relaxjack wrote:To Loki
1) Loki said there is proof but he has not even given any single proof to say that the Prophet copied from the apocryphas. He made some wonderful suggestions that the Prophet borrowed from 3 or 4 apocryphas, but still failed to show us the evidence which says the books were translated into Arabic during/before the Prophet's time. Why is Loki still clinging on this idea when he has no proof? Give us PROOF if you are sincere!
2) Loki said
and to think that i gave you allready tons of different arguments for this one borrowed source only
And it only ends as 'arguments'. That is far from giving us PROOF. He could at least gave us some refernce to studies made, quoting historical datings, etc. 'Accusations' without facts cannot be close to Truth.
3)
overall muhammed has borrowed 80% of the quran (excluding vain repetition and his personal stories).
Now, that's STATISTICS. How did Loki come to that figure?
4)
he didn't have to read greek.... aramaic, syriac and coptic were close enough... and Waraqa could read and translate that
Are you saying the Prophet can read Aramaic, Syriac and Coptic? Waraqa was reported to have translated the Gospel into Hebrew... but the Prophet can read those languages? Wow... that is something new!
5) The hadith mentioned that the Prophet only met Waraqa twice. To be his teacher, I would only assumed that there should be close and constant interaction between the Prophet and Waraqa. That is not what the hadith says. Now, unless Loki can come up with another source which says that Muhammad (pbuh) studied or was in constant contact with Waraqa, then Loki is wrong again!
6)
It's very reasonable to believe that... next to that when Waraqa died, all the sudden revelation stopped for a period of time as well (coincidence?).
Waraqa died 3 years after Muhammad (pbuh) received the revelations. If he had already absorbed what he learnt from Waraqa, he could just continue with the revelations and gather more followers to the faith. Yet, as Loki mentioned the revelations stopped for some time.
7) I am not sure what Loki is talking about the story of the marble and the tar.
8)
Quote:
Having failed to give any carbon-dating of the apocryphal books (when he made such a bold statement that ALL the apocryphas had been carbon dated), maybe he could then continue with his studies (thru Internet or other sourcers) and tell us how he could come to such a remarkable claim.
that is what done with scriptual research my friend, especially with such important scriptures, again read something about the subject and get down from that ivory tower before you come off as if you know everything about it.
Scriptual research, you say? Then tell us what you have learnt about this remarkable carbon dating.
9)
euh historians aren't laywers, they can't always base everything on datings... historians have to interprate history like a puzzle... if a piece is missing they will give with reasonable arguments the most fitting piece. For instance... just because we don't read Julius Ceasar walking doesn't mean he was a cripple.
History is always associated with events and dates. If they cannot give any accurate dating, they give some dates that are closer to the events. You have not seen any of your 'historians' giving the dates of the Arabic Gospel of Infancy, have you?
Yes, in some cases historians do interprete/fit certain events with REASONABLE ARGUMENTS. In many cases, they provided links and studies made on some events to back up their claims. As far as possible, they are trying to be objective.
Unfortunately, what I have seen in your arguments, are pure speculations... you have not even provided any studies by scholars to back up your claim. Mostly, it is based on your conjectures.
10) Once again, there is really NO PROOF that the Quran borrowed from Gnostic source!
salam