Sobieski,
About the first statement above. You make it sound as if we should take a mathematical approach here. Sort of like, simplify everything as much as possible, assume 2+2=4, x=x, x+x=2x, etc etc. I believe that the Koran should not be interpreted in such a spirit and the most "obvious" interpretation will not be the true interpretation every time.
Yes, that's my way of approaching the text; take the text
as it written and don't add all kind of hypothesis to it. Remember, like you, I am not a faith-head, so I don't have to come up with all kinds of theories that would attempt to explain away an apparent contradiction. If the text says something, I'm gonna take as it says it, and I'm gonna jump on any attempt of the apologist to invent way outs, pointing out that the text supports in no way his or her innovations. Occam's razor should apply here too, as it applies to so many things.
Also it is a very simple contradiction, meaning it is too obvious, if most Arabs were to understand it the way you do, I believe it would have been edited out sometime during last 1400 years.
One might be tempted to think so, but the reality is different. I have done my share of textual criticism study (and it applies to all "sacred" texts), and one observation that scholars make, is that in general, early text has a stubborn tendency to survive, no matter how many difficulties it raises for the later believer/scribe. This is so prolly because the scribe considers the text sacred, and so is much more inclined to rationalize away the apparent difficulty, than to actually go ahead and eliminate/modify the text. This is why, the New Testament contains a substantial share of real contradictions, that stand out; the scribes saw them, and let them be, because the text is sacred.
Just an example: The ending of Mark's gospel has 3 textual versions: one that ends abruptly with verse 9 (the earliest one), one newer that adds a verse to serve as real ending - called the short ending, and another one that adds many more verses, called the longer ending. Because of the short and long endings, there are instances where the scribe, possessing both manuscripts with the short ending AND others with the long ending, has combined the two: tacked the short ending after vs. 9, and continued with the long version! This is remarkable because the short and long endings are mutually exclusive, they contradict themselves clearly. What is a scribe to do? Keep them both - they're both sacred obviously - and assume the longer ending was lost from manuscripts is missing from, and likewise for the short one. There are many instances where the text has survived despite the difficulties it was causing; not only contradictions, but verses that blatantly go against the official dogmas of the church.
About the second statement - I think mullahs can be creative when they want to, and then there's always "God's ways are mysterious" nonsense, you know it. Even though I believe most mullas and imams are hypocrites and non-believers, I think many Islamic scholars throughout centuries have attempted to honestly interpret the Koran. Thus when I said '...authoritative...', my stress was on consensus of such opinions. There can be very differing authoritative interpretations on issues, as is the case with stoning, killing apostates, etc.
Alex, I understand what you're saying and I agree; my reply wasn't meant to convey that they can't bring themselves to accept the evidence, but that they could not, cannot say there are 8 days there. I believe they're honestly believing there's no contradiction, because for them the text *is sacred*, and so there is no possibility for it to be a contradiction. I know this way of thinking, having thought along the same lines for a long time.
Topic: Hi from on the fence muslim