Why Al Kitaab can't mean 'The Scripture'
-
Peace,
1930
Khalifa
(The infant spoke and) said, "I am a servant of GOD. He has given me the scripture, and has appointed me a prophet.
Yusuf Ali
He said "I am indeed a servant of God He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;
Pickthal
He spake Lo! I am the slave of Allah. He hath given me the Scripture and hath appointed me a Prophet,
Shakir
He said Surely I am a servant of Allah; He has given me the Book and made me a prophet;
Sher Ali
Jesus said, `I am a servant of Allah. HE has given me the Book, and has made me a Prophet;
"Progressive Muslims"
He said "I am God's servant, He has given me the scripture and made me a prophet."So Jesus was given Al Kitab when he was born, surely this couldn't be any scripture could it? This proves Al Injeel is not a scripture.
3969 And the earth will shine with the light of its Lord, and Al kitab will be proclaimed, and the prophets and the witnesses will be brought forth; and it will then be judged between them with truth, and they will not be wronged.
1713 And We have attached to every person's neck his deeds, and We bring forth for him a kitab on the day of resurrection which he will find on display.
1714 Read your kitab! It is enough for you that you are aware of yourself today.
1758 And there is not a town before the day of resurrection that We will not destroy it, or punish it a severe punishment. This has been written in Al Kitab.
1771 The day We call every people by their kitab. Then, whoever are given their kitab by their right, they will relate their kitab, and they will not be wronged in the least.
1793 "Or that you have a luxurious mansion, or that you can ascend into the heavens. And we will not believe in your ascension unless you bring for us a Kitab that we can read." Say "Glory be to my Lord. Am I anything but a human messenger?"
638 And not a creature in the earth, nor a bird that fly's with its wings, are but nations like you. We did not leave anything out of Al Kitab; then to their Lord they will be gathered.
2740 And one who had knowledge from Al Kitab said "I will bring it to you before you blink." So when he saw it resting before him, he said "This is from the grace of my Lord, so that He tests me whether I am thankful or whether I reject. As for he who is thankful, he is thankful for himself, and as for he who rejects, then my Lord is Rich, Bountiful."
Did he gain this knowledge from 'the scripture' ?
Here's my position
Kitab can refer to a book or this book. Al kitab cannot be a 'book'.
Al Kitaab = Knowledge of the universe i.e it's laws or The Operating system, as Wakas put it.
-
I know no arabic, but are you saying that Al Kitab should actually knowledge of the universe? This actually makes a lot of sense.
It also explains why many Muslims ask where is the book that Jesus wrote or brought!? I can't tell you how many times this has been asked!!
Allah - Gabriel- Mohammad - Scribes - Quran
YHWH -Old Testament writers
YHWH manifested as Jesus- New Testament writers
-
Peace House M.D.
Regarding 1930. Why does it make more sense that an infant had knowledge of the workings of the universe?
Off-Topic From what I've read, manhood is achieved when one is 30 according to Jewish Law. Perhaps Jesus was younger than that or on the verge when he started his career, and thus people said mockingly that he was still in the cradle. In Urdu for example one can condescend to another by saying "Friday, Friday, seven days has gone since he hatched from his egg" to remind them that they're still young. Perhaps the cradle thing in Arabic is similar to the egg thing in Urdu.
Nadeem
-
Peace Nadeem,
Good question bro.
First, 1929 is usually mistranslated. Whilst, Sabbiyan can mean little boy, it can also mean young boy as in 1912. This doesn't make Jesus special. As he was given the hukmah/wisdom in his youth just like John in his youth. Remember also Joseph in chapter 12...
Also, Note in 5/110 how Jesus is taught Al kitab, At Taurat AND Al Injeel. Think about this, If Al kitab/The book is referring to either torah or injeel, why would the three be mentioned seperately??
-
John 1
The Word Became Flesh
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.http//www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/Peshittainterlinear/4_John/Yukhnch1.pdf
Scroll down to the footnotes.Evyon - we can start a new thread on this if you like.
-
John 1
The Word Became Flesh
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning.
3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.http//www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/Peshittainterlinear/4_John/Yukhnch1.pdf
Scroll down to the footnotes.Evyon - we can start a new thread on this if you like.
If John 11 is all you want to discuss, then there is no need for a separate thread. First, I'm familiar with the arguments for Aramaic primacy, and they simply don't hold water. For one thing, it uses the Aramaic equivalent for the Hebrew Divine Name for Jesus in several places - something that could also be done in Greek, but we don't find in any manuscripts. So IF the Peshitta is older, it means that Nicene theology was present in the earliest manuscripts, but was edited out of the Greek revisions. Given the extreme difficulty Athanasius had in getting the Church to endorse all of the elements of the Nicene Creed, we can be certain that a Greek textual revision along Arian lines is improbable. What is likely probable is that the Aramaic is based on the earliest Greek texts, but was edited along later theological beliefs.
But anyway, John 11 is a verse I am familiar with. My NT Greek class midterm was on John 1. Here's a transliteration and some thoughts
"en archay ayn ho logos, kai ho logos ayn pros ton theon, kai theos ayn ho logos."
Let's take each phrase one at a time.
"en archay ayn ho logos"="In the beginning was the word" Nothing earth-shattering there, but assigning personality to the Logos was a later theological novelty. Think of the Logos in it's original Hebrew conception, which also clarifies later verses from John 1
Psalm 336 - By the word of the LORD were the heavens made;
and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.There's nothing here to suggest personality or being part of the Godhead. The Logos is the word from God's mouth, his breath which framed the universe. He spoke (the word), and it came into being.
"..kai ho logos ayn pros ton theon,.."="and the word was to/facing/towards/with the God,.."
Two things here. "Pros" often indicates forward movement. If the Logos is moving towards, or is to God, the Logos is facing God and acting like a mirror or photograph if you will. The Logos is a reflection of the Divine will and character, but is not that Divine will itself. The Unvarnished New Testament picks up on this fact and translated it "and the word was towards God.." Second, "ho theos" (or "ton theon" in the accusative singular above) is a construction of the word for God and the presence of the definite article. The phrase recurs frequently in the Greek New Testament as a way of clearly referring to THE God, since "theos" can refer to pagan gods, authorities and powers, and can even function adjectivally. "Ho theos" is a way in Greek of referring to the One True God.
"..kai theos ayn ho logos"="and the word was divine (or) a divine authority." The absence of the definite article in this phrase when it is in all of the other phrases makes it clear that the author did not want to associate the Logos with the One True God, while wanting to convey the divine power at work as the Word of God. Several Greek scholars have pointed this out, notably the late James Moffatt and the late William Barclay.
The other thing that has to be kept in perspective is that Jesus is not referred to as the word until much later in John 1. Before then, it is simply an impersonal force at work in creating the universe and steering people towards salvation.
Peace.
-
Greetings House MD,
Here's my position
Kitab can refer to a book or this book. Al kitab cannot be a 'book'.
Al Kitaab = Knowledge of the universe i.e it's laws or The Operating system, as Wakas put it.
bravo Thank you for the excellent analysis!
I'm with you all the way! handshake
-
Or they ask, what did Jesus write?
Don't know, and I'd not conjecture about it (18/22). He had the same manual as all the other prophets/messengers (41/43).
Surely Jesus didn't bring the gospels of Matthew et al with him...That's well absurd. Quranically, he had the injeel and torah (neither of which I consider to be books). But, if you consider them to be books, can you please explain how he brought the gospels of matthew et al WITH HIM. And The Torah that exists today that is not even about/to him!
Thank you ILisa
Can we please stick to the topic? Thanks.
peace
-
Don't know, and I'd not conjecture about it (18/22). He had the same manual as all the other prophets/messengers (41/43).
Surely Jesus didn't bring the gospels of Matthew et al with him...That's well absurd. Quranically, he had the injeel and torah (neither of which I consider to be books). But, if you consider them to be books, can you please explain how he brought the gospels of matthew et al WITH HIM. And The Torah that exists today that is not even about/to him!
Thank you ILisa
Can we please stick to the topic? Thanks.
peace
House,
Sorry to veer off-topic for a moment. But I agree. Both the Torah (Instruction) and the Gospel (Good News) are concepts, not books.
Peace.
-
LOL!! We should have started a new thread. Sorry.
Were you taught in class that often times the word Logos is not translated. I believe it to mean more then just the GOD breathed WORD- for we hold that in our hands.
If it does mean word - it has more to it then our word LOL!! not sure how to say that!
I believe that the essence of GOD is in His WORD. It has power - I don't believe there is any other way for us to comprehend GOD except through His WORD. His WORD baptizes us. His WORD creates.
Please explain why you believe that It is not Jesus just because it is not connected until later?
-
LOL!! We should have started a new thread. Sorry.
Were you taught in class that often times the word Logos is not translated. I believe it to mean more then just the GOD breathed WORD- for we hold that in our hands.
If it does mean word - it has more to it then our word LOL!! not sure how to say that!
I believe that the essence of GOD is in His WORD. It has power - I don't believe there is any other way for us to comprehend GOD except through His WORD. His WORD baptizes us. His WORD creates.
Peace pvb,
There's not really much here I can respond to. Yes, I'm aware of the variant meanings of the concept of "logos", but what does the other statements of yours have to do with your assertion that the word=God, therefore Jesus=God?
Please explain why you believe that It is not Jesus just because it is not connected until later?
If it were the person of Jesus in some pre-existant form that was the one through whom creation happened, I believe the text would simply say so. But it doesn't. Most Christians simply assume because around verse 14 it says the word became flesh, that verse 1 and following refers to Jesus. This is a grave error of substitution. All John ch 1 is saying is that the Word of God through whom God created the world and steered people to salvation was at work in the very human person of Jesus the Messiah. Jesus was the Word of God, but he was not, and cannot be, God.
-
LOL!! When you read the whole chapter the connection is so obvious.
LOL, so who do you think was the WORD made flesh was?
It wasn't that obvious to the early Christians. Their Christological views were all over the place for the first 4 centuries. You must be trememdously smarter, well-read, and well-informed than the likes of Tertullian, Origen, and Justin Martyr.
I didn't say that Jesus wasn't the Word of John 1. What I said was that pre-Jesus, the Word was not a person and did not have a personality, nor was the Word in any shape or form "God." If you want to discuss this any further, we should begin a different thread.
Peace.