| |
|
Ravone
|
  |
| Joined: 17 Apr 2012 |
| Total Posts: 1619 |
|
| |
|
Rowpunk
|
  |
| Joined: 20 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 7387 |
|
|
| 23 Apr 2012 10:04 AM |
| But lo'! I did, and I thought that it was written quite sloppily. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 23 Apr 2012 10:05 AM |
Because you no read Arabic.
Go read the english version. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Rowpunk
|
  |
| Joined: 20 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 7387 |
|
|
| 23 Apr 2012 10:09 AM |
No, that's what I mean. If you argue that it is written awfully, then people will say, "well, once it was written down it was corrupted, and make imperfect"
And then they say that it would be made more corrupted when it was translated to different languages. So, yeah, the English version I read wasn't very good, the rhetoric was sloppy, and the meaning wasn't always up to par. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 23 Apr 2012 10:10 AM |
| Well I have to say, the translation was a but difficult. :/ |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 23 Apr 2012 10:11 AM |
bit*
new computer, not used to small buttons. :o |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Rowpunk
|
  |
| Joined: 20 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 7387 |
|
|
| 23 Apr 2012 10:14 AM |
*made
Sorry, typo on my part.
And that doesn't make sense, this book is translated into hundreds of languages, surely they can do a better job, no?
I've been talking about the Sahih International version, btw. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 23 Apr 2012 10:17 AM |
I think there is much better translations, as the ones used on some tv programs.
Add to that, Arabic is a very sensitive language, and the most complicated language in the world. So, translation must have been hard.
So I thank the translators afforts of translating (Those who didn't mean to change the meaning of the Quraan in any way on purpose). |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Rowpunk
|
  |
| Joined: 20 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 7387 |
|
|
| 23 Apr 2012 10:22 AM |
No, you don't seem to understand.
It is a book followed by over a billion people in this world, the translation better be sodding as close as it can get, else most of those people aren't following what they think they are.
If it is as close as it can get, the actual book is sloppy as well.
Therefore, either the translators cannot provide a proper translation for 1 Billion people, or the book is lacking in the first place. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 23 Apr 2012 10:34 AM |
| The book isn't lacking in first place. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Rowpunk
|
  |
| Joined: 20 Nov 2009 |
| Total Posts: 7387 |
|
|
| 23 Apr 2012 10:38 AM |
I argue that it is.
As I stated before, the rhetoric is sub-par, surely a holy book would have rhetoric that would sway anybody who laid their eyes on it, no? Surely a holy book would keep the same translation unless people added things, no? Surely the mastermind of said book would of anticipated it to be written down, no? If that is the case, then why is it argued that the book became corrupted as soon as it was written down.
If people claim the book is corrupted from its original state, why would you follow it? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 23 Apr 2012 10:51 AM |
Exactly, the religion nor the book is corrupted.
But, it is the whole truth.
end of statement. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
Smough
|
  |
| Joined: 06 Dec 2011 |
| Total Posts: 4672 |
|
| |
|