Thread:FrenchTouch/@comment-1777104-20160627003843/@comment-1777104-20160628012420

I agree that the text of any documents revered by those of a religion has an important "subtext" to it. You have an advantage in having apparently read the Qu'ran recently. I read an edited version years ago (I still have it somewhere) that was arranged chronologically. It read much like myth and legend and was a lot shorter than the Bible.

The subtext of the Bible is telling the story of mankind in relationship to God. It begins with the creation and ends with a final restoration of all that is good in the universe. Along the way, it covers how mankind got so messed up and what God has done to become reconciled with humankind.

From what I remember from the Qu'ran it is a retelling of that story from another point of view. However, the Qu'ran is much in conflict with the Bible. Its similarities with the Torah are taken to be universal, beyond the taking of a land filled with perversion to the whole world (which is admittedly still in a bad way). That turns out to be very much against the principles taught in the prophets of the Old and New Testaments.

The fact that some Muslims take the text of the Qu'ran in the direction we see today, while not even the zealots among the Maccabees and the first century carried their religion that far, seems to indicate to me that the Qu'ran has a "subtext" far darker than anything you might find reading the Bible. I do not judge the Qu'ran by the radicals, and I hope you don't judge the Bible by some fringe group either. As I said, I read the Bible at face value. Any insight I might get comes not from "subtext" but from CONTEXT.

And no, I am not at GMT -01:00. The timestamp on my posts are on the default which is UTC. I am at GMT -05:00. I probably should change that, but when it is used by everyone, I can tell what I was doing at the time I received a message.

I will get that analysis of Sarah to you tomorrow.

Have a good day,

SouthWriter (talk) 01:24, June 28, 2016 (UTC)