>>6482 Not just a translation with old English and a thousand footnotes of what things mean, but a good translation and interpretation of the Quran in perhaps simple English from this century.
>>6480 There are easier ways to getting radicalised.
I read it and it's all nonsense made up by some totalitarian warlord. The quran is full of inconsistencies and contradictions. Absurd mix of Sabian /Talmud/New Testament prophecies.
A positive about reading the quran is understanding where ISIS, Boko Haram etc come from as they interpret the book ad verbum.
So not unlike the bible then, in that if people bothered to read the thing they would realised the moral codes they promote are barbaric, and are incompatible with modern society.
This is the uncomfortable truth about the Westbro Baptist church. God really does hate fags.
>So not unlike the bible then, in that if people bothered to read the thing they would realised the moral codes they promote are barbaric, and are incompatible with modern society.
>if people bothered to read the thing
>they would realised the moral codes
>and are incompatible with modern society
>>6500 I'm not a Christian, but my understanding is that the Bible has been changed to fit with the modern times. Although, how anyone can take something that gets changed so often seriously is weird to me. The barbarians who believe the static Quran seem more rational to me.
The bible became codified at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.
So no, only the interpretation and 'translation' has been changed (parts conveniently ignored and amended to reinforce an interpretation). Weirdly the Torah didn't become codified until the 11th century which makes the Christian account more accurate. The dead sea scrolls are far enough away from either in their content to undermine any concept of divine truth contained within though.
>>6505 No. The Da Vinci Code is not historically accurate. The Council Of Nicea did not decide which books would go in the Bible, that was decided a century before by a document called the Muratorian Canon. A fragment of it was found and it had a list of books very similar to the New Testament. Furthermore, a search of what the Church men were saying in the second and third century show that they did not mention any extra books that were then removed by the Council.
>>6502 Purely from a historical perspective, the Quran is the most valid Abrahamic religious text because it was created late enough to have sources from other societies such as the Byzantine and Persian empire comment on it. It was written within one century whereas the Bible is a mish mash of books spanning over five centuries. A lack of independent scrutiny from other civilisations also make the Bible particularly iffy compared to the Quran as we didn't get the account of the Israelites from the Assyrians for example. This is in stark contrast to Islam which faced the wrath of Saint John of Damascus pretty early on.
Furthermore, the archaeological evidence from the various sites mentioned in the Bible do not add up to the historical account. To be fair though, the Quran mentions flying horses and genies and men who were 12 feet tall, so perhaps it's all hogwash.
To GCHQlad: I have a passing interest in theology, this does not make me a radical nor does this deserve being logged
>>6507 >The Council Of Nicea did not decide which books would go in the Bible, that was decided a century before by a document called the Muratorian Canon
I stand corrected, I wouldn't touch the 'Da Vinci Code', my source is various public educational institutions which evidently have been telling everyone the wrong thing (it seems to be a common enough misconception the Wikipedia page even mentions it).