bring a sura like it? a deeper meaning?

unknownuser

Greetings Idris,

Thanks for sharing your comments?

did you even bother reading the post and its replies or do you just like inserting you crappy translations and biased views into every post you come into, the challenge is to bring a structure like it, with two possible meanings, one being the literary, scientific, philosophical, spiritual, logical, mathematical, prophetic, rhythmic etc. structure of the book itself or another being to bring a government like it or a constitution establishing a better government

You sound stressed?

Indeed, I did read this thread before posting?

The ?structure? possibility is indeed intriguing?.and, beyond any reasonable doubt, I have shown where the Koranic ?structure? originated?

Is The Bible Inimitable?

Anyone who has read the history of the Bible as a text as well as the constantly changing canon at the whims of the leaders of the Church and some 300,000+ variant readings in the New Testament itself would suggest that no book in history enjoyed such as reputation. The process of serious editing through which the Christian Bible went through is unparalleled in its almost 2000 year history. This would itself make the Bible an inimitable book.

As far as the language of the Bible and its stylistic perfection is concerned, the Bible does not make any such claim. Therefore, it not does challenge the mankind of produce a few verses or a chapter like it. Further, it is a Christian claim that the Bible contains scribal and linguistic errors. The language in which the Greek New Testament was written is demotic Greek which itself has little or no regard for grammatical rules of classical Greek. Comparing the stylistic perfection of the Qur'?n versus stylistic imperfection of the Bible, von Grunebaum states

Hmmm?soap box time?.

Why would the Original have to make such a claim in order to prove itself in the first place??

In contrast to the stylistic perfection of the Kur'an with the stylistic imperfections of the older Scriptures the Muslim theologian found himself unknowingly and on purely postulative grounds in agreement with long line of Christian thinkers whose outlook on the Biblical text is best summed up in Nietzsche's brash dictum that the Holy Ghost wrote bad Greek.-B Lewis, V L Menage, Ch. Pellat & J Schacht (Editors), Encyclopedia Of Islam (New Edition), 1971, Volume III, E J Brill (Leiden) & Luzac & Co. (London), p. 1020 (Under I'djaz).

So now, the Koran (which is merely an attempt by its authors to translate or ?mistranslate? Biblical Hebrew and Greek, into Arabic), is somehow ?stylistic perfection??

And the model of this perfection is?..?

Futher, he elaborates the position of Western theologians on the canonization process and composition of the Bible

The knowledge of the Western theologian that the Biblical books were redacted by different writers and that they were, in many cases, accessible to him only in (inspired) translation facilitated admission of formal imperfections in Scripture and there with lessened the compulsive insistence on its stylistic authority. Christian teaching, leaving the inspired writer, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, free in matters of style, has provided no motivation to seek an exact correlation between the revealed text on the one hand and grammar and rhetoric on the other. It thereby relieved the theologian and the critic from searching for a harmony between two stylistic worlds, which at best would yield an ahistoric concept of literary perfection and at worst would prevent anything resembling textual and substantive criticism of Revelation....

In Christianity, besides, the apology for the "low" style of the Bible is merely a part of educational problem - what to do with secular erudition within Christianity; whereas in Islam, the central position of the Kur'an, as the focal point and justification of grammatical and literary studies, was theoretically at least, never contested within the believing community.-Ibid

Thankfully, the Koran can come to our rescue?as it confirms the Authority of the Biblical scriptures?

You can clearly see this to be true in the posts that I have already made in this forum?

That pretty much sums up the Bible, its stylistic perfection (or the lack of it!) and the position of Western theologians.

When you get off your soap box, let?s get back to the Koranic ?structure? issue theme contained within this thread?

And Allah knows best!

Which Allah??

Thanks?

unknownuser

Greetings mz357,

Thanks for adding your comments?

Sorry to say i will have to partially agree with apple the quranic translations do mimic the bible in a certain way ,essentially the arabs or the translators have translated the quran from biblical point of view.

I?m glad to hear you say this?!

Since we know that the material contained within the pages of the Koran was originally written in Hebrew and Greek, it is easy to see how some things did not translate ideally into Arabic?

There is no snake in the quran it appears in the translation,
They even managed to translate the quran - resurecting jesus when there is none in the said quran(the arabic text)jesus actually died -the quran says not me.

It is interesting that Jesus? Biblical divinity has also been left intact?

And so much more of crisianity believes ,mind you they have been input and are only in the translations.We must get the true translation of the quran,but people such as layth who where inspired at one time aren't -i think in this catagory now.I wonder if some of us could organise something.Thanks. ?

Interesting?..so, basically you feel that the Koran that we have in possession today, is NOT the ?original??..?

Thanks for your comments?

unknownuser

Peace be upon you Apple Pie,

WHat exactly is your position? Are you here to claim that this reading(quran) is copied from the "Bible"? If that is the argument then why do you not go all the way back to the Kemetic(Egyptian) stories, which speak of virgin births and the like?

unknownuser

Greetings idolfree1,

Thanks for sharing your comments?

WHat exactly is your position?

Christian.

Are you here to claim that this reading(quran) is copied from the "Bible"?

Yes?

If that is the argument then why do you not go all the way back to the Kemetic(Egyptian) stories, which speak of virgin births and the like?

Would that benefit your position to do that??

Thanks?

unknownuser

Peace be upon you Apple pie,

Quote
WHat exactly is your position?

Christian.

I wasn't asking for any title, they mean nothing to me. I was asking what are you trying to get accross? I will take from the above "title" that you are of the position that we must accept Jesus, son of Mary, as our "savior" and that he was murdered on a cross to "save" humanity?

Quote
Are you here to claim that this reading(quran) is copied from the "Bible"?

Yes

What if they both were designed to guide mankind from the same knowledge that has ALWAYS been given to man, starting as far back as Kemet (Egypt)? Are you claiming that because similar information continues to be sent to us, we should reject the more recent on the premise of "thievery"? Is that your position?

Quote
If that is the argument then why do you not go all the way back to the Kemetic(Egyptian) stories, which speak of virgin births and the like?

Would that benefit your position to do that?

Any TRUTH benefits my position, but if your dispute is "robbery" , it will certainly not benefit your position. D

Jesus taught Peace, that is what we are here to promote. I hope you havent come to destroy a peaceful environment.

unknownuser

Greetings idolfree1,

Thanks for your reply?

I wasn't asking for any title, they mean nothing to me. I was asking what are you trying to get accross? I will take from the above "title" that you are of the position that we must accept Jesus, son of Mary, as our "savior" and that he was murdered on a cross to "save" humanity?

You can ?take? it however you want to?.

I am just purveying the TRUE Arabic Koranic message that apparently has been lost over the centuries due to Islamic rhetoric, and ignorance?

What if they both were designed to guide mankind from the same knowledge that has ALWAYS been given to man, starting as far back as Kemet (Egypt)? Are you claiming that because similar information continues to be sent to us, we should reject the more recent on the premise of "thievery"? Is that your position?

So now you think that the Koran is a ?thief???

I prefer to regard the Koran as a ?mis-translation? of the Biblical Hebrew and Greek into Arabic?

After all?.if you have missed the Biblical message that Jesus is God Almighty, as contained within your very own Koran, then, the Koran has failed to accurately deliver its source message from the Holy Bible?

Any TRUTH benefits my position, but if your dispute is "robbery" , it will certainly not benefit your position.

If you think that you have truth that benefits your position, then by all means feel completely free to bring it forth?.if it varies too much from the theme of this thread then begin a new one for discussion?thanks?

Jesus taught Peace, that is what we are here to promote. I hope you havent come to destroy a peaceful environment.

Jesus never came to bring peace?.surely you are aware of this?.right??

Thanks?

Zulf

Peace all,

I wonder why human beings have such a strong tendency to divide everything in "us and them". "If I'm right, then you must be wrong". The old famous "home team syndrome"... bias.

According to the quran, we must use our intellect when making choices.. it's the scientific method.

Some people First gather facts and then draw a conclusion.
Other people Start with a conclusion and then try to find facts to support it.

anyhow...

unknownuser

Greetings Zulf,

.. it's the scientific method.

And....where do you think the scientific method originated...?

Hint.....not in the Koran...

Take care...

unknownuser

I prefer to regard the Koran as a ?mis-translation? of the Biblical Hebrew and Greek into Arabic?

Apple Pie,

And what made you come to that conclusion? Would that be by any particular translation or translations? Or do you claim to read the Arabic well enough to make such a profound statement?

Did you miss the point made to you earlier that the Qur'an translations were under the influence by Christian theology? For example, you must think angels having wings and wear white garbs etc...Well do you?

Did you get the point that we don't regard translations as the Qur'an but the Arabic Qur'an itself?

TheNabi

Salaam

if you have missed the Biblical message that Jesus is God Almighty

I would dearly love for you to show me this Biblical message on the thread I created on the Christianity board. I made that just so that I could show you how unbiblical your trinity doctrine is.

Joe

unknownuser

Greetings Ash Shuura,

Thanks for your comments?

Quote
I prefer to regard the Koran as a ?mis-translation? of the Biblical Hebrew and Greek into Arabic?

And what made you come to that conclusion?

Careful study of the original languages?

Would that be by any particular translation or translations?

Are you saying that there is more than one ?original? Koran out there??

Or do you claim to read the Arabic well enough to make such a profound statement?

Do you find my comments profound?.?

Did you miss the point made to you earlier that the Qur'an translations were under the influence by Christian theology?

Then, is the Koran that we have in possession the true Koran?.yes?or?no?.?

For example, you must think angels having wings and wear white garbs etc...Well do you?

The Koran claims that the four seraphim have 3 pairs of wings?.does this count?.?

Did you get the point that we don't regard translations as the Qur'an but the Arabic Qur'an itself?

Hence the need to study the Koran in the Arabic?.that way we can see first-hand where it obtained its source material from?..

Take care?

unknownuser

Greetings Joe,

Thanks for your comments?

Quote
if you have missed the Biblical message that Jesus is God Almighty

I would dearly love for you to show me this Biblical message on the thread I created on the Christianity board. I made that just so that I could show you how unbiblical your trinity doctrine is.

Then?indeed you shall see it?.

Thanks?

TheNabi

Salaam

The Koran claims that the four seraphim have 3 pairs of wings?.does this count?.?

(1) Who are these 4?

(2) Do people have wings too (1724)?

You claim to understand the context of things. How do you explain the context of wings in 351 especially in conjunction with rusul and almalaika throughout alquran?

Joe

TheNabi

Salaam

Then?indeed you shall see it?.

I'll be eagerly awaiting.

Joe

unknownuser

Greetings Joe,

Thanks for your comments?

Apple Pie wrote
The Koran claims that the four seraphim have 3 pairs of wings?.does this count?.?

(1) Who are these 4?

You claim to understand the context of things. How do you explain the context of wings in 351 especially in conjunction with rusul and almalaika throughout alquran?

Let?s look?

Alhamdu lillahi fatiri alssamawati waal-ardi jaAAili almala-ikati rusulan olee ajnihatin mathna wathulatha warubaAAa yazeedu fee alkhalqi ma yashao inna Allaha AAala kulli shay-in qadeerun

The praise/gratitude (is) to Allah creator/originator (of) the skies/space and the earth/Planet Earth, making/creating/manipulating the angels (as) messengers (owners) of wings/sides two two/twos, and three/threes, and fours, He increases in the creation what He wills/wants, that truly Allah (is) on every thing capable/able. (351)

Let?s review a few Arabic terms?

= ?ajnihatin?

?ajnihatin? definition

Plural noun. Wings; Power; Arm; Hand; Arm-pit; Wing of an army; Side; Assistant; shelter; Protection. It comes from the root ?janaha?, which means to incline, be at hand, bend, lean forward, stoop.

Reference

The Dictionary of the Holy Qur?an
Abdul Mannan Omar
p. 103 - 104

= ?thulatha?

?thulatha? definition

Three by three; In threes; Three pairs; By threes; Three. It comes from the root ?thalatha?, which means to take a third part of a thing.

Reference

The Dictionary of the Holy Qur?an
Abdul Mannan Omar
p. 83

= ?rubaAAa?

?rubaAAa? definition

The forth part; One forth. It comes from the root ?raba?a?, which means to be watered every forth day (a camel), be the forth, make a four-stranded rope, complete the number four.

Reference

The Dictionary of the Holy Qur?an
Abdul Mannan Omar
p. 200

= ?mathna?

?mathna? definition

Twos by twos. By twos; Two; In pairs; Two and two. It comes from the root ?thana?, which means to bend, fold, double, turn one part of a thing upon the other, draw one of its two extremities to the other, join, or adjoin one of the things to the other, turn anyone away or back from his course or from the object of his want, conceal enmity.

Reference

The Dictionary of the Holy Qur?an
Abdul Mannan Omar
p. 87 - 88

Let?s review what 351 is telling us?

There are four messenger angels
Each one has 3 pairs of wings
The wings are folded in pairs
The wings are leaning forward

Do you realize who the four living creatures are? They are the Seraphim spoken of in Isaiah, Revelation, as well as in the Koran.

OT?

(Isa 61) In the year that King Uzziah died, then I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up. And His train filled the temple.

(Isa 62) Above it stood the seraphs. Each one had six wings; with two he covered his face; and with two he covered his feet; and with two he flew.

(Isa 63) And one cried to the other and said, Holy, holy, holy is Jehovah of Hosts; all the earth is full of His glory!

NT?

(Rev 46) and a glassy sea before the throne, like crystal. And in the midst of the throne and around the throne were four living creatures, full of eyes before and behind.

(Rev 47) And the first living creature was like a lion; and the second living creature like a calf; and the third living creature having a face like a man; and the fourth living creature like an eagle flying.

(Rev 48 ) And the four living creatures each one had six wings around, and within being full of eyes. And they had no rest day and night, saying, "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty," the One who was, and is, and is coming!

Let?s review what the Holy Bible is telling us?

There are four seraphim
Each one has three pairs of wings
The wings are folded in pairs
The wings are leaning forward

See what the Koran has done?..?

That?s correct?yet more Biblical material that the authors of the Koran have translated into the Arabic?

Sura 35 is replete with Book of Revelation material?

Seraphim
New Creation
Paradise
Hell

On and on it goes?.why deny??

In fact, Sura 35 repeatedly gives credit to the Biblical books that make up its content?

What exactly are you in denial of?.?

(2) Do people have wings too (1724)?

Let?s look?

Waikhfid lahuma janaha alththulli mina alrrahmati waqul rabbi irhamhuma kama rabbayanee sagheeran

And be lenient/comforting/lower to them the humility's/humbleness's wing/side from the mercy (be kind), and say "My Lord have mercy upon them as they brought me up young.? (1724)

As you can tell, this ayah has absolutely NOTHING to do with humans having wings?

Acknowledge your Koran?.better yet..acknowledge the source of the koran, the Holy Bible...!

Thanks?

unknownuser

Acknowledge your Koran?.better yet..acknowledge the source of the koran, the Holy Bible...!

Greetings,

Both come from GOD the Qur'an and the Injeel. However, I am doubtful that the Holy Bible= Injeel. Its possibly in existence somewhere well passified via corrupt translations making Jesus a god whilst he was an honourable messenger of GOD.

Titus 1
12Even one of their own prophets has said, "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons." 13This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith

This for example is either a mistranslation or an addition, wherever it comes from this is not from GOD.

What do you think?

ayman

Alhamdu lillahi fatiri alssamawati waal-ardi jaAAili almala-ikati rusulan olee ajnihatin mathna wathulatha warubaAAa yazeedu fee alkhalqi ma yashao inna Allaha AAala kulli shay-in qadeerun

The praise/gratitude (is) to Allah creator/originator (of) the skies/space and the earth/Planet Earth, making/creating/manipulating the angels (as) messengers (owners) of wings/sides two two/twos, and three/threes, and fours, He increases in the creation what He wills/wants, that truly Allah (is) on every thing capable/able. (351)

As everybody can clearly see, 351 is speaking of creatures with 2, 3, and 4 sides/dimensions. Especially, the number 3 causes a problem for Mr. Pie because wings on all known winged creatures are symmetric (including mythical biblical creatures such as the Seraphim, fire breathing Dragons, and the like).

This is confirmed by 43 where the same expression "mathna, thulath, wa ruba3" occurs. Now let's see how our simple minded Trinitarian who believes in mythical creatures tries to force a link between 351 and his biblical man-made amazing nonsensical stories

= ?mathna?

?mathna? definition

Twos by twos. By twos; Two; In pairs; Two and two. It comes from the root ?thana?, which means to bend, fold, double, turn one part of a thing upon the other, draw one of its two extremities to the other, join, or adjoin one of the things to the other, turn anyone away or back from his course or from the object of his want, conceal enmity.

Here he says that "mathna" means in pair (i.e. 2) and puts it in bold. Notice that unlike what we will see later, he doesn't say that "mathna" means "two pairs" (i.e. 4).

= ?thulatha?
?thulatha? definition

Three by three; In threes; Three pairs; By threes; Three. It comes from the root ?thalatha?, which means to take a third part of a thing.

Here he flip flops and suggests that "thulatha" means "three pairs" (i.e. 2x3 = 6 in all) and puts it in bold. This is inconsistent with how he interpreted "mathna" above as simply 2 and not 2 pairs.

= ?rubaAAa?
?rubaAAa? definition

The forth part; One forth. It comes from the root ?raba?a?, which means to be watered every forth day (a camel), be the forth, make a four-stranded rope, complete the number four.

Here he flip flops again and doesn't say that "ruba3a" means "four pairs" (i.e. 2x4 = 8 in all) as he said about "thulatha" and instead goes back to saying that it means simply "four".

So according to Mr. Pie, first we have 2 wings, then 6 wings (three pairs), and then we go down again to 4 wings. Of course, the verse clearly refers to "increasing in creation", so one would expect the number to increase and not be 2, 6, 4 but 2,3,4.

What is his motivation for this constant flip flopping and acrobatics to force the three pairs (6 wings) on 351?

Let us see below (emphasis mine)

Let?s review what 351 is telling us?

There are four messenger angels
Each one has 3 pairs of wings
The wings are folded in pairs
The wings are leaning forward

Do you realize who the four living creatures are? They are the Seraphim spoken of in Isaiah, Revelation, as well as in the Koran.

So now we know why he had to change the simple "three" to "three pairs". He had to do all this flip flopping because he wants to force 351 to fit his fantastic story. Without his fantastic story, he would have never been able to reach "three pairs" based on the great reading/"quran".

The rest of his post is more of the same. Basically, trying to fit his preconceived biblical fantasies into his interpretation of the great reading. The only advice I have for him is the same advice I have for everybody else Try to read the honorable reading without any preconceived ideas and see where it will lead you.

Peace on who followed the guidance,

Ayman.

unknownuser

Here he flip flops again and doesn't say that "ruba3a" means "four pairs" (i.e. 2x4 = 8 in all) as he said about "thulatha" and instead goes back to saying that it means simply "four".

Peace Ayman,

Good post, but you got one thing wrong. He said 4 messengers which is even more ridiculuous and not 4 wings.

The acrobatics is a lot more extensive than you give credit for...

regards

unknownuser

Greetings ayman,

Thanks for your comments?

Apple Pie wrote

Alhamdu lillahi fatiri alssamawati waal-ardi jaAAili almala-ikati rusulan olee ajnihatin mathna wathulatha warubaAAa yazeedu fee alkhalqi ma yashao inna Allaha AAala kulli shay-in qadeerun

The praise/gratitude (is) to Allah creator/originator (of) the skies/space and the earth/Planet Earth, making/creating/manipulating the angels (as) messengers (owners) of wings/sides two two/twos, and three/threes, and fours, He increases in the creation what He wills/wants, that truly Allah (is) on every thing capable/able. (351)

As everybody can clearly see, 351 is speaking of creatures with 2, 3, and 4 sides/dimensions.

It is speaking about four creatures, each with 3 pairs of wings, which are folded in pairs?

Especially, the number 3 causes a problem for Mr. Pie because wings on all known winged creatures are symmetric (including mythical biblical creatures such as the Seraphim, fire breathing Dragons, and the like).

There is no problem at all...

Show me where they are not symmetrical?

This is confirmed by 43 where the same expression "mathna, thulath, wa ruba3" occurs.

And??

Now let's see how our simple minded Trinitarian who believes in mythical creatures tries to force a link between 351 and his biblical man-made amazing nonsensical stories

Apple Pie wrote
= ?mathna?

?mathna? definition

Twos by twos. By twos; Two; In pairs; Two and two. It comes from the root ?thana?, which means to bend, fold, double, turn one part of a thing upon the other, draw one of its two extremities to the other, join, or adjoin one of the things to the other, turn anyone away or back from his course or from the object of his want, conceal enmity.

Here he says that "mathna" means in pair (i.e. 2) and puts it in bold.

Correct?

Notice that unlike what we will see later, he doesn't say that "mathna" means "two pairs" (i.e. 4).

And?your rational for this thinking??

Apple Pie wrote
= ?thulatha?
?thulatha? definition

Three by three; In threes; Three pairs; By threes; Three. It comes from the root ?thalatha?, which means to take a third part of a thing.

Here he flip flops and suggests that "thulatha" means "three pairs" (i.e. 2x3 = 6 in all) and puts it in bold.

?Three pair? is a legitimate Lexical definition.

Feel free to verify this for yourself as truth?

This is inconsistent with how he interpreted "mathna" above as simply 2 and not 2 pairs.

Have you forgotten already??

Here?let me remind you of what you already understood to be my lexical definition?

?Here he says that "mathna" means in pair (i.e. 2) and puts it in bold.?

Thus?I rendered it ?In pairs??.which complies with the lexicons??in pairs? means in groups of two?NOT just TWO?

Apple Pie wrote
= ?rubaAAa?
?rubaAAa? definition

The forth part; One forth. It comes from the root ?raba?a?, which means to be watered every forth day (a camel), be the forth, make a four-stranded rope, complete the number four.

Here he flip flops again and doesn't say that "ruba3a" means "four pairs" (i.e. 2x4 = 8 in all) as he said about "thulatha" and instead goes back to saying that it means simply "four".

Why would I say that it means ?four pairs??

?Four pairs? is NOT even a Lexical option?.duh?!

So according to Mr. Pie, first we have 2 wings, then 6 wings (three pairs), and then we go down again to 4 wings.

Wrong.

According to the Lexical definitions it is speaking about four creatures, each with 3 pairs of wings, which are folded in pairs?

This is clear? as called-out by the classical Arabic Lexicons?

Your eisegesis, unfortunately, has no bearing in reality?

Of course, the verse clearly refers to "increasing in creation", so one would expect the number to increase and not be 2, 6, 4 but 2,3,4.

So, according to you, the creature?s wings will continue to increase in number??

Up to what number would that entail??

What is his motivation for this constant flip flopping and acrobatics to force the three pairs (6 wings) on 351?

Let us see below (emphasis mine)
Apple Pie wrote
Let?s review what 351 is telling us?

There are four messenger angels
Each one has 3 pairs of wings
The wings are folded in pairs
The wings are leaning forward

Do you realize who the four living creatures are? They are the Seraphim spoken of in Isaiah, Revelation, as well as in the Koran.

So now we know why he had to change the simple "three" to "three pairs". He had to do all this flip flopping because he wants to force 351 to fit his fantastic story. Without his fantastic story, he would have never been able to reach "three pairs" based on the great reading/"quran".

LOL?are you sure that you want to stick to your ridiculous assertion??

After all, you can see for yourself that I have Lexical backing to my exegesis.

The rest of his post is more of the same. Basically, trying to fit his preconceived biblical fantasies into his interpretation of the great reading. The only advice I have for him is the same advice I have for everybody else Try to read the honorable reading without any preconceived ideas and see where it will lead you.

Perhaps your main concern should be why the authors of the Koran had to copy copious amounts of Biblical material into their opus?

Take care?

ayman

This is confirmed by 43 where the same expression "mathna, thulath, wa ruba3" occurs.

And??

Obviously, you haven't made even a small effort to read 43 and think on your own and now you want me to spoonfeed you the information like your clergy spoonfeeds you the illogical preconceived arguments that you present.

Here it is slowly

And if you feared that you will not be equitable in the orphans, so marry those who consented to you from the women two ("mathna"), three ("thulath"), and four ("ruba3"). If you feared that you will not be just, so one or that who your oath possessed, this is closer to you not incurring hardship.

Now can you explain "mathna, thulath wa ruba3" in 43, which is THE SAME EXACT EXPRESSION IN 351.

According to the Lexical definitions it is speaking about four creatures, each with 3 pairs of wings, which are folded in pairs?

Applying your nonsensical argument, 43 would be speaking about 4 men with 3 pairs of wives which are folded in pairs!

Perhaps your main concern should be why the authors of the Koran had to copy copious amounts of Biblical material into their opus?

If this was true then the great reading would be like the Hadith Books which equal the Bible in size and entertainment value. Unlike the great reading, the Bible is full of fairy tales that capture people's imagination with the amazing detail of enchanting creatures and gore. These stories have very high entertainment value and appeal to the masses much as Hollywood flicks often do. However, they have no value for those interested in the truth.

Peace on who followed the guidance,

Ayman.