Muhammad not mentioned in the Koran...

Tay

Peace Apple Pie,

You asked,

Why would I need to do that?.?

Because to claim that the Qur'an was copied from the Bible, you must first establish that a Bible existed in a language understandable by the alleged authors. You claim that they were Christians and Jews, yet you provide no reference for their references.

Since you failed to provide evidence of a written Bible prior to Islam, from where do you presume your alleged authors received their information?

Thanks,
Tay

unknownuser

Greetings Tay,

Thanks for firing-off a reflex reply?

You asked,
Quote
Why would I need to do that?.?

Because to claim that the Qur'an was copied from the Bible, you must first establish that a Bible existed in a language understandable by the alleged authors. You claim that they were Christians and Jews, yet you provide no reference for their references.

Since you failed to provide evidence of a written Bible prior to Islam, from where do you presume your alleged authors received their information?

Thanks,
Tay

I have to ask did your vision fail you after you read the very tippy-top of my reply??

I provided irrefutable evidence from your very own book of faith, as to where the Koranic material emanated from?

Don?t turn and run away now?. o

Perhaps others who can handle the truth will take the time to verify what I posted as truth?

Perhaps brother Wakas?

Tay

Peace Apple Pie,

Holy Moly!

You are truly amazing- a spin doctor if I've ever seen one.

How you take "as though combining in itself the excellences of all other books or scriptures"

to mean

"The Book? is the Holy Bible. Period."

is beyond me.

I wonder if English is your native tongue?

I'd like to have a crack at this spin game. I take it all I have to do is bold-face the part that I want the reader to pay attention to and then make any connection I want from the many meanings the Almighty Lane has given us? It shouldn't be too hard...

?That is the book, or scripture?; as though combining in itself the excellences of all other books or scriptures; or meaning that is preeminently the book, or scripture. The Pentateuch or Mosaic Law; and the Gospel, or Book of the Gospels; the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians. Divine prescript, appointment, or ordinance; judgment, or sentence; fatal decree or predestination.

So there you have it bro...432 is saying that the appointment for the fatal decree is evident.

I happen to agree. We all gotta die some time, right?

May peace be upon you,
Tay

p.s. let me know if you ever find an Arabic Bible that predated Islam wink

unknownuser

Greetings Tay,

Thanks for your reply?

How you take "as though combining in itself the excellences of all other books or scriptures"

to mean

"The Book? is the Holy Bible. Period."

is beyond me.

Repetition helps.

Let?s review the classic definition?

?That is the book, or scripture?; as though combining in itself the excellences of all other books or scriptures; or meaning that is preeminently the book, or scripture. The Pentateuch or Mosaic Law; and the Gospel, or Book of the Gospels; the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians. Divine prescript, appointment, or ordinance; judgment, or sentence; fatal decree or predestination.

References
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, p. 74; volume seven, p. 2590

Please inform us what book (besides the Koran) includes

The Pentateuch or Mosaic Law
and the Gospel
or Book of the Gospels
the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians

I'd like to have a crack at this spin game. I take it all I have to do is bold-face the part that I want the reader to pay attention to and then make any connection I want from the many meanings the Almighty Lane has given us? It shouldn't be too hard...

?That is the book, or scripture?; as though combining in itself the excellences of all other books or scriptures; or meaning that is preeminently the book, or scripture. The Pentateuch or Mosaic Law; and the Gospel, or Book of the Gospels; the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians. Divine prescript, appointment, or ordinance; judgment, or sentence; fatal decree or predestination.

So there you have it bro...432 is saying that the appointment for the fatal decree is evident.

I happen to agree. We all gotta die some time, right?

May peace be upon you,
Tay

First of all, by ?taking a crack at this spin game?, you have just admitted to the authority of Lane?s definition?.as you have not produced (nor can you) any other authoritative definition(s)?.but are content to use the one that I posited?

Secondly, it really does not matter what part of Lane?s definition you use, as the one that you highlighted indicates something that was written down?which, the Koran was supposedly ?oral? during this time; thus it would have to be referring to something other than itself.

Thirdly, 43.3 specifically tells us that it was made into ?jaAAalnahu? an Arabic ?collection? or Koran.

This specific Arabic clarifier is not necessary if the original ?prescript? (as you now want to call it) was already written in Arabic?

p.s. let me know if you ever find an Arabic Bible that predated Islam

Please let us know when you can begin to trust what your book of faith is blatantly telling you?

Perhaps you will learn to stop asking us questions when you keep running away from the answers?

Thanks?

Tay

Peace Apple Pie,

You stated

Repitition helps.

In this case, it doesn't, as you it's clear you don't understand the meanings of "as though" and "excellences of".

But, I don't know, maybe if you keep re-reading Lane's explanation it will help in the long run. Let me know how that works out for you.

Please inform us what book (besides the Koran) includes...

Umm...no. Remember, I'm playing your game. In this case, I didn't choose the term "book" as my understanding. Is that OK or should we change the rules?

First of all, by ?taking a crack at this spin game?, you have just admitted to the authority of Lane?s definition?.

Perhaps in your fanciful world of 1=3 this would be true. But in reality, all I did was work with what you put forward. Had you quoted from "The Star" magazine, my working with your quote would do nothing to authenticate your quote. Get it?

Secondly, it really does not matter what part of Lane?s definition you use, as the one that you highlighted indicates something that was written down?

Wrong. Do you understand what "or" means?

Thirdly, 43.3 specifically tells us that it was made into ?jaAAalnahu? an Arabic ?collection? or Koran.

OK, so "the appointment for the fatal decree" was made into an Arabic collection. What's the problem?

This specific Arabic clarifier is not necessary if the original ?prescript? (as you now want to call it) was already written in Arabic?

Are you OK? It seems you're troubled with tunnel vision. Let me reiterate my sample conclusion to clarify

"the appointment for the fatal decree is evident"

Hope that helps.

Please let us know when you can begin to trust what your book of faith is blatantly telling you?

Sure. Is now a good time?

Perhaps you will learn to stop asking us questions when you keep running away from the answers?

How very witty of you.

Perhaps you will learn that selective reading amounts to intellectual dishonesty. In the meantime, let me know about that Arabic Bible.

Take care,
Tay

el-Aziz

Good day Apple Pie!

I want to inform you that the New Testament part of The Bible was originally not written in greek but mainly in Aramaic.

Another thing, can you point out where in the lecture ("the qur'?n") that The Bible is refered to as "The book"?

kind regards,
St?phane

unknownuser

Greetings St?phane,

Thanks for adding your comments?

I want to inform you that the New Testament part of The Bible was originally not written in greek but mainly in Aramaic.

Please show us the extant manuscripts that support your position?

Another thing, can you point out where in the lecture ("the qur'?n") that The Bible is refered to as "The book"?

The more appropriate question would be ?.where is it not?.?

?The Book? i.e. ?alkitabu?, i.e. the Holy Bible, is directly mentioned 151x in the ?Collection?, i.e. the Koran?

Hope this helps?

el-Aziz

Greetings St?phane,

Thanks for adding your comments?

I want to inform you that the New Testament part of The Bible was originally not written in greek but mainly in Aramaic.

Please show us the extant manuscripts that support your position?

Do you mean original documents of the gospels? Well, let's put it this way...the gospel authors were native aramaic speakers and not greek.

Another thing, can you point out where in the lecture ("the qur'?n") that The Bible is refered to as "The book"?

The more appropriate question would be ?.where is it not?.?

?The Book? i.e. ?alkitabu?, i.e. the Holy Bible, is directly mentioned 151x in the ?Collection?, i.e. the Koran?

Hope this helps?

Hmm, isn't Torah and Injiil two separate things? For the Qur'?n DOES refer to these two as separate ones - then why would it be "the scripture" at other places?

unknownuser

Greetings St?phane,

Thanks for your reply?

Do you mean original documents of the gospels? Well, let's put it this way...the gospel authors were native aramaic speakers and not greek.

Again?.

Please bring forth the extant Aramaic manuscript evidence for your assertion?

It appears that you are having difficulty in backing up your assertion? wink

Hmm, isn't Torah and Injiil two separate things?

Yes?.and both comprise the Holy Bible?

For the Qur'?n DOES refer to these two as separate ones - then why would it be "the scripture" at other places?

The authors of the Koran constantly refer to their source material.

Many times it is under the guise of ?alkitabu?, i.e. the Holy Bible, as a catch-all term.

Other times they simply break it down to different Biblical books, or sets of Biblical books?i.e. Torah, Injill, Zaboor, Books of Wisdom, Revelation, etc, etc?

One fact remains clear?.and that is the Holy Bible comprises ~99% of the Koranic material?.the other 1% comes from heretical Jewish and Christian scriptures?

Put it all together?.and you have the ?Collection??i.e. the Koran?

Take care?

el-Aziz

Greetings St?phane,

Thanks for your reply?

Do you mean original documents of the gospels? Well, let's put it this way...the gospel authors were native aramaic speakers and not greek.

Again?.

Please bring forth the extant Aramaic manuscript evidence for your assertion?
It appears that you are having difficulty in backing up your assertion? wink

Well, neither can't I prove to you that the Edda was written in ancient Icelandic or Danish tongue - but I would suspect that "It was originally typed down in french" is not true since theauthors were native Icelandic speakers.
Unfortunately, I don't think that we can't keep up much longer as for the Greek/Aramaic debate matters. Anyway for now...

Hmm, isn't Torah and Injiil two separate things?

Yes?.and both comprise the Holy Bible?

For the Qur'?n DOES refer to these two as separate ones - then why would it be "the scripture" at other places?

The authors of the Koran constantly refer to their source material.

Many times it is under the guise of ?alkitabu?, i.e. the Holy Bible, as a catch-all term.

Other times they simply break it down to different Biblical books, or sets of Biblical books?i.e. Torah, Injill, Zaboor, Books of Wisdom, Revelation, etc, etc?

One fact remains clear?.and that is the Holy Bible comprises ~99% of the Koranic material?.the other 1% comes from heretical Jewish and Christian scriptures?

Put it all together?.and you have the ?Collection??i.e. the Koran?

There are some things in the gospels that I cannot declare as correct as for your attempt to claim that "alkit?b" is The Bible. Namely that it identifies Jesus as The Messiah and "son of God" at the same time, which is not consistent with the messianic tradition.

unknownuser

Greetings St?phane,

Thanks for your reply?

Well, neither can't I prove to you that the Edda was written in ancient Icelandic or Danish tongue - but I would suspect that "It was originally typed down in french" is not true since theauthors were native Icelandic speakers.
Unfortunately, I don't think that we can't keep up much longer as for the Greek/Aramaic debate matters. Anyway for now...

Well?.thanks for acknowledging that your Aramaic assertion has no support?

The NT was written in Greek.

There are some things in the gospels that I cannot declare as correct as for your attempt to claim that "alkit?b" is The Bible. Namely that it identifies Jesus as The Messiah and "son of God" at the same time, which is not consistent with the messianic tradition.

Jesus is identified as The Messiah and as The Son of God in the Koran?

What exactly is the issue??

Thanks?

el-Aziz

Well?.thanks for acknowledging that your Aramaic assertion has no support?

The NT was written in Greek.

I'm not at all acknowleding my lack of support as for the Aramaic background of NT.
Is there substancial support that the NT was mainly written in Greek?

Jesus is identified as The Messiah and as The Son of God in the Koran?
What exactly is the issue??

The issue is that the concept of Messiah (hebrew moshiyakh) does not have to do with a son of God as it is described in the NT. There are 6 specific criterias for the ha-Moshiyakh or "the annointed ONE" to fulfill. Jesus DID fulfill the first one but failed on the next 5.

As for the quranic claim of Jesus as "al-masiih", I will raise this question in another thread.

Kind regards,
S

unknownuser

Greetings St?phane,

Thanks for your reply?

I'm not at all acknowleding my lack of support as for the Aramaic background of NT.

Yes you are?

You have had plenty of opportunity to bring forth extant manuscript evidence to back your assertion?

You have declined? wink

Is there substancial support that the NT was mainly written in Greek?

Of course?

Check out what your brothers have to say?

http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/paplist.html

http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/codexlist.html

Apple Pie wrote

Jesus is identified as The Messiah and as The Son of God in the Koran?
What exactly is the issue??

The issue is that the concept of Messiah (hebrew moshiyakh) does not have to do with a son of God as it is described in the NT. There are 6 specific criterias for the ha-Moshiyakh or "the annointed ONE" to fulfill. Jesus DID fulfill the first one but failed on the next 5.

Please bring forth the classic Arabic definition for ?Messiah??.and we will see how Jesus fits in with the Biblical definition?

Thanks?

el-Aziz

I'm not at all acknowleding my lack of support as for the Aramaic background of NT.

Yes you are?

You have had plenty of opportunity to bring forth extant manuscript evidence to back your assertion?

You have declined? wink

Ok, whatever. I still don't see no support that the NT would be written in greek but it seems we've reached a dead end situation here anyway.

Is there substancial support that the NT was mainly written in Greek?

Of course?

Check out what your brothers have to say?

http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/paplist.html
http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/codexlist.htm

I belive that the documents you just refered to are not from the time of Jesus. They are no different from any other word of mouth as it is in the case of "hadiths".

Besides, the people that you've linked to are not my brothers, so don't lump me with them especially since we don't share believes. I have one sister and she's 13 years old. Period.

Apple Pie wrote

Jesus is identified as The Messiah and as The Son of God in the Koran?
What exactly is the issue??

The issue is that the concept of Messiah (hebrew moshiyakh) does not have to do with a son of God as it is described in the NT. There are 6 specific criterias for the ha-Moshiyakh or "the annointed ONE" to fulfill. Jesus DID fulfill the first one but failed on the next 5.

Please bring forth the classic Arabic definition for ?Messiah??.and we will see how Jesus fits in with the Biblical definition?

I'm not concerned about the biblical definition of Jesus. And by biblical definition I assume you mean NT one?
However, if you wish to invoke the quranic definition of Jesus as "The Messiah", I just started this thread which you're more than welcome to join in discussion.

unknownuser

Greetings St?phane,

Thanks for your reply?

Ok, whatever. I still don't see no support that the NT would be written in greek but it seems we've reached a dead end situation here anyway.

With all due respect, the only ?dead-end? is your lame assertion for an Aramaic NT?

Perhaps, in the future, you will be more prepared to back-up your assertions when you are called to do so?

I belive that the documents you just refered to are not from the time of Jesus. They are no different from any other word of mouth as it is in the case of "hadiths".

What language are they written in?..?

Apple Pie wrote
Quote
Apple Pie wrote

Jesus is identified as The Messiah and as The Son of God in the Koran?
What exactly is the issue??

The issue is that the concept of Messiah (hebrew moshiyakh) does not have to do with a son of God as it is described in the NT. There are 6 specific criterias for the ha-Moshiyakh or "the annointed ONE" to fulfill. Jesus DID fulfill the first one but failed on the next 5.

Please bring forth the classic Arabic definition for ?Messiah??.and we will see how Jesus fits in with the Biblical definition?

I'm not concerned about the biblical definition of Jesus. And by biblical definition I assume you mean NT one?

I clearly asked you regarding the classic Arabic definition for ?messiah??..and you are already telling us that you don?t care about the Biblical definition of Jesus?.?!

Who mentioned the Biblical definition of Jesus?.?

You need to understand the Hebrew, Greek. And Arabic ?messiah? definitions before you can even begin to entertain what is ?right or wrong? regarding it?

Thanks?