Messages

Courage?

Maybe the Wizard of OZ?

Or maybe read Scripture and pray and fill your heart with Agape and goodwill towards men and you will lose your fear and find courage in the moment.

As far as I see, nobody has been proven right yet!

Correct.

The big liars in the UN IPCC claimed they had proof but they were discovered to be 'cooking' the data. And, blatantly lying.

The burden of proof is on the one who claims AGW is real. And so far there is no proof. The present data show the idiot greenhouse gas models are a pile of worthless crap.

Here's something I wrote which started as "War exists because law and war are synonyms"

They are NOT synonyms. Not even close.

Laws don't have much effect on the world compared to game-theory,

Yes they do. That is like saying a ladder does not have much effect on making it easier to climb up something. Laws are built upon agreements and cooperation. When done honestly and kept to a minimum they can be a terrific way to improve society.

There is a very simple reason we can't have world peace: Law and War mean the same thing therefore to end War is to act against the Law. That's not just insane. Its profoundly insane, to think Law and War are synonyms.

Yes it is insane. Law and War are not even close to the same thing. In fact, they are almost opposites.

Anarchists have no Laws therefore anarchists have no Wars. Law and War are synonyms. War On Drugs. War On Piracy.

There are no real Anarchist societies that survive long enough to realistically make such a claim. In the short term, when Anarchy does temporarily arise... violent crime is common.

We can't have world peace by creating or obeying Laws because Laws are Wars. They're the same word. We can only have world peace by strategicly changing words.

"Strategically changing words" is just another way of saying we can only have world peace by LYING.

Many religions associate God with the highest Authority. Most people associate Government with Authority.

True.

Government makes Law against X by declaring War On X.

False.

As an example of how language works, I'll translate the Ten Commandments to modern language (and my thoughts about them in parenthesis):

Translation? I don't think so - that was Complete nonsense .

I would also do War On Desire

Typical. The act of a petty tyrant.

I therefore ask all people who believe in "thou shalt not kill" to use the translation to modern language...

Typical dishonest semantic tricks. The actual accurate translation is "Thou shalt not Murder"
There is a big difference.
The lawful execution of a Serial Killer is "Lawful killing" and it is NOT murder. Only those with deception in their hearts can not or will not see the obvious difference.

"Prickly" is possibly the word you are looking for. I consider it a light form of vibrations.

This is one baby step away from projection.

Try to wobble side to side as though you were lying down in a canoe and then when the feeling is right - roll out.

Climatologists recently have been linking this weather for the for the first time ever with the recent Solar Flares.

Yes, the Sun is obviously the primary contributor to any global Warming (note; the Earth has been warming slightly ever since the end of the last Maunder Minimum, or - Mini Ice Age... which is a good thing.)

Alaska and Siberia got record to near record snowfall recently.

The whole Global Warming fiasco is a giant Global Scam;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

Arctic ice coverage has completely returned to normal.

The Antarctic has been steadily cooling for decades.

The Left is Pure Deception.

Governments have become corporations themself these days. people are goods/customers. Your birth certificate is a financial instument being bought and sold on the stockmarket.

People are customers but they are NOT 'goods'.

Birth certificates are NOT 'being bought and sold on the stockmarket'.

This is a popular Deception that is being spread lately. It is FALSE.

wow!, *that* was pretty cool.

It's just I notice a lot of people dislike New age. Why is this?

Probably because there is so much to not like.

I can honestly say that I have been close to the New Age Movement since about 1970 and I have seen a lot.

In the beginning I was very young and gullible and I swallowed so much of it whole. But then as time marched on I found that nearly everything that was being promulgated was untrue. A lot of it not only bordered on insane but some popular branches were just plain loonytoons.

The really Dark and Destructive side of the New Age is easily visible in the stream of anti-Catholic lies, bigotry and Hatespeech that is continuously repeated. In the beginning I believed it myself. But then it just got more and more outrageous and soon I was pausing and standing back and looking at it a little skeptically and then I had to come right and say, "Hey, I happen to know for a fact that that claim is just plain False".

There is a current of Victim-Consciousness in the general New Age doctrines that belies the "let's pretend" shore story about being enlightened and struggling against the Forces that are trying to keep Truth and Light away from the struggling masses. This is baloney. The most readily available forms of Genuine Truth and Light are ignored by most of the pseudo-seekers while the most absurd forms of obfuscation and falsehood are strongly embraced.

There is so much beauty and awesome wonder in the Ancient Traditions that are right there in front of us. Those who focus on the negative aspects reveal the flaw in their own hearts. The typical Catholic who practices Centering Prayer Meditation and follows the Liturgical calendar with the fasting and ritual, etc. is imho wayyyy ahead of the average New Age pretender who meditates sometimes and talks more about enlightenment than he actually actively works on it. He is way ahead of the self appointed priest who serves up the Gnostic Mass (which is a giant, blatant plagiarized rip-off of the ancient RC Tridentine Mass). I know faithful practicing Catholics who have mystical experiences and vivid LD's that would be the envy of many who follow and manage these AP forums. They move through each day with Love in their hearts and an Agape that is beyond the ken of most New Age hypocrites.

Most New Agers have a LOT of growing up to do before the general public will look upon them with anything other than the disdain that they have earned.

Nothing is happening. I'm 15, and everything is going very smoothly. Nothing new.

Heh... okay, yes, I could have added "dealing with puberty" to the list.

Unfortunately a lot of that money from the charities never quite gets to where it is needed most. It's a harsh reality!

Why do you think that is?

...?

if you was around the age of 20 i would say its normal, your energy body matures and you become aware of the greater reality, it will settle down  after you become used it

:NoY:

EXcellent feedback!, NoY.

These dreams are common among young men just entering the world on their own and they actually indicate the actions being taken and choices being made are proactive, creative, and most importantly very successful.

These are great dreams for a young man to have.

I think with dreams it is important to keep things in perspective.

In waking life we have other people, other egos and the Outer World to deal with. In the Dream World, and only in the Dream World, it really is, "all about you".

This is why global catastrophes are constantly being predicted. Because people's inner world, their psychic space, is undergoing a major shift of sorts. But rather than ask what is this telling me about my inner world?, my psyche... most people project their inner world onto the outer world.

Ask yourself,"what was my overall preoccupation one year ago, six months ago... and now recently....
What has changed or what is changing. Job? Living space? getting married? A pregnancy?

What is happening in your life that is 'turning up the heat' in your Inner World?

Both 1. and 2. are off base, as in - no one said that.

On item 1 you left off a critical qualifier; "every fifth sentence" (NOT The Koran entirely)

It looks like Item 2 mixes two separate comments and again states "The Koran" with no qualifiers which ends up being a characterization that hasn't been made.

Puir's quote supports point 1, while your posts support point 2.

false & false

But, this *is* fun.

I do not mind getting grilled. I enjoy thinking through my replies to the questions put to me.
It is much more interesting than following another thread about astral sex, imo.

People who don't like this sort of discourse are free to not follow the thread, right?

Referencing is never sufficient.

Yes, it is. In lots of cases. Even in a court of Law "Expert Opinion" is a standalone criteria of its own once the court accepts the credentials of the "expert". You have made a LOT of plain flat out FALSE claims of this nature. ( free advice: never say never).

By that statement I understood that you meant my 20% is applicable to Puir's 20%. This is actually what your sentence implies.

You are wrong again. It implies no such thing. Especially when I correct you the first time you make this error and explain they are separate observations and one is not meant to support the other.

If you can't speak Arabic and haven't read the Quran in Arabic, please answer me: What makes you so sure Puir's quote is true?

Because Puin's words had the ring of truth to them. (Plus again, I did not say I was *sure* his claim was true, only that I accept his assessment for the expert opinion that it is).
His words are also consistent with my life experience on this issue.
I worked daily for over a year with a group of native Farsi speakers (some devout and some not so devout Muslims) and they agreed that the typical native Arab speaker could not understand half the Classical Arabic in the Koran.
I worked 15 years with a native Urdu speaker who was not just devout but a leader in the local Muslim community and he said most native Modern Arabic speakers could not make heads or tails out of half the passages in the Koran.
Just on language morphing over time, in general... I knew a native French speaker who said he could not understand most of the quatrains in the Nostradamus prophecies (the language changed a LOT in a mere 500 years). And then there is my own witness in the changes in English over the span of 1000 years. I am conversant in Spanish and I see it there too. I have studied Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic and NT Greek to Modern Greek and ALL these other languages change A LOT in 1000 years.

Maybe Classical and Modern Arabic are not so far apart and it is unique among languages... but I doubt it.

Your claim strains credulity.

And then there is your own admission to not understanding a significant portion, yourself! This is nearly a de facto demonstration of the lack of clarity just by itself. Then when you fall back on the need to consult Arabic Teachers and "older, better educated" Arab scholars you undercut your own position. Why the need to consult older, better educated speakers for explanations? These replies you made of your own experience is sufficient to demonstrate the error of your claim.

If I quote you a scholar saying that the Bible was not inspired by God, does that make me absolutely right even if I don't support my claim?

You did it again!! I did not claim to be "absolutely" right.
Understand also that your 'scholar' would have to be accepted as an "expert" on God. And that might be a tough vetting process to survive.

[primarily upon you]

lol Quran is difficult for me and those with their Arabic level similar to mine. A grown up educated Arab would easily understand it.

Well, they might *think* they understand it because someone's best guess has been spoon fed to them and they accept it. I take the evaluation of a linguistic scholar over the the Arab grown up any day. But I am sure you would reject any scholar who does not parrot the company line. I can live with that.

Again an unsupported claim.

It was supported as well as you supported your claim about any Arabic teacher's translation skills.

I don't need to support anything. You are making the claim and you are the one who need to support it.Hahaha. I can't see any valid point you have made up till now, just babbling.They do not agree because the 20% of which I do not understand can be translatable and are understood in Arabic by those of higher knowledge, unlike Puir's claim.

Yes, you do. The burden of 'support' in all this is primarily upon you, because you were the OP and you made the dubious claims about the Koran which I challenged. Also, I have noticed that you have difficulty discerning and grasping what constitutes a valid point. I have made plenty. So once again, you make a false accusation. Now, if you want to quote a few of my "points" and show how they are not valid, be my guest, but until then your false accusation remains groundless.

You don't seem to understand the principles of a debate. You started by claiming that fifth of the Quran is not understandable in Arabic and can't be translatable. The burden of proof lies on your part. Up till now not a shred of evidence was presented by you to support your and Puir's claim.

I understand the debate game and I agree with you (well done:) on how and where the burden of proof lies -- only I do not agree with your selective application of the rule. I did not make the "claim". I quoted a scholar's opinion on the matter. You asked for Arabic examples which I already replied to you about - I do not understand a word of Arabic so I cannot proceed along that line. That is why I have referred to this exchange as a 'discussion' since that point. My reference to Puir's opinion is sufficient unto itself as expert opinion. If you want to challenge his credentials that is a separate matter.

Again, my 20% does not apply to Puir's 20%, since his fifth-part-of-Quran ...

Again, I did not say one applied to the other. I just got done straightening you out on this a couple posts ago. Why do you keep repeating this error? You are trying to refute something that I have not said. As I indicated, the 20% observation could just be a coincidence or it could actually be directly related. But I have not claimed such because I do not know that with any significant degree of confidence.

To continue this debate, please bring me any part of the Quran which applies to Puir's claim [to quote him]:
Bring me one part which applies to the criteria given in his quote, and I will consider your viewpoint.
If you don't, then I have no reason to take your point as 'valid'.

You have already asked this at least twice already in prior posts and my reply remains the same. I do not speak a word of Arabic so I can not comply. Your list of phrases at the end there all fall into this category. This 'discussion' ceases being a debate at the point you require me to speak Arabic in order to proceed. There is not much I can do about that in the near term.

[The Quran is difficult to understand, but it is translatable and can be understood in Arabic in each and every piece of it.]

All what you have written in your post is merely your view based on a false understanding of the quote.

Of course what I write is my view. But nothing you've said demonstrates a False understanding on my part.

The Quran is difficult to understand, but it is translatable and can be understood in Arabic in each and every piece of it.
I honestly can't take your argument seriously when you can't even read the language. I'm not making an excuse, but that is the truth.

This is the trump card and last refuge of the faithful when trying to dig their heels in and refuse to simply face reality.
By your own admission you estimate that you can understand 80% and the professional Arabic scholar observes similarly. I rest my case.

False. Ask any Arabic teacher and he'll easily understand and translate any verse of the Quran. Of course there are difficulties in translating Arabic to other languages since the terms used in Quran are sometimes unique to the language. Each keyword in the Quran is understood, and the grammar is so perfect that Standard Arabic grammar is actually derived from the Quran.

NOT false. Sayin it don't make it so. Of course an Arabic Teacher will say that (if he is Muslim). That is what he gets paid to say. He would likely lose his job if he didn't say that. First you say it is "difficult" then you contradict yourself by saying any Arabic teacher can "easily" translate it... then you say it is "difficult" again. 

It's funny how you're making fun without experiencing the style of the Quran. You are making such a feeble argument while the unbelievers with the eloquent Arabic at the time of the Prophet were the ones who should have made such allegations.

That made no sense at all.

Again, throwing random claims and clinging to a quote with your wrong understanding of it is not the way of educated debaters. I'll end this argument if no substantial claims are made. 

"Feeble"... "random"... again, sayin it don't make it so... you must show how these words apply accurately and honestly. But you just toss them out with no visible means of support.

My valid points stand.
Both your own assesment and that of Puir's agree.

[wrong]

You did compare them. For example when you said:You were comparing Old English to Classical Arabic and saying that because the Classical is older, is should be more incomprehensible, which is wrong.

You reply again to something I did not say. I did not deny making a 'comparison'. I said that I did not base any 'facts' on the comparison. Again, the older the language the less comprehensible it becomes in general. I did not state that categorically because some languages morph more slowly than others. English is a rapidly morphing language due to the 1066 conquest. In my communications with other Muslims it is only the Arabic speaking Muslim faithful who are in denial about this. Non Muslim scholars speak openly of it and just as with the Greek Bible scholars, one must know the faith of the scholar and take his translation in that light. The "Jesus Papers" controversy and other Bible seminars made this much readily apparent. [the Hebrew OT word "maiden" was translated by Christian scholars as "virgin" and they justified it with "well, we know that's what he meant" but after recent seminars the new translations are now using the correct words. Even when words and grammar are not well understood, it is possible to make a 'rough translation' in a pinch - it happens a lot].

We have countless English translations of the Quran, and I can't see what's the problem with fifth of the Quran.
I'll give you an example of you and Puir's logic again. Take this sentence: We must be thankful for his munificence.
I don't know what munificence means! "It can't even be understood in English" (Exactly like what the quote said). Therefore you and Puir conclude that fifth of this sentence is incomprehensible and can't be translatable. This is wrong, because that word can be understood in English, but my level hasn't reached the capacity to comprehend such advanced words.

You are reading more into it than is really there (you do that a lot). There is no 'logic' in Puir's observation. Just simple math. If one in five passages is not translatable that is a valid observation. It is not just that he doesn't know the meaning of a word while others do. He is saying NO ONE knows what the word means. And I suspect he is saying there is a grammatical usage or conjugation that makes no sense... not just to him but to ANYONE. A professional linguistic scholar does not use the term "untranslatable" lightly.

This is so biased. You're only taking my own evaluation and backing it up with the quote?

No. It is not biased at all. I am taking your own observation at face value and noting that it is consistent with Puir's evaluation. You say you understand 80%, so that matches Puir's every fifth sentence claim. I am not using either to back the other up. They are simply standalone observations that I note as being consistent.

The way the Quran is written is so eloquent and intricate for me to understand in some parts, but that does NOT mean "it can't even be understood in Arabic" [to quote the green quote].
I can claim the same thing about the Hebrew Bible. I can say [like you and Puir claim] that 20% of it can't even be understood in Hebrew, because a 17 years old Israeli can't understand it all. I don't speak Hebrew, but I won't believe what you, a native Hebrew speaker, say. That is your logic.

No. That is not my logic. As I just said, Puir is not claiming that he personally can't translate it -- he is saying NO ONE can translate it. Either key words are unknown or grammar is not understood or both.

How it is "written is so eloquent and intricate" I can't follow the meaning sometimes... !!  ahhh, people of Faith... gotta love 'em....

I need examples from the Quran backing up your claim. If you don't provide any then I see no point in continuing.

If I can find it I will bring it to the discussion.

I can't even understand the random things you're writing. Comparing Classical Arabic with Shakespearean Plays is just to make the picture clear. It's funny how you took it literally and based your facts on it.

I did not base any of my "facts" on any literal comparison of Arabic to Shakespeare. Please stop making these deceptive claims. Back up what you claim about my words with an exact quote of my words or be revealed as a deceiver.
(please, look "fact" up in the dictionary).

For the sake of argument let's take it literally. I'll revisit the 'green' quote you have written to understand the 20% part he was talking about. In the quote Puir says:He is saying that 20% of the Quran is not even comprehensible in any form of Arabic (even the Classical) and that it has no meaning. That just destroys your argument.This is a fatal mistake.

It does not destroy my argument at all. It is not a fatal mistake because you are misrepresenting his words in dishonest fashion. He did NOT say it had no meaning. Please stop making FALSE accusations. That is a very bad thing to do.

If you're going with the view the quote saying that 20% is not understandable even in Arabic, then I have to say that you and Puir are wrong.

How can you say that? Your own evaluation of your own ability to understand the classical Arabic closely agrees with Puir's 20% estimate as not translatable!
?

I can't even understand the random things you're writing. Comparing Classical Arabic with Shakespearean Plays is just to make the picture clear. It's funny how you took it literally and based your facts on it. For the sake of argument let's take it literally. I'll revisit the 'green' quote you have written to understand the 20% part he was talking about. In the quote Puir says:He is saying that 20% of the Quran is not even comprehensible in any form of Arabic (even the Classical) and that it has no meaning. That just destroys your argument.This is a fatal mistake. Now who even told you that Classical Arabic in terms of Standard Arabic is "a completely different language"?! Making such claims without the knowledge of the language is so immature!

You can never compare Old English to Modern English the same way you compare Standard to Classical!

Yes, I can. I just did and it was valid in every way that I applied it.
I have checked and I am told that 8th century Arabic has morphed in similar fashion... just like every other spoken language. Are you trying to tell me that Arabic, unlike every other spoken language does not morph over time?

I don't even know why I'm arguing with a non-Arabic speaker, but I'll continue for the sake of you benefitting in a way.

I get this line from the Koranic apologists every time. It is a de facto admission of failure on the part of those who pretend to have a valid argument for the outrageous claims made by Muslim faithful. I speak honestly and truthfully and those who are offended by my challenges wax dishonest in their arguments and replies.

It happens every time.

You're even contradicting yourself by once saying there is no way "to realistically claim that 80%-90% of it is understandable...." then saying

I did NOT contradict myself. Quote me exactly and show how that is so. But you won't. Because you can't. Because I didn't.
Yet another false accusation from Verisica.
(I suggest that you stop doing that... for a variety of good reasons)

And just FYI - do not accuse an elder of being immature. You probably lack the experience to make such an evaluation. (and that is so immature). 

If you're going with the view the quote saying that 20% is not understandable even in Arabic, then I have to say that you and Puir are wrong.

You said it. Not me. It was your own words and I quoted you exactly.

If your view is that 40% is not understandable like Shakespeare's play, then it is because of my not-so-vast knowledge of Standard and Classical Arabic, which I don't see how it affects the inimitability of the Quran.

More totally irrelevant commentary. I have said NOTHING about the inimitability of the Koran.

And let me add, Verisica, that your English is superior to most English speakers I know including my own son with a college degree.

Now here is a sample of Chaucer with the modernized English;
(Note again that Chaucer is about seven centuries more contemporary than 700AD)

Although Chaucer's language is much closer to modern English than the text of Beowulf, it differs enough that most publications modernise his idiom. Following is a sample from the prologue of "The Summoner's Tale" that compares Chaucer's text to a modern translation:

Original Text   Modern Translation

This frere bosteth that he knoweth helle,   This friar boasts that he knows hell,
And God it woot, that it is litel wonder;   And God knows that it is little wonder;
Freres and feendes been but lyte asonder.   Friars and fiends are seldom far apart.
For, pardee, ye han ofte tyme herd telle   For, by God, you have ofttimes heard tell
How that a frere ravyshed was to helle   How a friar was taken to hell
In spirit ones by a visioun;   In spirit, once by a vision;
And as an angel ladde hym up and doun,   And as an angel led him up and down,
To shewen hym the peynes that the were,   To show him the pains that were there,
In al the place saugh he nat a frere;   In all the place he saw not a friar;
Of oother folk he saugh ynowe in wo.   Of other folk he saw enough in woe.
Unto this angel spak the frere tho:   Unto this angel spoke the friar thus:
Now, sire, quod he, han freres swich a grace   "Now sir", said he, "Have friars such a grace
That noon of hem shal come to this place?   That none of them come to this place?"
Yis, quod this aungel, many a millioun!   "Yes", said the angel, "many a million!"
And unto sathanas he ladde hym doun.   And unto Satan the angel led him down.
--And now hath sathanas,--seith he,--a tayl   "And now Satan has", he said, "a tail,
Brodder than of a carryk is the sayl.   Broader than a galleon's sail.
Hold up thy tayl, thou sathanas!--quod he;   Hold up your tail, Satan!" said he.
--shewe forth thyn ers, and lat the frere se   "Show forth your arse, and let the friar see
Where is the nest of freres in this place!--   Where the nest of friars is in this place!"
And er that half a furlong wey of space,   And before half a furlong of space,
Right so as bees out swarmen from an hyve,   Just as bees swarm out from a hive,
Out of the develes ers ther gonne dryve   Out of the devil's arse there were driven
Twenty thousand freres on a route,   Twenty thousand friars on a rout,
And thurghout helle swarmed al aboute,   And throughout hell swarmed all about,
And comen agayn as faste as they may gon,   And came again as fast as they could go,
And in his ers they crepten everychon.   And every one crept into his arse.
He clapte his tayl agayn and lay ful stille.   He shut his tail again and lay very still.[20]

It's really funny how you are writing these words when you can't even read Standard Arabic.
I still can't get what you mean by 'Ancient Arabic'. If you're talking about the earliest manuscripts with their undecipherable calligraphy and without tashkeel, then surely I won't be able to read it. I'm tired of repeating the fact that the Quran everyone has today is the exact same one the Quraysh used to recite 1400 years ago. If you want to deny the facts, then its up to you. Please read what wikipedia says about Classical Arabic.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Arabic
Now I won't beg you to believe me that almost all Arabs today understand Classical Arabic.
I didn't admit anything. I'm young and still learning more and more about the Classical Arabic. Next time I'll laugh at an English speaking teenager who doesn't understand part of a Shakesperean play, and I'll accuse Shakespeare of writing plays with a 30% untranslatable language. That is your logic.

hahahahaha. Thank you!

Not only is that good logic but it is true! (on the colloquial level).

Easily 30% of Shakespeare is incomprehensible to the average modern English speaker. Maybe even more like 40%....
The average American only "listening" to a Shakespeare play by British actors will not be able to understand well over HALF of what is being said.

And that is nowhere near 1300 years old. Chaucer is more like 50% incomprehensible in the written form. And both of those authors are nowhere near as ancient as the Arabic of 700AD.

Now as for the exact designation as "untranslatable" versus "incomprehensible" it gets a bit more complicated. In the time of Shakespeare we have a HUGE volume of comparative writing to work with as well as a continuous and uninterrupted stream or flow of prior written material and contemporary material and later material. So we can make very well educated translations.

That continuous volume of prior and following written material is NOT the case with 700AD Quraysh Arabic. Not even close. The comparison is not even close to valid.

And even Chaucer is 700 years more contemporary as the Arabic of 700AD.

700AD -- THAT is what I mean by ANCIENT. It is the equivalent of "Old English" to contemporary native English speakers, i.e. a completely different language. Barely two words back to back that even remotely resemble modern English.

Now I won't beg you to believe me that almost all Arabs today understand Classical Arabic.

Good. Since there is no way I am going to buy that BS. NO WAY. Especially the illiterate sector.

[current]

By 'nonsense' I meant does not make sense [maybe I used the wrong term, but excuse me English is my second language], and your quote says so clearly.
lol, you seem to have completely misunderstood the green quote you have quoted. It clearly talks about the current, Uthmanic, Quraysh dialect Quran which we now use.
False. Your claim is baseless. The Quran I have in my house is written in the Quraysh dialect of 700 AD [compiled by Uthman] and I understand 80 if not 90% of it. In addition, the hadiths are the words Prophet Muhammad spoke (and they are in the Quraysh dialect since he was from that tribe, spoken more than a thousand year ago as well). He didn't speak except with great clarity and simplicity, and none of his words were changed, and I do understand all his hadiths without difficulty. There are three categories of Arabic: Classical Arabic, Standard Arabic, and Colloquial Arabic.
Classical Arabic is the Arabic in which the Quran is written, highly eloquent and strong with its meanings and words.
Standard Arabic which is used in newspapers, tv news, and books.
And colloquial Arabic, which is the common Arabic everyone nowadays speaks with a great variety of dialects according to each country.
Every normal Arabic speaker understands all, including the classical (which was spoken a thousand years ago).
The 20% mentioned in the quote refers to the current Quran which every educated Arab understands almost all.
NOW? Do you get it?

Well, now I do get the level of DEEP DENIAL and how pervasive it runs in contemporary mythology.

There is NO WAY the average modern Arabic speaker can read the earliest known versions of the Koran (1000-1300 years ago) and be able to realistically claim that 80%-90% of it is understandable....



Such a claim is laughable.

NO WAY

You HAVE TO HAVE STUDIED ancient Arabic at least a little to make that claim.

But now ...

You admitted right here to understanding only 80% (to 90%) which is basically what the quote I gave earlier was claiming!! 20% is untranslatable!

There.

We're done.

[understands]

You didn't say anything actually. I was talking about this part of your quote:I asked for an example but you ignored me.
If you meant the dialects, then yes everyone knows the Quran was revealed in seven ahruf [dialects] for every Arab tribe at the time of the prophet would understand. I personally haven't read other dialects, but the dialect everyone nowadays use and understands is that of the Quraysh tribe which prophet Muhammad (pbuh) belonged to.
I don't see what this has to do with the original green quote you have quoted.

Right! exactly. "the Quran in itself is nonsense" is not part of anything I said or part of anything I quoted. Your accusation was completely false.

Yes, I see that you do not understand that the green quote I gave demonstrates how language changes over the passing centuries.

Even the Quraysh dialect of 700AD is incomprehensible to the closest Arabic dialect in modern times.

NOW? do you get it?

I did not ignore you. You asked me for an example that I cannot provide because this level of Koran study is not readily available on the internet. But I do understand basic Linguistics and I know that the average modern Arabic speaker will NOT be able to understand the closest Arabic dialect of a thousand years ago. That's just the way it is.
That is why I ask you if you have tried to read a facsimile copy of the earliest known versions. Because I know that you will not be able to understand about 90% of it unless you are an Ancient Arabic Scholar. And according to Western Ancient Arabic Scholars 20% of it is untranslatable.

However, the quote you have quoted claims that the Quran in itself (with its meanings) is nonsense, which is different than what you have just written.

That's not what I said. Quote me exactly and show where I said "the Quran in itself is nonsense". You won't do that because you can't do that because I never said that. You are being dishonest. {the quote that I quoted claims 20% is not translatable}

Typical obfuscation (to put it mildly).

I am not talking about silly "Tashkeel" here Verisica, I am talking about a completely different dialect. Not just "difficult to read" as in missing vowel sounds... but entirely different spelling of entirely different words so much so that it borders on a completely different language.

I am even more certain now. You have not seen a facsimile of one of the original and earliest known versions of the Koran. Admit it.

I spent 15 years working directly with devout Muslim coworkers who openly admitted that the earliest versions of the Koran were incomprehensible to modern Arabic Speakers. Their Arabic was not so good in any case as Urdu was their native tongue but the point remains the same.