oldest fragments of Quran found
-
Yes, that is a kind of perversion of the language which sadly occurs. That means the word is not used as it once was and with Arabic and the Semitic languages it is relatively easy to expose such distortion due to their "innate letter meanings".
I wouldn't call it distortion. With time, many words are dropped in majority of the languages. Although the west has done a great job of keeping collection of the dropped English words they are not always available in dictionaries.
Try looking for these words in dictionary
Interfactor it actually means murderer
Olitor this one means kitchen gardener
English came long after Semitic languages. Yet so many of its ancient words are missing now.With Arabic this language is a bit special and no one understood Quran at its time
Evidence?
These people invented some kind of fake Arabic which one you have today
Its not fake Arabic. Just like every language, for convenience sake, some words are dropped for which some verses of Quran seem incomprehensible. We have to take evolution of culture, rulers and their hadiths into consideration.
Yes, but that does not say it is correct. Because they could not understand Quran or the usage of it from the past they have "Paganized" it into God. "Rabb" is the accurate word for God in Arabic actually, i.e. the word that best translates the English god word. The misconception is because some people simply could not understand.
Allah is actually not even a noun but a verb with an attached third-person pronoun and should be used as such within a linguistic context, but can be used standalone to mark that "one is", i.e. is alive or existent, however that thanks to the attached pronoun. Like I have said 9385687528 times, Allah is a construct of A L L which root is also used when you add the prefix AL to words to create an adjectival word (such be + attribute), but in the case of allah it forms a verb plus attached pronoun reference (ه which word would come first in an English rendition most of the time.
My sibling starting from day 1 of her life used to call "Allah" whenever she cried. Also it seems when used in duas, God doesn't seem to have problem with it. He ends up fulfilling the wish. Many pious people including Quran followers call him by that name. If they were being wrong they would have got his signal long time ago.
Had the word referred to an object reference by the word itself, the word would have been written (Allateh), but these grammar rules people seem to disregard, not to mention you would not make a name of a word attached with AL without making a separation between AL and the name. You have an example with Pharaoh which is treated as a proper noun in Quran and is written , i.e. with AL separate from the name and in this case it is because the context makes a sample reference to Pharaoh to say "such as Pharaoh". Using that kind of grammar you would write for allah if you would follow this fact. Now you do not write as such to give a direct reference to a person because the attached AL would make a sample reference as "such as" about the person mentioned. A difference would be if you instead said (ahl) which is also a construct using AL but with attached in the word, e.g. ahl Musa which would imply that like-minded people "such like" Moses who are with him.
I wouldn't read too much into it anymore, for when I went to research on it I found out the article Al first showed up in Al-lt. That's preclassical Arabic. The name belongs to their goddess.
Satan means "Charge/apply Judgment BY Integrity" (in a morphological breakdown) which would mean to follow sincerely what you see before you without thinking deeper. It is the most natural choice but that choice is a delusion created by God. If you like to make Satan an easy-to-understand word you could use "instinct" in English.
a natural tendency to behave in a particular way or a natural ability to know something, which is not learned
In ways it is the truth that you know without digging deeper. The Sanskrit definition may not be incorrect, but you need to also reflect upon how it should be interpreted. If you just give in to the World sincerely as it is designed then that is to follow Satan, and "truth" may not be entirely wrong, but I think "eternal truth" is not the correct definition from the Sanskrit version of Satan.
Agree
-
Update on mr olaf it seems that he has finally taken his mask off to reveal that he is the long lost brother of terrorist pamela geller.
From his twitter
How to explain that 1 out of 75 is Muslim in prison in France without understanding congenital link Islam-violence?
220 dead, 450 injured in a stampede in Mecca want, Muslims are victims of the 1st themselves
source https//twitter.com/OdonLAFontaine
check his youtube profile pic https//www.youtube.com/user/levraiolafIts hard for me to believe people take him seriously.
-
Hello reel,
I wouldn't call it distortion. With time, many words are dropped in majority of the languages. Although the west has done a great job of keeping collection of the dropped English words they are not always available in dictionaries.
Yes, but in many cases the changes are not good, particularly when a word changes in meaning. In the case of Quran it is obvious that a clergy did it so that it fit their ideas.
Evidence?
The evidence is empirical, there is simply no source that portrays Quran's interpretation in any proper light. Besides that during my interpretation work of chapter 36, a passage says itself that it was not interpreted previously.
It is perhaps not evidence to you but I also got firsthand words that the Quran is not an interpreted source and "Islam is not My religion".
Its not fake Arabic. Just like every language, for convenience sake, some words are dropped for which some verses of Quran seem incomprehensible. We have to take evolution of culture, rulers and their hadiths into consideration.
It is fake Arabic, or at least it is not the kind of Arabic that Quran stands for. Quran is written by the Holy Spirit and hypocrites attempted to understand it and a fabricated language emerged. Arabs and other nationalities that are Arab speaking speak a clerical invention based on a very poor interpretation of a scripture where even very primitive bilateral words can have totally opposite meanings, and then I speak about 'la' that is twisted into not and that is simply not possible even with a natural evolution of languages. The plain answer is that someone read this scripture and then began to speak it as according to their understood it as a "holy language" which it also is but not their "version". Even many medieval lexicons from past times do not agree with "their language" oftentimes after some research. A lexicon called Taj el'Aroos is most truthful to the ancient tongue of Arabic.
You can call a language anything but the Arabic that Arabs speak today is not the language of Quran.
During the official advent of Quran the majority of Arabia spoke Aramaic, particularly the northern parts, and that kind of historical documentation is well available if you study a little. Then all of a sudden the whole continent begins to speak Arabic, and an Arabic that is completely wrong. That is the (evil) power of religion; Islam began to suppress the Gnostic faiths calling them associators with God in a negative light while Quran actually advocates the opposite, i.e. association with God. This misconception is the power of changing yes into no. Just check the phrase 'la elah ila allah' given its correct rendition "To be 'Who Is' is to be 'As Such Who Is'". You see that the purpose is "TO BE ALLAH", i.e. "who is".
Who are the culprits? Individual Persian clerics seeking domination using their allies.
Who are the victims? Superstitious undeveloped Arabs.
What was the plot? Beat down on the "blasphemous" association that the Aram, Ashur and Median faiths indulged in and was spreading and a raging rebellion against Rome and the Christian movement. Islam is an answer to early Christianity, and in their opinion derailed Judaism, by Persian clergymen. It was an instrument of politics. There was a great turmoil politically within the Persian empire due to the chaos Jesus left behind within the religious realm. Behind the scenes it had to do mostly about religion.
I dislike being opinionated, but Christianity is based on a drastically more solid doctrinal ground even if it obviously has been sectarianized because they believe in "Father, daughter/son and the Holy Spirit" which is an accurate metaphor over the nature of God. A mistake that the adherents to Christianity have done is that they treat Jesus other than what they can themselves be. He actually taught that everyone who followed his example would be children of the Father and it is in the very same scripture that the Christians claim to follow. They have not understand the meaning of "son".
My sibling starting from day 1 of her life used to call "Allah" whenever she cried. Also it seems when used in duas, God doesn't seem to have problem with it. He ends up fulfilling the wish. Many pious people including Quran followers call him by that name. If they were being wrong they would have got his signal long time ago.
It is not "a bad thing" only ignorant and obviously God is used to ignorance and obviously God knows what people who say Allah mean when they ignorantly use an inaccurate term.
God (Rabb) is included in the Allah unity, but also those of us who are ascended into awareness. I can also say I am Allah. In the Allah unity, God is Rabb. Disregarding this, NO ONE IN QURAN SAYS "YA ALLAH" and YA is a word you use when you address someone meaning there is no one who addresses God using YA ALLAH, for a reason.
In the end it is worth knowing that God does not really care about words but what is in your heart and what you do with yourself. Yet it may be an idea to properly use a language that you claim to master using proper definitions, even if God knows what you mean, even if you only think in your mind what you would like to say.
If someone likes to use (Quranic) Arabic terms they ought to use Rabb, if they like to speak the language properly.
If they were being wrong they would have got his signal long time ago.
That is why you receive a signal from me. Allah is not an accurate address for God since the word is not even a noun and it can grammatically strictly not be a proper noun as those words would not carry an AL prefix and even if they did the meaning would be silly.
I wouldn't read too much into it anymore, for when I went to research on it I found out the article Al first showed up in Al-lt. That's preclassical Arabic. The name belongs to their goddess.
Yes, Allat is an ancient goddess and there you have an example when it can be an object since it is flagged as such. Allah on the other hand can grammatically not be an object.
The word Elah/Allah however is thousands of years old and originally referred in third person to what God said to Moses, i.e. "I am who am I" (I AM) and thus "Who is". It predates Quran and exists natively in Aramaic too and the whole people of Shem used the word within their language. In the Arabic language its root is an integral part of the grammar while people are blind to this fact. AL is used to unspecific refer to something as an attribute, or you can add a (teh) to make it a passive attribute such as that you can say Wisdom in English.
You have not realized that there may have been Pagan misconceptions in between the time that the word Elah/Allah came into use and now today? You have to realize it may be 4000 years ago that the word Elah/Allah went into use. They may have misunderstood the concept utterly and then created a feminine kind of God named Allat which is physical/objectified per grammar.
Furthermore, during my deciphering work on Quran, it has been revealed that "allah" is used in the way I have explained to you more than once, i.e. it should be read as "who such is" formed by a verb plus pronoun. Because it is descriptive concerning the condition of 'Being' the word is only true for "who is", obviously. If you are alive, conscious, acting "as such", you are Allah, or otherwise you are al-mowt, which means lifeless (even unconscious/no consciousness). The Rabb is obviously Allah, but the question is who is included in the Allah unity. I am as bold as to raise a hand.
Be safe
Amenuel -
Yes, but in many cases the changes are not good, particularly when a word changes in meaning. In the case of Quran it is obvious that a clergy did it so that it fit their ideas.
They couldn't change every meaning though. Whatever remained was covered up by hadiths so people didn't even bother checking.
The evidence is empirical, there is simply no source that portrays Quran's interpretation in any proper light. Besides that during my interpretation work of chapter 36, a passage says itself that it was not interpreted previously.
Quran wasn't new though and we are told in verses how things were corrupted by the previous people.
It is fake Arabic, or at least it is not the kind of Arabic that Quran stands for. Quran is written by the Holy Spirit and hypocrites attempted to understand it and a fabricated language emerged.
That's true, but I really don't think humans have the ability to speak Quranic language just as in the west people are not capable of speaking Shakespearean English.
Arabs and other nationalities that are Arab speaking speak a clerical invention based on a very poor interpretation of a scripture where even very primitive bilateral words can have totally opposite meanings, and then I speak about 'la' that is twisted into not and that is simply not possible even with a natural evolution of languages.
The plain answer is that someone read this scripture and then began to speak it as according to their understood it as a "holy language" which it also is but not their "version". Even many medieval lexicons from past times do not agree with "their language" oftentimes after some research. A lexicon called Taj el'Aroos is most truthful to the ancient tongue of Arabic.
Arabic didn't come from Quran though. There are poems from preIslamic time. If only they could speak the Quranic language they would decoded everything from the book. Apparently, certain things from Quran are still in the process of being revealed as true because of progress in our own knowledge. One example is how death is similar to how we sleep every night. A scientist recently confirmed this to be true. The secret is in a specific hormone.
You can call a language anything but the Arabic that Arabs speak today is not the language of Quran.
Arabs know it though.
During the official advent of Quran the majority of Arabia spoke Aramaic, particularly the northern parts, and that kind of historical documentation is well available if you study a little. Then all of a sudden the whole continent begins to speak Arabic, and an Arabic that is completely wrong.
Not all of middle east is in the north right? Is it possible to make a conclusion about America by studying Canada? Inscription showing Quranic Arabic mixed with Aramaic has been discovered on a tomb before the birth of christ.
That is the (evil) power of religion; Islam began to suppress the Gnostic faiths calling them associators with God in a negative light while Quran actually advocates the opposite, i.e. association with God. This misconception is the power of changing yes into no. Just check the phrase 'la elah ila allah' given its correct rendition "To be 'Who Is' is to be 'As Such Who Is'". You see that the purpose is "TO BE ALLAH", i.e. "who is".
That is why you receive a signal from me. Allah is not an accurate address for God since the word is not even a noun and it can grammatically strictly not be a proper noun as those words would not carry an AL prefix and even if they did the meaning would be silly.
This has connection to kundalini aka new age religion. I know you support it. I wouldn't stop you from this. But I am so used to seeing the damages "I am Allah" causes to people that there is no way I would see it in positive light.
I dislike being opinionated, but Christianity is based on a drastically more solid doctrinal ground even if it obviously has been sectarianized because they believe in "Father, daughter/son and the Holy Spirit" which is an accurate metaphor over the nature of God. A mistake that the adherents to Christianity have done is that they treat Jesus other than what they can themselves be. He actually taught that everyone who followed his example would be children of the Father and it is in the very same scripture that the Christians claim to follow. They have not understand the meaning of "son".
Yet too many christians are leaving christianity.
-
They couldn't change every meaning though. Whatever remained was covered up by hadiths so people didn't even bother checking.
Not every meaning, but most of the meanings. And they have not got the grammar right at all.
That's true, but I really don't think humans have the ability to speak Quranic language just as in the west people are not capable of speaking Shakespearean English.
The problem is that they do not even speak anything that is near "Quranic Arabic".
Arabic didn't come from Quran though. There are poems from preIslamic time. If only they could speak the Quranic language they would decoded everything from the book. Apparently, certain things from Quran are still in the process of being revealed as true because of progress in our own knowledge. One example is how death is similar to how we sleep every night. A scientist recently confirmed this to be true. The secret is in a specific hormone.
You should not be so sure about it. Quran may be compiled 100-200 years before what it is thought to be. And the script in which Quran is written was invented in the 4th-5th century AD. There is empirical research that has a relatively high probability that a discovered manuscript is from prior to year 600 AD. As for the Islamic history, most of that is a fabrication to bring glory to a dominating group of people, and it is rather a hijacked movement by separatist Persian clerics and it is evident in what Islam stands for.
Before Quran, Arabic was an undeveloped scripting language spoken in the Southern Arabia by nomadic tribes in a very crude script (South Arabian). Like I wrote to you, most of the Arabian peninsula spoke Aramaic prior to the Islamic onslaught. You can skim/scan through documents to reveal that without listening to me, it is possible to look that up by reading about the various communities that lived in Arabia during the first millennium AD. Even if it is true that Arabic existed prior to Quran written in South Arabian, it does not make it guaranteed that that discourse is not also lacking in interpretation. Personally I consider that Quran was the first work in the new "modern" Arabic script and that it is divinely inspired, and it may even have come in the North Arabia (since its script developers were a North Arabian community, read later in this post)
The Nabateans, a north Arabian community, they used a version of Aramaic within their borders, however they are not unique but much of Arabia used Aramaic up until the advent of Islam. See an extract from Wikipedia https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabataeans
The language of the Nabataean inscriptions, attested from the 2nd century BC, shows a local development of the Aramaic language, which had ceased to have super-regional importance after the collapse of the Achaemenid Empire (330 BC). The Nabataean alphabet itself also developed out of the Aramaic alphabet.
Note Italicized text is reference from Wikipedia below.
The Nabateans were skilled merchants and fill much of the criteria to be the real merchant community of which the Islamic saga speaks about albeit moving it northeast of the Meccan region. They had eventually good ties with the Roman Empire and probably what the Quran attacks in its sectarian interpretation. Taking the circumstances into consideration concerning the "real historical development", it is likely that Persian clerics had a great influence on the communities here and they saw that (their) religion derailed and a threat from the Roman Empire.
The tales per hadith are nothing else than fiction and tales of glory that have no connection to reality, and they contaminated Quran's interpretation since the clerics obviously had to make Quran look like it supports their madness. The clerics did the same as they did with "Hebrew" versus Aramaic, i.e. invented a fake religious language. It is incredible that no one until the 21st century AD have realized that the Arabic spoken by people today versus Quran's Arabic are totally incompatible with each other and written Arabic works you find obviously suffer from a similar phenomenon as was with the blasphemous "Hebrew" language. The clerics and their scholars were even so bold as to claim the opposite, i.e. that Aramaic was an invented language and say Hebrew was the pure language. But Aramaya (Aramaic) is the language of Aram.
The Nabateans are told to have developed the "modern" Arabic script. Arabic is closer related to Aramaic than people like to admit, particularly Arabs and Muslims, even though Aramaic more or less died out in the 12th century AD except in minority communities today 2015.
The Aramaic alphabet was introduced to the Arab people through traders from the Mediterranean Empire, and the Arab people began using the script during the Christian period in the Middle East. From the Aramaic, the script continued to develop through two separate kingdoms in the region The Nabataean and the Palmyran.
It was the Nabatean's that was the brain in Arabia during this time and no other community was advanced enough to have the capability to develop a script like this. Like I wrote, the undeveloped superstitious barbarian nomadic Arabian tribes of the deserts were victims of rallying by intellectuals from the north, much like often happens today 2015 but on a more sophisticated level. They gained wealth on their rampages and became more technologically advanced by their conquest of, by the Romans and Persians, imported technology. You must not forget that before the trade routes by the seas, Arabia was an important land trade route to Asia, and that made the Nabateans rich. The caravans did primarily not travel over the extremely hot sand deserts but traveled where it was convenient. You can probably realize where they traveled if you examine the wealthy trading community of cities such as Palmyra, Nineveh and other obvious cities. Because of this they were more advanced than in the deserts.
Historians have obviously been biased by all the fake religious accounts and despite that there are contradictory accounts, people seem to opt for the religious accounts despite that there is little evidence of them ever happening. You have very limited archaeological evidence from Islam and authorities of Saudi-Arabia do allow very little such activity. Few people even bother to look into the history of the stone building in Mecca and that it was first of all not cubic from the start but a different form. The curved wall remains on one side of the building was once part of the building. A few hundred years ago, I think in the 1600's the building fell apart due to land erosion and its current shape was made through its reconstruction.
The first known text in the Arabic alphabet is a late 4th-century inscription from Jabal Ramm (50 km east of ?Aqabah) in Jordan, but the first dated one is a trilingual inscription at Zebed in Syria from 512.
It is not surprisingly in the northern hemisphere of Arabia where they find literature with Arabic.
However, the epigraphic record is extremely sparse, with only five certainly pre-Islamic Arabic inscriptions surviving, though some others may be pre-Islamic
The Arabic alphabet can be traced back to the Nabataean alphabet used to write the Nabataean dialect of Aramaic.
It was these technologically advanced communities of North Arabia who developed the modern Arabic script because it obviously takes some kind of educational system and academic proficiency to develop this because a script is technology.
You can call a language anything but the Arabic that Arabs speak today is not the language of Quran.
Arabs know it though.
What do they know? They know the fabricated language of the ancient clergymen, but they do not know Quranic Arabic, because no one even bother to verify if it is really authentic because they fell for the human fallacy of being gullible and take things for granted "because it has always been used like this" or "the scholars say it is like this and they know better".
Not all of middle east is in the north right? Is it possible to make a conclusion about America by studying Canada? Inscription showing Quranic Arabic mixed with Aramaic has been discovered on a tomb before the birth of christ.
A convincing majority of North Arabia used Aramaic although there was an Arabic influence.
You ought to provide the information regarding this "Quranic Arabic" that can be carbon dated prior to the birth of Christ. It goes against the development of the Arabic language from the sources that I can track. Most of such information is propaganda from religious Muslims. You have to evaluate sources.
This has connection to kundalini aka new age religion. I know you support it. I wouldn't stop you from this. But I am so used to seeing the damages "I am Allah" causes to people that there is no way I would see it in positive light.
Why would it cause any problem? It is the kind of faith that God stands for. The word Allah even means literally "Who is" in Arabic. You have to understand what it is that I teach.
I think that the sectarian view of a separate god in Pagan style is way more damaging than to take the responsibility to "be in unity with Allah" to be "who is as such".
You can probably not see it in a positive light because you have not yet fully comprehended its implication. If you were wise you would adopt the knowledge.
Yet too many christians are leaving christianity.
Well, I do not rebuke them for leaving sectarian Christianity.
Be safe
Amenuel -
You should not be so sure about it. Quran may be compiled 100-200 years before what it is thought to be. And the script in which Quran is written was invented in the 4th-5th century AD. There is empirical research that has a relatively high probability that a discovered manuscript is from prior to year 600 AD. As for the Islamic history, most of that is a fabrication to bring glory to a dominating group of people, and it is rather a hijacked movement by separatist Persian clerics and it is evident in what Islam stands for.
You should not be so sure about it. Quran may be compiled 100-200 years before what it is thought to be. And the script in which Quran is written was invented in the 4th-5th century AD. There is empirical research that has a relatively high probability that a discovered manuscript is from prior to year 600 AD. As for the Islamic history, most of that is a fabrication to bring glory to a dominating group of people, and it is rather a hijacked movement by separatist Persian clerics and it is evident in what Islam stands for.
What if Quran has always been here since God keeps saying it isn't invention?
You ought to provide the information regarding this "Quranic Arabic" that can be carbon dated prior to the birth of Christ. It goes against the development of the Arabic language from the sources that I can track. Most of such information is propaganda from religious Muslims. You have to evaluate sources.
I am looking for the book that has the info. I know for sure that it is in google library. Its a tomb inscription.
Why would it cause any problem? It is the kind of faith that God stands for. The word Allah even means literally "Who is" in Arabic. You have to understand what it is that I teach.
I think that the sectarian view of a separate god in Pagan style is way more damaging than to take the responsibility to "be in unity with Allah" to be "who is as such".
You can probably not see it in a positive light because you have not yet fully comprehended its implication. If you were wise you would adopt the knowledge.
As I hinted earlier, I have not seen any negative result from the use of the word Allah.
But the reason why I am not convinced about the claim on Arabic language not being there before Quran is because
1.I am very much aware of Southern area's extreme measure to hide their history of poverty. I still have history book with torn pages. Also they do a very poor job of saving historical stuffs.
2. Several attacks khans and wahabbis.
3. No proof of Arabic being invented language. After you told me about it I went to research. Couldn't find anything convincing. In fact, the keywords were not respected by google.
4.If Quran makes more sense in Aramaic how did Bukhaili and Moore work with the Arabic one? How is it that it is possible to verify its facts even when read in Arabic? And if it was copied from Aramaic text there should be at least a little evidence revealing it just as we have evidence of how traditionalists made up hadiths.
5. Southern Arabians are extremely closed off. This is the generation of information technology yet people know so less about their daily lives.
6. We certainly don't understand everything written in Quran, but as time goes by, I realize it is because we haven't progressed much in knowledge department.
7. Dropped words and evolution of language.
8. How much of archaeology work is allowed in Saudi?peace
-
As I hinted earlier, I have not seen any negative result from the use of the word Allah.
God does not punish anyone for ignorance although their perception may be punishing to themselves depending on what they do.
But the reason why I am not convinced about the claim on Arabic language not being there before Quran is because
1.I am very much aware of Southern area's extreme measure to hide their history of poverty. I still have history book with torn pages. Also they do a very poor job of saving historical stuffs.
2. Several attacks khans and wahabbis.
3. No proof of Arabic being invented language. After you told me about it I went to research. Couldn't find anything convincing. In fact, the keywords were not respected by google.
4.If Quran makes more sense in Aramaic how did Bukhaili and Moore work with the Arabic one? How is it that it is possible to verify its facts even when read in Arabic? And if it was copied from Aramaic text there should be at least a little evidence revealing it just as we have evidence of how traditionalists made up hadiths.
5. Southern Arabians are extremely closed off. This is the generation of information technology yet people know so less about their daily lives.
6. We certainly don't understand everything written in Quran, but as time goes by, I realize it is because we haven't progressed much in knowledge department.
7. Dropped words and evolution of language.
8. How much of archaeology work is allowed in Saudi?Alright. You have made up your mind. I disagree and say the Arabic spoken today has nothing to do with Quran, and my intensive work has revealed that this is true, but that means you do not agree with my translation work. Perhaps later when I have more followers and an even stronger foundation to go on you may turn to it.
What if Quran has always been here since God keeps saying it isn't invention?
I have not rejected the notion completely, but the Arabic script we have today started showing up around the 4th and 5th centuries AD.
4.If Quran makes more sense in Aramaic how did Bukhaili and Moore work with the Arabic one? How is it that it is possible to verify its facts even when read in Arabic? And if it was copied from Aramaic text there should be at least a little evidence revealing it just as we have evidence of how traditionalists made up hadiths.
I have not claimed something along that lines that you are arguing here.
Both Arabic and Aramaic are mysterious languages and there is something bigger than your and other people's easy explanations to it and the pathetic Islam interpretation of Quran that is just the inference of a worldly human or humans compared to the advanced language used by God in Quran when you can read it as it was Authored.
Be safe
Amenuel -
God does not punish anyone for ignorance although their perception may be punishing to themselves depending on what they do.
I have faith in God's sign.
I disagree and say the Arabic spoken today has nothing to do with Quran, and my intensive work has revealed that this is true
But I thought even Arabs from South know it. My Arabic language teachers imparted to me that in the 90's. Isn't the whole debate over which words mean what based on that?
I have not claimed something along that lines that you are arguing here.
Nay, it wasn't for you. I apologize if you thought so.
-
I have faith in God's sign.
Me too, and all the data being flowed over you is just that.
But I thought even Arabs from South know it. My Arabic language teachers imparted to me that in the 90's. Isn't the whole debate over which words mean what based on that?
You underestimate the dark side of the Force. There was a systematic clerical indoctrination and a hoax going on 1500-2000 years ago. The language is intact in the scripting language in elder sources, but somehow every written source is misinterpreted. I have not yet initiated the research on the Bible, but since a big portion of it is written in Aramaic and I got word it also has the 'la' corruption, the corruption runs deeper than I originally thought. I am onto something, but I lack a very thorough historical elaboration at this time as to why it happened. I have however very probable hypotheses based on analyses of masses of information and inferences from that.
Words mean depending on the letters in combination, they determine the word's meaning strictly based from each individual letter's innate meaning. It is like Allah - Be Such Such It, or "who is as such" as I paraphrase it. Amer - Be Of Firmness, i.e. determined. Amen - Be Of Integrity. - Gain Such Thereof - know/learn. - Spirit Such Thereof - pristine/sound. In case you did not understand it, every word refers to God as reference point as the Foundation of the World, e.g. the Such Thereof in and refers to God.
These are language secrets and it would be a shame if you reject that in favor to scholarly fabricated knowledge.
Be safe
Amenuel -
Where exactly do you get your assumption that the Quran is older than we thaught? if anything it confirms that the Quran came when it is generaly excepted that it did to the Prophet Muhammad
Assumption? Lol....it is not assumption, it is the truth. Its all in the Quran. You just need to scrutinize the verses, including watching out for the tenses. Further, the Quran 0544
!, We sent down the Taurat, in it Guidance and light; judge them by it the Prophets, those who had submitted, that is, those who were Jews. And the Rabbis, and the scholars, with what they were entrusted of Book (of) ALLAH and they were to it witnessess...
The above verse proofs that all Prophets, their job is to protect the Book of ALLAH against any distortion, corruption, so on and so forth...
So it does not make any sense if the Last Prophet was sent down 300 years after the creed of Nicene which means the Prophet was sent when the Book had already been distorted? What protection can he gave when the Book that he was supposed to protect had already gone virus? It contradicts verse 0544.