Jump to content

the Quran


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, poptart said:

Anyone ever read it?

Sections here and there, less than a tenth of it. I should get a better translation, it was boring. It was in some books inherited from an uncle, who probably picked it up for a few coins at a used book store. 

Link to comment

Yes, I found it repetitive and boring.

I hear it is much better in Arabic where the poetic structure survives and now that I have listened to some of it recited aloud I believe it. Quite a contrast to the New Testament which is written in a common trade tongue divorced from the culture of the original language.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, poptart said:

Anyone ever read it?

I have, several times in fact. I can not read the abjad but I can speak the language. I did some research about the historicity of the Q'ran and other sources relevant to Islam some years ago. I have 3 different (copies) translations. It is a bit dense and rather "slow". A bit like Deuteronomy, I would say? It is a small book, in general.

Edited by Islander
Link to comment
15 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I started reading it (it's on my bookshelf), but got too busy to fit it in with everything else.

That's what happened with me too, started it and never finished it.

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Sections here and there, less than a tenth of it. I should get a better translation, it was boring. It was in some books inherited from an uncle, who probably picked it up for a few coins at a used book store. 

 

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, I found it repetitive and boring.

I hear it is much better in Arabic where the poetic structure survives and now that I have listened to some of it recited aloud I believe it. Quite a contrast to the New Testament which is written in a common trade tongue divorced from the culture of the original language.

 

10 minutes ago, rpn said:

Parts, and yes it's repetitive, and since it is not supposed to be translated into any other languages, you also can't count on any translation accuracy necessarily.

Same experience, repetitive and boring.  I suspect like with most translated things a lot of the finer points just don't translate well into English.  I suspect Torah and the Talmud are the same, you almost have to learn Hebrew to really understand it.  One Jewish friend told me a while ago that there are so many fine points in Jewish education that you need parents, a Rabbi etc. to really get it, that's assuming your parents taught you the language.  

12 hours ago, Islander said:

I have, several times in fact. I can not read the abjad but I can speak the language. I did some research about the historicity of the Q'ran and other sources relevant to Islam some years ago. I have 3 different (copies) translations. It is a bit dense and rather "slow". A bit like Deuteronomy, I would say? It is a small book, in general.

Is the writing understandable to someone who's learned the language or do you have to understand it as it was written back then?  Just how different is the feel vs the English translation?  

Link to comment

After 9/11 I toured our local mosque, and they handed me a CD they had produced.  It contained a sermon (not sure what you would call it), which basically consisted of someone saying stuff like "the great prophet Muhammed Peace Be Unto Him went to [a place] and said this:"  And then another voice would sing something in Arabic.    I found it interesting, and got just a tiny window into everything I did not know about that faith and it's history.  

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, poptart said:

Same experience, repetitive and boring.  I suspect like with most translated things a lot of the finer points just don't translate well into English.

It is unfortunate. I think it would help if others could understand in part the devotion to scripture a group has, though the text itself is a small portion of the why. 

Link to comment
On 11/22/2021 at 6:27 PM, poptart said:

Anyone ever read it?

Yes. Only in English. Twice. In the days when I was deciding between Rome, Salt Lake City, or Medina. 

I thought that the main difference between the two great Restorationist movements, in contrast with the New Testament, is that the New Testament features Saul, St. Paul, who understood the Old Covenant. Thoroughly. 

I feel pretty confident that the author of the Koran, as well as the Book of Mormon, misunderstand what they claim to "restore". I am more confident that the authors of the New Testament, esp. St. Paul, who explains how the New Covenant replaces the Old, understand both Covenants better than the alleged restorers.

Rory

 

 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Yes. Only in English. Twice. In the days when I was deciding between Rome, Salt Lake City, or Medina. 

I thought that the main difference between the two great Restorationist movements, in contrast with the New Testament, is that the New Testament features Saul, St. Paul, who understood the Old Covenant. Thoroughly. 

I feel pretty confident that the author of the Koran, as well as the Book of Mormon, misunderstand what they claim to "restore". I am more confident that the authors of the New Testament, esp. St. Paul, who explains how the New Covenant replaces the Old, understand both Covenants better than the alleged restorers.

Rory

 

 

I could have also become a Restorationist-in-waiting. But only if an Apostasy that ended the apostolic priesthood established by Christ could be made credible to me. Since 2004 here, and since 2000 elsewhere (ZLMB), this is my only reason for not making further investigation into LDS or Muslim claims, and offshoots of both. It is why I am still Catholic.

Edited by 3DOP
Link to comment
14 hours ago, poptart said:

Is the writing understandable to someone who's learned the language or do you have to understand it as it was written back then?  Just how different is the feel vs the English translation?  

I ahve read it only in English. My ability to understand the Arabic script is quite limited. The reading itself is quite dense. It seems disjointed at times. Also, just like the bible, it is not arrange in chronological orer so without a commentary it is difficult to weave those parts together.

Link to comment
On 11/23/2021 at 9:12 PM, 3DOP said:

...(ZLMB)...

Yay!  Another old grizzled veteran!  I might have argued with you on that board.  Remember when things got so repetitive over there, some of the regulars decided to switch sides, just in one thread, just to see what happened?  The faithful took what they considered the weakest part of mormonism and argued it, and the critics took what they saw as the strongest points and argued those.   

Good times!

Link to comment
10 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Yay!  Another old grizzled veteran!  I might have argued with you on that board.  Remember when things got so repetitive over there, some of the regulars decided to switch sides, just in one thread, just to see what happened?  The faithful took what they considered the weakest part of mormonism and argued it, and the critics took what they saw as the strongest points and argued those.   

Good times!

Hey LM. Agreed! Up until a couple of years ago one could access all of the ZLMB data online. It would be interesting to go back through that stuff. 

What you describe sounds like an interesting exercise. I am afraid I do not remember it though.

Take care, LM.

Rory

 

Edited by 3DOP
Link to comment
10 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Yay!  Another old grizzled veteran!  I might have argued with you on that board.  Remember when things got so repetitive over there, some of the regulars decided to switch sides, just in one thread, just to see what happened?  The faithful took what they considered the weakest part of mormonism and argued it, and the critics took what they saw as the strongest points and argued those.   

Good times!

I found a thread we were both a part of here about five years ago: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67888-hello-to-all-of-you-who-used-to-post-at-zlmb/

 

Link to comment
On 11/22/2021 at 7:42 PM, The Nehor said:

Yes, I found it repetitive and boring.

I hear it is much better in Arabic where the poetic structure survives and now that I have listened to some of it recited aloud I believe it. Quite a contrast to the New Testament which is written in a common trade tongue divorced from the culture of the original language.

The "translations" are usually called "interpretations" because the scholars know that translation without interpretation is impossible.

I wish we had that tradition.

There is no such thing as a perfect "translation" of any scripture.

Link to comment
On 11/23/2021 at 10:12 PM, 3DOP said:

I could have also become a Restorationist-in-waiting. But only if an Apostasy that ended the apostolic priesthood established by Christ could be made credible to me. Since 2004 here, and since 2000 elsewhere (ZLMB), this is my only reason for not making further investigation into LDS or Muslim claims, and offshoots of both. It is why I am still Catholic.

And, on the other hand, why I am not. ;)

If the theology did not take in Greek philosophy, I could easily still be Catholic 

Link to comment
On 11/27/2021 at 10:20 AM, mfbukowski said:

And, on the other hand, why I am not. ;)

If the theology did not take in Greek philosophy, I could easily still be Catholic 

Hey Mark. Happy Sunday to you. 

The Muslims pound on us because we say Jesus was God, but he ate food, therefore he could not be God (Ch. 5, The Food, v. 75). Also, it would detract from God's glory to have a son (Ch. 4, The Women,, v. 171). The author of the Koran seems to think also that the Christians say that the Trinity consists of Allah (as Father), Jesus (as Son), and Mary (as Mother).

"And when Allah will say: Jesus, son of Mary, didst thou say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah? He [Jesus] will say, Glory be to Thee! it was not for me to say what I had no right to (say)."

---Ch. 5, The Food, v. 116

These are remarkable misunderstandings on the part of Mohammed of what both the Eastern and Western branches of the Church taught in his day.

-------

In what way do LDS believe that either or both branches (East and/or West) of the Catholic Church grievously err in allowing their theology to "take in Greek philosophy"? Probably the most profound and important difference between LDS and Catholic theology relates to creatio ex nihilo. Did all Greek philosophers teach that? I am thinking that belief in pre-existent matter predominated Greek philosophy, as in LDS theology? That wouldn't make LDS wrong, or even guilty of hellenizing. But it would make it odd for LDS to accuse us of hellenizing. In truth, it seems hard to have any theology that would not at some point "take in Greek philosophy"! 

If Greek philosophy is divided on creatio ex nihilo, we can discuss whether 2 Maccabees 7: 23 is pre-Christian literature:  "I beseech thee, my son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing, and mankind also:" , or whether Ex. 3:14 is a corrupt text when it appears to affirm that God is pure existence:  "God said to Moses: I AM WHO AM. He said: Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel: HE WHO IS, hath sent me to you." 

If the early Christians were wrong, they were following their own oral traditions as well as what you might say are corruptions of Scripture. This says nothing that would challenge a testimony to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. That would be "up for grabs" along with the need for a different cause or proof of the loss of priesthood authority by the Former-day Church. It isn't good or just for LDS to be in a position where they are kind of forced to believe that the Nicene Fathers, some of whom were missing digits on their hands and even eyes, having been persecuted for the faith of Christ, were guilty of a theology that they subordinated to any Greek philosopher. They didn't lose their eyes and fingers for Plotinus or Aristotle. They lost them for Jesus and for what they believed was the truth about Him handed down from their Fathers. That is what you should believe, in my biased opinion, while you theorize about the Apostasy which you necessarily believe in. 

God bless you, and keep you and yours, Mark. Your always friend and sometimes foil in Jesus and Mary,

Rory 

Edited by 3DOP
Link to comment
8 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Probably the most profound and important difference between LDS and Catholic theology relates to creatio ex nihilo.

I know I'm not Mark (at least not the last time I checked :)), but I have studied this topic to some degree. 

The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo was developed in reaction to the influences of Gnosticism.  The topic has been written about extensively in recent years, by both LDS and Non-LDS scholars.  Even as far back as 1991, Peter Hayman wrote:  "Nearly all recent studies on the origin of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo have come to the conclusion that this doctrine is not native to Judaism, is nowhere attested in the Hebrew Bible, and probably arose in Christianity in the second century C.E. in the course of its fierce battle with Gnosticism."  (See Peter Hayman, "Monotheism - a Misused Word in Jewish Studies?", Journal of Jewish Studies, Spring, 1991, p. 3)

As for the notion that belief in pre-existent matter predominated Greek philosophy, Justin Martyr taught that Plato borrowed his ideas on that topic from Moses, and listed the doctrine that God created all things out of "unformed matter" among the teachings that were "received by tradition":

Quote

Chapter X.
How God is to be served.
But we have received by tradition that God does not need the material offerings which men can give, seeing, indeed, that He Himself is the provider of all things. And we have been taught, and are convinced, and do believe, that He accepts those only who imitate the excellences which reside in Him, temperance, and justice, and philanthropy, and as many virtues as are peculiar to a God who is called by no proper name. And we have been taught that He in the beginning did of His goodness, for man’s sake, create all things out of unformed matter; and if men by their works show themselves worthy of this His design, they are deemed worthy, and so we have received—of reigning in company with Him, being delivered from corruption and suffering.  (Justin Martyr—Apology 1 Ch. 10)

And:

Quote

Chapter LIX.
Plato’s obligation to Moses.

And that you may learn that it was from our teachers—we mean the account given through the prophets— that Plato borrowed his statement that God, having altered matter which was shapeless, made the world, hear the very words spoken through Moses, who, as above shown, was the first prophet, and of greater antiquity than the Greek writers; and through whom the Spirit of prophecy, signifying how and from what materials God at first formed the world, spake thus: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was invisible and unfurnished, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said, Let there be light; and it was so.” So that both Plato and they who agree with him, and we ourselves, have learned, and you also can be convinced, that by the word of God the whole world was made out of the substance spoken of before by Moses. And that which the poets call Erebus, we know was spoken of formerly by Moses.  (Justin Martyr—Apology 1 Ch. 59)

Even Tertullian had to take the more ancient usage into account when arguing for the new doctrine:

Quote

The Creator’s works testify at once to His goodness, since they are good, as we have shown, and to His power, since they are mighty, and spring indeed out of nothing. And even if they were made out of some (previous) matter, as some will have it, they are even thus out of nothing, because they were not what they are. In short, both they are great because they are good; and God is likewise mighty, because all things are His own, whence He is almighty.  (Tertullian Part Second—Five Books Against Marcion Book 2 Ch. 5)

Wisdom 11:18 (or Wisdom of Solomon 11:17, depending on your Bible version) states that the "almighty hand... made the world of matter without form".  And it is generally understood that the verse you quoted from 2 Maccabees 7:28 (you wrote 7:23 but meant 7:28) is speaking in relative terms (similar to how it is expressed by Tertullian, above - "they were not what they are").  It indicates a creation "out of nothing" as understood in Biblical terms, that is, from matter that is "without form and void".

For two examples of studies that have addressed this topic from an LDS point of view, see:

Keith Norman, "Ex Nihilo: The Development of the Doctrines of God and Creation in early Christianity", BYU Studies, 17, no. 3 (Spring 1977).

Blake T. Ostler, "Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought", Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Volume 17, Number 2 (2005).

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
21 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I know I'm not Mark (at least not the last time I checked :)), but I have studied this topic to some degree. 

The doctrine of creatio ex nihilo was developed in reaction to the influences of Gnosticism.  The topic has been written about extensively in recent years, by both LDS and Non-LDS scholars.  Even as far back as 1991, Peter Hayman wrote:  "Nearly all recent studies on the origin of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo have come to the conclusion that this doctrine is not native to Judaism, is nowhere attested in the Hebrew Bible, and probably arose in Christianity in the second century C.E. in the course of its fierce battle with Gnosticism."  (See Peter Hayman, "Monotheism - a Misused Word in Jewish Studies?", Journal of Jewish Studies, Spring, 1991, p. 3)

As for the notion that belief in pre-existent matter predominated Greek philosophy, Justin Martyr taught that Plato borrowed his ideas on that topic from Moses, and listed the doctrine that God created all things out of "unformed matter" among the teachings that were "received by tradition":

And:

Even Tertullian had to take the more ancient usage into account when arguing for the new doctrine:

Wisdom 11:18 (or Wisdom of Solomon 11:17, depending on your Bible version) states that the "almighty hand... made the world of matter without form".  And it is generally understood that the verse you quoted from 2 Maccabees 7:28 (you wrote 7:23 but meant 7:28) is speaking in relative terms (similar to how it is expressed by Tertullian, above - "they were not what they are").  It indicates a creation "out of nothing" as understood in Biblical terms, that is, from matter that is "without form and void".

For two examples of studies that have addressed this topic from an LDS point of view, see:

Keith Norman, "Ex Nihilo: The Development of the Doctrines of God and Creation in early Christianity", BYU Studies, 17, no. 3 (Spring 1977).

Blake T. Ostler, "Out of Nothing: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought", Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Volume 17, Number 2 (2005).

Thank you InCognitus, for a very detailed, informative, and concise reply. You have done a great deal of study and I will be thinking about a reply which will probably not be until the weekend. I apologize for that. I think the subject and your research need more time than I have on workdays. Thanks for your patience, and for such a good overview of the subject.

God bless,

Rory

Link to comment

Hi Mark,

Longtime no chat. In your response to Rory on Saturday, you wrote:

>>If the theology did not take in Greek philosophy, I could easily still be Catholic>>

Will all due respect, perhaps you should reassess your membership in the CoJCoLDS; note the following from Fleming's 2014 dissertation:

>>This dissertation argues that Smith’s quest to restore what he called “the fulness of the gospel,” or the complete truth that was missing from contemporary churches and even the Bible itself drew from the thought of Christians influenced by Plato and is best understood as a form of Christian Platonism. Thus, for Smith, “the fulness of the gospel” included the restoration of divination, the central Christian-Platonic doctrine, as well as the rites and priesthood offices needed to achieve it.>> (Stephen Joseph Fleming,“The Fulness of the Gospel: Christian Platonism and the Origins of Mormonism", p. v)

 

Grace and peace,

David

Link to comment
On 11/30/2021 at 11:04 AM, David Waltz said:

Hi Mark,

Longtime no chat. In your response to Rory on Saturday, you wrote:

>>If the theology did not take in Greek philosophy, I could easily still be Catholic>>

Will all due respect, perhaps you should reassess your membership in the CoJCoLDS; note the following from Fleming's 2014 dissertation:

>>This dissertation argues that Smith’s quest to restore what he called “the fulness of the gospel,” or the complete truth that was missing from contemporary churches and even the Bible itself drew from the thought of Christians influenced by Plato and is best understood as a form of Christian Platonism. Thus, for Smith, “the fulness of the gospel” included the restoration of divination, the central Christian-Platonic doctrine, as well as the rites and priesthood offices needed to achieve it.>> (Stephen Joseph Fleming,“The Fulness of the Gospel: Christian Platonism and the Origins of Mormonism", p. v)

 

Grace and peace,

David

Hey David!  Good to see you- it's been a long time!

I have not read Fleming, so possibly my understanding of your above statements are faulty.

I am virually positive that Joseph was not acquainted with Plato.

 Yes Plato talks about how ideas pop up out of nowhere, "divination" or what we might call "inspiration" in the sense of perhaps a tune coming into your consciousness, as perhaps happens to musicians etc.   Fine. That's in the Timaeus.   THAT IS a harmony, PERHAPS between I suspect the Holy Ghost and his idea

Plato was a dualist, metaphysically. Matter and spirit are two different kinds of "substances.  In a sense matter is not "real" it is an illusion, the world of Ideas or Forms is the only real "reality".  God is transcendent and created the world out of nothing.   This notion of a divide between appearance and reality being different substances allows for "trans-sub-stant-iaton", the changing of one substance to another while retaining the illusive appearances of the material object.  It also lead to the practice of alchemy.

Joseph's God is immanent .   The world was created by organizing existent matter.  Plato's God is a transcendent Being and immaterial.  It is even innacurate to call him a "HE" or "Father"; He is not a "person".  Of course that was altered by the Platonic Christians.

Joseph was a materialist, even including Spirit itself as "refined matter" 

For Plato 'God" is not personal - God is a Form- an Idea of Goodness- the highest form or IDEA of Goodness itself .  He is everywhere in the universe.  Joseph's God has a tangible physical body, as tangible as our bodies.  Yes his "intelligence" or "light" fills the universe.  That is like knowing things happening remotely without being there.  

Those are the basics.

As far as I know, none of these elements of transcendence are in the Bible

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
On 11/30/2021 at 11:04 AM, David Waltz said:

Hi Mark,

Longtime no chat. In your response to Rory on Saturday, you wrote:

>>If the theology did not take in Greek philosophy, I could easily still be Catholic>>

Will all due respect, perhaps you should reassess your membership in the CoJCoLDS; note the following from Fleming's 2014 dissertation:

>>This dissertation argues that Smith’s quest to restore what he called “the fulness of the gospel,” or the complete truth that was missing from contemporary churches and even the Bible itself drew from the thought of Christians influenced by Plato and is best understood as a form of Christian Platonism. Thus, for Smith, “the fulness of the gospel” included the restoration of divination, the central Christian-Platonic doctrine, as well as the rites and priesthood offices needed to achieve it.>> (Stephen Joseph Fleming,“The Fulness of the Gospel: Christian Platonism and the Origins of Mormonism", p. v)

 

Grace and peace,

David

David, I will give a fuller context to your comment.

Page "v", the introduction to the dissertation is a summary of the further discussion and the introductory page.

It is short enough, I will now quote the entire "page v".  I have underlined one sentence, from which you have extracted the meaning for your comment that Joseph

Quote

Abstract “The Fulness of the Gospel: Christian Platonism and the Origins of Mormonism” Stephen Joseph Fleming Scholars have long wondered about the source of Mormon doctrines, many of which differed significantly from the Protestantism that dominated Joseph Smith’s environment. In 1994 John Brooke’s Refiner’s Fire proposed that Joseph Smith drew on Renaissance “hermeticism,” esoteric beliefs influenced by the antique Corpus Hermericum. Mormon scholars criticized Brooke, often arguing for ancient connections inaccessible to Smith, while scholars of Western esotericism argued that the concept of hermeticism was problematic and that the esoteric ideas labeled hermetic were actually Platonic. This dissertation argues that Smith’s quest to restore what he called “the fulness of the gospel,” or the complete truth that was missing from contemporary churches and even the Bible itself drew from the thought of Christians influenced by Plato and is best understood as a form of Christian Platonism. Thus, for Smith, “the fulness of the gospel” included the restoration of divination, the central Christian-Platonic doctrine, as well as the rites and priesthood offices needed to achieve it. Though Smith would not have designated himself a Christian Platonist (most Christian Platonists would not have either), he gravitated towards such ideas, which were available to him through a variety of routes, including popular forms of religiosity embraced by his family; the views of key followers; and the scholarship of his day as summarized in histories, encyclopedias, and other reference works. Viewing Joseph Smith’s folk practices, utopianism, temple rituals, soteriology, marital practices, and political ambition through a Christian-Platonic lens allows us to see underlying connections that make intelligible many disparate and peculiar aspects of early Mormonism.

There are many possible "sources"available, most widely attributed to Masonic rituals, for LDS temple rituals to which Joseph MIGHT have "gravitated".

On the otherhand these symbolic presentations of various LDS beliefs may NOT have influenced Joseph, as Fleming admits himself:  Mormon scholars criticized Brooke, often arguing for ancient connections inaccessible to Smith, while scholars of Western esotericism argued that the concept of hermeticism was problematic and that the esoteric ideas labeled hermetic were actually Platonic.

In other words, Mormon scholars disagreed with these assertions due to the complexity of the soup of "hermeticism" while non-Mormon scholars fished a piece of vegetable out of the "soup" which they thought might be "Platonism". ;)

Fleming has also written a lot about how Joseph was influened by the Book of Enoch, which I think WAS available to him especially in the Book of Moses.

I am not into studying sources like this because I see those as extraneous to the main issue.  The main issue for me is NOT the alleged sources of the intellectual soup in which we swim but whether or not it "tastes good" to us.   I see Mormonism as highly compatible with secularism, and phenomenology and Pragmatism, a la William James, which is MY "salt" for the soup.   If it ain't Pragmatism and or anti-realism, I am out.  :)   Present day realism is not compatible with belief in God, it has evolved into logical positivism which has already died due to natural causes.  It is self- contradictory.  ;)

No I don't think I will be leaving the church for allegedly Platonic influences when I have read a LOT of plato and am also a temple worker, and very familiar with philosophical hermeneutics  Maybe I will read the rest of the article, maybe not- my time is at a premium at this time .

But it WAS good to hear from you.!

 

Link to comment
On 11/30/2021 at 9:04 PM, David Waltz said:

Hi Mark,

Longtime no chat. In your response to Rory on Saturday, you wrote:

>>If the theology did not take in Greek philosophy, I could easily still be Catholic>>

Will all due respect, perhaps you should reassess your membership in the CoJCoLDS; note the following from Fleming's 2014 dissertation:

>>This dissertation argues that Smith’s quest to restore what he called “the fulness of the gospel,” or the complete truth that was missing from contemporary churches and even the Bible itself drew from the thought of Christians influenced by Plato and is best understood as a form of Christian Platonism. Thus, for Smith, “the fulness of the gospel” included the restoration of divination, the central Christian-Platonic doctrine, as well as the rites and priesthood offices needed to achieve it.>> (Stephen Joseph Fleming,“The Fulness of the Gospel: Christian Platonism and the Origins of Mormonism", p. v)

 

Grace and peace,

David

However, I doubt that Joseph Smith was considering Plato or Platoisms. The simple version is this: he received revelation and support from Heavenly Father and acted on it. No need to spend hours upon hours reading Plato and ancient philosophy in the local library.

 

Link to comment

The Quran is a book that can't be adequately criticized or dissected because of fear. I don't believe that many scholars would do to the Quran what they did to the bible. Who would risk questioning the Quran in those societies where Islam is the dominant religion. Or for that matter anywhere in the world? This is why academic debate would be problematic.

Edited by why me
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...