Re: Am I doomed?
I have, indeed, looked at this argument and read several articles and essays. I cannot see that it is based on anything more substantial than a claim of an original literary style, no part of which can be reproduced or improved upon. Having read the Quran in English, this is obviously not the case with the translation. The argument usually continues that it only applies to the original, classical Arabic version. As the vast majority of those making this argument are neither fluent in classical Arabic nor experts in classical Arabic literature, this is no more than hearsay. Even if the proponent was a fluent classical Arabic literary expert, the observations are overwhelmingly subjective with an a priori belief in the miraculous. I have yet to read anything by a non-believer which supports this claim.
Hamza Tzorzis, in his essay on the subject, states "What makes the Qur’an a miracle, is that it is impossible for a human being to compose something like it". This is just circular logic. It is not impossible, as a human did compose it, even allowing that it has not been repeated. The simple fact that a human did compose it is proof that it is not miraculous. The evidence for it's divine origin needs to come from somewhere other than the assertion that it is, in itself, divine.
I have not read anything in medieval English to match Chaucer, or colloquial Scots to match Welsh, or idiomatic American to match Morgan. Literary genius, yes. Miraculous, no. Camus, even when translated into English, is breathtaking in his inimitability. In French, it must be even better! Even the Lord of the Rings was utterly unique when written and although it has been copied countless times, it has never been equalled. Was Tolkien divinely inspired, or just a good storyteller?
Originally posted by Ahmed ibn Adan
View Post
Hamza Tzorzis, in his essay on the subject, states "What makes the Qur’an a miracle, is that it is impossible for a human being to compose something like it". This is just circular logic. It is not impossible, as a human did compose it, even allowing that it has not been repeated. The simple fact that a human did compose it is proof that it is not miraculous. The evidence for it's divine origin needs to come from somewhere other than the assertion that it is, in itself, divine.
I have not read anything in medieval English to match Chaucer, or colloquial Scots to match Welsh, or idiomatic American to match Morgan. Literary genius, yes. Miraculous, no. Camus, even when translated into English, is breathtaking in his inimitability. In French, it must be even better! Even the Lord of the Rings was utterly unique when written and although it has been copied countless times, it has never been equalled. Was Tolkien divinely inspired, or just a good storyteller?
Comment