofhope]

How did I vote but not say anything? Maybe I was late for work or something.

Anyway...

I don't consider either truly authentic, but the Quran does seem more "personal", like someone is actually going through at least something similar to the story being told. From adrian's POV regarding "authenticity", I would lean towards the Quran.

However, I consider authenticity to be reflective of reality. Neither does it for me. The bible, OT and NT, is just a collection of trolls baiting each other on a message board, going into flame wars about how the other viewpoint is crap and will ensure the deaths of all who hold to it. The Quran tends to sanitize characters to a degree because they need to be "role models" or whatever, which I could agree with in part, but I admire the more flawed characterizations in the bible more. Also, the Quran makes people prophets that in all honesty I can't figure out why. Adam? What did HE do? It's like giving a medal to someone who goes to the bathroom. Sure, you can, but no one else cares.

As we go further back in history, prophets become increasingly mythologised until we can no longer be certain if they ever lived at all. Adam is the first prophet in both the OT and Qur'an if you think about. God spoke through Adam to Eve (humanity) and provide laws that enabled the safe path. Humanity ignored God's prophets and suffered the consequnces. The nature of Adam is an excellent point of reflection for mystics. I'm reading a Jewish book at the moment called 'The lonely man of Faith' by a Jewish Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik that explores the nature of Adam and our evolving concept as our faith matures. What was that you said about Adam again?

 

[Dawnofhope]

I believe there has to be some way to authenticate that or otherwise we just have to take it at face value.

I believe that is so but I also believe Muslims are quite confused about what Muhammad said.

I'm impressed you believe in Muhammad and the Quran. I imagine there are few in your church who feel the same.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

How can any one recall verbatim what anyone else said even one year later......?
Both the Qur'an and the Gospels rely on peoples memory and reports of the events and words that they portray.
There is no way of knowing which might be "better" or more accurate than the other in this regard.

However both are the best that we have today, however inaccurate or altered they might be.
Continuing research and comparisons with other documents do bring to light some inconsistencies and confirmations, Some of which are included in recent versions of the bible. For example the New Revised Standard Version is under constant review. There probably never will be a final and definitive version of the Bible. Though it seems many churches and scholars constantly refer back the the KJV as some sort of gold standard.

 

[CG Didymus]

And if the details of the death and resurrection narrative have been cobbled together from earlier Jewish tradition (etc.), then how do we know there even was a resurrection at all - real or symbolic? It might all just be a rehash of earlier traditions...which seems to me to be the most plausible explanation of all...and if that is the case then there is no need to reinterpret the Gospel or the Qur'an (Baha'i style) - we can just accept them as what they are - a collection of progressively evolving religious traditions - of human rather than divine origin. And in that sense, wouldn't that make them all - no matter how divergent in details - equally "authentic"?

"Cobbled together" is a good thing to discuss here. Were there traditions, Jewish or Pagan, that had dying and rising god/men? I know people that are against Christianity believe there are lots of them. But, within the pages of the Bible, could a Jew figure out that the Messiah was going to die and rise again? When the writers put together the gospel stories, they had to find verses that supported that the Messiah would suffer and die be "cut off" and other things like that. Was it at all expected, though? Could such a crazy story be "cobbled" together and passed off as true?

Christians have guards placed at the tomb, a heavy stone blocking the entry, so the body can't be stolen. But, it's gone. And Christians say they saw him and touched the wounds and watched him ascend into the sky. But, the problem I have is, if the latest Messiah, Baha'u'llah, says that didn't happen, but is only symbolic, then why expect anything written about Jesus and what he did and what he said to be true and authentic? For Baha'is, that makes perfect sense that it's symbolic. They'll say it is obviously not scientifically possible, therefore, it has to be figurative. But for me, if it didn't really happen as reported, then that makes the gospel story a work of fiction, and if passed on as being real, a fraud.

So, if the most important thing about Jesus isn't true, then where's the authenticity? The resurrection is central to the Christian religion. But, there is also, would a Jew expect the Messiah to come and not fulfill the prophecies about the "government" will be on his shoulders and that he will bring peace and prosperity to the Jews? Why would a Jew believe the Messiah came and went without doing the things that were prophesied he'd do? But, since he didn't do those things, would a Jew get from the Bible that there would be several Messiahs come and go and eventually, all those things would get fulfilled? Namely, Jesus, Muhammad, The Bab and Baha'u'llah. But, they still aren't fulfilled.

These threads by Adrian are always interesting, but, for me, they seem like they are stepping stones leading people to the conclusion that the Baha'i Faith is the truth... and it might be. I know Adrian denies that and says he just wants to learn, but I have such a suspicious mind. It's a tough thing to do to get the non-Islamic world to believe and respect the religion, but getting people to know a little about Islam and to respect it can only help the Baha'is.

I took a college course on it, but I don't remember much about it. To compare the writings of the two is a little different, though. 'Cause the NT is written by others about Jesus, so that's more like a biography isn't it? And, isn't the Quran supposedly things that God or an angel revealed to Muhammad? I guess with either one, there is the problem of not being authentic. With the NT writers, they could say things that aren't true and who would know? Except the other believers that saw or heard Jesus. And with Muhammad, who would know if he made something up that God didn't tell him? I guess God would know, but is God going to say anything? Oh yeah, he did, Baha'u'llah. So how authentic is that? And, I don't mean how authentic are those words his, are those words the the &$%*ing truth?

Anyway, your knowledge and your perspective on these issues has really been helpful. So thanks for all your posts and the questions you've raised.