bring a sura like it? a deeper meaning?

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.

unknownuser

Greetings ayman,

Thanks for your reply?

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.

Again??and??

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.

Likewise, my quoted Lexical definitions support the cardinal numerals as well as the definitions that I utilized?

Fact is?my rendering is completely valid?.

Furthermore, it is consistent with the Book of Revelation material already contained within the Sura itself?

Apple Pie wrote
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!

What happened to your ?four pairs? argument?.?

Looks like it went south?.. lol

Apple Pie wrote
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.

Not only is it true that the authors of the Koran copied Biblical material?.but the Book of Revelation is one of two main Biblical books utilized in the construction of the Koran?surely you are aware of this?.

Furthermore, I agree, Hadiths are a waste of time?

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.

If you believe this, then the Koran is no more than an Arabic translation of the Biblical ?stories??

The Koran is Kinda like watching a Japanese "godzilla" flick in which the words don't match the lip movements...

Thanks?

unknownuser

Peace be upon you Apple Pie,

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?

(5116) And when The God said "You Jesus Mary's son, did you say to the people 'Take me and my mother (as) two gods from other than The God?' He (Jesus) said 'Your glory, (it) is not to be for me that I say what is not for me with (a) right/truth, if I was (had) said it, so You had known it, You know what (is) in my mind, and I do not know what (is) in Your mind, that You, You (are) all knower (of) the unseens/hidden."

You should read the story of Ausar (Greeks changed it to Osirus) and see how the death , ressurection, and virgin births are nothing new in symbolic story telling, by the way, this reading(quran) is the BEST story(hadith).

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

After all.. If you have missed th emessage of Peace that is contained within your very own bible, then the writers of that bible have failed to deliver the source message from the God. wink

ayman

Peace Mr. Pie, all,

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.

Again??and??

I don't entirely blame you for not understanding. After studying the inconsistent Bible for a long time, you are obviously not used to applying a logical methodology of how a text can explain itself.

Looking at other verses where the same expression occurs is a standard method for properly understanding any logically consistent text, not just the great reading/quran. Obviously, you are not used to reading logically consistent texts and hence seem unfamiliar with this method.

Since the same exact expression occurs in 43 and in 351, one must first apply a consistent interpretation of the expression in both instances. This is only common sense. Too bad you are not used to apply that same common sense. As I noted, this is not entirely your fault but is also due to the inconsistency of the Bible, which doesn't lend it to such logical methods of interpretation.

Likewise, my quoted Lexical definitions support the cardinal numerals as well as the definitions that I utilized?

Fact is?my rendering is completely valid?.

Given enough time, anyone can come up with one of the many possible meanings by randomly selecting words from a dictionary. Even a monkey can do that. What a monkey cannot do is give you a meaning and then correctly match it to the meaning of the same expression in another context (for example in 43).

Your circular argument-based interpretation is immediately exposed as false when you try to apply your same understanding of "mathna wa thulath wa ruba3" in 351 to 43.

Furthermore, it is consistent with the Book of Revelation material already contained within the Sura itself?

Your whole post is about trying to prove that 351 is consistent with the Book of Revelation. Hence, saying that 351 is consistent with the Book of Revelation because "it is consistent with the Book of Revelation material already contained within the Sura itself" is a circular argument.

Not only is it true that the authors of the Koran copied Biblical material?.but the Book of Revelation is one of two main Biblical books utilized in the construction of the Koran?surely you are aware of this?.

So far, you are only making me aware of your circular arguments. My advice to you again is, if you want to have a decent chance at convincing anybody, try to escape your fallacious circular arguments by forgetting your preconceived conclusion while reading the great reading.

Someone who comes here to defend the Bible is supposedly highly knowledgeable in it. If circular arguments and failure to logically determine meaning based on the repetition of the same exact concept elsewhere is the standard method with which you understand the Bible, then I am afraid that your musings have only given people a bad impression of the Bible.

Furthermore, I agree, Hadiths are a waste of time?

Yes. Hadiths plagiarize many ideas from the Bible (for example, stoning to death for adultery, etc.). Hence, both Hadiths and the Bible are equally a waste of time.

Peace on who followed the guidance,

Ayman.

Grourself

Peace,

Food for thought.

Note the position of the challenge

Produce one in the second sura

And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce A CHAPTER like it and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful.

Produce 10 in the 11th sura

Or, do they say He has forged it. Say Then bring TEN forged chapters like it and call upon whom you can besides Allah, if you are truthful.