Most Americans Believe In Creation

Originally posted by Thousand

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp

Including atheism. Stalin?

No, not atheism. Communism. They're not the same.

Stalin was an atheist

[edit on 25-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]

reply to post by ppkjjkpp


Yes, but that isn't what's important, of course. On the opposite side of the pendelum, we can always say whatever Christians do has to have something to do with their faith. What atheists do never, ever has anything to do with their non beliefs. Apples and oranges, they say. Their scapegoat is semantics.

Originally posted by NewWorldOver

Originally posted by CaptainG0705
it is the same reason that muslim children hate americans. they are brought up in a society where they are TAUGHT to hate americans.

Islam is a religion of peace and obedience to God. Extremists raise their children to be suicide bombers for a reason: they are insane. It has nothing to do with Islam.

This is the most false statement I've read on this forum. Have you ever read the Koran?

[edit on 25-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp

Christianity is based on the Bible. Which has never been proven wrong. It's not blind faith, every part of it actually happened.

Except for the global flood, Noah creating an arc and housing all land species just to name a few.

Anyways, if it isn't faith, then there should be some proof of these things. Show us how Noah could fit every land species in an arc of that proportion. It's just not possible.

I usually wouldn't argue this point because theists usually say it shouldn't be taken literally, but you are the one that said every part of it actually happened and extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.

[edit on 25-1-2008 by LuDaCrIs]

[edit on 25-1-2008 by LuDaCrIs]

Noah's Ark - Was There Enough Room?
Was there enough room on Noah's Ark to fit Noah and his family (eight all together), at least two of every kind of animal, and seven of some? What about essential supplies? According to the Biblical account, the Great Flood lasted an entire year! So besides the people and all the animals, there had to be at least enough room to store the necessary amount of food to sustain Noah's family and all the animals for more than twelve months! Exactly how big was that boat? We will examine the Biblical account of the Flood as found in Genesis (chapters six through nine) to determine if Noah's Ark is a feasible reality or merely a fantastic part of ancient myth.

Noah's Ark - The Animals
In order to determine if Noah's Ark could have been large enough to save the world's human and animal population from a worldwide marine cataclysm we must first determine how many animals must have been on the boat. So, what kind of animals needed rescuing? According to most scholars, the Genesis account excludes sea creatures and insects from being loaded on the ark. This seems reasonable, since remnants of each of these creatures could have survived the cataclysm apart from the ark. That leaves mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and Noah's family. Next, we must consider that God instructed Noah to bring animals on the ark "after their kind." This means we should appreciate the scientific concept of variations within a Kind. For example, most biologists agree that wolves, coyotes, dingoes, jackals, foxes, and the hundreds of different domestic dog breeds could all come from a pair of original "dogs". Although genetic code won't allow for variations from Kind to Kind, we now understand how DNA allows for variations within a Kind. Taking such variations into consideration, there are roughly 16,000 to 25,000 distinct Kinds of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians now living or known to have lived in the past.

Noah's Ark - A Feasibility Study
What about Noah's Ark itself? Was the design and size of this boat really feasible? Based on measurements given in the Genesis account, most experts agree that the ark had approximately 1,500,000 cubic feet of free space. Picture a three-level barge the size of one- and-a-half football fields. According to numerous feasibility studies, this was more than enough room to keep representatives of the 16,000 to 25,000 distinct Kinds of animals of all sizes with all of their food for an entire year. In fact, assuming that the average size of each animal was that of a sheep, this barge could actually hold up to 125,000 separate creatures. Going one step further, not only was the ark large enough for its cargo, it was designed perfectly for stability and sea-worthiness. Various hydrodynamic tests have confirmed that it was virtually impossible to capsize this barge, even in the most violent waves and winds.

Noah's Ark - The Recent Critics
In recent years, critics of Noah's Ark have surfaced and posed many seemingly reasonable and intellectual questions casting doubt on the validity of the Biblical account of the Flood. Often, conservative Bible scholars remain silent on these questions because they are somewhat intimidated by the "scientific" posture of the anti-ark arguments. At the same time, the more liberal Bible scholars simply roll over and quietly accept the "myth" of Noah's Ark and the Flood. We urge everyone to examine all of the critical evidence and truly discover the credibility of Noah's Ark. Pick up John Woodmorappe's, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, and Dr. Henry Morris' classic, The Genesis Flood, and investigate the focused and systematic research available to all of us, including nearly 1,200 references to aid in additional study. We soon realize that the vast majority of the popular anti-ark arguments are easily invalidated. ("A Resource For Answering The Critics Of Noah's Ark", Impact, No. 273 March 1996). Test everything yourself. Never be content with a one-sided argument, especially one that pales in comparison to its rebuttal.

reply to post by ppkjjkpp


No, sir. It is you who is wrong here. It is a fact that Islam teaches one values of love and respect for fellow man. You are misinterpreting. Statements that you are making seem to reflect the belief that Islam is an awful religion. The Koran actually says that it is one's duty to protect his family at any cost, if he feels that they are truly threatened. What happens is extremists decide to apply this to current times, and include Christians and Jews in the text. The result is protect Islam by destroying followers of other religions.

May I also point out that you have yet to provide any evidence for any of your claims that is in any way substantial. I can't understand why, for the life of me, you continue to post in this thread without providing evidence to your claims.

en.wikipedia.org...

Furthermore, if what you are attempting to refer to is jihad, it is not what you are saying. Jihad is an internal struggle between good and evil. It does not entail blowing things up, or beheading nonbelievers. You simply do not understand the subject matter of which you speak. Stop with the, as Mr. T would put it, Jibba Jabba.

reply to post by ppkjjkpp


I'm happy that you decided to provide an attempt at evidence. But please, try proving my falsehoods of the bible to be incorrect. I listed much more than Noah's Ark.

We're all ready to read what you have to say.

Originally posted by CaptainG0705
reply to post by ppkjjkpp

 

No, sir. It is you who is wrong here. It is a fact that Islam teaches one values of love and respect for fellow man. You are misinterpreting. Statements that you are making seem to reflect the belief that Islam is an awful religion. The Koran actually says that it is one's duty to protect his family at any cost, if he feels that they are truly threatened. What happens is extremists decide to apply this to current times, and include Christians and Jews in the text. The result is protect Islam by destroying followers of other religions.

May I also point out that you have yet to provide any evidence for any of your claims that is in any way substantial. I can't understand why, for the life of me, you continue to post in this thread without providing evidence to your claims.

en.wikipedia.org...

Furthermore, if what you are attempting to refer to is jihad, it is not what you are saying. Jihad is an internal struggle between good and evil. It does not entail blowing things up, or beheading nonbelievers. You simply do not understand the subject matter of which you speak. Stop with the, as Mr. T would put it, Jibba Jabba.

Read this hauns.com...
And don't even take the author's work for it, do the research yourself.
I did and I know what the Koran says.

Originally posted by CaptainG0705
reply to post by ppkjjkpp

 

I'm happy that you decided to provide an attempt at evidence. But please, try proving my falsehoods of the bible to be incorrect. I listed much more than Noah's Ark.

We're all ready to read what you have to say.

I know you listed a lot. And it's hard to keep tracking of what everyone's commenting on. I'm busy too and can't spend hours on here to respond to everyone. But I'll try to.

reply to post by ppkjjkpp


Given this clarity in the Quranic presentation of principles, religious fanatics have to use blatant misinterpretations to justify their causes. For example, extremists misinterpret Verse 2:193 to mean "Fight until there is no more polytheism and all submit to the religion of Allah (Islam)." Fanatics replace "kill them only in combat clashes" with "kill them wherever you find them."

This is found on this page: discussions.ghanaweb.com...

as well as:

You can recognize misinterpretations by the fact that they contradict other verses or known principles. For example, a common mistranslation of verse 5:51 is "O you who believe, do not take the Jews and Christians as friends (awliya)... ." The right translation is "protectors," not "friends," and it refers to Muslims collaborating with enemies at a time when a specific war was going on, as 5:52 explains.

AGAIN, MISINTERPRETATIONS.

Originally posted by CaptainG0705
reply to post by ppkjjkpp

 

Given this clarity in the Quranic presentation of principles, religious fanatics have to use blatant misinterpretations to justify their causes. For example, extremists misinterpret Verse 2:193 to mean "Fight until there is no more polytheism and all submit to the religion of Allah (Islam)." Fanatics replace "kill them only in combat clashes" with "kill them wherever you find them."

This is found on this page: discussions.ghanaweb.com...

as well as:

You can recognize misinterpretations by the fact that they contradict other verses or known principles. For example, a common mistranslation of verse 5:51 is "O you who believe, do not take the Jews and Christians as friends (awliya)... ." The right translation is "protectors," not "friends," and it refers to Muslims collaborating with enemies at a time when a specific war was going on, as 5:52 explains.

AGAIN, MISINTERPRETATIONS.

Did you even read it?
It doesn't sound like it. It doesn't even mention the first verse you talked about and even if it did my source had 20+ quotes.
The second verse you mention is found in my source and it says, ""Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another." Again the author quoted this directly from the Koran.

[edit on 25-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]

reply to post by ppkjjkpp


I don't think you are with me. He may be quoting directly, but different versions of the Quran/Koran and Bible emerge over time, with different interpretations. Which version is correct? Firstly, they are all, in my opinion, made of fabrications. But let me restate that the values that actually represent each religion would be most likely found in the original text. I think you are misinterpreting what i'm interpreting as misinterpretation.

Stay with me.

Originally posted by CaptainG0705
reply to post by ppkjjkpp

 

I don't think you are with me. He may be quoting directly, but different versions of the Quran/Koran and Bible emerge over time, with different interpretations. Which version is correct? Firstly, they are all, in my opinion, made of fabrications. But let me restate that the values that actually represent each religion would be most likely found in the original text. I think you are misinterpreting what i'm interpreting as misinterpretation.

Stay with me.

Did you read it?
This is the version of the authors Koran, and he explains why it is valid.

My Koran

The first thing I need to do is show the validity of my copy of the Koran. I intentionally selected my Koran for maxim potential validity.

I purchased a standard Koran used for study and reading in all English speaking Mosques. It was published by Penguin Classics and translated by N. J. Dawood. I will include the information showing the validity of the book from the front pages of my Koran.


N. J. Dawood

Born in Baghdad, N. J. Dawood came to England as an Iraq State Scholar in 1945 and graduated from London University. In 1959 he founded the Arabic Advertising & Publishing Co. Ltd, London (ARADCO), which is now one of the major producers of Arabic typesetting outside the Middle East. His translation of Tales from the Thousand and One Nights was first published as Penguin No. 1001 in 1954 and has since been printed in twenty various editions. It is now available as a Penguin Audiobook.

He is best known for his translation of the Koran, the first in contemporary English idiom, which was published as a Penguin Classic in 1956 and has since sold over one million copies. An illustrated hard back edition of the Koran was published by Allen Lane in 1978. In the present edition the translation has been completely revised, an index has been added and the arrangement of the surahs follows the traditional sequence alongside a parallel caligraphic version of the Arabic original. This translation is also available without the Arabic original in the Penguin Classics series.

As well as contributing book reviews and articles on literary subjects to the national press, N. J. Dawood has retold for children two selections from The Arabian Nights, published in the Puffin Classics in 1989. He has edited and abridged The Muqaddimah of Ibn Khaldun (Princeton University Press), translated numerous technical works into Arabic, written and spoken radio and film commentaries and contributed to specialized English-Arabic dictionaries.


Publishing Information

Published by the Penguin Group
Penguin Books Ltd, 27 Wrights Lane, London w8 5tz, England
Penguin Putnam Inc., 375 Hudson Street, New York, 10014, USA
Penguin Books Australia Ltd, Ringwood, Victoria, Australia
Penguin Books Canada Ltd, 10 Alcorn Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada m4v3b2
Penguin Books (NZ) Ltd, Private Bag 102902, NSMC, Auckland, New Zealand



Penguin Books Ltd, Registered Offices: Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England





English translation first published in Penguin Classics 1956
First revised edition 1959
Second revised edition 1966
Third revised edition 1968
Fourth revised edition 1974
Fifth revised edition, following the traditional sequence of surahs,
Published in Penguin Classics 1990
This parallel edition first published 1990
Reprinted with revisions 1993
Reprinted with minor revisions 1994
Reprinted with minor revisions and additional notes, 1995
Reprinted with further revisions and additional notes, 1998
Reprinted with minor revisions 2000
13579 IO 8642


Copyright © N. J. Dawood, 1956, 1959, 1966, 1968, 1974, 1990, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1998, 2000
All rights reserved


The moral right of the translator has been asserted


The Arabic text in this parallel edition is a facsimile of the Koran penned by the calligrapher Hamid al-Amidi and first printed in Istanbul in 1974 in accordance with Decision Number 212 of the Turkish Government's Commission on the Verification of Koranic Texts


Printed in England by Clays Ltd, St Ives plc
Set in Lasercomp Garamond


Except in the United States of America, this book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.


Comments

I purchased this particular text for a number of reasons. First, Penguin Books is in the business of making money selling books in large volumes. If this book were not translated accurately, not enough people would buy it to cover their costs and they would lose money on the publication of the book. Therefore, it only stands to reason that the book has to be translated as accurately as possible or people will buy other translations.

Second, the parallel English-Arabic texts are written for people who can read both languages and would be able to easily see any significant discrepancies in the translation. Therefore, it would be even more important for this publication to be as accurate as possible which is why I selected this particular parallel English-Arabic publication in spite of the fact that I don't read Arabic.

Third, with over one million copies of this translation sold and 11 different revisions made since 1956, the Muslim community has had adequate time to review the translation and correct any significant errors which means that the Muslim community has already endorsed this translation for use in reading and studying.

Therefore, it should be safe to assume that there are no significant errors in my copy of the Koran.

reply to post by ppkjjkpp


I'm impressed. Egg on my face.

But my point still remains- I have found documentation for a different stance on the same subject. I agree, your source has done his homework, but I have also found a source quoting texts and scholars of the matter.

What happens, according to my source, and I'm sure others would agree, within a nation of Islam where the government alters texts and contains freedoms of press, we see a severe spread of misinterpretations. Your source's original text is from the fifties, and another from the seventies. My source states that the forced versions of the texts arose over a long period of time. Isn't it possible that they are translating a censored or altered text?

Originally posted by CaptainG0705
reply to post by ppkjjkpp

 

I'm impressed. Egg on my face.

But my point still remains- I have found documentation for a different stance on the same subject. I agree, your source has done his homework, but I have also found a source quoting texts and scholars of the matter.

What happens, according to my source, and I'm sure others would agree, within a nation of Islam where the government alters texts and contains freedoms of press, we see a severe spread of misinterpretations. Your source's original text is from the fifties, and another from the seventies. My source states that the forced versions of the texts arose over a long period of time. Isn't it possible that they are translating a censored or altered text?

What are you talking about? Why would a muslim change his own text for the worse?

[edit on 25-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]

You cant quote one sentence from a whole chapter in the quran, and THINK understand it, of course your going to get the wrong idea, that's why people who are agaisnt islam do it, thats why terrorists do it to get followers.

You cant read one line from a book, " john stabbed Bob" and think John is evil, because in reality John was saving his daughter from getting killed by Bob, John is a hero.

Thats not research your doing thats just some stupid website, research would be reading the WHOLE Quran, understanding EVERY word and what those words relate to.

[edit on 25-1-2008 by _Phoenix_]

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
You cant quote one sentence from a whole chapter in the quran, of course your going to get the wrong idea, thats why people who are agaisnt islam do it, thats why terrorists do it to get followers.

You cant read one line from a book, " john stabbed Bob" and think John is evil, because in reality John was saving his daughter from getting killed by Bob, John is a hero.

Thats not research your doing thats just some stupid website, research would be reading the WHOLE Quran, understanding EVERY word and what those words relate to.

I did. I read what my source said and I wanted to find out for myself. And it wasn't just one verse there were several.

[edit on 25-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp

I did. I read what my source said and I wanted to find out for myself. And it wasn't just one verse there were several.

[edit on 25-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]

Then you should have understood that these verses don't mean what you thought they meant, and you should have realised that website you showed is giving out dis-imformation just like the terrorists.

Originally posted by _Phoenix_

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp

I did. I read what my source said and I wanted to find out for myself. And it wasn't just one verse there were several.

[edit on 25-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]

Then you should have understood that these verses don't mean what you thought they meant, and you should have realised that website you showed is giving out dis-imformation just like the terrorists.

I did understand the verses, and the Koran requires for muslims to hate all christians as well as unbelievers.
Have you read it? How do you know?

[edit on 25-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]

reply to post by ppkjjkpp


The Arabic language and the context of the verses do not allow this twisting by any stretch of imagination. But in a dictatorship without freedom of speech, such state-sponsored mistranslations can stand unchallenged, and will be confirmed by scholars serving the despots.

from my source.

"These interpretations of the Koran can reflect themselves in different ways in society in the form of different political and social movements and different cultural tendencies," he says. "Radical types, conservative types, moderate types — you have the full spectrum in Islamic society. You may be a radical Muslim or a conservative Muslim based on your own interpretation of the Koran and the teachings of Mohammed."

from an Islamic scholar ^ news-info.wustl.edu...

an example of state-sponsored mistranslations would be the Taliban and its influences on Afghanistan. The Taliban was recognized by several nations as the official ruling organization of Afghanistan. Taliban and Al Qaeda instill extremist Islam upon the muslim people, and have direct military influence in several islamic nations. Their misinterpretations, extreme as they are, are forced upon the people within these extremist-states. there is no choice, and freedom to question this is punishable by death.

^with help from wiki

there you have it. islam>you.



[edit on 25-1-2008 by CaptainG0705]

Originally posted by CaptainG0705
reply to post by ppkjjkpp

 

The Arabic language and the context of the verses do not allow this twisting by any stretch of imagination. But in a dictatorship without freedom of speech, such state-sponsored mistranslations can stand unchallenged, and will be confirmed by scholars serving the despots.

from my source.

"These interpretations of the Koran can reflect themselves in different ways in society in the form of different political and social movements and different cultural tendencies," he says. "Radical types, conservative types, moderate types — you have the full spectrum in Islamic society. You may be a radical Muslim or a conservative Muslim based on your own interpretation of the Koran and the teachings of Mohammed."

from an Islamic scholar ^ news-info.wustl.edu...

an example of state-sponsored mistranslations would be the Taliban and its influences on Afghanistan. The Taliban was recognized by several nations as the official ruling organization of Afghanistan. Taliban and Al Qaeda instill extremist Islam upon the muslim people, and have direct military influence in several islamic nations. Their misinterpretations, extreme as they are, are forced upon the people within these extremist-states. there is no choice, and freedom to question this is punishable by death.

there you have it.

I'm not saying that I look at all muslims as evil. I'm saying the Koran requires them to hate and fight all unbelievers. Some muslims just don't follow this but that doesn't change the fact that the Koran says these things.
So you are saying that terrorist groups misinterpret the Koran so they can force people to believe their misinterpretations? And if the people don't believe it they can be killed?
So then what is the correct interpretation because obviously know one else knows what it is?