I'm not sure where else to ask this question, but I'm looking for some source of Authority on the Islamic Koran which I am reading now.
First, I have a translation from Arabic by J.M.Rodwell (Phoenix Paperback; Orion Publishing). Mostly I bought it because it was cheap, but it has a lot of 'thee' and 'thou' and other 'biblical' language that makes it a hard read. So, there are parts of it that are difficult to understand.
1.) Is there a better or more definitive translation of the Koran into English that you would recommend?
2.) The word 'Muslim' is used many times in the book, but I get the sense that it has special meaning. Essentially it is saying if you believe and follow the ways of God, then you are 'muslim'. That implies some special meaning to the word, that is different from the everyday meaning I have been assuming.
What does 'Muslim' mean in this context?
3.) Muhammad frequently refers to the 'Book!' and the 'Word!' in his writings, but I don't get the sense that he means this Book; that is the Koran itself. I get the sense that he is making a historic reference to all valid 'God-based' (Christian/Jewish) text that has come before. In many cases the implication is that we have no excuse not to believe in God and follow him based on all the information that is already available to us (prior to about 600AD). That previous 'God-based' religious text and doctrine combine with knowledge of the Prophets and Apostles is all we need to know how to live a Godly life.
So-
3a.) When Muhammad refers to the 'Book' and the 'Word' is he in essense referring to the Christian and Jewish religious documents; in other words the 'Bible'?
3b.) Since the implication seems to be to existing religious text, it seems that Muhammad is saying that his teaching are merely confirming those teachings. Again, the implication at the time of Muhammad's writing, is that we already have everything we need. Am I interpreting this correctly?
4.) Given what is said above, and the fact that the Koran again and again and again says that the path of salvation is to follow God, it would seem that he is not saying follow Islam or follow me.
In the very beginning of the Koran, he says that Christian, Jewish, and Muslim can all be save, not by following the way of Islam, but by following the way of God. Again, the implication is that everything we needed existed before Muhammad wrote his own teachings.
Am I interpreting this correctly, and doesn't this very very obviously conflict strongly with the interpretation that extremest are trying to force on us?
Let me restate; it doesn't matter if you are Christian, Jewish, or Islam as long as you follow the path of God as defined by previous religious text, and the messages of the Prophets and the Apostles, only then you can be saved.
In short, extremest seem to be saying, it is Islam or death, but Muhammand seems to be saying it is God or death. Clarification?
5.) Just as the Laws of Moses, to some extent, were aimed at the needs of the people in that particular time in history, I get the same sense, to a degree, with the Koran. Moses laid down his laws on essentially a godless acting people. People who had strayed dramatically from the 'Word'. So, he imposed tight rules on them to get them back on path.
I get the same sense with Muhammad. He existed in a time when his area of the world was very divided and very godless in the sense of 'God' with a capital 'G'. It was a very tribal and feudal time with a lot of infighting. Muhammad, much like Moses, wrote his law and doctrine to bring a very Godless people back to the ways of God.
If my assessment is correct, then can we take each and everything Muhammad says as literally applying to the modern world? Just as we feel the Laws of Moses have been overridden by more modern interpretations, should we then try to mold Muhammad's teaching with modernn interpretations and applications to the modern world, or should we take them as absolutely literal?
Part of my reason for asking this question is that I see a lot of 'rules' that are forced on people in the name of Islam, that in reality appear to be historical/cultural to the region where Islam was created and are not things dictated by Muhammad himself. I would appreciate any enlightenment in this area.
Again, I have just begun reading the Koran, and am only a few chapters in, but these questions keep gnawing at me and I really don't have any Islamic authority in the small rural town I live in.
If this topic is to sensitive for this forum, then could someone refer me to a better forum?
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Moses laid down his laws on essentially a godless acting people. People who had strayed dramatically from the 'Word'. So, he imposed tight rules on them to get them back on path.
This claim reflects your biases more than any historical truth.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Well for what its worth maybe you should consider why it is that Malaysians and Indonesians still learn Arabic purely so they can read the Koran.
Posted by General Sax (Member # 9694) on :
<Removed.>
[ December 27, 2006, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Wow. I'm betting 13. Any takers? Pop'll have to let us know.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Islam, as a whole, considers any non-Arabic rendering of the Quran to be inferior, if not misleading. For many of them, if you don't read it in the "original language" then you aren't reading it. It is kind of like how some Christians feel about the King James Version of the Bible - although ironically the KJV is far from the original language.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote: Moses laid down his laws on essentially a godless acting people. People who had strayed dramatically from the 'Word'. So, he imposed tight rules on them to get them back on path.
This claim reflects your biases more than any historical truth.
Rivka is being way more polite than I would have been.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Islam, as a whole, considers any non-Arabic rendering of the Quran to be inferior, if not misleading. For many of them, if you don't read it in the "original language" then you aren't reading it. It is kind of like how some Christians feel about the King James Version of the Bible - although ironically the KJV is far from the original language.
Irony indeed. That's why the original is the only valid text.
The Muslims have a good point when they say that any translation of the Qur'an is actually an interpretation. That's true of the Hebrew Bible as well; it's just that we don't make as big a point about it as they do.
Every language has its own patterns of thought. Its own set of concepts. There are things I can say in Hebrew in a word that would take me a paragraph in English, and vice versa.
As a very simple example, in Hebrew, a desk is a "writing table". In other words, it's not a separate concept from "table", but only a subset of that concept. In English, it's a different concept, as shown by it having a distinct word.
You've all heard the thing about Eskimos having 100 words for snow. I don't know if it's true, but I'm sure they have more words for snow than we do in English. And certainly more than we do in Hebrew. And differences like that change the way you think in different languages. Anyone who knows more than one language well enough that they think in the languages knows that one language isn't simply a replacement cypher for another.
Read the Qur'an in translation. Read the Bible in translation. You'll get some idea of what it says, even if it's only an approximation.
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
All creditable modern translations go back to the original language, that’s for the Bible, I can’t speak for other books. So I would think a modern translation, if done well, would give you a better understanding since you are not re-interpreting an old English translation.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Learn Arabic. It'll be fun. In'sha'Allah.
You can't fully appreciate Arabic until you learn how it works. And you can't pretend to understand the Koran if you're not reading from the only legitimate translation.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
It'll help you with the Bible as well. Arabic and Hebrew are both Semitic languages, and knowing one makes the other a lot easier, despite their differences.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
OK, I'm stuck in southern Minnesota with no resources and no time, so I AM NOT GOING TO LEARN ARABIC any more than I am going to learn Hebrew, Roman, Greek, or any other assorted languages associated with religious text. I do the best I can with what I've got. Instead of encouraging me to learn Arabic, which you should all instinctively know is not going to happen, a suggested translation would go much farther.
As to my comments about Moses, I was given a extremely broad summary which should have been obvious to anyone. The point is, the Laws of Moses were relevant to his time, as I assume the 'Laws of Muhammad' are, but the question is, to what extent to they only apply to their time, and to what extent do they apply for all people for all time?
The extension of that questions is, to what extent do what passes for Islamic practices today reflect actual instructions for Muhammad, and to what extent do the represent historical/cultural aspects that have simply been dragged along in the wake of Islam.
For example, the oppression of women and them being forced to dress in extremely concealing clothing. That seems counter to the basic knowledge of Muhammad that I have. It seems that Muhammad expanded women's right and attempted to improve their lot in life. It seems that the oppression of women is a cultural thing that has been tacked on to Islam because it suits men who like to be in positions of power.
Keep in mind that all this happened around 600 AD. Not exactly the pinical of the women's rights movement. Should women's rights move forward, or should the be perpetually stuck in 600AD. Personally, I think Muhammad would want them to continue to expand, but some Islamic leaders seem determined to keep women stuck in 600AD, even though they themselves do not feel compelled to be stuck in 600AD.
To the helpful replies thanks, to the snarky pointless replies - no thanks.
One of the things that most struck me about the Koran is that it seems based on the teachings and the history of our own Bible. As I said, in the Koran I have found Adam and Eve, Moses, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Ismael, Jacob, and Jesus. That lead to my /very legitimate, I thought/ question about the 'Book!' and the 'Word!' (note the exclaimation points are found in the Koran) and the fact that they seem to be making historical references rather than contemporary (relative to 600AD) references.
Further, in the parts I've read so far, Muhammad continually references following the known way of God as documented by religious text and as verified and proven by the Apostles and the Prophets. Again, that indicates to me that a true Muslim (which still remains undefined) follows the known way of God, over the details of a specific religion.
Any comments directed at the core subject and questions at hand would be appreciated.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: For example, the oppression of women and them being forced to dress in extremely concealing clothing. That seems counter to the basic knowledge of Muhammad that I have. It seems that Muhammad expanded women's right and attempted to improve their lot in life. It seems that the oppression of women is a cultural thing that has been tacked on to Islam because it suits men who like to be in positions of power.
Most liberal Muslims I know would agree with you. However, there is very strong scriptural support in the Qu'ran for a literal reading of the Qu'ran, including the belief that it is the flawless and unambiguous word of God. Ergo, there is no scriptural provision made for a recognition of cultural changes which would render certain scriptural laws unnecessary.
The Bible IS considered to be part of Islamic scripture, which is why Muslims consider Jews and Christians to be "People of the Book." That said, the texts don't always mesh particularly well.
In general, liberal Islam is not incompatible with the modern world -- but, then, that's true of most liberal theologies.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: As to my comments about Moses, I was given a extremely broad summary which should have been obvious to anyone. The point is, the Laws of Moses were relevant to his time, as I assume the 'Laws of Muhammad' are, but the question is, to what extent to they only apply to their time, and to what extent do they apply for all people for all time?
Neither. They were given, and apply, to all Jews for all time.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Well for what its worth maybe you should consider why it is that Malaysians and Indonesians still learn Arabic purely so they can read the Koran.
In some ways it's almost still a translation. If you're translating it back into your first language, the only difference is that instead of reading a translation by whoever did it, you're interpreting it by a translation you're doing in your head (or more accurately, whoever taught you Arabic).
Given the constraints on the written word, you'd need to be very, very proficient in a language before reading it in the original would matter. You'd need to be able to complexly think in that language.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Part of my reason for asking this question is that I see a lot of 'rules' that are forced on people in the name of all religions, that in reality appear to be historical/cultural to the region where (they were) created...
I believe this re-statement is closer to reality Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: You've all heard the thing about Eskimos having 100 words for snow. I don't know if it's true, but I'm sure they have more words for snow than we do in English. And certainly more than we do in Hebrew. And differences like that change the way you think in different languages. Anyone who knows more than one language well enough that they think in the languages knows that one language isn't simply a replacement cypher for another.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Well for what its worth maybe you should consider why it is that Malaysians and Indonesians still learn Arabic purely so they can read the Koran.
In some ways it's almost still a translation. If you're translating it back into your first language, the only difference is that instead of reading a translation by whoever did it, you're interpreting it by a translation you're doing in your head (or more accurately, whoever taught you Arabic).
Given the constraints on the written word, you'd need to be very, very proficient in a language before reading it in the original would matter. You'd need to be able to complexly think in that language.
That's not technically true. Modern Standard Arabic (pretty much the only dialect available for public consumption commercially) is derived straight from the Koran. Which makes it easy for students interested in the religious aspects of Arabic because MSA is religiously centric to begin with, being that the Koran is the reference point.
Arabic is very logical, and I honestly believe that anyone willing to put forth the effort can be brought to understand the linguistic mindset of Arabic necessary to efficiently translate the Koran where it was meant to be translated. In one's head. If you aren't operating with the mindset of someone who knows how the Arabic word system works, meaning will be lost.
How can you nitpick if you can't accurately understand what is being said?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Doesn't seem to stop some people around here . . .
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I can barely compose a Latin sentence to save my life, but there are constructions, when I'm going Latin-to-English, that I have a very hard time translating, because I understand them in Latin so much more clearly. There are even a few Old English words I'm very uncomfortable translating, because it just makes more sense to me in OE (this language I have only learned since September).
There are bits and pieces you (or at least I) pick up very quickly about a language, that aid in comprehension of the original.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eaquae Legit:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: You've all heard the thing about Eskimos having 100 words for snow. I don't know if it's true, but I'm sure they have more words for snow than we do in English. And certainly more than we do in Hebrew. And differences like that change the way you think in different languages. Anyone who knows more than one language well enough that they think in the languages knows that one language isn't simply a replacement cypher for another.
Cool. Thanks.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
I learned Arabic before I learned English. [/brag] [rebrag] Or french. [/rebrag] Have fun deciphering that. I'll ditto airman's comments, while adding that spoken word Arabic is ridiculously different then MSA, and has a million different dialects. If only interested in reading the Koran, MSA will get you pretty close. However, when you're done with that, I would recommend testing out your Arabic skills on different people (who know the language), if only to appreciate it's breadth.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Pretty close?! You can't learn Arabic and get any closer!
FToaS - What dialect did you learn originally? Do you still speak it?
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Northern Lebanese dialect. Still speak it. And I agree with you on the language. Maybe my post wasn't clear in that. Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
That's so cool! I learned how the Arabic root systems work, and know a little Arabic because it bleeds over into my area of workingness, but that's as far as my familiarity goes.
Does Lebanese have most of the sounds? P, Qu', all that jazz? It kills me that Egyptians ignore the P and get carbonated beverages from the Bibsi machine. But I'm easily amused....
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Lebanese Arabic contains all of the phonetic sounds and gutturals. However, it differs from MSA in many ways, not in the least that it is heavily infuenced by French. For example, most people say "automobile"or"makina(machine)" to say "car".
And we pronounce it "Pebsi" Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
I think my new project when I get done with college is to learn Arabic.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Well for what its worth maybe you should consider why it is that Malaysians and Indonesians still learn Arabic purely so they can read the Koran.
In some ways it's almost still a translation. If you're translating it back into your first language, the only difference is that instead of reading a translation by whoever did it, you're interpreting it by a translation you're doing in your head (or more accurately, whoever taught you Arabic).
Given the constraints on the written word, you'd need to be very, very proficient in a language before reading it in the original would matter. You'd need to be able to complexly think in that language.
True story but IMO you should try to read any religious text in whatever language you know, after you have a basic comprehension and wish to go on to advanced studies take some time to become moderately proficient in the language and keep reading. If you still wish to probe deeper start purchasing scholarly books ont he topic.
Its interesting because in the Book of Mormon there are MANY instances where the writers complain that its really hard to write down in pictographs what they are trying to say as they much preferred Hebrew. They complain about the constraints of engraving as opposed to just writing using another medium and further complain that when their words are translated into English much of their meaning will be lost.
So we get a dumbed down version of what the author wished to say translated into a completely different language, and our only consolation is that God will do his best to minimize the problem.
Its still an amazing book even if it is dumbed down.
edit: We laugh at them getting a Bebsi to drink and I laughed at my Political Science teacher from Iran because as good as his English is he STILL can't say "quota, or status quo." He actually makes the class say it for him
Then again they laugh at us everytime we say Qatar, "Cutter."
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Koj, learn Arabic in College. Most colleges have or had a foreign language requirement.
Blue, there is more at work with extremists and things like women's rights than just the Koran. The Koran is the base from which all Islam is born, but the Sharia or the Law.
The Sharia has changed drastically with culture, as it is based on interpretations of the Koran, as well as interpretations of the way Mohammed lived, the way his original followers lived, myth and rumor based on Mohammed's life, teachings of various scholars, martyrs, and prophets before, during and after Mohammed's life and finally further interpretations on those interpretations. While Sharia is "The Law" it is also highly debated, difficult to master, often contradictory, and each part of variable import depending on which sect, tribe, or country where you belong.
While Islam has no formal priest to get between you and Allah, it does now require professional judges to wade through the Sharia and determine what is right and what is wrong in conplicated situations.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
"although ironically the KJV is far from the original language."
Do you think so?
I don't speak Hebrew or Greek, but I have compared the KJV to the NRSV, which is supposidly the most scholarly translation, and they arn't that different for most verses.
I use the KJV becouse I like its language though, not becouse I believe it to be the one true translation or anything like that. I hold no stock in literal interpretations of any scripture nor do I believe in divine authorship (divine inspiration is a different thing). In the former, I am with my Church, in the later less so.
quote: OK, I'm stuck in southern Minnesota with no resources and no time, so I AM NOT GOING TO LEARN ARABIC any more than I am going to learn Hebrew, Roman, Greek, or any other assorted languages associated with religious text.
Thats good, becouse Roman isn't a language.
quote: I get the sense that he is making a historic reference to all valid 'God-based' (Christian/Jewish) text that has come before.
Yes. Jews and Christians are called People of the Book by Muslims.
quote: What does 'Muslim' mean in this context?
I think it means what it means. I.E. what Muslim means is defined by what it says in the Qu'ran.
quote: Given what is said above, and the fact that the Koran again and again and again says that the path of salvation is to follow God, it would seem that he is not saying follow Islam or follow me.
Islam is the submission to God, at least according to Muslims. Muhammad is the last prophet of God. To a Muslim, there is no distinction between following Islam and following God. Most Christians feel the same way about their faith.
Judaism is rather different, becouse it does not consider itself to be the true faith of all people, as Christianity and Islam more or less do, but to be the faith of a particular people, the Jews. (Correct me if I am wrong there, but I think that's how it goes.)
Zoroastrianism, which may be the root of Abrahamic religions, is also the faith of one people and, like Judaism, does not encourage conversion. (Zoroastrians actualy forbid it, except for some sects which allow non-Zoroastrians who marry into the faith to convert.)
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
quote:Koj, learn Arabic in College. Most colleges have or had a foreign language requirement.
I would, if I weren't in my last semester. If they offered the first semester course in the spring, I'd take it, but they don't.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Judaism is rather different, becouse it does not consider itself to be the true faith of all people, as Christianity and Islam more or less do, but to be the faith of a particular people, the Jews. (Correct me if I am wrong there, but I think that's how it goes.)
While this io true from one perspective, Jewish teaching does contain a list of laws that are binding on non-Jews. If you combine these laws with the Law, and make it clear to whom each section applies, then Judaism also contains a comprehensive statement about the correct way to follow God.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: Zoroastrianism, which may be the root of Abrahamic religions,
Only if you exclude Judaism from "Abrahamic religions".
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Judaism is rather different, becouse it does not consider itself to be the true faith of all people, as Christianity and Islam more or less do, but to be the faith of a particular people, the Jews. (Correct me if I am wrong there, but I think that's how it goes.)
While this io true from one perspective, Jewish teaching does contain a list of laws that are binding on non-Jews. If you combine these laws with the Law, and make it clear to whom each section applies, then Judaism also contains a comprehensive statement about the correct way to follow God.
True.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: Zoroastrianism, which may be the root of Abrahamic religions,
Only if you exclude Judaism from "Abrahamic religions".
Didn't Zoroastrianism have a bit of influence on Judaism? (Not the root, just some influence).
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kojabu: Didn't Zoroastrianism have a bit of influence on Judaism? (Not the root, just some influence).
I don't see how. I mean, maybe the Jewish star. One theory of where that came from is that the Zoroastrians used an upwards pointing triangle to symbolize Ahura Mazda, and a downwards pointing triangle to symbolize Ahriman. And that some Jews superimposed them on one another to symbolize the Oneness of God.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
On a related note, has anyone seen something like a phylogenetic tree of all religions?
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
Zoroastrianism roots on Judaism cannot be proven, but the similarities are very much there and the Jews had a great deal of contact with the Zoroastrian Persians during the Babylonian captivity. The monotheistic Persians under Cyrus the Great released the Jews from captivity. This is about the time Jewish scripture was written down.
So, Zoroastrianism may have had influence on all Abrahamic faiths. On the other hand, it may not have. Uncertainty is the great state of history.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: Zoroastrianism roots on Judaism cannot be proven, but the similarities are very much there and the Jews had a great deal of contact with the Zoroastrian Persians during the Babylonian captivity. The monotheistic Persians under Cyrus the Great released the Jews from captivity. This is about the time Jewish scripture was written down.
...according to people who claim that the Torah is pure invention in the first place. Obviously, that argument is meaningless to those of us who disagree. On the contrary; the flood of Jews into Babylon and Persia at that time indicates Jewish influence on early Zoroastrianism. The very name Zoroaster (Zarathustra) appears to have Semitic roots. It certainly isn't Persian.
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: So, Zoroastrianism may have had influence on all Abrahamic faiths. On the other hand, it may not have. Uncertainty is the great state of history.
Ignorance as a virtue? Eww.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Acknowledgement of uncertainty is not ignorance, nor is it championing ignorance as a virtue.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Just because you don't know whether or not something is true does not mean you are ignorant. We can't know everything about the past and unless someone invents a time machine, we probably never will.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Some scholars point to Judaism's arguable movement away from a henotheistic conception of God to a monotheistic one after mixing with Zoroastrians as demonstrating a profound influence.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
Ignorance isn't a virtue, admiting uncertainty is a small step toward virtue and wisdom. (See Plato/Socrates, Apology.)
Edited by PB for clarity.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
At the Catholic high school I attended it was taught in world religion class as FACT that Judaism's origins can be found in Zoroastrianism. I'm glad to see that it is not proven.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That sounds like a strange Catholic high school.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: That sounds like a strange Catholic high school.
Well the student body was only 30% Catholic, so it was bound to be a little different.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Off on a tangental subject. Since versions, translations, and interpretations of the Christian Bible has come up, I prefer the Oxford Revised English Bible. For one thing, it seems the most neutral. I get the impression that many modern version have an agenda behind them.
The Oxford Revised English Bible is based on one of the most authorative Hebrew Bibles combined with the original texts. The translations were check and cross-check by neutral translators who were not associated with the original translators. Translation were check for accuracy of translation and meaning.
This particual translation was commissioned by a multi-denominational group of churches as well an non-denominational religious organization. Where interpretations were in question, they are duly noted in footnotes with explanations or alternate interpretations on the same page as the passage in question.
Oddly, though I admit it is only my opinion, many of the more modern interpretations of the Bible strike me more as the King James Version re-written rather than true interpretations of the original text.
Certainly, I accept that like any translation, the Oxford Revised English Bible is flawed, but I think the translators have done everything humanly possible to give a neutral, unbiased, and accurate translation. In short, I trust this Bible.
Off on a tangent... now back to your regularly scheduled program.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
"At the Catholic high school I attended it was taught in world religion class as FACT that Judaism's origins can be found in Zoroastrianism."
My Episcopalian High School taught it as being highly probable.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Judaism itself's origins or the origins of some things in Judaism? The former seems pretty unlikely to me.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Some scholars point to Judaism's arguable movement away from a henotheistic conception of God to a monotheistic one after mixing with Zoroastrians as demonstrating a profound influence.
But the thesis that Judaism was ever henotheistic is one that has never been substantiated. It's just something some scholars tossed out there one day as a thought. It has no historical provenance, regardless of how many people have jumped on the bandwagon since then.
We were monotheists from the get-go.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Acknowledgement of uncertainty is not ignorance, nor is it championing ignorance as a virtue.
Ignorance as "the great state of history" raises it up as something desireable.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: "At the Catholic high school I attended it was taught in world religion class as FACT that Judaism's origins can be found in Zoroastrianism."
My Episcopalian High School taught it as being highly probable.
Weird. I mean, especially considering that Zoroaster is a Semitic name and that Zoroastrianism comes on the scene later than Judaism.
Unless, of course, you hold that Judaism was basically invented about a century after Zoroastrianism. But then, people who believe that God gave Judaism at Sinai (which I thought included Christians as well -- live and learn) wouldn't be impressed by that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Lisa, I'm talking in the world where we don't automaticaly accept your version of Judaism is true. In this world, there are some compelling arguments that suggest that the original approach to Judaism may have been henotheistic. However, I'm okay with there being a disparity between the two worlds we work in.
edit: To soften what I was saying.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Lisa, I'm talking in the world where we don't automaticaly accept your version of Judaism is true. In this world, there are some compelling arguments that the original approach to Judaism was henotheistic.
Such as?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Really don't care to argue it with you.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But then, people who believe that God gave Judaism at Sinai (which I thought included Christians as well -- live and learn)
It does include Christians. Unless you meant "all Christians," which would be a strange thing to mean, since not even all Jews believe that God gave Judaism at Sinai.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
"that Zoroastrianism comes on the scene later than Judaism."
Debatable, to say the least.
"Zoroaster is a Semitic name"
It's a Greek name, actualy, from the Avestan Zarathustra. Avestan is an Indo-European language, not a Semitic one.
The history here is uncertain and the theology debatable. Many Jews and Christians have no problems with Zoroastrian influences on their faiths, others do.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: "that Zoroastrianism comes on the scene later than Judaism."
Debatable, to say the least.
"Zoroaster is a Semitic name"
It's a Greek name, actualy, from the Avestan Zarathustra. Avestan is an Indo-European language, not a Semitic one.
The history here is uncertain and the theology debatable. Many Jews and Christians have no problems with Zoroastrian influences on their faiths, others do.
Like the dad in Big Fat Greek Wedding. You can probably find evidence with any word that it relates to what you want it to if you try hard enough.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
"We were monotheists from the get-go."
Doesn't the Torah mention that Abram became monotheistic only when he became Abraham? It certainly implies that the Proto-Hebrews often strayed from G-d.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Really don't care to argue it with you.
So in other words, there aren't any actual reasons, but you prefer to think it's the case. That's cool.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: "We were monotheists from the get-go."
Doesn't the Torah mention that Abram became monotheistic only when he became Abraham? It certainly implies that the Proto-Hebrews often strayed from G-d.
No, the Torah doesn't say that. Surely you have access to a copy of the Bible. Even one in translation.
It does say that his father worshipped idols, but then, we see Abraham as the father of our nation. Not his father.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, it's more like I don't really care to dip in the pool of unpleasantness and disrespect and flat-earth-style certainty that, to me, characterizes your posting style, especially on issues like this, on something I don't really care that much about. I try not to engage posters I regard as very noxious, such as yourself, unless I have an important goal in mind. If I thought you'd behave like a respectful adult, it'd likely be a different story though.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
I'm bowing out. I think this is about to explode and I don't want to be here when it does.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
In regards to Judaism and monotheism I do have a question. The way I read the English translation the Torah seems to allude to me that there may be other "gods", but it is forbidden to put them before God.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Stephan, the Torah doesn't deny that people worshipped other gods. How would it have said not to do that without using that word? In English, we might say, "Don't worship other 'gods'" or "Don't worship so-called 'gods' (which are nothing of the sort)". Gets a little unwieldy. And the Torah doesn't have that kind of punctuation.
There are places where it's more explicit, of course. God says, "If you replace Me with a non-God, I'll chastise you with a non-nation".
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Lisa, even the posters willing to argue until the cows come home find debating with you to be poisonous and pointless. Just food for thought.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by PrometheusBound: "that Zoroastrianism comes on the scene later than Judaism."
Debatable, to say the least.
"Zoroaster is a Semitic name"
It's a Greek name, actualy, from the Avestan Zarathustra. Avestan is an Indo-European language, not a Semitic one.
The history here is uncertain and the theology debatable. Many Jews and Christians have no problems with Zoroastrian influences on their faiths, others do.
Like the dad in Big Fat Greek Wedding. You can probably find evidence with any word that it relates to what you want it to if you try hard enough.
Exactly! My instructors from back in the day said Zoroaster WAS a Persian name. From "zard" meaning yellow and "shatr", meaning camel. He was the man of the yellow camels. But that's according to people who tried to convince us that apples and English also have Persian roots....
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Lisa, I'm talking in the world where we don't automaticaly accept your version of Judaism is true. In this world, there are some compelling arguments that the original approach to Judaism was henotheistic.
Such as?
It doesn't take much knowledge of hebrew to know that Elohim is plural.
But the fact is, Lisa, that the point you're missing is not that the evidence is there. You've no doubt heard all these arguments before, and I'm not likely to tell you anything new.
Which is why I'm not going to argue the point with you either.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Main Entry: heno·the·ism Pronunciation: 'he-n&-(")thE-"i-z&m Function: noun Etymology: German Henotheismus, from Greek hen-, heis one + theos god -- more at SAME : the worship of one god without denying the existence of other gods
I've heard the claim before that Judaism was originally henotheistic, but nobody's ever provided me any evidence.
I did know that "Elohim" is plural in form, but I don't see how that could be used to imply that gods that aren't Elohim are really gods. (Christians have a plural -- triune -- God, but don't accept the existence of other gods.)
If there is further evidence, here's my suggestion: provide it and don't argue it, if it's too much effort.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)