Would you delete a copy of the Koran?

[Logseman]

The Koran is considered the uncreated Word of God, written in paradise with golden letters. Koran's translations are always regarded as inferior to the Arabic texts. Musllm believers will learn their prayers in Arabic whether they know the language or not.

The Koran itself is the attempt to write what was revealed to Mohamed, and it was learned by heart by a caste of specialist "recorder-men" until the different schools decided to codify them in a book. Unsurprisingly, the Koran from the triumphant political families got all the love and other Korans were destroyed.

[astra]

Originally Posted by Logseman

Musllm believers will learn their prayers in Arabic whether they know the language or not.

How can you pray from the depth of your soul if you don't know what you are talking about?

[JimKal]

Originally Posted by astra

How can you pray from the depth of your soul if you don't know what you are talking about?

I was born into a Catholic family. In my youth the mass was said in Latin. Without learning the rest of the language it didn't take long to learn what was being said in the mass. Most missals had a side by side translation which added understanding.

It has been interesting to see how the responses to the original questions have evolved. Whether it was intended that way or not, I took the question to be: Will I let my anger at the acts of terrorists, who happen to be Muslim, lead me to delete a copy of the Koran. For me, the answer to that was, no I won't.

But, I think the question can be read and interpreted on a very different level and then answered in the affirmative without displaying some kind of knee-jerk prejudice. At least, I hope that is the case as the "Yes" answers seem to be winning the day at this point.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

It's changing parts and selling it as the real thing that's bad. Dan Brown sold a lot of books making claims that this is exactly what the Catholic Church did c. 300AD; it's so wrong, it actually provided a hook to draw a huge audience and make Brown a millionaire (regardless of the fact that there are Bible manuscripts prior to 300AD still in existence which completely refute these claims in Brown's stories.).

With respect though, Pie, we know that bits of the Bible have been added over time. Probably the best known example is that of John 7:53-8:11 - the story of the woman accused of adultery. This is not present in any of the earliest extant manuscripts of John, and appears to have been added in about the 4th century. Most modern Biblical translations print it enclosed in brackets to indicate its doubtful provenance.

[WT Sharpe]

Not to mention the two separate endings of Mark chapter 16.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Not to mention the two separate endings of Mark chapter 16.

Yes, that's another good example.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by astra

How can you pray from the depth of your soul if you don't know what you are talking about?

this is one of the issues with the early christian church. masses were said, prayers were recited, and what few copies of the bible existed were all in Latin. the common man only had the word of his priest to go by. in some of the bigger cathedrals things were helped along by the stained glass windows to help tell the stories of the church.

as I've said before, I think if Islam were to undergo a reformation of sorts (and I don't mean the split between the sects), there would be a great deal of huminitarian improvement

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

this is one of the issues with the early christian church. masses were said, prayers were recited, and what few copies of the bible existed were all in Latin.

I'm not sure I follow you, kindlekitten. The early Christian church existed within the Roman Empire whose language was Latin. It would have been a little surprising had services been conducted in a language other than Latin, wouldn't it?

[Logseman]

Originally Posted by astra

How can you pray from the depth of your soul if you don't know what you are talking about?

Oh, mantra-based prayers have made that for ages. You may not know consciously what you're talking about, but the act of saying those words brings you to a different world, so to speak, in which you're with $DEITY.

There was a passage in the Revelations which may be of interest about the bond between words and God:

Him that overcomes will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from my God: and I will write on him my new name.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm not sure I follow you, kindlekitten. The early Christian church existed within the Roman Empire whose language was Latin. It would have been a little surprising had services been conducted in a language other than Latin, wouldn't it?

which Latin? the vulgur died out with the empire. then it evolved into several different dialects some of which eventually became modern languages. eccleastical latin became more or less an entity of its own. classical latin was the language of statesman and scholars and useful as a common written language.

so given all of these what do you think the poor farmer spoke that was being preached at in a formal and stylized language used and developed by the church and certainly not taught to anyone below a small educated minority

[nohmi2]

Whole swathes of the bible were not included by the time of Constantine.
As to languages this sounds about right.

Aramaic is a Semitic language that was widely spoken from 600 to 200 B.C.E. in the near Middle East. It was one of the common languages of the region until the 13th century, when Arabic became more prominent. Many people believe Jesus and his apostles spoke Aramaic.

The Christian New Testament was written in the first century C.E. in the common Greek of the Mediterranean area and parts of the Middle East at the time. This form of Greek is called Koine Greek. It developed from classical Greek spread by the conquests of Alexander the Great. As different people began to use the tongue, it evolved and changed into Koine Greek between 300 B.C.E. and 300 C.E. This form may have been the second language of Jesus and his apostles -- after all, the gospels note that Jesus spoke with Pontius Pilate, who would have been more likely to understand Greek than Aramaic. The New Testament was probably written in Greek because it was the most common language around the Mediterranean at the time.

After the Roman Empire itself was Christianized and Latin become the common language, the entire Bible was translated into Latin. The first Latin version is called the Vulgate. In the mid-15th century, when Johannes Gutenberg invented movable type, the Latin Vulgate edition of the Christian Bible was the first work he printed.

Yahoo was my friend - more straighforward
http://ask.yahoo.com/20030227.html

[nohmi2]

If I had the Koran on my ereader and I needed the space, I would delete it.
I don't like some of the interpretations that have been made to it though, nor do I like the fact that we are told that unless we follow the Koran, that we are infidels and deserve to die.

Seems to be a tad pushy to me.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by nohmi2

The Christian New Testament was written in the first century C.E. in the common Greek of the Mediterranean area and parts of the Middle East at the time.

Modern Bible scholars believe that some books of the New Testament weren't written until early in the 2nd century. I'm speaking here of I John, II John, and III John (100 CE), I and II Timothy (110 CE, written by an admirer of Paul), Titus (110 CE, also written by an admirer of Paul), Jude (115 CE, written by an admirer of Jude), and II Peter (130 CE, written by an admirer of Peter). All dates are, of course, approximate.

The earliest New Testament writings appear to be the undisputed letters of Paul along with Colossians and II Thessalonians, which are judged to be written by a disciple or admirer of Paul. All seven of the genuine epistles as well as Colossians and II Thessalonians are judged to predate Mark, the first gospel to be written.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

this is one of the issues with the early christian church. masses were said, prayers were recited, and what few copies of the bible existed were all in Latin. the common man only had the word of his priest to go by. in some of the bigger cathedrals things were helped along by the stained glass windows to help tell the stories of the church.

as I've said before, I think if Islam were to undergo a reformation of sorts (and I don't mean the split between the sects), there would be a great deal of huminitarian improvement

I totally fail to see the connexion between the reformation and a humanitarian improvement. The reformation itself triggered a very long period of civil wars and massacres in Europe, and both sides seem to have been equally intolerant and bloodthirsty to me. As for the long-term effects, seen from the 21st century, I don't see more tolerance or humanity on the reformed side than on the catholic one.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

which Latin? the vulgur died out with the empire. then it evolved into several different dialects some of which eventually became modern languages. eccleastical latin became more or less an entity of its own. classical latin was the language of statesman and scholars and useful as a common written language.

so given all of these what do you think the poor farmer spoke that was being preached at in a formal and stylized language used and developed by the church and certainly not taught to anyone below a small educated minority

Perhaps we are talking about different periods when we refer to "the early church"? When I hear that term, I think of the first few centuries of the church when it used Latin simply because that was the language of the Empire.

I entirely agree with you that by, say, medieval times, the church really had very little to do with the lives of the everyday people; it was a state organ of power, pure and simple. People led such wretched lives that one of its primary purposes was to preach the message "we know your life is awful here, but obey your lord and master and you'll store up brownie points in heaven and live really nice lives in heaven".