Is the Koran nothing more than a corrupted version of the Bible ?

[GUNWOUNDS]

http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=7025&eng=y

Read this and lets have a discussion.  This delves deeper into the Virgins vs White Grapes   (Arabic vs Syro-Aramaic translations)

This scholar is utilizing historical-linguistic analysis on the Koran to show that much of it makes no sense unless translated from a Syro-Aramaic viewpoint which would heavily suggest it was a transcript used to teach arabs about christianity and later became corrupted by interpretive errors which are probably connected to the male monopoly in Koranic commentary and interpretation... i.e. Mohammed and others.

Intriguing if i may say so.

Guns

[GUNWOUNDS]

Some interesting excerpts

Q. - What do you say, then, about the idea, accepted until now, that the Koran was the first book written in Arabic?

A. - "According to Islamic tradition, the Koran dates back to the 7th century, while the first examples of Arabic literature in the full sense of the phrase are found only two centuries later, at the time of the

[nemafakei]

Hehe - nice title.

Hm. That is very interesting. In a way, it's comparable to the use of the Latin Vulgate. On the other hand, the tradition of the Qur'an differs from even before the NT. If this is the case, we may even see some emendations to the NT arise. I'm still unclear as to the stemmatics of it, but it sounds absolutely fascinating.

The first answer is rather strange, though. Language does not need lexicographers or grammarians to set the ball rolling - in fact, they often come long after the literature. I'm immediately reminded by his argument about chronology of the Greek language. Homer's monumental compositions (technical term) were in around 700-800BC (Hesiod wrote in 700ish), but virtually no greek literature exists between then and about 550BC. Even then, major literature consisted entirely of poems (of which very few remain) and plays (we have a handful of the most popular), and we do not see any prose until 450. I'd say it would not be impossible if arabis was being written at that time <|i.e. 632AD|>, albeit only occasionally.

One possibility that is surprisingly excluded is that of an oral tradition. Muhammed is said to have been illiterate, that he recited the Qur'an, which was written by others. It may simply be that Muhammed's monumental composition passed through a generation or so before being physically written down.

[Caid Ivik]

Somebody trying to spark a "dialogue" again, hm? There were jewish and christian communities in Medina, actually Muhammad considered himself as the one, who continues their tradition. However, clearly visible is also the distinction. Christians in Quran are often mentioned as twisted "polytheists" (ie in 33,73), because of their trinitar description of the God. Pagan Arabs believed in a trinity of major goddesses, as did also his kindred Quraishi, mostly of them al-Uzza, a goddess of fertility. However, Quraishi had no problem in paying respect to other ones, and this often irritiated Muhammad. Christian trinity is understood by him as three separate gods (ie of love, justice and life), what we don't have in any christian sect.

هُنَالِكَ ابْتُلِيَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ وَزُلْزِلُوا زِلْزَالًا شَدِيدًا

There the believers were tried and they were shaken with severe shaking. - Quran 33,11 ;)

[Acriku]

I wouldn't be surprised if this happened, since the makings of a religion are often shrouded in corruption and mistakes. Just look at the Bible itself: a collection of books that were voted on by people, where very important concepts were at stake (Jesus' divinity, holy trinity, etc).

[Dude_Doc]

Well, as Christians we would have to deny anything written in the Quran when it comes to the religios parts - i.e. God, Jesus and so on. Still, there are many similarities but also many differences between both books (Bible and Quran)...

[Caid Ivik]

I wouldn't be surprised if this happened, since the makings of a religion are often shrouded in corruption and mistakes. Just look at the Bible itself: a collection of books that were voted on by people, where very important concepts were at stake (Jesus' divinity, holy trinity, etc).

Actually, I can't say the religions are built democratically; as for catholic catechism there was a strong influence of emperor Constantinus, as ie Ashoka had for buddhists or kaliphs for islam...

[nemafakei]

Well, he's not arguing that christianity is the product of democracy, only that the bible is very much subject to human interference, which your point supports.

[Davidu]

The birth of a religion is a vrey tricky thing.

There might be many premises:

- charismatic leader that founds a religion/movement that depicts his/hers view on life/society/civilisation, etc;

- powerful ruler creating a religion to attain even more power (Henry VIII - has his own version of Christianity);

- charismatic leader that is being kept in such high regard after his death that, by time, his memory is altered and thus viewed as a god ( Zamolxis of the Dacians, believed a student of Pitagoras that returned to his homeland);

Either way, a religion is spontaneus and totally unscientific. What I mean is that there are no patterns in founding a religion, and religion founders are at first amateurs trying to figure out what they have started, or, people who know exactly what they have started but don't know how to keep their "creation" from being altered by others. Once the founders are dead the movement/religion either dies out, or mutates to adapt its creator's teachings to the needs of the followers.

How does religion adaptation work? Well, let's look at Christianity and the huge polytheistic religion of the Roman Empire.

The first is the paralel is the pantheon of gods - a god for every trade, craft, aspect of life -> Christians have patron saints for trades, crafts, etc. That is adaptation. Replacing a heathen god with your version of it, because people tend to like the idea that in Heaven there is a projection of themselves as a common character: all carpenters have a saint, all travelers have a saint, etc, thus projecting their own society into the heavens, reducing the number of "characters" to one representative to each aspect/trade, this way making the very abstract proto-Christian Heaven a familiar place.

The second is reinterpretation: the heathen gods that did not find a projection into the Christian universe became demons, devils, creatures or servants of the underworld ( that has transited from a place of the dead to a place of damnation eve if, ironically, Christions burry their dead) as it happened with the Dacian priests of the nature ( sort of the Dacian version of the Celtic Druids) the Hultans, that, after Christianisation became servants of the devil.

Third is hirarchy: the latin term for God is Domine Deus roughly translating as the Great God, or the God that is above all others. In Greek he is the Panthocrator, he who has all the power ( thus rendering the heathen gods powerless). He is not presented as the only god, as the true god, but as the most powerful god, maybe to attract followers, so simply propaganda.

Religion has always been a great source of wealth and power. No one can deny that in any religion. Spiritual leaders are revered, respected, looked after. They won't need to work another day in their lives, but they will have to go on with the flow they have started and be the spiritual leader every day.

If you think about it, getting fed, respected, wealth ( even if you won't use it) for telling people how to live their lives and what to do seems to be a very good deal. I may be sarcastic, as there are genuine spiritual leaders that appeal to the people and do what they do out of idealism, but people listen to the loudest mouth not to the truth. The combination is very rare.

Guns asked his question, and it is a very good question. I wonder, however, what the Jewish think of the Bible. They might think the same way, as Christianity is derived from Mozaism. Tora also has the OT plus religious writings that date after  0 AD.

Also the interpretation of the Bible itself led to a great crisis: the 30-year war in the Holy Roman Empire that lead to the death of half its population. Also after this Western Europe had a bitter time as each country had to choose wich side they were on. And then the Counter-reform came. Not to speak of the earlier schism between Catholic and Orthodox churches.

The problem is not of what it is written in the book, whatever book it is, the problem is who reads it.

You know, the most sinfull men say the most truthfull things: Stalin said "It does not matter who votes, but who counts them". Each of us see religion in their own way. As we see every aspect of life in our own, personal way. That is not wrong. It is wrong to impose it on other idividuals, it is wrong to force them to believe that what you say it's true.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, he's not arguing that christianity is the product of democracy, only that the bible is very much subject to human interference, which your point supports.

Translations of religious books aren't usually made by one person, altough at some points there could be powerful judgements of individuals influenting them. But the important part for any organized religion is not the teaching itself, but the interpretation. To make myself clear  ;)

[Darth Kwisatz]

The same questions could be asked about English. No dictionaries in Chaucer or Shakespeare's days. Needed a word? Make it up! It still happens, and forms are invented or discarded all the time. Some languages have never been written down.

If the Koran was written in the circumstances described, it would be a rare precedent for any landmark document.

[Anathema]

Somebody trying to spark a "dialogue" again, hm? There were jewish and christian communities in Medina, actually Muhammad considered himself as the one, who continues their tradition. However, clearly visible is also the distinction. Christians in Quran are often mentioned as twisted "polytheists" (ie in 33,73)

Their beef about alleged polytheism was only with those christians who accepted the Nicene creed (Orthodox Catholics), and thus the trinity dogma. The christian communities in Egypt and some in Asia didn't accept it, the monophysites- because of their emphasis on "true" monotheism, they were absorbed into Islam quite easily.