[split] Assalamo alaikum
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-08-2015, 04:15 AM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2015 04:44 AM by π¶∆.)
RE: [split] Assalamo alaikum
(06-08-2015 04:59 PM)julep Wrote:  But then he tried to twist the dictionary definition into a pretzel and I realized he wasn't trying to make a fine distinction. It's a pity that he's hung up on defending his use of the word instead of googling the distinction, thanking the person who taught him something new, and then returning to his main point.

Have you used google and seen it for yourself?

Here is from Oxford dictionary, this is the foremost authority on english language. i am not making this up: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...ranslation
Definition of interpretation in English:
noun

[MASS NOUN]
1The action of explaining the meaning of something:
the interpretation of data

Definition of translation in English:
noun

[MASS NOUN]
1The process of translating words or text from one language into another:
the translation of the Bible into English

(06-08-2015 05:43 PM)Dom Wrote:  Like I said, I do understand what he meant by using the words as he did. However, I used to be a professional translator and interpreter and happen to know what I am talking about.

This was not meant as a topic of discussion, but as a footnote.
You were a PROFESSIONAL interpreter then you must have at least some command of english? Yes? You don't know the difference between Interpreter and interpretation? The least you could do is be honest. I used interpretation and not interpreter.
Interpreter is someone who TRANSLATES speech orally or into sign language.
Some interpreter you must have been... and all the sheep have jumped on bandwagon completely clueless.

(06-08-2015 06:22 PM)The Polyglot Atheist Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 04:51 PM)π¶∆ Wrote:  Sigh, how does the dictionary I posted not support what I said? You do know interpretor translates and not interpret? There are many such words in English language that are unusual.

The definition you posted says nothing in support of your statement. It lists other meanings of interpretation that have nothing to do with the job, or are vague at best.
It completely agrees with my definition and context. What word of it opposes what i said? Interpretation is an action that EXPLAINS, NOT SIMPLY TRANSLATES. Stop arguing without any basis. Of course it has other meanings, what is your point? If it has other meanings that renders the previous meaning useless?

(06-08-2015 09:29 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Thanks for the reply.

I think perhaps I wasn't making myself clear. I'll try again.

(06-08-2015 03:12 PM)π¶∆ Wrote:  Adam didn't exist its a DNA thing? WHere are you taking this from? lol
Every muslim believes in adam and he did exist.

You are studying medicine so obviously you have a deep level understanding of biology.

The pre-bible creation stories (later documented in the Hebrew bible in Genesis) were written by people who did not have the knowledge that even 6-year-olds have today.

The christian bible subsumed the Hebrew folk-lore and the Quranic authors used the same literature afterwards. See also how they got the embryology bits wrong.

Now we know about the processes behind cell theory (evolution) we know that there was no first human... hence no Adam.

Your medical degree covers this, I'm sure.

Quote:Every muslim believes ...

On a side note ... I'm perceiving a small shift, locally, when talking to theistic friends (Jains, Buddhists, Muslims) ... they are now more often prone to say "We are taught to believe..." This is valid.

I know many apostates who still classify themselves as muslim because of tradition (e.g. they fast during Ramadan in the same way that many ex-christians binge during christmas ... because: tradition), so saying "every muslim believes ..." is not entirely accurate.

(06-08-2015 03:12 PM)π¶∆ Wrote:  Original scrawlings? You mean hebrew. It is a very well understood language by linguists who study it.
...

Again, perhaps I wasn't being clear ... nope, I meant Arabic, not Hebrew.

Uthman (the third Caliph) had a stab at standardising the consonantal text (from the second hand reports of the words of the prophet) but variant traditions survived for centuries after (10th century CE) when canonisation (under Ibn Mujahid) attempeted to establish one system of consonants.

Even still, depending on whose account one reads, there are potential 14 different readings.

This is clever actually, because it allows apologists the option of claiming "you're not reading it right".

The thing is, when a muslim dogmatically asserts that the Quran is the word of god, one needs only to ask "Which Quran?" to undermine their certainty.

(06-08-2015 03:12 PM)π¶∆ Wrote:  ...
Bible has been corrupted. Whatever it was translated from is corrupted as well. There are many common things between quran and bible. They are from same God. Quran exists in same form as before, bible was changed and edited. So whatever they translated or mistranslated, was not valid in the first place. Secondly, Mary is mentioned in multiple places as a virgin and not just there, you can't use just this one word at this one place as a lever for a much bigger statement.

LOL@ Oops!

Indeed, the bible (both Hebrew and christian) has evolved. Scholars (from all sides) have put heaps of effort into working out what changed and when.

The bible is a wonderful source for historians even when accepting that it was never intended as historicity but rather literature.
Note that no one use the Quran to study ancient history ... it is simply too modern.

The point is that when a mistranslation is noticed i.e. variants between older and newer versions or between Old and New Testaments, the latter translation is going to be questioned.

Any text that repeats the mistakes of the mistranslation can be dismissed off-hand.

I have this problem in class all the time even with modern best practices where one author has copied the mistakes of a previous author in the new 'definitive' text. Fortunately, we have some self-correcting mechanisms now.

I hope I have explained myself more comprehensively this time.

Cheers

There are no embryology "bits wrong" in Quran. As I study biology, you can trust me.
My medical degree covers evolution? Sorry, it doesn't. You are confusing two different subjects, evolutionary biology and doctorate in medicine. The so-called shift is of no relevance to me, i only speak for myself.

No, quran is same as it was during prophets time. There are no variations of quran. You are clearly either misinformed or blatantly lying. Just few weeks ago the oldest version of quran was found. Here: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-33436021

It's from BBC, not brainwashed islamic propaganda as you would like.

Prof Thomas says that some of the passages of the Koran were written down on parchment, stone, palm leaves and the shoulder blades of camels - and a final version, collected in book form, was completed in about 650.
He says that "the parts of the Koran that are written on this parchment can, with a degree of confidence, be dated to less than two decades after Muhammad's death".
"These portions must have been in a form that is very close to the form of the Koran read today, supporting the view that the text has undergone little or no alteration and that it can be dated to a point very close to the time it was believed to be revealed."

So when it comes to history, i'd rather listen to the experts and professors who earn their bread and butter through history rather than armchair-archeologists like yourself, no offense. Oops @ your 14 Qurans.

As for using bible as historical document, it is indeed true. There was no historical evidence except the bible's reference to the kingdom of David. But your point about Quran not being a historical document has no relevance.
What you are pointing out about similarity between quran and bible is a 1400 year document. Whatever you have to say has already been said 1400 years ago. All are stale arguments and been heard again and again.
The prophet is a poet. The prophet has authors studying bible locked up in the room. He is possessed. He is a magician. He has authored it himself. Manifest truth will indeed be eventually known, and then it will be too late.

(06-08-2015 09:47 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Hello again. Big Grin

*Raises hand*

(06-08-2015 03:12 PM)π¶∆ Wrote:  Adam didn't exist its a DNA thing? Where are you taking this from?
Every Muslim believes in Adam and he did exist....

Not wanting to jump onto anything but....

Pi(?) do you mean that there was a fellow named Adam?

Or are you saying that you believe there was a 'Definitive'/'Original' male (Human) which was then ascribed with that name?

Also... are you also now proposing to speak for "All Muslims" ?

Hello Big Grin
Yes, i believe there was definitely an original male called Adam. He was a human in every sense and was a physical and literal being.

Yes, I think i speak for all muslims.


Allah knows best.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 04:44 AM
RE: [split] Assalamo alaikum
(06-08-2015 10:01 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 04:57 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Another one....really.

Don't we have enough people on here now who think they know all about us and want to tell us how fucked up we are?

This is out of control.

Nah. It's really kind of reassuring!

I mean, a man can be out travelling for six weeks, almost never tuning into the forum, and yet show back up and immediately see the same old song and dance - the same old sanctimonious exhibitionism that passes for "discussion" from the fundie quarter. Why, it's a rock of stability in a volatile world!

Nice of you to check in. I was concerned that you had shuffled off this mortal coil, run down the curtain, and joined the bleedin' choir invisible. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
07-08-2015, 04:47 AM
RE: [split] Assalamo alaikum
(07-08-2015 04:15 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  Yes, i believe there was definitely an original male called Adam. He was a human in every sense and was a physical and literal being.

Then you deny evolution and the very basis of biology and therefore medicine. I pity any of your future patients.

Quote:Yes, I think i speak for all muslims.

Really? Then you are an arrogant fool.

Quote:Allah knows best.

First show that Allah exists.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
07-08-2015, 04:52 AM
RE: [split] Assalamo alaikum
(07-08-2015 04:15 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  Hello Big Grin
Yes, i believe there was definitely an original male called Adam. He was a human in every sense and was a physical and literal being.
So... human evolution...?

Quote:Yes, I think i speak for all muslims.
What do all Muslims think? Come to that, you speak for Islamic State? 'Cos those guys are some shitty Muslims.

Quote:Allah knows best.
Yeah, she's pretty great isn't she Smile

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
07-08-2015, 05:21 AM
RE: [split] Assalamo alaikum
(07-08-2015 04:52 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 04:15 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  Hello Big Grin
Yes, i believe there was definitely an original male called Adam. He was a human in every sense and was a physical and literal being.
So... human evolution...?

Quote:Yes, I think i speak for all muslims.
What do all Muslims think? Come to that, you speak for Islamic State? 'Cos those guys are some shitty Muslims.

Quote:Allah knows best.
Yeah, she's pretty great isn't she Smile

I believe Adam might have been the first homosapien.

What's the point of asking such a stupid question? Do you speak for Pol Pot and Stalin? Don't waste my time with stupid questions. If you have something sensible to ask then ask.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 06:00 AM (This post was last modified: 07-08-2015 06:35 AM by Szuchow.)
RE: [split] Assalamo alaikum
(06-08-2015 03:44 PM)π¶∆ Wrote:  Nothing I said was inaccurate, I proved all my claims. Some members had the integrity to admit I was correct yet people keep coming in with the same things.


You proved all your claims? With one poll which if I remember right doesn't say anything about voting tendencies or supporting homosexuality (whatever that means)?

You proved nothing. But you have your TRUTH so it's stupid to expect that you admit your claims were baseless.

Edit: According to Pew poll about 20% of self identified atheists don't support same sex marriage. It's hardly an exception. More to the point study is about USA and number of atheists who are closeted could skew the result.

So even if 80% of USA atheist really is for same sex marriage it doesn't mean much. USA is not the world and there is problem with closeted atheist.

What could be said it's that atheists could be/are more likely to support same sex marriage cause obviously no religious taboo prohibits them from doing so. Same thing with abortion. Other claims require more data and not only from USA.

So in short if you would say that atheists are more likely to be:
a) pro choice cause there is no religious taboo which force them to trying take freedom of others away
b) pro same sex marriage cause there is no religious taboo which force them to trying take freedom of others away.
Then I could agree with you. And i use words it's more likely cause I have no data to make conclusive statements about what atheists in other countries think and do. Sure they aren't tied with religious taboo but that don't mean they value freedom of others.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 06:12 AM
RE: [split] Assalamo alaikum
(06-08-2015 04:14 PM)BryanS Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 03:52 PM)π¶∆ Wrote:  If you were to say most Muslims support killing apostates (who left Islam), you will be correct.

Apostates should be smart and if they do lose faith, they shouldnt come out in Muslim majority areas, just as many of Muslims don't come out with their honest views on things in non Muslim land.

I am unsure on the issue so I don't know what to tell you. Quran says there is no compulsion in religion.

As for killing non Muslims who are not apostates, a big no. No believer supports bloodshed, and Allah hates it too.

Just to clarify then, you are saying you are unsure whether a Muslim who leaves the faith should be put to death for doing so? Why the uncertainty? I'm as sure as I could possibly that killing someone for changing their beliefs is absolutely, unequivocally wrong. Why do most Muslims think this is OK to do?


Perhaps π¶∆ missed this question? Or perhaps he knows his answers would put Islam in a horrible light? Re-posting to see if he responds
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 06:17 AM
RE: [split] Assalamo alaikum
(07-08-2015 05:21 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  I believe Adam might have been the first homosapien.

The genus/species name is Homo sapiens. It is not a plural.

How do you define the first of a species? Please be specific.

Quote:What's the point of asking such a stupid question? Do you speak for Pol Pot and Stalin? Don't waste my time with stupid questions. If you have something sensible to ask then ask.

You claimed to speak for all Muslims - that's a stupid statement.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
07-08-2015, 06:21 AM
RE: [split] Assalamo alaikum
(07-08-2015 05:21 AM)π¶∆ Wrote:  I believe Adam might have been the first homosapien.
OK. So there was a point where God decided that humans had done enough evolving and Adam was the first human...

Quote:What's the point of asking such a stupid question? Do you speak for Pol Pot and Stalin? Don't waste my time with stupid questions. If you have something sensible to ask then ask.
You said you spoke for all Muslims amigo. That includes IS, unless you don't speak for them, in which case your original statement was incorrect. I suppose you could claim that they are not true Muslims in which case, who *is* a true Muslim? And if you do so claim, how are you qualified to decide?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
07-08-2015, 06:27 AM
RE: [split] Assalamo alaikum
(07-08-2015 06:12 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 04:14 PM)BryanS Wrote:  Just to clarify then, you are saying you are unsure whether a Muslim who leaves the faith should be put to death for doing so? Why the uncertainty? I'm as sure as I could possibly that killing someone for changing their beliefs is absolutely, unequivocally wrong. Why do most Muslims think this is OK to do?


Perhaps π¶∆ missed this question? Or perhaps he knows his answers would put Islam in a horrible light? Re-posting to see if he responds
Sorry I missed your question.
Why the uncertainty? Because it's not mentioned in Quran. It's mentioned in hadith which are oral sayings attributed to prophet and have much less authority than Quran.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes π¶∆'s post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: