If you're new here, you may want to get regular updates via如果你是新这里，你可能想通过定期更新 RSS feed RSS提要 . 。 Thank you for visiting!谢谢您的访问！

Recently “Freethought Mecca”, an anti-Islamic website of atheist persuasion, came forth with最近“自由思想麦加”，是无神论者说服反伊斯兰网站，挺身而出，同 an article文章 that claimed to have found at least one error in the Qur'an.声称已发现至少有一个错误的古兰经。 The article (and its supporters) took pleasure in pointing out the irony of the alleged error's location: in Sura 4:82, the very verse Muslims have invoked for centuries when challenging detractors to find a discrepancy in the Book.文章（及其支持者）指出了在对被指控的错误的位置讽刺的乐趣：在苏拉4:82，非常诗穆斯林几百年来批评时，发现一具有挑战性的书差异调用。

The article first claims that the logical structure of the verse has it putting forth a proposition that is “demonstrably false”.文章认为，逻辑结构的诗句它提出了一个命题是“明显错误的”第一批索赔。 To add insult to injury, it is further claimed that yet more irony can be derived from the discovery that the challenge put forth in Sura 4:82 is not really a challenge at all.更糟糕的是伤害，它是进一步声称，但更具有讽刺意味的，可从发现，提出的挑战提出了在苏拉4:82衍生出来的不是一个真正的挑战。 The argument of the article is actually quite subtle, and rather potent.这篇文章的说法其实是相当微妙，相当强大的。 We would like to offer this short analysis-cum-rebuttal at this time.我们要在这个时候提出这短暂分析暨反驳。

Have They Considered The Qur'an? 有否考虑古兰经？

The article paraphrases the relevant portion of Sura 4:82 as “if the Qur'an is not from Allah, it would have errors.” It is pointed out that this sentence has the logical structure of a conditional proposition (an “if-then” sentence), and thus implies that a text not from Allah has errors, and contrapositively that a text that is free of errors is from Allah.文章释义为“如果古兰经是真主的不是苏拉4:82的有关部分，将有错误。”这是指出，这句话在有条件的命题（逻辑结构，“如果，那么“一句），从而意味着不从真主文字有错误，并contrapositively一个文本，它是从真主是错误的自由。 This is where it is claimed that the sentence is demonstrably false, as a single instance of a text that is both free of error and not of a divine origin would falsify it, and such texts do indeed exist.这是它声称这句话显然是错误的，作为一个既自由文本的错误和一个神圣的起源不是单一的会伪造它的实例，这些文本的确存在。

First we need to explain the logic behind this argument.首先，我们需要解释一下这个论点的逻辑。 To use the variables used in the article, let 'A' stand for “the Qur'an is from Allah,” and let 'E' stand for “the Qur'an has errors.” The tilde '~' then serves as a diacritical mark representing the negation of the variables being employed to represent sentences, so if 'A' stands for “the Qur'an is from Allah,” then '~A' stands for “the Qur'an is not from Allah.” The article employed an arrow '–>' to represent the logical connective in a conditional proposition, but we will instead use the symbol more familiar to logicians, the so-called “horseshoe” 'É' which has the same value.要使用的文章，让我们用'甲'为“古兰经立场的变量是从真主”，让'E'类为“古兰经立场错误。”波形符'〜'，那么作为一个服务变音标记代表的句子被用来代表变量的否定，因此，如果'一'为“古兰经站从真主是”，那么'〜阿'为“古兰经站是不是从真主。”该文章雇一个箭头' - >“来表示有条件命题逻辑联结在一个，但我们会改为使用更熟悉的符号逻辑学家，所谓的”马蹄形“'电子'具有同样的价值。 The proposition is then translated into logical form as:这个命题，然后翻译成逻辑形式为：

With this sort of sentence, it is also noted that if you negate the right side (referred to as the consequent), you must also negate the left side (referred to as the antecedent), and then the reverse of the above is logically equivalent.在这样的句子排序，还指出，如果你否定右侧（简称因应），你还必须否定的左侧（简称先于），然后上述反向逻辑上是等价。 This is referred to as contraposition (or, when employed in a syllogism, it is referred to as modus tollens ):这被称为对照（或当三段论受雇于一个，它被称为托伦斯作为作案 ）：

This is the part that the article has a problem with.这是文章的部分有一个问题。 Here it is asked why anyone should assume this is the case.这里有人问：为什么有人要承担这样的话。 On what grounds should be believe that if a text is not from Allah, it will have errors, or that a text that does not have errors will be from Allah?应该以什么理由相信，如果文本不是由真主，将有错误，或者文本不存在错误，将由真主？ Surely there are objections that can be raised.当然有，可以提出异议。 Surely there are counter-examples that can be called to witness to serve as a defeater for this claim.当然有反，可以要求证人作为这一索赔否决因子的例子。

The responses offered by Muslims to date have failed to tackle the essential argument being put forth here.穆斯林提供迄今为止的反应未能解决的重要理由是在这里提出。 The reality is that there are texts written by men that are free of error, ie a college textbook or restaurant menus.现实情况是，有男人是自由的书面文本的错误，即大学的教科书或餐馆的菜单。 While indeed most texts written by human beings are prone to error, there have been bodies of writing that managed to be free of any discrepancies.虽然人类最实在的书面文本容易出错，有编写机构的管理成为无任何差异。 Some have tried to object that we are discussing the Qur'an, not a bus map or a model-plane instruction manual, but then fell short of defending their special pleading on behalf of the Qur'an有些人企图反对我们正在讨论的古兰经，而不是一个巴士地图或模型飞机操作手册，但随后下跌，短期捍卫自己的特殊代表对古兰经恳求

We would like to now offer a response, and it is through an appeal to justified special pleading.现在我们要提供一个反应，它通过一个特殊的恳求，以合理的上诉。 So, like the previous criticisms, we too would like to say that the verse reserves this rule for not just any text, but the text of the Qur'an specifically.因此，像以前的批评，我们也想指出，这个诗句储备不是任何文字的规则，但具体的古兰经文字。 We agree that it is, at least in principle, possible for a human being to create a text that is free of error.我们同意这是至少在原则上，一个人，创建一个文本，它是错误。 So now we must defend our plea on behalf of this rule being only with regard to the Qur'an.所以现在我们必须保卫这个正在对古兰经唯一的规则代表我们的呼吁。

Why do we feel that if we hold up the Qur'an and say “if this text were not from God, it would have errors”, we are uttering a true proposition, yet if we do the same for a phone book it is false?为什么我们觉得，如果我们举起古兰经说：“如果这个文本是不是上帝，那也have错误”，我们都一言不发真命题，但如果我们做一个电话簿的相同的IT is false ？ In the case of the phone book it is possible that it could be both free of error and not from God, yet this is not possible for the Qur'an.在电话簿情况下，它是可能的，它可以是免费的错误，不是来自上帝，但是这不是可能的古兰经。 We are justified in making this distinction when it is pointed out that the Qur'an can be defined as a set of propositions, a number of which state that the set itself originates with a Divine source, while the same cannot be said of a phone book.我们有理由作出了这一点，指出古兰经可以作为一个命题集，其中一些国家认为自己确定一个神圣的源泉，而同样不能说是一个定义的区别手机书。

In other words, on a number of occasions the Qur'an states that it is from God.换言之，在多个场合，它是从神古兰经状态。 Once this is understood, it is impossible for it to both not be from God and free of error.一旦这样理解，它是既不可能也无法从上帝和错误。 If the Qur'an was not from God, every verse that states that it is from God would be false, thus there would be numerous errors present.如果古兰经不是来自上帝，一切诗句，指出它是从上帝会是假的，因此会有现在的许多错误。 The contrapositive is also true in light of the fact that if the Qur'an was free of error, that would mean every sentence in it would be true, including those sentences that claim it is from God.该换的也确实在这一事实，如果古兰经是错误的自由，这将意味着这将是每一个真实的，包括那些刑期，声称这是一句来自上帝。 Now, we are not saying that the Qur'an is from God simply because it says so.现在，我们不是说古兰经是从上帝只是因为它是这么说的。 However, what we are saying is that its numerous claims to Divinity justify its being a special case distinct from a phone directory, and thus make it immune to the claim that the proposition is “demonstrably false”.然而，我们要说的是，它的许多声称神证明自己是一个特殊情况下的一个电话目录不同，从而使其免于索赔的主张是“明显错误”。

Challenging The Formal Translation 挑战正式翻译

Now that we have defended the Qur'an against this attack, all that is left is the claim that no challenge is present.现在我们有了保护自己不受这种攻击可兰经，所有剩下的说法是不存在的挑战。 To understand this attack, one again must be familiar with the tenets of basic logic.为了理解这种攻击，再一个必须符合基本的逻辑原理熟悉。 The article claims that the logical structure of the verse negates there being any challenge of the sort that so many Muslims claim is put forth.文章认为，否定的逻辑结构的诗句非但没有那种有这么多穆斯林的挑战是提出索赔要求。 Let us consider again the logical structure of the verse:让我们重新考虑逻辑结构的诗句：

This translates to “if the Qur'an is not from Allah, then the Qur'an has errors”.这意味着，以“古兰经如果不是从真主，那么古兰经有错误”。 While it is a common belief that the existence of errors negates a text being from God, this is not implied in the logical structure of the proposition above.虽然这是一个共同的信念是错误的存在否定一本为上帝，这不是意味着在上述命题的逻辑结构。 To argue that because the consequent ('E') is true, the antecedent ('~A') is also true is to abuse logic.我要指出，因为随之而来的（用'E'）为真，前件（'〜一'）也是如此，是滥用逻辑。 The logical fallacy being committed here is known as “affirming the consequent.”逻辑谬误犯下这里是“肯定因此而闻名。”

The article actually explained this fallacy quite well via an example using Santa Claus; we would like to use this as well since the Christian holiday passed so recently.文章解释这一谬论实际上通过一个很好的例子使用圣诞老人，我们想使用，因为通过这样的基督教节日最近这一点。 Here we will let 'H' stand for “Santa came to my house,” and let 'P' stand for “presents will be under my tree.” Now, if we suspend our common sense and concede that maybe it is possible that Santa Claus exists, then the sentence “if Santa came to my house, presents will be under my tree” can be translated as:在这里，我们将让的H'为“圣诞老人站到我家”，让处'P'的“礼物站将根据我的树。”现在，如果我们暂停我们的常识和承认，也许它是可能的圣诞老人克劳斯存在，那么这句话：“如果圣诞老人来到我家，提出将根据我的树”，可译为：

One can imagine a small American child in his room saying precisely that on Christmas morning, and then going down stairs to see if anything is under the tree.人们可以想像在他的房间一个小美国孩子的话正是在圣诞节早晨，然后下楼梯去看看是什么在树下。 However, if the child does find presents under his tree (if 'P' is true), does this mean that Santa came the night before?但是，如果孩子没有发现在他的树（若p为真介绍），这是否意味着圣诞老人来的前一天晚上？ Does it mean that 'H' must be true also?这是否意味的H'必须也是如此？ The answer is of course not.答案当然不是。 The logical structure of the conditional proposition does not allow one to conclude that the antecedent is true just because it has been realized that the consequent is true.命题的逻辑结构的条件不允许一得出结论，前提是事实，因为它已经实现，因而是真实的。

So then, the article notes that '~A É is not really a challenge to disprove 'A' by finding 'E'.那么，文章指出，'〜阿E是不是一个真正的挑战是证明'甲'中寻找'é。 It is argued that even if an error could be found, while common sense may lead us to reject the claim that the Qur'an is from God the logical structure of the verse does not permit such a conclusion.它认为，即使能找到一个错误，而普通感可能导致我们拒绝索赔的古兰经是从神的诗逻辑结构不容许这样的结论。 If one actually found an error in the Qur'an and then claimed to have met the challenge, the argument would be as follows:如果确实发现了一个在古兰经错误，然后声称见过的挑战，论点如下：

• If the Qur'an is not from Allah, it would have errors.如果不是从真主古兰经，这将有错误。
• The Qur'an has errors.古兰经有误。
• Therefore, the Qur'an is not from Allah.因此，古兰经是真主不从。

Such an argument is logically invalid, as the person putting forth this argument has affirmed the consequent.这种说法在逻辑上是无效的，因为人提出这个论点肯定随之而来。 The argument is equivalent to arguing:该参数等于争论：

• If I am in Kuala Lumpur, then I am in Malaysia.如果我在吉隆坡，然后我在马来西亚时。
• I am in Malaysia.我在马来西亚。
• Therefore, I am in Kuala Lumpur.因此，我在吉隆坡举行。

Imagine a person who is lost (maybe he is suffering from amnesia), trying to figure out where he is.想象一下，一个是谁丢失的人（也许他是患了失忆症），试图找出他在哪里。 Then imagine him figuring out that he is in Malaysia, and using the above sort of logic to conclude that he is in Kuala Lumpur.然后想象他搞清楚，他在马来西亚，并利用上面的代码排序结束，他在吉隆坡。 Just because he is in Malaysia does not mean he is in Kuala Lumpur, and one can imagine how foolish he would look if he was in a different Malaysian city and uttering the above before the locals.就因为他是在马来西亚并不意味着他在吉隆坡，一个愚蠢可想而知他会看他是否在不同的城市和伪造的马来西亚前当地人以上。 Once again, the fallacy committed is affirming the consequent.再次，结果犯是肯定的谬论。

In short, the verse is saying that if the Qur'an is not from God, it has errors ('~A ? E'), which is different from stating that if the Qur'an has errors, it is not from God ('E ? ~A').总之，诗是说，如果不是从古兰经神，它有错误（'〜阿？é'），这是从古兰经说，如果有错误，它不是来自不同的神（ 'é？〜阿'）。 ^{1 一} That these two statements are logically inequivalent can be demonstrated via the following equation, which is beyond dispute (it is an analytic truth, a priori ):这两个语句在逻辑上是不等价的，可事先通过下面的公式表明，这是争议之外（这是一个解析真相， 一 ）：

So, the Muslim is faced with a problem, as on one hand the logic fits, while on the other admitting such would mean that for centuries no Muslim could see the fallacious nature of the challenge.因此，穆斯林是面对一个问题，因为一方面符合逻辑，另一方面承认这便意味着穆斯林几百年来没有看到这一挑战的荒谬本质。 Is there a way out?有没有出路？ Indeed there is.的确有。 Rather than treat the verse as a conditional proposition, we can treat it as a biconditional proposition.而不是当作一个条件命题的诗句，我们可以把它作为一个双条件命题。

Up until now we went along with the verse being rendered into logical form as a conditional proposition.直至现在，我们一起去的诗被渲染成一个条件命题的逻辑形式。 Due to the fact that one would read aloud the logical formulas in English, it is assumed that they are in fact English.由于这一事实，即人会在朗读英语的逻辑公式，假定他们其实是英语。 The reality is that it is not the same language that this article is written in; the formulas are in a different language.现实情况是，它是不一样的语言，这篇文章是写的;在公式在不同的语言中。 Writing a sentence in logical form is referred to as translating it into a formal language (the formal language in this case being sentential logic).写一个句子中的逻辑形式被称为语言翻译成正式（在此案件正式被句子逻辑到语言）。 In light of this fact, we should note here what the linguists Gentzler and Tymoczko have said about the art of translation:鉴于这一事实，我们应该注意到这里什么语言学家根茨勒和Tymoczko教授对艺术的翻译说：

Translations are inevitably partial; meaning in a text is always over-determined, and the information in a source text is therefore always more extensive than a translation can convey.翻译是不可避免的部分，在文本的意义总是比确定的，而在源文本信息，因此总是比一个翻译传达广泛。 Conversely, the receptor language and culture entail obligatory features that shape the possible interpretations of the translation, as well as extending the meanings of the translation in directions other than those inherent in the source text.相反，语言和文化的受体需要强制性的功能，形状，在翻译中可能的解释，以及扩大在方向比在源文本固有的其他翻译的意义。 As a result, translators must make choices, selecting aspects or parts of a text to transpose and emphasize.因此，译者必须做出选择，选择方面，或者在文本部分转和强调。 Such choices in turn serve to create representations of their source texts, representations that are also partial.反过来这样的选择有助于创造其来源的文字，陈述，同时也是部分陈述。 ^{2 2}

So, just as a translation from Arabic to English involves choices that will dictate how one understands a sentence, so too is the case for a translation from a natural language to a formal one.所以，正如从阿拉伯文翻译到英文涉及如何选择，将决定一个理解一个句子，也是如此，是从一种自然语言翻译案件正式之一。 Of course, translation into sentential logic is a special case, since it is rarely ever vague and is used to analyze the structure of language.当然，翻译成句子的逻辑是一个特例，因为它是有史以来含糊，很少是用来分析语言结构。 Nonetheless, there are instances where the translator has to make a decision, and which path he or she chooses plays directly on the progress of further analysis.然而，有些情况下，译者是要作出决定，他或她的路径，直接选择播放就进一步分析进展。

The article capitalized on the fact that '~A ?文章利用了这一事实'〜阿？ E' is different from 'E ? e'是从不同的E？ ~A', and then argued that the former is what the Qur'an is stating, while the latter is what the Muslims seem to think it is stating (or at least what it would have to state in order for a challenge to be present). 〜阿'，然后说，前者是说明什么是古兰经，而后者，是穆斯林认为它是说明（或者至少是它必须以国家的一个挑战是本）。 We, however, would like to argue that the verse in the Qur'an can be interpreted as stating both.但是，我们想争论，在古兰经经文都可以作为说明解释。

The clues as to how one would go about doing such were provided in the article itself.至于如何去约人会做这样的文章是在本身提供的线索。 As was stated above, the article conceded that one could also translate the verse as a biconditional (rather than a conditional) proposition.正如上文所述，文章承认，人们还可以转换为一个双条件（而不是有条件的）命题的诗句。 The article also invited readers to consider Quine's Mathematical Logic.文章还请读者考虑奎因的数学逻辑。 In that work, Quine's fifth definition ('D5′)在这项工作中，奎因的第五定义（'D5座'） ^{3 3} defines the basic biconditional proposition as follows:双条件命题的基本定义如下：

Here the biconditional, represented by the symbol referred to as a “triple bar” ('?'), is equated with both versions of the conditional.这里的双条件，用符号代表称为“三重栏”('?'),的是与这两个版本的条件等同。 The article also made mention of Russell's Principia Mathematica, which similarly defines文章还对罗素的数学原理，这同样定义提 ^{5 5} the biconditional as:在双条件为：

While both definitions may seem foreign to the lay reader not acquainted with logic, the point is that this particular logical connective treats the variables as equivalent.虽然两者的定义似乎不在于外国的了解与逻辑的读者，这一点是，这个逻辑结缔组织视为等同的变量。 For example, let 'Q' stand for “I am in al-Quds,” and let 'J' stand for “I am in例如，让'阿Q的“我在圣城”，让'J'来的“我的摊位 Jerusalem耶路撒冷 .” Being that Jerusalem and al-Quds are the same place: if I am in Jerusalem, then I am in al-Quds, which as a conditional proposition would be translated: 。“和作为，耶路撒冷圣城是同一个地方：如果我在耶路撒冷时，当时我在圣城，其中一个条件命题时会被翻译：

But with the conditional connective you are not allowed to affirm the consequent; ie you cannot conclude based on the above that if I am in al-Quds, then I am in Jerusalem, yet we also want to be able to say precisely that:但随着条件结缔组织你不能肯定随之而来的，也就是说你不能得出结论基于上述，如果我在圣城，然后我在耶路撒冷，但我们也希望能够精确地说是：

We want to say both 'J ?我们希望说，这两个公司的J？ Q' and 'Q ?阿Q和阿Q？ J', and these two conditional propositions can be brought together by employing the biconditional proposition 'J ? J'来，这两个条件所带来的命题可以运用双条件命题的J在一起吗？ Q'. Q的。 Now, with the verse in Sura 4:82, we argued earlier this is applying specifically to the Qur'an in light of the numerous claims that the text is from God.现在，随着苏拉4:82诗句，我们曾说这是在具体适用该文本是许多索赔光古兰经来自上帝。 In such a case, if the Qur'an has errors, then it is not from God, and just the same it should be noted that if it the Qur'an is not from God it has errors.在这种情况下，如果古兰经有错误，那么它不是来自上帝，只是同样应该指出，如果它的古兰经就不是出于神有错误。 What this means is that under this model the verse is stating both 'E ?这意味着，在这种模型的诗句，是说明双方的E？ ~A' and '~A ? 〜A'和'〜阿？ E'. é'。 It only makes sense, therefore, that the verse be translated into logical form as follows:很有道理，因此，该诗被翻译成逻辑形式为如下：

When the verse is rendered as a biconditional proposition, Muslims are given back the challenge.当诗句作为双条件命题呈现，穆斯林，领回的挑战。 The above states that finding errors in the Qur'an is equivalent to demonstrating the Qur'an is not from Allah.认为，在古兰经发现错误，就等于证明古兰经上述各国是不是来自真主。 This is exactly how Muslims have interpreted the verse for centuries.这正是穆斯林解释数百年的诗句。

Conclusion 结论

So in conclusion, there is no error in Sura 4:82, as special pleading on behalf of the Qur'an is justified.所以在最后，没有任何错误苏拉4:82，作为特别代表对古兰经承认是合理的。 Had one considered the Qur'an, they would have noticed that on several occasions it claims to be from God, and if the Qur'an was not from God all these claims would count as errors.有一个考虑的古兰经，他们会注意到，它曾多次声称自己是神，如果不是从神古兰经所有这些索赔应计为错误。 While nothing in this particular article proves that the Qur'an is from God, we have established that the verse in question can be logically defended.虽然在这个特殊的文章没有证明，古兰经是来自上帝，我们已确定有问题的诗句可以在逻辑上辩护。

And only God knows best.而且，只有上帝知道最好的。

1. The reader may be confused here in light of what has been stated previously, and thus should note that while '~A ?读者可在这里混淆鉴于先前已说明什么，因此应注意，虽然'〜阿？ E' is equivalent to '~E ? e'是等于'〜é？ A', neither is equivalent to 'E ?甲'，也不是等同的E？ ~A'. 〜阿'。 While the sentences look the same, the placement of the negation '~' makes a huge difference.虽然看起来相同的句子，否定了'〜'的位置就会有很大的差别。 [ [ back背面 ] ]
2. Edwin Gentzler and Maria Tymoczko, Translation and Power (University of Massachusetts Press, 2002), p.埃德温根茨勒和Maria Tymoczko教授， 翻译和功率 （马萨诸塞州大学出版社，2002），第 xviii [十八[ back背面 ] ]
3. Willard Van Orman Quine, Mathematical Logic (Harvard University Press, 1981), p.威拉德凡奥尔曼奎因， 数理逻辑 （哈佛大学出版社，1981），第 48 [ 48 [ back背面 ] ]
4. f É y ) . ( y É f [ f e将y）的。（是É女 [ back背面 ] ]
5. See Principia Mathematica , definition *4.01; in the abridged version made for Philosophy students, it would be found in Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, Principia Mathematica to * 56, (Cambridge, 1962), p.看到数学原理 ，定义* 4.01;在哲学系学生的删节版本，这将是发现怀特海和罗素的数学原理为* 56，（剑桥，1962年），第 115 [ 115 [ back背面 ] ]