Manga News: Check out these new manga (5/11/15 - 5/17/15).
New Forums: Visit the new forums for Boku no Hero Academia!
Forum News: Cast your votes to determine the best parent in the Anime Showdown.
this is pretty cool I already know most of the prophets then
i thought that the aurat for women extended only up to the ankles in the feet?
and does aurat also include that the clothes be not tight-fitting to hide the body's outline or just that the necessary body parts are covered?
i would like to share this. somewhat humorous for non-muslims but i think this is a great invention to allow muslim females to enjoy active outdoor activities....
and it also for those not wanting to show skin for non-muslims albeit for more "cosmetic" reasons
About aurat, yes, for woman it is the whole body except the palms and the face. It's a basic rules of women's aurat in Quran. And by women wearing a thight outfit that the body outline is shown, it can be considered an aurat revealing.
Well I think its time I gave back to our Muslim folks who have been so accomodating to us in the Islam Q&A thread!
I'll me using information compiled into wikepedia.
So these are the two "minimum" prerequisites to be called a Christian whic differentiates them from Jews and Moslems.Quote:
This is the main difference with the Jews as they are still waiting for "their" Messiah to come....Quote:
Regarding the different sects/denominations of Christianity....
This was brought about by historical internal and external factors. At the start, Christianity was persecuted and when it ended and they were given power and a favourable status, the unity that held them united in the persecution was shattered and like a corked bottle, almost exploded into different sects/denomination/beliefs with different interpretations of their doctrine. The emerging authority structure tried to resolve these by convening different "church councils" to resolve these disputes. As humans are not perfect, almost every council resulted in some form of a breakup from the dominant stream of Christianity resulting in what you see today.
The differences range from the fundamental/canonical (scripture-related, the nature of Christ) to the sacramental (rites of worship, the role of different Traditions) and even political (the legitimate authority to arbitrate matters of faith and morals).
Regarding the Old Testament and New Testament...
The Old Testament consists of books that the Jews hold to be divinely inspired (the Torah/Pentateuch, historical writings, Psalms, Prophetic texts, etc). The New Testament consist of books written after the OT that deal with the teachings and life of Christ. There are apochryphal/deuterocannonical books which are in dispute as whether they are divinely inspired or just worthy as supplemental reading.
As the Bible is held as the Word of God, the translators have quite a power on how the Word of God is made understandable in the language to be translated.
Hence, the different denominations advocate different translations that affirm/do not contradict their teachings.
So there are almost no finite "versions" of the Bible as anyone with the resources and translation to print one can claim it as his own "version" of it.
now, when is the atheist/agnostic/existentialist thread coming up?
maybe there ought to be one for the jews and other eastern asian religions....
Last edited by TechnoMagus; May 03, 2007 at 09:19 PM.
We(Christians) have many versions of bible in English alone. There is no specific number of translation available.
I'll give you an example.
Arguably, the most accurate version is King James Version(KJV). This is said so because KJV retains the most of the original hebrew/old English translation. Words like thy, thou, brethen are used widely in KJV. However, this poses several problems to those who find it too boring and hard to understand because of all the thou and thy. Notice this also, the language used in KJV is more poetic than the rest of the versions as well, again making it the not-so-appealing type of version to normal people who prefers readability to accuracy.
Hence, KJV comes up with New King James Version (NKJV). It still retains the old English but some of the sentences are restructured (but same meaning) to improve readability.
So you see, even for KJV alone, there are already several versions of it.
Another TRUSTED version is of course New International Version (NIV). This is the most widely used version in the world. In fact, I plan to get a study bible from NIV. NIV replaces all the thou, thy, brethen to brothers, you, we...etc. So, it automatically enhances readability without altering the meaning of the bible itself. It is one of the most readable bible version of all time with simple, concise usage of English.
The current bible that I am using is New Living Translation (NLT). Take note of this also, NLT is not a VERSION, rather it is a TRANSLATION. It is a translation of the original version but it does not have variations of its own like (KJV NKJV). It is also very readable. Some prefer this translation because the English used is very straightfoward and easy to understand.
There are also other versions of English bible because different countries use different English. For instance, Americans will use American English Bible like American Standard Version (ASV) while the UK people might prefer the bible to be written in British English, thus the English Contemporary Version (ECV). Besides, we also have different types of bible to suit different age groups. Students might go for "Study Bible For Teens" while the children might want to read "Children Bible". Every versions contain the same essence, the only difference is the way it presents itself to suit different people with different English command and needs. A scholar will usually goes for KJV but layman like you and I who just want to catch the meaning and not the aesthetic value of it, might mostly go for NKJV, NIV or NLT according to our own preferences.
That's about the different versions of bible.
At first, there was only one type of Christianity. As time evolved, especially during the Reformation era, the Catholics were corrupted with the selling of Certificate of Indulgence and the priests of the era were too concerned about the spiritual life that they ignored almost totally the secular life. Martin Luther King was the first one to protest against the selling of Certificate of Indulgence and also to criticize the Catholic churches for some of their wrongdoings. After the first printing machine in Europe was invented by Johann Gutenberg, printing of bibles became an easy task. Soon, everyone was able to afford cheap bibles and realized how the Catholics had diverted from the original teaching of the Christ. To fight that, protestant movement was inspired by Martin Luther King. Hence, we now have Protestant and Catholics.
John Calvin and Martin Luther King were some of the most notable early Protestant founders. Of course, not all the Catholics were corrupted, which was why the Reformed Catholics came into the drama as well. These people (couldn't remember their name... ) also lived a very modest life without corruption and they claimed themselves to be reformed Catholics. Over the years, there were a lot of holy wars in Europe between Protestant and Catholics that divided Europe into Pro-Catholics and Pro-Protestant.
You will notice that the northen countries are more towards Protestantism while the southern countries advocate Catholicism. Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal.....so on and so forth are also considered as a Protestant movement. Basically, all the non-Catholics are Protestant. Of course, in our modern days, some prefer to call themselves as non-denominational, meaning that they are neither Catholics nor Protestant.
If you look at the content:
1. Eastern Churches
3. Churches of Reformation (often described as "Protestant")
So you see, those non-Catholics are just under a big umbrella called "Protestant" no matter what denomination they are in.
That's a little about denomination.
Last edited by Leen; May 03, 2007 at 11:36 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
here is a list of modern english bible translations....
I'll try to be more objective here.Quote:
--If you want readability, yes try the NLT and other paraphrased/dynamic versions. These are also more suitable for private reading as the text does not "weigh" you down.
--The KJV has a high degree of accuracy with what original text was available at that time aside from its literary, sentimental, historical and religious value.
--The NIV is a balance between the paraphrased and the scholastic/formal character of the KJV.
The more recent versions benefit from the recent discoveries of alternative original sources and thus are more appropriate for a more thorough scholarly work.
--Examples are the New Jerusalem Bible and the New/Revised Standard Version.
--For a cross-denominational version (several Christian denominations working together for a common bible that is accepted by many denominations), the RSV/NRSV is also appropriate.
--For liturgical/worship use, there's the New American Bible for Catholics and the KJV for some of the traditional/evangelical American Christian denominations and the RSV/NRSV for others.
The other versions are of sentimental, historical and old liturgical/worship (prior to modern reforms of several denominations) value.
As you can see, bible translations/versions are as numerous as the denominations that promote a particular one to be used.
it is interestng to note that a lot of the newer denominations "claim" primacy from the earliest form of Christianity and are erroneously labelled in the general term as "Protestants"(see Restorationism).
There really are too many versions of bible nowadays. However, the best thing to do (that's what I think) is to get a version that you are most comfortable with, and stick with it. If you switch from one version to another, sometimes it can be quite confusing.
Just something on a site note, when a group of my friends sit down for a bible study night and everyone reads a line from his or her bible, it was like WoW. Everyone with different sentence for different verses. XD It's quite interesting too. But at the end of the day, we all manage to grasp the meaning of that chapter and we still managed to do our bible study together. That only goes to show how different versions is not a big problem actually.
Of course, I have to agree to some degree of certainty about the chinese whispers. HEHEHE. I played that game several times and each time ended up with something completely different from the original message. XD
Thank you Technomagus and Leen for you answer. It must took you a while to write all of those . but it is worthwhile because at the end of the day other people will understand your religion better. thank you.
so leen, are you a protestant?
and how about you TechnoMagus?
Last edited by amar_kun; May 04, 2007 at 02:13 AM.
Thanks Technomagus for sharing the link
I hope with this invention, there will be no more perception of saying religion doesnt allow you to play sport. Actually, the outfit already being used by some athletes during the last Asian Game. Guess what, one of them even won the sprint for women!
this is the link for the news http://www.canada.com/topics/sports/...4d0bcc&k=72455
btw, i found a nice website in the internet about alQuran and science. You may wanna take a look because it is very interesting. http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/
Last edited by amar_kun; May 04, 2007 at 06:32 AM.
having studied the pre-requisite of 12 units of theology and 12 units of philosophy with the jesuits as NON-MAJOR subjects in a science and engineering course and being under 3 catholic schools for primary, secondary and tertiary education pretty makes it obvious....
As for me, I was under three methodist schools for kindergarten, primary and secondary schools. It's pretty obvious too where I stand. XD Plus, two semester of ethics, theology and philosophy in an Economics majoring degree program........ haha
it's good to know that there are muslim women out there who knows that hijab do not restrict their activities and interest in sports.