What's new

Is there a fundamental misunderstanding betwen Mormons and Muslims? help solving the puzzle!!

All of those versions, they have the same gospel message, correct?

If I seem to be departing from "explaining my beliefs" into "attacking your beliefs", I apologize.

That being said, I don't understand your position. First you say that the Bible is flawless, perfect, and inerrant, but then you apparently readily agree with me that it's the *message* that's important and not the specific words.

If it's the message that's important, than your previous complaint about the Book of Mormon doesn't seem valid, since it contains the same message of the divinity of Jesus Christ, his atonement for our sins, etc., as the Bible.

Even when checking the Bible's current translation with what was discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls, there were only a minor fraction of differences, and they were all minor words that did not change any message in the Bible!

I agree that the basic message is not changed, but as the saying goes "the devil is in the details". And a LOT of the details vary from version to version. kicky did a good job responding to that. His point about the "the most honest translations currently published are heavily footnoted" is 100% accurate (and mirrors something I said in a post above). And his point about the Aprocrypha is equally valid. Do you accept the Aprocrypha as inerrant scripture? Why/why not?

As for Psalms, again, God-breathed words. Do you think God knew what was going to be in the Bible in the future? He is all-knowing after all.

If the Psalms' passage allows for additional scripture beyond Psalms, then it allows for additional scripture. By that logic it does not argue against the Book of Mormon at all. I.e. God could similarly have been implying that the Book of Mormon is included in the phrase "The words of The Lord are flawless"? After all the Psalm does NOT state, "The words of the Lord, meaning only these specific books [insert list of books here], are flawless." That's only YOUR interpretation of that verse. The verse itself makes no such claim.
 
You know what the one Holy book that is more than 1000 years old that is universally agreed upon to be untouched is (at least by every single branch of Islam)???? If you were to buy a Qur'an in Shi'i Iran, Wahabi Saudi Arabia, 15th centuary Ottoman Empire, 10th centuary Islamic Caliphate, or 16th centuary Safavid dynasty every single Qur'an will be the same word for word letter for letter. Currently there is an ancient text called the Sana'a manuscript that are said to maybe contain a different version of the Qur'an but this information hasn't been made public.

We haven't reexamined, questioned, or altered our beliefs in over a thousand years. We're sooooo smart!
 
Can't the same be said about the Old Testament in its original Hebrew? The Vedas in Sanskrit? There are plenty of holy books that haven't changed in over a thousand years.

I know very little about the Vedas but I found this on Wikipedia "Each of the four Vedas seems to have passed to numerous Shakhas or schools, giving rise to various recensions of the text."

About the Hebrew Old Testament

"The Old Testament found in bibles today is not even translated from the original Hebrew texts! They are translated from the Masoretic Hebrew texts (from the 8th-10th century AD), not the original Hebrew texts. By the time bibles came around (in the 15th century), the original Hebrew had been lost, both the manuscripts and the language. There is not a man alive today who knows how to pronounce or read the original Hebrew language."

https://www.ecclesia.org/truth/ot_manuscripts.html

I don't know how accurate these websites are but I have never heard a Hindu or Christian claim their holy book or portion of their holy book is preserved. With the Qur'an the only website I found was wikiislam and answering-islam that have uncompelling arguments on the Qur'an changing such as it maybe changed before Uthman. I haven't investigated enough of the Vedas but the Bible I am pretty certain there are different versions of each text.
 
We haven't reexamined, questioned, or altered our beliefs in over a thousand years. We're sooooo smart!

Well, Muslims believe that the Quran is the literal word of God. And by literal I literally mean literal! As in, God speaks Arabic, and Mohammad was just writing down God's very words. Consequently, even the slightest change would be considered blasphemy by Muslims. Hell, a thousand years ago or so, the Arabic language was updated to include markers for short vowel sounds (before, only long vowels were written down), and the process of updating the Quran to reflect the new linguistic rules was met with a lot of resistant and controversy. They're still talking about it a thousand years later in the Arab world!
 
Well, Muslims believe that the Quran is the literal word of God. And by literal I literally mean literal! As in, God speaks Arabic, and Mohammad was just writing down God's very words. Consequently, even the slightest change would be considered blasphemy by Muslims. Hell, a thousand years ago or so, the Arabic language was updated to include markers for short vowel sounds (before, only long vowels were written down), and the process of updating the Quran to reflect the new linguistic rules was met with a lot of resistant and controversy. They're still talking about it a thousand years later in the Arab world!

As you know just like the word Bible means "books" the word Qur'an means "to recite." It wasn't that Mohammad wrote down these books but rather recited them. Thousands of people during Muhammads time have memorized the Qur'an (although many died, still thousands remained) and to this day Millions of Muslims have it memorized. They can trace direct recitations of the Qur'an from person to person all the way back to Muhammad from present day.
 
Well, Muslims believe that the Quran is the literal word of God. And by literal I literally mean literal! As in, God speaks Arabic, and Mohammad was just writing down God's very words. Consequently, even the slightest change would be considered blasphemy by Muslims. Hell, a thousand years ago or so, the Arabic language was updated to include markers for short vowel sounds (before, only long vowels were written down), and the process of updating the Quran to reflect the new linguistic rules was met with a lot of resistant and controversy. They're still talking about it a thousand years later in the Arab world!

I'm not sure if god realizes this but he writes stuff backwards. :p
 
The words don't need to change at all for the Bible itself to undergo tectonic alterations. All that's necessary is for a shift in interpretation -- which the historical record very clearly shows to have happened. Repeatedly.

For example, I dare you to find one contemporary Evangelical church that teaches the following:
The primary theme of the Old Testament is man turns away from God, and thereby understands God's power better than if he had obeyed. In other words, the less is that in order to gain a deep understanding of creation, one cannot simply following the lessons and directives as they are passed down. Instead, one must strike out on one's own, distrust these representations of God, in order to know.

In stark contrast to this interpretation, Evangelical churches emphasize themes from the New Testament in such a way that it avalanches the Old Testament. In chorus, they say we're supposed to take Christ's values AS OUR OWN (rather than disobey in order to FIND OUR OWN). The Old Testament is often recast as a collection of pre-Christ allegories which demonstrate, because of our inherent sinning/disobeying ways, the need for a savior. This is a total reversal of a cool lesson.

The only alternative for the literalists, then, is to say that the Bible is a pure text, which is God-given and interpreted precisely how it is needed in each era. That's such a circular and impossible argument -- one which shuffles off any inconvenient notion, robotically -- that we should all question the value of having the conversation.
 
Of course we are where we are because of how history unfolded. How else can it be?

Just because something unfolds in a certain way, it doesn't mean that it's the only way that it could have unfolded. To me, the way that Islam unfolded was not inevitable from its conception.

And while my comment was in jest, I fully believe in the essence of it. I'm not a believer, and to me Islam is just another ideology in the endless ocean of human ideologies. And it is an ideology that the world would be much better without. That obviously applies to many other ideologies, but I tend to bring up Islam because it touches the lives of many of the people I personally know.

I understand that. Unfortunately, I disagree with who you characterize 'Islam' so monolithically.

If you said something like "the Wahhabist interpretation of Islam is an ideology that the world would be much better without", then I would agree with you. Is this how you feel about Sufism? Sufism is Islam!

Muslims of the Muslim world are the ones who really pay the price Islam demands. The religion has obliterated Middle Eastern intellectual culture, and there are virtually no worthwhile Muslim thinkers as far as the rest of humanity is concerned.

This is of fault to the Muslim diaspora-- it is not the fault of the Islamic faith. The revelations initially given by the prophet Muhammad were not initially construed in such a way that made them intrinsically less open to critical discussion, or intellectual stimulation than the religion of Judaism or Christianity. The sociocultural characteristics of what make contemporary Islam so monolithic are a complete fabrication of what those in power have decided to do. That's why i cite to history-- it makes it quite easy for me to reconcile why a faith started with so much promise, yet it is where it is today. It gets particularly annoying when you take into account what roles the forces of colonialism have played.


The philosophical discourse within the Muslim world is over nonsense like whether it is permissible for women to drive or go to school. That bothers me more than all the violence and bloodshed, because it tells me that these things are here to stay.

That bothers me too. Fortunately, people like Reza Aslan seem to be taking discourses in a different direction, in directions that I myself resonate with.

I'm just not seeing a path to the modernization that Islam desperately needs. The sad fact is that Islam acts as a serious barrier to progress wherever it's present. Even in more modern places like Turkey, it is hard to argue that Islam adds up to a net positive. How can you blame me for being resentful when I don't see a way forward for the culture that I come from?


I do not blame you in any way. I do see a way forward for the culture-- but I get why you don't. Many don't.

The advent of the internet information age, at worst, in theory should make a given religion more heterogenous. Consequently, while this might nurture the extremist interpretations of Islam, so to will it nurture the democratic, growingly secularification of nations with a muslim majority.


Every single Muslim, and non-Muslim who's interested in Muslim history and the contemporary politics of Islam should read this book:

No_god_but_God_(Reza_Aslan_book)_US_cover.jpg
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k34iTzlwH5A

He has a few degrees. One PhD in the Old Testament.
 
Reza Aslan states every religion and world view is equally right. That another way of saying they are all equally wrong. Either Muhammad was divinely inspired or he was not.
 
Religion is way more than a collection of symbols or a bag of metaphors or a language for expressing the inexpressible. Making a categorical separation between faith and religion is asinine.
 
Reza Aslan states every religion and world view is equally right. That another way of saying they are all equally wrong. Either Muhammad was divinely inspired or he was not.

nein.

Religion is way more than a collection of symbols or a bag of metaphors or a language for expressing the inexpressible. Making a categorical separation between faith from religion is asinine.

nein.
 
Top