Messages

Verisica, have you ever seen a copy of any single version of the oldest known Koran in the original Arabic?

I am talking about the oldest known editions.

It would be written in the Arabic dialect of 700AD to 1000AD.

Most of it would be incomprehensible to you or any modern Arabic speaker unless you were an Ancient Arabic Scholar.

At best, it would read to you the way this following script reads to modern English speakers
Middle English example:

Ormulum, 12th century
Further information: Ormulum
This passage explains the background to the Nativity:

Forrþrihht anan se time comm
  þatt ure Drihhtin wollde
ben borenn i þiss middellærd
  forr all mannkinne nede
he chæs himm sone kinnessmenn
  all swillke summ he wollde
and whær he wollde borenn ben
  he chæs all att hiss wille.   

As soon as the time came
that our Lord wanted
to be born in this middle-earth
for the sake of all mankind,
at once he chose kinsmen for himself,
all just as he wanted,
and he decided that he would be born
exactly where he wished.   

(3494–501)[5]


Verisica... I suspect that I know wayyy more about all of this than you think I do.

[The Koran claims for itself that it is 'mubeen,' or 'clear,' but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense. Many Muslims—and Orientalists—will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible.]

I won't reply on your first two statements, there's nothing to say.
Please bring me an Arab non-muslim to begin making a 'decent, rational claim'. I can't start anything with people who do not speak the language of Quran.
Actually, volumes have been written proving the superiority of Quran and the miraculous nature of it. I don't think a post would do enough for such a broad topic. You can read this brief page to have an idea of what I'm talking about:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Miracle/ijaz.html

I know most religious websites are biased, but this page is mostly quoting other people.

Sure it does.
(Volumes have also been written to discredit it)

But for some reason it does not quote this scholar;

In a 1999 Atlantic Monthly article, Gerd Puin is quoted as saying that:[2]
My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants. The Koran claims for itself that it is 'mubeen,' or 'clear,' but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense. Many Muslims—and Orientalists—will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Koran is not comprehensible—if it can't even be understood in Arabic—then it's not translatable. People fear that. And since the Koran claims repeatedly to be clear but obviously is not—as even speakers of Arabic will tell you—there is a contradiction. Something else must be going on.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscripts


I am thinking you probably do not want to continue down this road....

[did]

I didn't get you. You were replying to the first post I posted.

That is an absurd claim to make. I was obviously replying to the text that was in a quote box immediately prior to my reply. You then tried to refer back to some non sequitur from earlier posts. 

I didn't say anything irrelevant. I was only stating my view regarding the statement that said "Yes, "cultural pre-conditioning" is most likely at the root of it. Maybe even a certain amount of indoctrination as well."
I agree that it suggests, but you were talking previously as if it did borrow.

Yes you did -- Your reply was completely irrelevant. Nothing in that quote states or claims what your irrelevant reply was addressing and refuting.

I am glad that you "agree that it suggests" because it clearly does. At least you are trying to be rational.

Anyways, I see what we're doing now is fruitless, just picking about what the other said. I already made a statement about "the Quran being the only text..." but then found I'm wrong after seeing other videos. I still however insist on the Quran being superior in every way (in its content, message, literary style, and the effect it does on the listener), but that's not my main topic of the thread

Heh, okay. You can "insist on the Quran being superior in every way" but you can't even begin to make a decent, rational case for such a claim. But you are allowed your "belief". No one begrudges you that much.

[does]

Did you miss my response where I said...

No, I did not miss that. But I was replying to your statement that I quoted directly before my reply. (Which came AFTER that other statement so this misdirect of yours is mere obfuscation)

:I'm just stating my belief.

well then... I believe there is life on Mars...but like your comment in stating that random belief... it is totally irrelevant and has nothing to do with anything anyone said. (But it did share a few words and thus serves as obfuscation in these sorts of discussions. Refuting something that no one has said is a fairly common semantic trick that I easily spot nowadays).

I can't really find that striking similarity, but if you believe so then be it. Similarity doesn't imply borrowing at all.

umm... it basically does suggest "borrowing". Especially when it occurs in close proximity to the borrowed source in time and space.  I did not say "striking" similarity. I said "obvious" similarity because it is, well... OBVIOUS.

I didn't say it helps generating the soothing feelings, I meant that it helps in appreciating the spiritual meaning behind the Quran with its exquisite Arabic form which no one up till now has been successful in surpassing it. An Arabic speaker would understand what I'm saying clearly.

Actually, that's not what you said.
From your OP; "I believe (and I strongly do) that the Quran is the only text that could create this majestic, spiritual, melodious feeling without the aid of music, just by a human's voice."
But yes, an Arabic speaker would likely have been indoctrinated in similar fashion.

I replied that it is NOT the "only" text and/or recitation style that elicits that sort of response... Christian scripture sung in the Old Roman and Greek chant style is nearly indistinguishable from the examples you gave. The most apparent distinguishing element is the difference in language - Arabic sounds a little different.

I don't believe cultural pre-conditioning is required to live the spiritual feeling of the Quran.

No one said it did.

And I can't see why you're insisting on the Quran building up its recitation form from previous cultures. There are endless ways to recite the Quran and this is just one, and I can't see the similarity between the Quran and the videos you posted.

The Koran recitations you linked to were obviously a simple variation of the more ancient Greek and Old Roman chant style. Any objective listener can hear it. Those who express the inability to detect the obvious similarity is either tone deaf or in deep denial, imo.

[harsh]

I do understand most of them were 'voice only'. But you see, I would be interested in hearing this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSHUwpTezK0) being sung by a man [we all know women have a magical voice even when speaking naturally ). Or this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HswNka-jXU8&feature=related) being sung by a single man himself, and not by a choir. The beauty of Quran is that it can be recited by a single man with a harsh voice and still sound solemn and relaxing. Maybe that's only my opinion
Not to sound rude, but the man singing at 12:50 doesn't even come close to Quran or to the other videos posted here. You can say he was merely reading 

It does not sound "rude" so much as it sounds ridiculously biased.
"Merely reading"?! gimmee a break!

It is an ancient ritual sung in an ancient language based on even more ancient tradition of worship sung in an even more ancient and holy language. It is an awesome sound that inspires millions. It is the solo male voice that you requested and it easily comes at least close to the Koran recitation examples you gave, if not surpassing it. I think it wayyy surpasses the koran reading, imho.

Also note that the old Greek and Roman chants usually begin with the solo male voice you require and that section has a very similar sound to the Koran recitation (because the latter is obviously based on those traditions).

It is not reasonable to heap praise on a rare style that is particular to one culture and eliminate other styles based on such a tightly defined and contrived criteria. 99.99% of the scriptural compositions and readings in other traditions are not naturally constrained in that way so it doesn't make sense to point out the singular qualities of a particular highly constrained style.
Especially when there are plenty of examples (albeit much shorter duration) of nearly identical sound in other traditions and scriptural sources.

The thing I noticed is that as I began going OBE more frequently I began having more false awakenings. Last night my arthritis was hurting really bad and I had a very vivid and realistic dream of going down to the kitchen and mixing up a batch of glucosamine/condroitin fizzy drink.

I only felt sure it was a dream when I came down to make coffee and saw there was no glass or powder mix package on the counter.

I think what the author meant was... How do you feel when you hear a quaran recitation? Is it as soothing for you as it was for me? For me it really was, I had this consciousness elevation and goose pimples when I heard it.

The first one was more soothing than the second link that Verisica gave. The second one had a reader who did not sing as well and it had the translation, which had parts about evil coming to those who don't respect Allah properly and that was not very relaxing or inspiring at all. This runs counter to Verisica's guess that maybe understanding the Arabic helps in generating that soothing feeling.

Some cultural pre-conditioning might play a role though, as always with what we are raised and what forms our enviroment in our formative years leaves its imprint somehow and also influences 'taste'.
I believe we should not do such thing as a 'beauty competition' between religions or whatever ideological-philosophical systems.

Yes, "cultural pre-conditioning" is most likely at the root of it. Maybe even a certain amount of indoctrination as well.

I do not have a problem with a "beauty contest" - I think the comparisons are a worthy study.
There is research showing that people hooked up to EEGs and other equipment have the same physiological response to music regardless of the culture they were raised in. From Mongolian and Siberian peasants, to Africans to Native Americans to Europeans... all had nearly identical physiological responses to different types of music.

I'm not Catholic so not sure about this but I think this is usually part of traditional Catholic Mass. I came across this video in a quick search which has some Latin recitation. After flicking through it I found a part that starts around 12:50. The language is supposed to be Latin but the Man reciting seems to be French so it sounds... wrong.

Oh YEAH! That's the stuff...

Father Frenchy gargles his R's a little there (ok - maybe a LOT) but other than that his Latin pronunciation is Primo.

me rikey!

Pick it up again at 23 minutes in... awesome.

Thanks Manwesulimo. Good find.

Okay, your first post said only "just by a human's voice" and my suggestions met the criteria.

But single male voice only...

I had to think a minute but then the Irish came to mind;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyJVE4MzXbE&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-Tt9HgPXDo&feature=fvwrel


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVwIZUSbKP4&feature=related


That was just a quick search. The land where a man often could only sing for his supper produced some masterpieces that easily stand toe to toe with Quranic recitation.

[voice only]

Oh good, glad you're back. 

but I have noticed that almost all the videos you posted were sung by a chorus, aided by music...

NOT true!!!

I think, on the contrary, nearly all of the examples I linked to were without musical accompaniment. Voice only. ??

In the case of the food court flashmob Halleluiah Chorus the organ was barely audible 90% of the time and is really superfluous (it could be left out completely with zero loss in the sound and inspiration).
The 4 syllable mantra was the Hebrew chant? that I gave merely as an example of the historical base that these ancient sounds grew from.

My point was in showing that the Christian Polyphonia is the hands down winner in voice only inspirational recitation.

The first example was plain chant, voice only and had no musical accompaniment.
(type "plain chant" in the search at Youtube and get tons more like it)

The second example was voice only had no musical accompaniment

The third was the Halleluiah Chorus with barely audible organ most of the time.

The fourth example of Old Roman chant was voice only.

The fifth example, Misereri Mei Deus was voice only
(as well as the single most beautiful and sublime music ever sung by humans;)

The sixth and last example was Greek chant in Old Roman style and was  voice only

{whoa! - I just noticed your bolded requirements... "man" only, single voice only... hmmm odd restrictions but okay... I have to think about that. Culturally that will be rare in the Western styles since they are more inclusive by nature... I do not think I can even search "male voice only" and expect the search engine to have a clue about what it is that I am after}

The studies are done. It is an obvious forgery.

The repeated claim about there being no contemporary reference to the man is just more anti-Christian lies meant to suppress a spontaneous, grass roots based but foreign power force that the elites can't control. Check out Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny. All pagan and near contemporary comments on Jesus the man. That much alone is pretty amazing for a simple wandering mendicant who was neither King nor Conqueror.

It sounds like what you "hate about theses ancients and there Religious beliefs" is a bunch of lies and fabrications.

I don't think we need another book.

We have plenty of good ones already. What we are lacking is sufficient courage and motivation to actually do the hard work of improving our state of Consciousness.

Here is a sample of Aramaic from the period claimed in the article;
http://www.schoyencollection.com/aram-heb-syr_files/ms1911_1.jpg

Notice anything?

Like the Aramaic script styles are completely different in that this so called Barnabas gospel dubiously dated to be 1500 years old is going to be adjusted to more like 1000 years old and its authenticity will be plainly in doubt.

Plus there is no mention of this gospel in any of the early controversies and canonical arguments ...

obvious baloney.

I did a quick search and found this;

"The Gospel of Barnabas (GB) is a well known late-medieval forgery (most likely 15th or 16th Century Spain) which purports to be a lost or suppressed gospel by the apostle Barnabas.
[...]
With regard to authenticity its challenges are numerous:

- it refers to jubilees occurring every 100 years rather than every fifty as was the case in the early Christian epoch (changed to 100 years intervals in 14th century)

- uses the fourth century Latin vulgate translation of the Bible (challenging for first century author)

- claims that Jesus was born when Pilate was governor (26 or 27 A.D.)

- claims that Nazareth is a seashore or lakeshore village

- despite the editors apparent attempt to confuse GB with the first century Epistle of Barnabus or the fifth century apocryphal Acts of Barnabas there is no reference to this text by either Christian or Islamic writers prior to approximately 1600"

http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Barnabas-Apocrypha-Foreword-Muhammad/product-reviews/1881316157

In India it is believed that Sandalwood incense "purifies" the atmosphere.

Marilynn Hughes highly recommends incense and holy water to prepare the area for an OBE attempt.
She is one of the most successful projectors living today and her OBEs are fantastic quality!

Someone posted a link to her most recent free e-book here a couple weeks ago... just search her name to find it.

Bing "Self talk" and you'll find a lot on this.


http://positiveselftalk.com/
"Maximum Strength Positive Thinking tells you what to say when your mind talks to you, and what to say when you talk to your mind."

 

They should make them a retro sixties phosphorescent glow-in-the-dark kind,
in the latest cool colors like lime green and hot pink.

Everybody at Times Square at midnight Dec 21, 2012 will have to have one, or two.

Please no hateful replies. I'm looking for an educated conversation

So... does the conversation so far seem educated enough for you ? Verisica?... or what?
I think it is a great topic you started here. But you have not replied.

My guess is that if you're like most people you would quickly fall asleep.

Check out his website, maybe you will see for yourself! If you did you would see that write up I gave there was partially from his Biography, which is found on THAT website.

I have been familiar with his website for a couple years now.
I saw that your post was a cut n paste from his site.
That does not change the nature of my question in any way, shape or form.

A modern Renaissance man, Oberon is a transpersonal psychologist, metaphysician, naturalist, theologian, shaman, author, artist, sculptor, lecturer, teacher, and ordained Priest of the Earth-Mother, Gaia..... He is also an initiate in the Egyptian Church of the Eternal Source, a Priest in the Fellowship of Isis, and an initiate in several different Traditions of Witchcraft. He holds academic degrees in sociology, anthropology, clinical psychology, teaching, and theology.

In my book he would also need a degree in the hard sciences with a few successful years of related career work to qualify as a "Renaissance man". Many of the descriptive terms you used to describe him are nearly synonymous and basically redundant, imho.

Can you name a few characteristics that would clarify what you mean by, "true Wizard in the traditional sense"?

Interesting stuff. So basically if we pick two references to "angel" in an English translation they could actually be referring to different things?

Yes. Especially in terms of the Old Testament versus the New Testament.

The NT is written in Greek and uses the simple "aggelos" and gives us the word we use today. The OT has lots of different words for different types of Angels.
Also keep in mind that the NT was written in the span of a few hundred years while the OT was written over the course of thousands of years and began as ancient oral history rendered into writing after millenia of oral transmission.

I feel like I need to get better at communicating with myself while sleeping / almost asleep. If I was, the whole thing might have ended up being lucid.

A good way to be more lucid while dreaming is to be more lucid while awake. One hand washes the other.

I gave up watching TV for a short time when I was trying to learn to focus deeper. Now that I have, the TV doesn't bother me as much. Except for the "brainwashing" commercials, I just can't get used to them!

This gets to the heart of it. The commercials are pure hypnosis imho.
Watch the wall of a dark room with the TV going with the sound muted and notice the "strobe light" effect. These marketing folks know exactly what they are doing.

TV turns the brain to mush.

[27] So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Right.

*Man* was created in God's image. Nothing is said about Angels being created in any such image. "Angel" means messenger.

In the gospel of Judas it appears that at least certain types of angels are created and uncreated on a whim. The Archangels seem to have eternal status as personalities while the seraphim and cherubim are less certain, I think.
The Hebrew hiearchy gets complicated. There is a "malekeh" which I think is the regular type messenger and then then a "Sar" which is a "spirit prince". There are others types too. The Mormons hold that only a married man who begets children can become a god and single but righteous humans can become a type of angel.

if angels are the image of god where is the difference?

Where does it say angels are the image of God?