Go Back   Puerto Rico Discussion Forum > Religion & Philosophy > Bible
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Eddier, Discussing D.G

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 15th November 2002, 04:21
Voice Voice is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 902
This article is not what is called a good research. It referred to theories of doubtful validity. He did not mention what is the theory and how it is applied on Quran. This theory being Applied on Torah and Bible and showed they are made by different authors is not a positive for the theory. We need to know what is this theory, and test it against known books by single author, and known books by multiple authors to find how much false positive, and false negative. More over the theory itself needs to be proved. A Muslim believer, Christian or Jew can argue that the conclusion drawn by the theory indicates its inaccuracy rather than the multiple authors of Quran, or other scripture. After proving the theory, we should know how did he apply the theory. Since it is well known that mal-application of theories can result into erroneous results. Also the theory needs to be tested on various fields of texts. It can be applied with good accuracy in (for example) engineering textbooks, but fail in Medical text. It may be well applied into English literature, but fail in Chinese. The type of the text, literature, scientific, textbook, encyclopedic, reference, all employ different form of language, and make it very unlikely that a single theory would apply correctly to all types. More over different languages have very different styles. It may be considered bad in one language to repeat, while in another language it is good. In one language the variation of tone, verb tense, and pronouns may be GOOD in literature value, while it is bad in another. Even in the same language in different eras of history one style can be good in one time, and bad in another. All that consideration will put enormous doubts on such analysis. From the description of the theory, we see that the only support for it is that is gaining popularity.. any sane person will know that such analysis is very subjective, and that gaining popularity is not a proof for anything.
One more weakness in his article is that he depended on people who are weak in Arabic (Mr.Khan article about the contradictions expose his weakness and lack of common sense), and on "Some Muslims". We don't know who are those "some muslims" but from the response he quote them, they are apparently street people, or Sunni muslims (he refers to Bukhari). Also the responses and defenses he bring quoting muslims are not really what real SHIA muslims say in answering these things. Also Mr. Giron did not refer to the wealth of researches and books written about Quran especially the one by "Ayatollah El-Khoei".. he can contact the many Al-Khoei foundations for a translation. Mr.Giron did not discuss his findings nor debate with SHIA muslim scholars. He counted on unknown so-called thinkers like ibn-Warraq

Mr. Giron started with his own opinion and summary of his conclusions. It is apparently that Mr.Giron knows nothing about Arabic Literature and "Balaghah" (which is the art of good high language). The Arabs at the time of the Quran were fierce enemy of Mohammed and Quran. They were masters in Arabic of the time, and Poetry in Arabia was the flourishing business. Quran came to challenge them in their own field "High class literature". They were unable to match it not to refute its high literature class, so they claimed it is the work of wizardy, or the words of Jinn (Genies). Islam history is well documented, and had there been any objection by the many well established poets of Arabia, it would spread to the corners of earth. But it did not happen. What happened is pathetic attempt to match Quran. One can refer to such attempts in the recreation books. (Arabs found it is the suitable place for such attempts, because they are really funny). Repetition itself is not a draw back. It is a positive. The object of Quran is to put people on the first step of guidance.. to preach the obedience to GOD.. to tell people about Heaven and hell.. and repetition is good and it serves the subject. Stories in Quran are not mentioned for history. They are mentioned for the MORAL of the story. So they need be repeated from time to time as the subject needs, and that is also why no need to carry exact conversations.. that's why stories may appear different because the level of details is different and that's related to the main subject. in short the stories are not mentioned for themselves or for history, but as support for the subject. Quran in Fact is very coherent, and it is well structured. though one should not expect the structure to be in Chapters and sub-headings like a textbook. Quran is not a manual, nor a narrative chronicle or history.

Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 21:44.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC4 © 2006, Crawlability, Inc.