Comments by "Leslie William" (@lesliewilliam3777) on "Chris At Speakers Corner"
channel.
-
14
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"uh nope, its not “circular reasoning” as you assumed. As we presuposse the quran to be an authority"
When you presuppose the truth of a proposition and use that to justify the proposition, either immediately or a few steps removed, then that is EXACTLY what circular reasoning is.
And I didn't "assume" this; my university training as a philosopher taught me to identify such sloppy thinking.
Speaking of substandard thinking, claiming that the Qur'an is a revelation from God because the Qur'an tells you the Qur'an is a revelation from God is yet another instantiation of the question begging fallacy. The key to identifying whether revelation is from God or not was given in Torah by God to Moses. It was the same standard Jesus used to authenticate his claim to being the long-awaited Jewish Messiah. Islam invented its own self-serving criterion which is, as I have underscored, question-begs its veracity.
As far as not having evidence for Noah, Abraham or Moses, this is entirely false. We have multiple genealogies in the Bible, contained in its multiple authored books and, before it was reduced to ashes in AD 70, in the Jerusalem Temple repository, testifying to their existence. For example, the lengthy genealogical list in Genesis 5 that goes back to Adam (something Islam does NOT have), that of Exodus 1 & 2, multiple genealogies in 1 Chronicles, Matthew 1 and Luke 3.
Furthermore, we have the extant, extra-biblical source of Egyptian hieroglyphs strongly pointing to Noah and his family being the original 8 people of the world, as well as multiple mythic accounts from southern Africa to China of Noah and his family.
“Im saying that even for your own Old Testament you lack a historical chain back to moses.”
Wrong! Try this on for size: “The sons of Levi were Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. The descendants of Kohath included Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel. The children of Amram were Aaron, MOSES, and Miriam. The sons of Aaron were Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. Eleazar was the father of Phinehas. Phinehas was the father of Abishua. Abishua was the father of Bukki. Bukki was the father of Uzzi…[and so on]…Azariah was the father of Seraiah. Seraiah was the father of Jehozadak, who went into exile when the Lord sent the people of Judah and Jerusalem into captivity under Nebuchadnezzar.” (1 Chron 6)
“As for Moses, the man of God, his sons were included with the tribe of Levi. The sons of Moses were Gershom and Eliezer. The descendants of Gershom included Shebuel, the family leader. Eliezer had only one son, Rehabiah, the family leader. Rehabiah had numerous descendants…” (1 Chron 23)
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
@nurulhassan2219 Challenge accepted.
There’s unequivocal evidence in the Bible Jesus and some of the disciples spoke Greek. It's now a well-attested fact Greek was the Levantine's lingua franca. The archaeological and textual evidence is so enormous it is beyond doubt Greek was the language of communication, just like English is today.
1. Jesus said to Peter the following pun, which only makes sense in Greek: “And I also say to you that you are Peter (Petros i.e., pebble/small stone), and on this rock (petra i.e., huge boulder) I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16)
2. "Now there were certain GREEKS among those who came up to worship at the feast. Then they came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida of Galilee, and asked him, saying, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” (John 12)
3. “The woman was a GREEK, a Syro-Phoenician by birth, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. But Jesus said to her, “Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs [i.e., puppies]” (Mark 7) This exchange doesn't make sense in Aramaic or Hebrew as they don't have a word for this baby animal but Greek does.
4. nThe exchange between Pilate and Jesus in Matthew 27 seems to be in Greek. (More on this below.)
5. Josephus writing in the 1st century: “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ.” (Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, 3)
6. Jesus regularly quoted from the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament translated by Jews 300 years before Christ.
7. The oldest New Testament MSS are all in Greek because it was the truly international language of its day and thus could reach the widest possible audience. This was due to Alexander’s conquering of the land from Europe, through Africa and into Asia, previous to the Roman Empire.
Here’s more academic material for you.
University of Surrey’s Stanley Porter wrote, “The first and most important example, and the one that sets the tenor for the subsequent treatment of passages, is Jesus’ trial before Pilate (Mk. 15:2-5; Mt. 27:11-14; Lk. 23:2-5; Jn. 18:29- 38; cf. 1 Tim. 6:13). It is highly unlikely that Pilate, the prefect assigned to this remote posting in the Roman empire, would have known any Semitic language. No translator or interpreter is mentioned for the conversation that occurs between Jesus and Pilate, making it unlikely that Latin or Aramaic was used. In fact, the pace of the narrative, in which conversation is held between not only Pilate and Jesus but Pilate and the Jewish leaders, Pilate and the crowd, and the Jewish leaders and the crowd, argues against an interpreter intervening. It is most likely, therefore, that Jesus spoke to Pilate in Greek.”
He continues, “The first example of a passage in which Jesus may well have spoken Greek is Mark 7:25-30, when Jesus travels to the area of Tyre. A woman with a daughter possessed by an evil spirit hears of his presence there and begs for Jesus’ help. The woman is called in Mark’s Gospel a Ἑλληνίς, a Συροφοινίκισσα by birth, i.e. a gentile (7:26). Even though the indigenous language of the area was Semitic, this area had long been under hellenistic influence (and antagonistic to the Jews; see Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.69-72) and evidenced widespread use of Greek, as has been noted above. The description of the woman in the Gospel makes sure that the reader knows that the woman was a Greek-speaker despite her birth. Otherwise the reference is gratuitous. There is no indication of an interpreter being present.”
He concludes that, “the evidence regarding what is known about the use of Greek in ancient Palestine, including the cosmopolitan hellenistic character of lower Galilee, the epigraphic and literary evidence, including coins, papyri, literary writers, inscriptions and funerary texts, but most of all several significant contexts in the Gospels, all points in one direction: whereas it is not always known how much and on which occasions Jesus spoke Greek, it is virtually certain that he used Greek at various times in his itinerant ministry.”
For more detail see Porter’s paper, ‘Jesus and the use of Greek’, Bulletin for Biblical Research 10.1 (2000) pp. 71-87.
Challenge defeated.
2
-
2
-
@wo1vereen 1. “I didn't say happiness is a guarantor of truth [but w]hat i'm trying to say is if he is happy with the message of Islam and the guidance it brings to his life”
Response: I hate to be the bringer of bad news, but…you are in fact saying that happiness is a guarantor of truth…you just don’t know you are.
You’ve stated that the message of Islam and the guidance it brings makes him happy. Now, if Islam is false his “happiness” is based on error. In other words, he has not based his belief that Islam’s message and guidance are true through a rational search to see whether these things are in fact truth, but rather on the feelings he experiences from his belief about Islam.
What if Islam’s message and guidance are true? Well, he won’t know this with certainty because all he is interested in, according to your original argument, is the degree to which these make him happy.
I asked a Mormon girl the other day how truth is ascertained. She paused for a few moments while her brain kicked in – though I could see she’d never been asked this most basic of philosophical questions – and then said, unsurprisingly, “In my opinion, it’s my feelings.” Any first-year philosophy undergrad would know that that is sheer dangerous nonsense.
2. “I'm assuming he believes Islam is the truth”
Response: I’m sure he does BELIEVE Islam is true; but again, ‘belief’, while a necessary component, does not guarantee true knowledge. People believe all sorts of things, like a flat earth, the 9/11 planes were a Mossad plot or, more bizarrely, that a 53-year-old man who’s had sex with a 9-year-old CHILD is a prophet and the most moral man who’s ever lived, an exemplar for all time and for all people.
3. “And no I don't want to spend time doing formal philosophy, thanks.”
Response: If I’ve thus far been unsuccessful convincing you that you need some formal training in philosophy (just a smidgeon, mind you!), allow me to offer some advice: either never speak again in public and just keep your (irrational) thoughts to yourself, or reread what I’ve written and maybe, just maybe, you’ll see you, and every other Muslim, really are in desperate need of some correction to the way you, and every other Muslim, process information.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@hotcharizard874 1. Your 1st premise: "at jesus his time[sic] the torah was already corrupted"
2. My 1st response: What evidence do you have for this claim?
3. Your 2nd premise: “the quran/hadith tell us this”
4. My 2nd response: The qur'an/hadith tell us that the Bible has been corrupted and we know that the Bible has been corrupted because the Qur'an/hadith tell us that the Bible has been corrupted.
5. Your 3rd response: “its[sic] not “circular reasoning” as you assumed. As we presuposse[sic] the quran to be an authority [for knowing that at jesus his time the torah was already corrupted because the Qur’an tells us]”
6. My 3rd response: When you presuppose the truth of a proposition and use that to justify the proposition, either immediately or a few steps removed, then that is EXACTLY what circular reasoning is.
7. Your 4th response: “its not circular reasoning, as the presuposition of the quran being authoritive is not one with ontological value in this discussion…this discussion is about the islamic dilema , which is an INTERNAL CRITIQUE and thus certain presuposition are granted. so there is no circular reasoning at place”
8. My 4th response: You made an initial claim that the Torah was already corrupted 2000 years ago. A robust argument would normally then support this contentious claim by providing some evidence independent from the source (the Qur’an) for this claim. But instead you doubled down and merely repeated the same again: The Qur’an is authoritative in all matters; it says the Bible is corrupted; QED, the Bible is corrupted because the authoritative source for this claim, the Qur’an, says the Bible is corrupted. Mention of “ontological”[sic] value, internal critique, Islamic dilemma, and the like, is irrelevant to whether your argument constitutes the commission of an informal logical fallacy, viz., petitio principii. I am in no doubt that YOU BELIEVE the Qur’an says the Torah was corrupted (whether it does is a question I am not addressing!); I am addressing the logical structure of your argument. (If you still question my logic, return to your first and second premises.)
Conclusion: If I presented the following argument, would it be immune to the accusation of circular reasoning?
Premise 1: The world is not round; it is flat.
Premise 2: The Bible is authoritative in all relevant matters and one of its areas of authority is topographical discourse as God created topography.
Premise 3: The Bible says the world is flat
Conclusion: The world is flat because the Bible is the highest authority and it says it is flat.
You’ve done the same thing arguing that Torah was corrupted by the time of Jesus.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@nurulhassan2219 Can you explain why your Qur'ans (plural!) have these different words and thus different MEANINGS?
1. 2:10 – “They try to deceive Allah and those who have attained faith, yet they deceive none but themselves, but they are unaware.” (Nafieʻ, Ibn Kathir and Abu ʻAmr read it as: “. . . yet they try to deceive none but . . .”)
2. 2:119 – “with the truth as a herald of glad tidings and as a warner, for you will not be asked about the fellows of purgatory.” (Nafieʻ and Yaʻqub read it as: “. . . as a warner, so do not ask about the fellows of purgatory.”)
3. 2:165 – “And if only those who have done injustice could see” (Nafieʻ, Ibn ʻAmer and Yaʻqub read it as: “And if only you could see those who have done injustice . . .”)
4. 3:23 – “being called to the Scripture of Allah to judge between them” (Abu Jaʻfar read it as: “. . . being called to the Scripture of Allah so that it may be judged between them . . .”)
5. 3:79 – “Be godly on account of the Scripture which you used to teach and on account of what you used to learn.” (All except for Ibn ʻAmer, ʻAsem, Hamza, Al Kesa’i and Khalaf read it as: “. . . used to know and . . .”)
6. 3:161 – “And never was it for a prophet to defraud” (All except for Ibn Kathir, Abu ʻAmr and ʻAsem read it as: “And never was it for a prophet to be defrauded . . .”)
7. 4:135 – “But if you twist (your testimony) or disregard (giving it)—then indeed Allah has always been All-Aware of what you do.” (Ibn ʻAmer and Hamza read it as: “But whether you go forward (by testifying) or disregard . . .”)
8. 6:27 – “If only we could be sent back and not disbelieve in the signs of our Lord and be of the believers!” (All except for Hafs, Hamza and Yaʻqub read it as: “If only we could be sent back—for we do not disbelieve in the signs of our Lord—and be of the believers!”)
9. 6:105 – “And thus We diversify the signs, and so that they say, “You have studied,” and so that” (Ibn Kathir and Abu ʻAmr read it as: “. . . they say, ‘You have studied with someone’ . . .” Ibn ʻAmer and Yaʻqub read it as: “. . . they say, ‘(That is) outdated’...”
10. 10:16 – “Say, “Had Allah willed, I would not have read it to you and He would not have informed you about it,” (Al-Bazzi in one of his narrations read it as: “. . . and He would have informed you about it (through someone else) . . .”
11. 12:31 – “So when she heard of their gossip, she sent for them and prepared for them reclining cushions and brought each one of them a knife” (Abu Jaʻfar read it as: “. . . and prepared for them citrus fruits and brought each . . .”)
12. 13:33 – “and they were barred from the way.” (Nafieʻ, Ibn Kathir, Abu ʻAmr, Ibn ʻAmer and Abu Jaʻfar read it as: “. . . and they barred (others) from . . .”)
13. 18:86 – “he found it setting in a murky spring” (All except for Nafieʻ, Ibn Kathir, Abu ʻAmr, Hafs and Yaʻqub read it as: “. . . in a hot spring . . .”)
14. 20:31,32 – “Aaron, my brother; strengthen me with him” (Ibn ʻAmer read it as: “. . . my brother, (so that) I (can) strengthen myself with him”)
15. 22:39 – “Permission has been granted to those who are combated” (All except for Nafieʻ, Ibn ʻAmer, Hafs, and Abu Jaʻfar read it as: “. . . to those who combat . . .”)
16. 23:67 – “in arrogance regarding it, conversing by night (about it), (yet) deserting it.” (Nafieʻ read it as: “. . . conversing by night (about it), (yet) blaspheming.”)
17. 24:34 – “And We have most surely sent down to you clarifying signs” – (All except for Ibn ʻAmer, Hafs, Hamza, Al-Kesa’i and Khalaf read it as: “. . . clarified signs . . .”)
18. 37:130 – ““Peace be upon Elijah.” (Nafieʻ, Ibn ʻAmer and Yaʻqub read it as: “Peace be upon Elijah’s folk.”)
19. 40:37 – “and he was barred from the way” (Nafieʻ, Ibn Kathir, Abu ʻAmr, Ibn ʻAmer and Abu Jaʻfar read it as: “. . . and he barred (others) from the way . . .”)
20. 47:4 – “As for those who were killed in the way of Allah” (All except for Abu ʻAmr, Hafs and Yaʻqub read it as: “As for those who combated in the way of Allah . . .”)
21. 56:89 – “Yet, if he is one of those brought near (to God), then serenity and fragrant plants and a Garden of Bliss” (Roways read it as: “. . . then a soul with fragrant plants and a Garden of bliss.”)
22. 70:1 – “An asker asked about a punishment sure to come” ( Nafieʻ, Ibn ʻAmer and Abu Jaʻfar read it as: “A flood has flooded with a punishment sure to come . . .” According to the dialect of the tribes of Hijaz, the narration of Nafieʻ, Ibn ʻAmer and Abu Jaʻfar means exactly the same as all the others.)
23. 73:6 – “The vigil of the night is indeed more intense and” (Abu ʻAmr and Ibn ʻAmer read it as: “. . . is indeed more suitable and . . .”)
24. 77:33 – “as if they are yellow camels.” (All except for Hafs, Hamza, Al-Kesa’i, Khalaf and Roways read as: “. . . as if they are herds of yellow camels.” Roways read it as: “…as if they are thick yellow ropes.”)
1
-
@nurulhassan2219 Easy.
There’s unequivocal evidence in the Bible that Jesus and some of the disciples spoke Greek. It is now a well-attested fact that Greek was the lingua franca of the Levantine. The archaeological and textual evidence is so enormous that it is beyond any doubt that Greek was the language of communication, just like English is today.
1. Jesus said to Peter – who obviously understood the “humor” – the following, which, by the way, only makes sense in Greek: “And I also say to you that you are Peter (Petros i.e., pebble/small stone), and on this rock (petra i.e., huge boulder) I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16)
2. "Now there were certain Greeks among those who came up to worship at the feast. Then they came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida of Galilee, and asked him, saying, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” (John 12)
3. “The woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. But Jesus said to her, “Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs [i.e., puppies]” (Mark 7) This does not make sense in the Greek or Hebrew as these two do not have a single word for this animal.
4. The exchange between Pilate and Jesus in Matthew 27 seems to be in Greek. (More on this below.)
5. Josephus writing in the 1st century: “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.” (Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, 3)
6. Jesus regularly quoted from the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament translated by Jews 300 years before Christ.
7. The oldest New Testament MSS are all in Greek because it was the truly international language of its day and thus could reach the widest possible audience. This was due to Alexander’s conquering of the land from Europe, through Africa and into Asia, previous to the Roman Empire.
Here’s some more academic material for you.
University of Surrey’s Stanley Porter wrote, “The first and most important example, and the one that sets the tenor for the subsequent treatment of passages, is Jesus’ trial before Pilate (Mk. 15:2-5; Mt. 27:11-14; Lk. 23:2-5; Jn. 18:29- 38; cf. 1 Tim. 6:13). It is highly unlikely that Pilate, the prefect assigned to this remote posting in the Roman empire, would have known any Semitic language. No translator or interpreter is mentioned for the conversation that occurs between Jesus and Pilate, making it unlikely that Latin or Aramaic was used. In fact, the pace of the narrative, in which conversation is held between not only Pilate and Jesus but Pilate and the Jewish leaders, Pilate and the crowd, and the Jewish leaders and the crowd, argues against an interpreter intervening. It is most likely, therefore, that Jesus spoke to Pilate in Greek.”
He continues, “The first example of a passage in which Jesus may well have spoken Greek is Mark 7:25-30, when Jesus travels to the area of Tyre. A woman with a daughter possessed by an evil spirit hears of his presence there and begs for Jesus’ help. The woman is called in Mark’s Gospel a Ἑλληνίς, a Συροφοινίκισσα by birth, i.e. a gentile (7:26). Even though the indigenous language of the area was Semitic, this area had long been under hellenistic influence (and antagonistic to the Jews; see Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.69-72) and evidenced widespread use of Greek, as has been noted above. The description of the woman in the Gospel makes sure that the reader knows that the woman was a Greek-speaker despite her birth. Otherwise the reference is gratuitous. There is no indication of an interpreter being present.”
He concludes that, “the evidence regarding what is known about the use of Greek in ancient Palestine, including the cosmopolitan hellenistic character of lower Galilee, the epigraphic and literary evidence, including coins, papyri, literary writers, inscriptions and funerary texts, but most of all several significant contexts in the Gospels, all points in one direction: whereas it is not always known how much and on which occasions Jesus spoke Greek, it is virtually certain that he used Greek at various times in his itinerant ministry.”
For more detail see Porter’s paper, ‘Jesus and the use of Greek’, Bulletin for Biblical Research 10.1 (2000) pp. 71-87.
Assigned task completed.
1
-
@nurulhassan2219 Challenge accepted.
There’s unequivocal evidence in the Bible that Jesus and some of the disciples spoke Greek. It is now a well-attested fact that Greek was the lingua franca of the Levantine. The archaeological and textual evidence is so enormous that it is beyond any doubt that Greek was the language of communication, just like English is today.
1. Jesus said to Peter – who obviously understood the “humor” – the following, which, by the way, only makes sense in Greek: “And I also say to you that you are Peter (Petros i.e., pebble/small stone), and on this rock (petra i.e., huge boulder) I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16)
2. "Now there were certain Greeks among those who came up to worship at the feast. Then they came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida of Galilee, and asked him, saying, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” (John 12)
3. “The woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. But Jesus said to her, “Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs [i.e., puppies]” (Mark 7) This does not make sense in the Greek or Hebrew as these two do not have a single word for this animal.
4. The exchange between Pilate and Jesus in Matthew 27 seems to be in Greek. (More on this below.)
5. Josephus writing in the 1st century: “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.” (Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, 3)
6. Jesus regularly quoted from the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament translated by Jews 300 years before Christ.
7. The oldest New Testament MSS are all in Greek because it was the truly international language of its day and thus could reach the widest possible audience. This was due to Alexander’s conquering of the land from Europe, through Africa and into Asia, previous to the Roman Empire.
Here’s some more academic material for you.
University of Surrey’s Stanley Porter wrote, “The first and most important example, and the one that sets the tenor for the subsequent treatment of passages, is Jesus’ trial before Pilate (Mk. 15:2-5; Mt. 27:11-14; Lk. 23:2-5; Jn. 18:29- 38; cf. 1 Tim. 6:13). It is highly unlikely that Pilate, the prefect assigned to this remote posting in the Roman empire, would have known any Semitic language. No translator or interpreter is mentioned for the conversation that occurs between Jesus and Pilate, making it unlikely that Latin or Aramaic was used. In fact, the pace of the narrative, in which conversation is held between not only Pilate and Jesus but Pilate and the Jewish leaders, Pilate and the crowd, and the Jewish leaders and the crowd, argues against an interpreter intervening. It is most likely, therefore, that Jesus spoke to Pilate in Greek.”
He continues, “The first example of a passage in which Jesus may well have spoken Greek is Mark 7:25-30, when Jesus travels to the area of Tyre. A woman with a daughter possessed by an evil spirit hears of his presence there and begs for Jesus’ help. The woman is called in Mark’s Gospel a Ἑλληνίς, a Συροφοινίκισσα by birth, i.e. a gentile (7:26). Even though the indigenous language of the area was Semitic, this area had long been under hellenistic influence (and antagonistic to the Jews; see Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.69-72) and evidenced widespread use of Greek, as has been noted above. The description of the woman in the Gospel makes sure that the reader knows that the woman was a Greek-speaker despite her birth. Otherwise the reference is gratuitous. There is no indication of an interpreter being present.”
He concludes that, “the evidence regarding what is known about the use of Greek in ancient Palestine, including the cosmopolitan hellenistic character of lower Galilee, the epigraphic and literary evidence, including coins, papyri, literary writers, inscriptions and funerary texts, but most of all several significant contexts in the Gospels, all points in one direction: whereas it is not always known how much and on which occasions Jesus spoke Greek, it is virtually certain that he used Greek at various times in his itinerant ministry.”
For more detail see Porter’s paper, ‘Jesus and the use of Greek’, Bulletin for Biblical Research 10.1 (2000) pp. 71-87.
Challenge defeated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nurulhassan2219 Different Qur'ans, different verses, different words, different meanings.
Here's just a few:
28:48, is it 2 sorcerers (Asem, Hamza, Kesai) or 2 acts of sorcery (the rest)?
73:6, is it 'more intense' (all the others) or 'more suitable' (Amr, Amer)?
57:18, is it 'charitable men and charitable women' (all the rest) or 'men who believed and women who believed' (Kathir, Shuaba)?
18:86, is it 'murky' (the rest) or 'hot' (Nafie, Kthir, Amr, Hafs)?
12:31, is it 'reclining cushions' (the rest) or 'citrus fruits' (Jafar)?
6:105, is it 'You have studied' (the rest), 'You have studied with someone' (Kathir, Amr), 'That is outdated' (Amer, Yaqub)?
4:135, is it 'But if you twist your testimony' (the rest) or 'whether you go forward by testifying' (Amer, Hamza)?
1
-
@nurulhassan2219 "where did Jesus told his disciples to protect the Bible? Show me one verse."
Response: 1. "Remember how Jesus spoke to you when He was still in Galilee, saying, ‘The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.’ ” And they remembered His words." (Luke 24)
2. "Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said." (John 2)
3. "His disciples did not understand these things at first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written about Him and that they had done these things to Him." (John 12)
4. "“These things I have spoken to you, that you should not be made to stumble...But these things I have told you, that when the time comes, you may remember that I told you of them." (John 16)
5. "“These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you." (John 14)
6. "“I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.”...For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life" (Revelation 22)
You look kind of silly when you argue about a book you've never read.
1
-
1
-
@nurulhassan2219 The following passage is from the Pyramid Texts. I can’t see how it has anything to do with your “argument” that it is referring to Pharaoh.
“The sky will weep for you and the earth shake for you, the Moorer will scream for you and the great Mooring Post cry out for you, feet will stomp for you and arms wave for you, as you go forth to the sky as a star, as the morning god. Pepi has come to you, his father; he has come to you, Geb. He has landed on your causeway, gods. Let him sit on the great seat, on his father Eyes-Forward’s thighs. His mouth has been cleansed with natron and natron-salt, his fingernails and toenails have been cleansed. There has been done for him what was done for his father Osiris on the day of tying bones together, of making functional the feet, of the legs’ crossing (the sky).” (Sec. 526, ‘ENTERING THE TOMB AT NIGHT’. It’s a spell.)
Geb was a god and the Egyptian word for ‘land’. It would appear to have no relation to Pharaoh.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Md.Kamarussalihin Your response avoided the very points I made and the issue at stake, namely, Is there any difference of MEANING between the Hafs and Warsh versions in the verses I compared?
Your avoidance can be discerned by the fact that you ask me “[h]ow does the meaning actually change” despite the fact that I showed you that the meanings are different. But just in case you didn’t understand the first time, I’ll simplify the verses and analyses.
Don’t forget that the Muslim defence is that there are NO DIFFERENCES between any and all texts. Once a single textual variant is discovered, the entire Islamic edifice of textual invariancy collapses. OK?
1. “Both of them are written as عبد (excuse the dot). How exactly does the meaning actually change exactly? Is "they" being referred not the same subject? Your talking about grammar not meaning.”
Response: Re 43:19, the ‘they’ has nothing to do with my argument, so this is just distraction.
In the Hafs qira'a the word is a noun and means ‘slaves’ while in the Warsh qira'a the word is a preposition and means ‘with’.
Are you claiming that the noun ‘slaves’ and the preposition ‘with’ are semantically equivalent? If so, can you explain how you arrived at that? I’m fascinated to understand this.
2. “Same thing both of them are written as يكد بون when there is no symbols. Is "they" referred here again another subject?”
Response: Re 2:10, in the Hafs the word is in the active case (i.e., the ‘they’ are the subject of the verb and thus are doing the action i.e., lying) while in the Warsh the word is in the passive case (i.e., the ‘they’ are the object of the verb and thus are receiving the action i.e., being lied to).
Are you claiming that the active voice and the passive voice are giving the exact same information, that the verb constructs are semantically equivalent? If so, can you explain how you arrived at that? I’m fascinated to understand this.
3. “Again, both written as سحر ان without symbols. How exactly does it changes the meaning? Is it a numerical mistake?”
Response: Re 28:48, the Hafs describes 2 acts of magic (no mention of how many magicians) while the Warsh informs us that there were 2 magicians (no mention of how many acts of magic were performed). Thus, in the former the verse is talking about a thing, in the latter, about persons.
Are you claiming that there is no difference in meaning between a thing and a person? Can you explain your reasoning?
4. “Written as قتل in the absence of symbols. This is one of the examples where one ahruf supplement or enrich each other ayah. There are more verses with similar concept. Again how does the meaning changes? For example, if we use Hafs "fought", does it mean those who died fighting excluded? But didn't those who died because they fought?”
Response: Re 3:146, you’ve tacitly admitted that the ahruf are different (“one of the examples where one ahruf supplement or enrich each other”). What more can I say?
The rest of your “explanation”, again, is a tacit admission that the Hafs and Warsh differ in meaning.
Whether the prophets who fought were killed is irrelevant to my argument and, indeed, the TWO texts. You’ve attempted to misdirect from the fact that the Hafs and Warsh are telling the reader 2 different bits of information. The Hafs is in the active voice (the subject of the verb and thus who does the action of fighting) and states who fought, while the Warsh is in the passive voice (the object of the verb and thus who receives the action of being killed) and who dies.
Please tell me how fighting and being killed are semantically equivalent, which is what you have to do, not just for this verse, but all the verses I’ve cited. Good luck.
1
-
1
-
@Md.Kamarussalihin Before I begin I want to mention that I am a university-trained, professional language teacher. That’s my fulltime occupation. What I’ve drawn from your last post was that you really don’t understand linguistics or even basic grammar. You’ve invented terms, misused technical words and clearly not understood some fairly basic concepts.
1. “The statements you laid out only show the variants of grammars, of course that is something to occur when you have variation of dialects to assert a sentence.”
Response: I thought the Qur’an was the gold standard for Arabic grammar? If, as you’ve just admitted, there are grammar variants (whatever that means) in Qur’anic manuscripts, how can you use the Qur’an as the grammar textbook par excellence?
Furthermore, how do dialectical variations alter basic grammar?
2. “even this first response already tells me how linguistically flawed your argument is. So you're looking at only a word while ignoring the sentences that are tied with the word? Again your argument is meaning, so how do you know a meaning just from a word not from a sentence? A linguist would find your point valid if that word doesn't make sense to be fitted with those verses in which I doubt it. To me you are making your own rules on this issue outside the standard of academics.
Response: Re 43:19,
a. “how do you know a meaning just from a word not from a sentence?”
Because we’re not looking at the meaning of a sentence but whether there are different textual variations brought about by different ARABIC words being used. This is not rocket science.
b. “A linguist would find your point valid if that word doesn't make sense to be fitted with those verses in which I doubt it.”
I have no idea what you’re saying here…and I doubt a linguist would either. (Hang on. Didn’t I train at university, including post-grad, to teach languages? I did too. BTW, what are your academic qualifications?)
c. “To me you are making your own rules on this issue outside the standard of academics.”
I’m not making any rules up. The Arabic is clear and has set rules. All I am pointing out, as have 100’s of Arabic linguists and sheiks (e.g., Yasir Qadi), are the 1000’s of textual variations that alter the meaning of the verses because there are different words in the different recitations and reading transmissions.
And what “standard” of academics are you directing my attention to? Have you even studied at university before (and I don’t mean business or IT)?
d. Returning to the text, what more can I add to make you understand there is a difference between a noun (‘slaves’) in the Hafs and a preposition (‘with’) in the Warsh? This is an elementary school lesson.
3. Re 2:10, “please entertaint me how are they change in overall meaning?”
Response: Your comment, more than any other, tells me you have zero training in linguistics. It’s obvious that you do not have any understanding as to the difference between the active and passive voices. This is Linguistics 101.
I clearly underscored that the Hafs and Warsh communicate two very different ideas. The former has the subject doing the lying, the latter has the lying being done to them.
Honestly, if you can’t grasp that, you won’t be able to grasp anything with a greater level of complexity.
4. Re 28:48,
a. “these are syntactic arrangement”
Response: What has this got to do with what we are discussing?
You do understand that merely saying something is not an argument, particularly if its relevance is obscure or irrelevant?
Do you actually understand what ‘syntax’ is?
b. “English only has verbal sentences. Arabic has verbal and nominal sentences.”
Response: This is about as wrong as you can get. English does not solely rely on verbal sentences. Verbal sentences begin with a gerund, infinitive or participle (do you know what these are?). For example, ‘Eating fruit every day helps you lose weight’ is an example of the former, and though grammatically correct, it’s hardly how we normally speak. The more common speaking and writing pattern in English is the subject+verb+object syntax.
Nominal sentences in Arabic can only occur in the present tense. English does use nominal sentences. They are found in newspaper headlines, proverbs, requests, commands, warnings, and a plethora of other instantiations.
c. “A complete and grammatically correct English sentence contains a subject, verb and object.”
Response: Sheer nonsense. (Are you cutting and pasting from some ignorant Muslim website?)
The S+V+O syntax is only one of many used in English. Here are several that demonstrate your error: ‘Sit!’, ‘I’ve eaten already’, ‘The boy is here’, ‘Help yourself’, ‘They were lied to’…
d. “In fact the word "Sihrani" and "Saahirani" does not have the word "two" in actuality. Those words in its root term 'Sihr' just mean Magic, the word two in arabic is 'Isnin' which is absent. It's a matter of the translator's choice of words in translating them.”
Response: Nonsense, again.
Sih’rani is a nominative masculine dual noun. It does not require the number two to be added because it has already been conjugated to communicate that number.
And it’s not up to a translator! Utter nonsense! Arabic grammar rules are plain enough, especially at this basic level of deciding with it’s singular, dual or plural.
5. Re 3:146, you’ve just admitted to there being a textual variation between the Hafs (‘fought’) and the Warsh (‘killed’).
Conclusion: There are different Arabic Qur’ans communicating different information.
BTW, you might want to look this book up: ‘Bridges Translation of the Ten Qiraat of the Noble Quran’. You an find a free copy online.
1
-
@Md.Kamarussalihin You took umbrage that I wrote; “Before I begin I want to mention that I am a university-trained, professional language teacher. That’s my fulltime occupation. What I’ve drawn from your last post was that you really don’t understand linguistics or even basic grammar. You’ve invented terms, misused technical words and clearly not understood some fairly basic concepts.”
I did not make this comment in a vacuum. I put it up because you wrote, “To me you are making your own rules on this issue outside the standard of academics…Again you didn't address the issue in the arabic format only in the sense of grammatical[sic] English[sic] which you find problematic.” (BTW, I don’t find the “grammatical english” problematic.)
Your problem is that you apparently don’t have any training in linguistics. This is where meta-linguistics comes in to help you understand the grounding in ANY language. The Warsh and Hafs versions of the Qur’an display multiple examples where the grammar differs for the same verse. When the grammar differs extraordinarily, usually meaning similarly changes.
I cited one verse where the passive is used in one Qur’an while the active voice is used in the other. You claim that there is no difference between “they lied” and “they were lied to”. You’ve attempted to explain away the difference, using far from convincing arguments. Any less-than-competent speaker of ANY language would conclude that you are either thick or dishonest. I think it’s the latter, done so because you want to defend the impossible: there are no Qur’anic variations delivering different meanings.
But what do the grammarians say?
The Hafs version has “In their hearts is sickness, so Allah increased their sickness, and for them is a painful punishment on account of how they used to lie.”
However Nafieʻ, Ibn Kathir, Abu ʻAmr, Ibn ʻAmer, Abu Jaʻfar and Yaʻqub have the text claiming that the ‘they’ “used to disbelieve.”
Regardless whether you want to claim the message is the same, this is a textual VARIATION. We have many different Qur’ans with 1000’s of variations. Why is it so difficult for a Muslim to admit this?
There is a six volume encyclopedia set titled, Mu'jam al-qiraa'aat al-Quraaneeyah, ma'a maqaddimah fee qiraa'aat wa ashhar al-qurraa (The Encyclopedia of the Quranic Readings with an Introduction to Readings and Famous Readers), which records most of the known variants. The author records 10243 variations.
Whether the meanings change (many do) or they don’t is neither here nor there for me. What is important is that there are variant texts, something that ignorant Muslims argue is impossible. Their argument runs like this: The Qur’an’s text has been preserved; consequently there are no variant Qur’anic texts because the Qur’an text has been preserved…and even when variants are brought to our notice, there is always a reason that proves this is not a variant, despite it clearly presenting as one, something in any case we must deny in public.
As to the Bible, we don’t have to perform mental gymnastics as Muslims do because Christendom has always acknowledged Bible variants. Furthermore, because no variant contradicts Jesus being God incarnate, Jesus being killed by crucifixion and Jesus resurrecting physically from the dead, Christian theology and soteriology have remained the same for the last 2000 years. OK?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Durray13 1. “Q: Who is God?
A: Jesus”
First Mistake: The question has been phrased incorrectly. (In fact it is the first straw man in a lengthy series of straw men.) A Christian does NOT frame Jesus’s relation to the Godhead in the way you have. Rather, she would ask it in this manner: Is Jesus God?
Furthermore, the answer to ‘Who is God?’ is: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are God.
You’re off to a really poor start.
2. Straw man alert: “God Jesus was born from the mother he created (Mary)”
Second Mistake: By omitting crucial information, you’ve arrived at a fallacious conclusion.
The Bible tells us that, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life…And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth…No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” (John 1)
This is Christian theology 101. You should maybe read the Bible first before cutting and pasting from a nonsense site.
3. “Q: Who is Jesus’s father?
A: God”
Third Mistake: The complete and accurate answer is God the Father.
4. “God Jesus is the father of God Jesus and the creator of the mother he was born from her the son of his wife”
Fourth Mistake: In this one sentence you’ve demonstrated you do NOT understand Christianity. In fact, the sentence makes no sense whatsoever. This is what you get when you rely on the Qur’an and your false prophet instead of Christian theology and the Bible.
5. “God Jesus was crucified & ascended to God Jesus”
Fifth Mistake: You not only have failed to understand Christianity, but you’ve misrepresented it by confusing it with a number of early heresies (you’ve got some theological salad!), namely, Monarchianism, Sabellianism and Modalism. (I honestly can’t decide which takes priority.)
6. “God Jesus was the messenger of God Jesus. God sends himself as a Messenger of himself”
Sixth Mistake: See point 5.
7. “God Jesus worships God Jesus himself”
Seventh Mistake: See point 5.
8. “God Jesus is eternal before everything but he was born in 25th Dec”
Eight Mistake: As expressed in point 2, the Word of God took on flesh and lived among us.
Another straw man. Astounding!
9. “He is sitting on the right of God.”
Ninth Mistake: You’ve misrepresented what Jesus said. He said he would sit at the right HAND of God, a ubiquitous metaphor intending to communicate privilege.
Unlike Islam which states that its god actually has hands (or is it only one hand?), in Christianity “God is Spirit”, as Jesus stated in John 4.
10. “Is Jesus a God? A: Yes”
Tenth Mistake: No, Jesus is not ‘a’ god, but God
11. “Are they sitting on the same chair?”
Eleventh Mistake: If you believe that Christians believe there is a physical chair in heaven, then you must believe that there are people who actually live in actual glass houses and they’ve been actually instructed never to throw actual stones.
I suggest you read a Bible before posting such nonsense again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Durray13 1. “Q: Who is God?
A: Jesus”
First Mistake: The question has been phrased incorrectly. (In fact it is the first straw man in a lengthy series of straw men.) A Christian does NOT frame Jesus’s relation to the Godhead in the way you have. Rather, she would ask it in this manner: Is Jesus God?
Furthermore, the answer to ‘Who is God?’ is: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are God.
You’re off to a really poor start.
2. Straw man alert: “God Jesus was born from the mother he created (Mary)”
Second Mistake: By omitting crucial information, you’ve arrived at a fallacious conclusion.
The Bible tells us that, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life…And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth…No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” (John 1)
This is Christian theology 101. You should maybe read the Bible first before cutting and pasting from a nonsense site.
3. “Q: Who is Jesus’s father?
A: God”
Third Mistake: The complete and accurate answer is God the Father.
4. “God Jesus is the father of God Jesus and the creator of the mother he was born from her the son of his wife”
Fourth Mistake: In this one sentence you’ve demonstrated you do NOT understand Christianity. In fact, the sentence makes no sense whatsoever. This is what you get when you rely on the Qur’an and your false prophet instead of Christian theology and the Bible.
5. “God Jesus was crucified & ascended to God Jesus”
Fifth Mistake: You not only have failed to understand Christianity, but you’ve misrepresented it by confusing it with a number of early heresies (you’ve got some theological salad!), namely, Monarchianism, Sabellianism and Modalism. (I honestly can’t decide which takes priority.)
6. “God Jesus was the messenger of God Jesus. God sends himself as a Messenger of himself”
Sixth Mistake: See point 5.
7. “God Jesus worships God Jesus himself”
Seventh Mistake: See point 5.
8. “God Jesus is eternal before everything but he was born in 25th Dec”
Eight Mistake: As expressed in point 2, the Word of God took on flesh and lived among us.
Another straw man. Astounding!
9. “He is sitting on the right of God.”
Ninth Mistake: You’ve misrepresented what Jesus said. He said he would sit at the right HAND of God, a ubiquitous metaphor intending to communicate privilege.
Unlike Islam which states that its god actually has hands (or is it only one hand?), in Christianity “God is Spirit”, as Jesus stated in John 4.
10. “Is Jesus a God? A: Yes”
Tenth Mistake: No, Jesus is not ‘a’ god, but God
11. “Are they sitting on the same chair?”
Eleventh Mistake: If you believe that Christians believe there is a physical chair in heaven, then you must believe that there are people who actually live in actual glass houses and they’ve been actually instructed never to throw actual stones.
I suggest you read a Bible before posting such nonsense again.
1
-
And these:
1. 2:10 – “They try to deceive Allah and those who have attained faith, yet they deceive none but themselves, but they are unaware.” (Nafieʻ, Ibn Kathir and Abu ʻAmr read it as: “. . . yet they try to deceive none but . . .”)
2. 2:119 – “with the truth as a herald of glad tidings and as a warner, for you will not be asked about the fellows of purgatory.” (Nafieʻ and Yaʻqub read it as: “. . . as a warner, so do not ask about the fellows of purgatory.”)
3. 2:165 – “And if only those who have done injustice could see” (Nafieʻ, Ibn ʻAmer and Yaʻqub read it as: “And if only you could see those who have done injustice . . .”)
4. 3:23 – “being called to the Scripture of Allah to judge between them” (Abu Jaʻfar read it as: “. . . being called to the Scripture of Allah so that it may be judged between them . . .”)
5. 3:79 – “Be godly on account of the Scripture which you used to teach and on account of what you used to learn.” (All except for Ibn ʻAmer, ʻAsem, Hamza, Al Kesa’i and Khalaf read it as: “. . . used to know and . . .”)
6. 3:161 – “And never was it for a prophet to defraud” (All except for Ibn Kathir, Abu ʻAmr and ʻAsem read it as: “And never was it for a prophet to be defrauded . . .”)
7. 4:135 – “But if you twist (your testimony) or disregard (giving it)—then indeed Allah has always been All-Aware of what you do.” (Ibn ʻAmer and Hamza read it as: “But whether you go forward (by testifying) or disregard . . .”)
8. 6:27 – “If only we could be sent back and not disbelieve in the signs of our Lord and be of the believers!” (All except for Hafs, Hamza and Yaʻqub read it as: “If only we could be sent back—for we do not disbelieve in the signs of our Lord—and be of the believers!”)
9. 6:105 – “And thus We diversify the signs, and so that they say, “You have studied,” and so that” (Ibn Kathir and Abu ʻAmr read it as: “. . . they say, ‘You have studied with someone’ . . .” Ibn ʻAmer and Yaʻqub read it as: “. . . they say, ‘(That is) outdated’...”
10. 10:16 – “Say, “Had Allah willed, I would not have read it to you and He would not have informed you about it,” (Al-Bazzi in one of his narrations read it as: “. . . and He would have informed you about it (through someone else) . . .”
11. 12:31 – “So when she heard of their gossip, she sent for them and prepared for them reclining cushions and brought each one of them a knife” (Abu Jaʻfar read it as: “. . . and prepared for them citrus fruits and brought each . . .”)
12. 13:33 – “and they were barred from the way.” (Nafieʻ, Ibn Kathir, Abu ʻAmr, Ibn ʻAmer and Abu Jaʻfar read it as: “. . . and they barred (others) from . . .”)
13. 18:86 – “he found it setting in a murky spring” (All except for Nafieʻ, Ibn Kathir, Abu ʻAmr, Hafs and Yaʻqub read it as: “. . . in a hot spring . . .”)
14. 20:31,32 – “Aaron, my brother; strengthen me with him” (Ibn ʻAmer read it as: “. . . my brother, (so that) I (can) strengthen myself with him”)
15. 22:39 – “Permission has been granted to those who are combated” (All except for Nafieʻ, Ibn ʻAmer, Hafs, and Abu Jaʻfar read it as: “. . . to those who combat . . .”)
16. 23:67 – “in arrogance regarding it, conversing by night (about it), (yet) deserting it.” (Nafieʻ read it as: “. . . conversing by night (about it), (yet) blaspheming.”)
17. 24:34 – “And We have most surely sent down to you clarifying signs” – (All except for Ibn ʻAmer, Hafs, Hamza, Al-Kesa’i and Khalaf read it as: “. . . clarified signs . . .”)
18. 37:130 – ““Peace be upon Elijah.” (Nafieʻ, Ibn ʻAmer and Yaʻqub read it as: “Peace be upon Elijah’s folk.”)
19. 40:37 – “and he was barred from the way” (Nafieʻ, Ibn Kathir, Abu ʻAmr, Ibn ʻAmer and Abu Jaʻfar read it as: “. . . and he barred (others) from the way . . .”)
20. 47:4 – “As for those who were killed in the way of Allah” (All except for Abu ʻAmr, Hafs and Yaʻqub read it as: “As for those who combated in the way of Allah . . .”)
21. 56:89 – “Yet, if he is one of those brought near (to God), then serenity and fragrant plants and a Garden of Bliss” (Roways read it as: “. . . then a soul with fragrant plants and a Garden of bliss.”)
22. 70:1 – “An asker asked about a punishment sure to come” ( Nafieʻ, Ibn ʻAmer and Abu Jaʻfar read it as: “A flood has flooded with a punishment sure to come . . .” According to the dialect of the tribes of Hijaz, the narration of Nafieʻ, Ibn ʻAmer and Abu Jaʻfar means exactly the same as all the others.)
23. 73:6 – “The vigil of the night is indeed more intense and” (Abu ʻAmr and Ibn ʻAmer read it as: “. . . is indeed more suitable and . . .”)
24. 77:33 – “as if they are yellow camels.” (All except for Hafs, Hamza, Al-Kesa’i, Khalaf and Roways read as: “. . . as if they are herds of yellow camels.” Roways read it as: “…as if they are thick yellow ropes.”)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@footballking8001 Here's my submission to meet your fake god's challenge:
"Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty back together again."
Or, another: "To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them. To die—to sleep,
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to: 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep, perchance to dream—ay, there's the rub:
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come,
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause—there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th'oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of dispriz'd love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th'unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscovere'd country, from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience doth make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the name of action."
hahaha yes Hamletis not a groundschool book for kids, when you read Hamlet and you dont know the meaning behind it, you can look for the commentary. Its written in beautiful old classic English. No one could ever make something similar to it. Not even a chapter. Challenge from Billy Shakespear.
Muslim, what a totally delusional, dumb and meaningless challenge!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1