Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Interfaith Dialogue
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: What language did Jesus speak? Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 6 Next >>
Author Message
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2256
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 11 January 2012 at 4:03pm
Originally posted by Bowman

For the very plain fact that the Koran points the reader back to the previous scriptures.


And what does that have to do with the language used? 

Originally posted by Bowman

The language of the Biblical prophets is recorded in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.
 

And that automatically means that the prophets spoke those languages?  That's pretty specious reasoning.  Do you realize that the Septuagint was compiled centuries after Moses and the other prophets?  What proof do you have, besides circular reasoning, that Moses (pbuh) spoke Greek?

Originally posted by Bowman

The closest that the authors of the Koran could do was to Arabicize words from these languages – proving, once again, that Arabic was not the original revealed language.
  

You have yet to prove any of this.  All you done is provide your own personal opinions with no historical or archaeological evidence.  Until you do that, your claims are nothing but non-sequiturs.

Originally posted by Bowman

No mention of Arabic in this ayah.


You missed the point.  The verse states that God (Allah) sent prophets to various nations and that these prophets spoke the language of the people.  How else could they communicate God's message? 

But with this statement, you have actually shown that you have never read the Quran.  The reason is that if you had, you would know that the Quran does indeed mention that it was revealed in Arabic in several places:

"A.L.R. These are the symbols (or Verses) of the perspicuous Book. We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an, in order that ye may learn wisdom" (12:1-2).

"Thus have We revealed it to be a judgment of authority in Arabic. Wert thou to follow their (vain) desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither protector nor defender against Allah" (13:37).

"We know indeed that they say, "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear" (16:103).

"Thus have We sent this down - an arabic Qur'an - and explained therein in detail some of the warnings, in order that they may fear Allah, or that it may cause their remembrance (of Him)" (20:113). 


So there you go.

Originally posted by Bowman

Further, the language used is spelled-out in the very next ayah which tells us about Moses from the Holy Bible.  Most certainly not Arabic – but Hebrew!  Moses did not speak Arabic, brother.


You are running around in circles and making unsubstantiated claims.  Obviously, when verse 5 is read in the context of verse 4, all it is saying is that God sent Moses (pbuh), who obviously spoke the language of the Jews, to bring His message to them.

I never said that Moses spoke Arabic.  That was you.  LOL

Originally posted by Bowman

The best you can do is just admit that the authors of the Koran translated the Biblical languages into Arabic.

 

You really have no other choice in the matter.

     


LOL If you say so. 


Actually, I think you are trying hard to convince yourself of your own unproven claims.


In order for the so-called "authors" of the Quran to "translate" the Biblical languages, they would obviously had to have known how to read and write those languages.  But, most of them were illiterate even of their own language (Arabic), so how likely is it that they would be learned in ancient Hebrew or Greek?  Not bloody likely!


In any case, what hard evidence do you have (besides your own opinions) that these phantom "authors" had "translated" the Bible?  Can you actually provide evidence for once?


Originally posted by Bowman

This example is an open admission that previous revelation (i.e. the Holy Bible) contained this information...

 

 

   

خلق الله السموت والأرض بالحق إن في ذلك لءاية للمؤمنين

 

Khalaqa Allahu alssamawati waal-arda bialhaqqi inna fee thalika laayatan lilmu-mineena

 

29.44   “allah” he created the heavens and the earth through ‘The Truth’, truly in that previous Revelation to believers.


Yeah...perhaps you should actually correctly quote the ayat.  Here is what it actually says:


YUSUFALI: Allah created the heavens and the earth in true (proportions): verily in that is a Sign for those who believe.
PICKTHAL: Allah created the heavens and the earth with truth. Lo! therein is indeed a portent for believers.
SHAKIR: Allah created the heavens and the earth with truth; most surely there is a sign in this for the believers.


This is not even referring to the scriptures.  All the verse is saying is that Allah (swt) created the universe and that should be sign to believers of His Might and Majesty. 


Originally posted by Bowman

وإذ قال عيسى ابن مريم يبني إسرءيل إني

رسول الله إليكم مصدقا لما بين يدي من التورية

ومبشرا برسول يأتي من بعدي اسمه أحمد فلما

جاءهم بالبينت قالوا هذا سحر مبين

 
 


So now you speak Arabic?  The verse states:


"And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is evident sorcery!" (61:6).


So, where does it say that Jesus spoke Arabic?  "Ahmad" is another name for Muhammad (pbuh) and simply means "the praise worthy".  Why do you find it so difficult to understand that Jesus simply said this to his followers in Aramaic but that since the Quran was brought through an Arab prophet, Jesus' prophecy is therefore written in.........Arabic?


Originally posted by Bowman

Jesus was familiar with many languages as evidenced by His repeated quoting from the Septuagint – which was written 100% in Greek.


Another circular argument.  Jesus wasn't the author of the NT, was he?  Just because the authors of the NT spoke Greek and quoted from the Septuagint does not mean that Jesus too spoke Greek.  You need to provide actual historical evidence.  As I and others have already pointed out, the language of the Palestinian Jews was predominately Aramaic.  Greek would have been the language of the Romans and other Gentile groups but not the Jews.    


Originally posted by Bowman

Further, the sign above His cross was in three languages, including Greek.


According to the NT, which was not authored by Jesus (pbuh)...what's your point?  How does that imply that he spoke all three languages?  If the Romans had crucified a man who spoke 50 languages, do you think they would have put a sign above his cross in those 50 languages? 


Originally posted by Bowman

Keep yourself in denial, brother…
  


LOL Oh that's rich! 


What you call "denial", I call "reason".  I have repeatedly asked you for evidence for your claims, yet you provided not one iota of evidence.  And you accuse me of being in denial?  Come on...


By the way, you can stop calling me "brother".  I know we are brothers in humanity, but we certainly are not brothers in faith and since we are largely having discussions regarding our respective faiths (and not our humanity), it makes no sense to use words which have no meaning here.

 

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
truthnowcome
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 05 April 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 823
Quote truthnowcome Replybullet Posted: 11 January 2012 at 7:18pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

 

Originally posted by Bowman

Further, the sign above His cross was in three languages, including Greek.


According to the NT, which was not authored by Jesus (pbuh)...what's your point?  How does that imply that he spoke all three languages?  If the Romans had crucified a man who spoke 50 languages, do you think they would have put a sign above his cross in those 50 languages?

<>

Peace to all!

 

What wrong with this guy? Who was there to take out the picture of Jesus (S) on the cross to showcase the written word on top of it? I didn’t see any mentioned of it in the Holy Bible (holy collection of books)! Is that how he looks ( a white man with some wire  wrap around his head and nail to a cross)? Can you provide the evidence how they got his picture on the cross?

 

TRUTHNOWCOME

LET'S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL...NO MORE LIES!
IP IP Logged
Kish
 
Guest Group
Guest Group
Avatar

Joined: 07 July 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 237
Quote Kish Replybullet Posted: 11 January 2012 at 10:13pm

Originally posted by islamispeace

There simply is no proof that "Jesus was a polyglot". The historical evidence suggests that he would have spoken Aramaic only. Therefore, he was not a "polyglot".

“Aramaic only” you must be kidding! Why would the Apostle Matthew first write his Gospel account in Hebrew if everyone including Jesus spoke only Aramaic, simply because they knew and understood Hebrew. Later on it was written in Greek.

Historical evidence – Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Hebrew reaches as far back as Papias of Hierapolis, of the second century C.E.
Eusebius (of the third and fourth centuries C.E.) said that “the evangelist Matthew delivered his Gospel in the Hebrew tongue.” (Patrologia Graeca, Vol. XXII, col. 941)
In his Historia Ecclesiastica (Ecclesiastical History), the fourth-century historian Eusebius quotes Papias and Irenaeus of the second century and Origen of the third, all of whom ascribe this Gospel to Matthew and say that he wrote it in Hebrew. Are you saying this was Aramaic? Not according to documents mentioned by George Howard, professor of religion at the University of Georgia. He wrote: “This supposition was due primarily to the belief that Hebrew in the days of Jesus was no longer in use in Palestine but had been replaced by Aramaic. The subsequent discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, many of which are Hebrew compositions, as well as of other Hebrew documents from Palestine from the general time period of Jesus, now show Hebrew to have been alive and well in the first century.” It is obvious that Matthew wrote his Gospel to benefit Hebrew Christians but may also have translated it into common Greek.

Early in the third century, Origen made reference to Matthew’s account and, in discussing the four Gospels, is quoted by Eusebius as saying that the “first was written . . . according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, . . . in the Hebrew language.” (The Ecclesiastical History, VI, XXV, 3-6)

Jerome (of the fourth and fifth centuries C.E.) stated in his work De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III: “Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. . . . Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected.”

Papias provides external evidence that Matthew originally penned his Gospel in the Hebrew language. Papias says: “He wrote the sayings in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.”
Also, when Jesus came to Nazareth in Galilee and entered the synagogue there, he read from the prophecy of Isaiah, written in Hebrew. How could he and why would he if no one understood Hebrew? Besides, nothing is said about Jesus’ translating this passage into Aramaic.—Luke 4:16-21.
Not only do they confirm the book of Matthew originally written in Hebrew and much later into Greek but they also confirm the Gospel of Jesus in the New Testament by providing proof of its early acceptance by the people and its authenticity as part of the Bible canon, how is that for historical evidence?


Originally posted by truthnowcome

The Earliest Aramaic
0ur first glimpse of Aramaic comes from a small number of ancient royal inscriptions from almost three thousand years ago (900-700 B.C.E.). Dedications to the gods, international treaties, and memorial stelae reveal to us the history of the first small Aramean kingdoms, in the territories of modern Syria and Southeast Turkey, living under the shadow of the rising Assyrian empire.


History lesson - By the time of Assyrian King Sennacherib’s attack on Judah, Aramaic (ancient Syrian) was not understood by the majority of Jews, though some Judean officials understood it.
Here it is again and I quote . . .
Originally posted by kish

2 Kings 18:26, 28 At this E•li′a•kim the son of Hil•ki′ah and Sheb′nah and Jo′ah said to Rab′sha•keh: “Speak with your servants, please, in the Syrian language, for we can listen; and do not speak with us in the Jews’ language (Hebrew) in the ears of the people that are on the wall.”
And Rab′sha•keh continued to stand and call out in a loud voice in the Jews’ language; and he went on to speak and say: “HEAR the word of the great king, the king of As•syr′i•a


The Bible is the only historical source giving reliable evidence of the origin of the language that we know as Hebrew. It was, of course, spoken by the Israelite descendants of “Abram the Hebrew” way before the dates truthnowcomes provides for Aramaic (900-700 B.C.E.)
Genesis 14:13 After that a man who had escaped came and told A′bram the Hebrew. He was then tabernacling among the big trees of Mam′re the Am′or•ite, the brother of Esh′col and brother of A′ner; and they were confederates of A′bram.

Did you read that!? it says the “Hebrew” A’bram descended from Noah’s son Shem, who we can trace back to Adam.
Genesis 11:1 Now all the earth continued to be of one language (Hebrew) and of one set of words.

It is what it is!

Peace,
Kish


Edited by Kish - 11 January 2012 at 10:16pm
IP IP Logged
Bowman
 
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 22 December 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Quote Bowman Replybullet Posted: 13 January 2012 at 8:53pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

 
Originally posted by Bowman

For the very plain fact that the Koran points the reader back to the previous scriptures.

And what does that have to do with the language used?
 
 

This is simply more evidence that the Koran is not original.

 

The authors of the Koran are forever referring the reader back to the Holy Bible.

 

It is never the other way around.

 

 
 
 
Originally posted by islamispeace

 
Originally posted by Bowman

The language of the Biblical prophets is recorded in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. 

And that automatically means that the prophets spoke those languages?  That's pretty specious reasoning.  Do you realize that the Septuagint was compiled centuries after Moses and the other prophets?  What proof do you have, besides circular reasoning, that Moses (pbuh) spoke Greek?
 
 
 

None of the prophets spoke Arabic.  Zero.

 

Even you cannot argue this.

 

The Biblical languages are the divinely inspired languages of the prophets.

 

Arabic was never a divinely inspired language of the prophets.

 
 

Originally posted by islamispeace

 

Originally posted by Bowman

The closest that the authors of the Koran could do was to Arabicize words from these languages – proving, once again, that Arabic was not the original revealed language.   

You have yet to prove any of this.  All you done is provide your own personal opinions with no historical or archaeological evidence.  Until you do that, your claims are nothing but non-sequiturs.

 
 

Here is one very simply example…

 

 

 

فِرْدَوْسِ = “firdawsi”

 

“firdawsi” definition:

 

A garden; so in the Greek language παραδεισου  (Rev 2:7); or a garden comprising everything that is in gardens; such is the proper signification; and so with the people of every language; and containing grapevines; or a garden in which are grapevines; or a place in which are grapevines; or an ample, beautiful garden; or a garden comprising grapevines and palm trees; or with the Arabs it signifies a valley abounding with herbage, like a garden; or a valley, or valleys, producing various sorts of plants or herbage.  It is Greek transferred to the Arabic language, i.e. Arabicised.  Width; amplitude.  Fertile land; the garden which contains everything that should be in a garden; orchard; fruitful valley; the best place of paradise.  Increase that is in wheat.   الْفِرْدَوْسِ Paradise; or a garden of trees, or walled garden, in Paradise; or in the highest of the stages of Paradise; or the middle and highest part of Paradise.

 

It comes from the root “fardasa”, which means to feel anyone, fashion, prostrate before ones’ adversaries, throw down violently, spread on the ground.  He threw him down, prostrate, on the ground, in an evil, or abominable manner; and flung him upon the ground; smote with him the ground.

 

References:

An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume six, p. 298

The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 421

 

 
 
 
 
Originally posted by islamispeace

 


Originally posted by Bowman

No mention of Arabic in this ayah.

You missed the point.  The verse states that God (Allah) sent prophets to various nations and that these prophets spoke the language of the people.  How else could they communicate God's message? 

 
 

So…languages other than Arabic contained God’s true message.

 
 
 
 
Originally posted by islamispeace

 


But with this statement, you have actually shown that you have never read the Quran.  The reason is that if you had, you would know that the Quran does indeed mention that it was revealed in Arabic in several places:

"A.L.R. These are the symbols (or Verses) of the perspicuous Book. We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an, in order that ye may learn wisdom" (12:1-2).


عربيا لعلكم تعقلون نحن نقص عليك أحسن القصص بما أوحينا إليك هذا القرءان وإن كنت من قبله لمن الغفلين

 

Alif-lam-ra tilka ayatu alkitabi almubeenu inna anzalnahu qur-anan AAarabiyyan laAAallakum taAAqiloona nahnu naqussu AAalayka ahsana alqasasi bima awhayna ilayka hatha alqur-ana wa-in kunta min qablihi lamina alghafileena

 

A L R these verses (of) The Book, the clear.   Truly we sent him down an Arabic Collection, perhaps you comprehend.   We, we relate on you, he did the narrative excellently, with what we revealed to you, this, The Collection, and truly you were from before it from the unmindful ones.   (12.1 – 3)

 

 

As we already know, ‘alkitab’ always refers to the Holy Bible.

 

Here, we have the bold proclamation that the letters ‘ALR’ are actually verses from the Holy Bible.  Clear verses at that!

 

The context then wants to know if the reader can comprehend what has just occurred as this Biblical revelation has been transmitted as an Arabic collection (Koran).

 

According to the context, it shows that one individual narrated the Koran, a person who came before the Koran was put together, someone who was already very intimate with Biblical scripture.

 

 

 

Originally posted by islamispeace


"Thus have We revealed it to be a judgment of authority in Arabic. Wert thou to follow their (vain) desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither protector nor defender against Allah" (13:37).

"We know indeed that they say, "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear" (16:103).

"Thus have We sent this down - an arabic Qur'an - and explained therein in detail some of the warnings, in order that they may fear Allah, or that it may cause their remembrance (of Him)" (20:113). 


So there you go.
 


والكتب المبين إنا جعلنه قرءنا عربيا لعلكم تعقلون

 

Waalkitabi almubeeni inna jaAAalnahu qur-anan AAarabiyyan laAAallakum taAAqiloona

 And The Book, the clear/evident.  Certainly we have made it an Arabic Koran, perhaps you comprehend.  (43.2 – 3)

 

 

The Book is the Holy Bible.

 

It was translated into an Arabic Koran.

 

Thus…how is that Muslims can claim anything against the Holy Bible when their book of faith is merely a second-hand paraphrased copy of the original…?

 

 

 

 
Originally posted by islamispeace



Originally posted by Bowman

Further, the language used is spelled-out in the very next ayah which tells us about Moses from the Holy Bible.  Most certainly not Arabic – but Hebrew!  Moses did not speak Arabic, brother.


You are running around in circles and making unsubstantiated claims.  Obviously, when verse 5 is read in the context of verse 4, all it is saying is that God sent Moses (pbuh), who obviously spoke the language of the Jews, to bring His message to them.

I never said that Moses spoke Arabic.  That was you.  LOL


If you admit that Moses never spoke Arabic, then the text is once again referring the reader back to the Holy Bible.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by islamispeace


Originally posted by Bowman

The best you can do is just admit that the authors of the Koran translated the Biblical languages into Arabic.

 

You really have no other choice in the matter.

     


LOL If you say so. 


Actually, I think you are trying hard to convince yourself of your own unproven claims.


In order for the so-called "authors" of the Quran to "translate" the Biblical languages, they would obviously had to have known how to read and write those languages.  But, most of them were illiterate even of their own language (Arabic), so how likely is it that they would be learned in ancient Hebrew or Greek?  Not bloody likely!


In any case, what hard evidence do you have (besides your own opinions) that these phantom "authors" had "translated" the Bible?  Can you actually provide evidence for once?



 
 
 

No one ever claimed that an ignorant Arab wrote the Koran – except for islam.

Jews and Christians were the only literate ones in ancient Arabia.

Clearly, early Arab Christians penned the text.

 
 
 
Originally posted by islamispeace



Originally posted by Bowman

This example is an open admission that previous revelation (i.e. the Holy Bible) contained this information...

 

 

   

خلق الله السموت والأرض بالحق إن في ذلك لءاية للمؤمنين

 

Khalaqa Allahu alssamawati waal-arda bialhaqqi inna fee thalika laayatan lilmu-mineena

 

29.44   “allah” he created the heavens and the earth through ‘The Truth’, truly in that previous Revelation to believers.


Yeah...perhaps you should actually correctly quote the ayat.  Here is what it actually says:


YUSUFALI: Allah created the heavens and the earth in true (proportions): verily in that is a Sign for those who believe.
PICKTHAL: Allah created the heavens and the earth with truth. Lo! therein is indeed a portent for believers.
SHAKIR: Allah created the heavens and the earth with truth; most surely there is a sign in this for the believers.


This is not even referring to the scriptures.  All the verse is saying is that Allah (swt) created the universe and that should be sign to believers of His Might and Majesty. 




 
 

No, brother.

This scripture shows that the world was created through ‘The Truth’…which is an epithet for only the Biblical Jesus Christ.

How is it that your god required the help of Jesus in order to create?

 
 
 
 
Originally posted by islamispeace




Originally posted by Bowman

وإذ قال عيسى ابن مريم يبني إسرءيل إني

رسول الله إليكم مصدقا لما بين يدي من التورية

ومبشرا برسول يأتي من بعدي اسمه أحمد فلما

جاءهم بالبينت قالوا هذا سحر مبين

 
 


So now you speak Arabic?  The verse states:


"And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is evident sorcery!" (61:6).


So, where does it say that Jesus spoke Arabic?  "Ahmad" is another name for Muhammad (pbuh) and simply means "the praise worthy".  Why do you find it so difficult to understand that Jesus simply said this to his followers in Aramaic but that since the Quran was brought through an Arab prophet, Jesus' prophecy is therefore written in.........Arabic?

 
 

61.6 paraphrases Jesus’ quote from Malachi, which pertains to John the Baptist preparing the way for Him, as recorded in the Biblical Gospels.

 

 

Let’s summarize exactly what is being stated in 61.6…

 

  • Jesus quotes from the Old Testament (alttawrati).

 

  • Jesus is quoted as saying that He, Himself came (innee) as the one spoken of from BOTH the OT (alttawrati); AND  from the one who rejoices another (mubashshiran).

 

  • Observe that the text specifically stresses two vantage points that Jesus Himself fulfills and confirms as truth:

 

1)      Before, from the OT (alttawrati).

 

&

 

2)      After, from the one who rejoices Him (mubashshiran...i.e. John the Baptist).

 

 

  • Jesus proclaims that He fulfills both the OT scripture, & that of John the Baptist’ proclamation of Him.

 

  • The one who rejoices another (wamubashshiran…i.e. John the Baptist) appears in only three Koranic locations (34.45, 48.8, & 61.6) and refers to this praiseworthy man (i.e Jesus).  Observe that the two other locations are in the context of “Muhammad” (i.e. Jesus).

 

  • Further, the one who rejoices does so on account of a “messenger” (birasoolin).

 

  • We are told that this “messenger” is a man that comes (ya/tee) from after thee (baAAdee).

 

  • This “messenger’s” name (ismuhu) is worthy of praise (ahmadu).  Thus, just like the participle “Muhammad”, “ahmadu” refers to a man that is praised as deity.

 

  • The implication of Jesus’ statement in the Koran is profound, as He is proclaiming that He is the Lord that John the Baptist has prepared the way for.  Jesus is claiming to be God Almighty in this ayah!

 

  • The sequence marker “fa” (signifying cause & effect), then connects what we were just told regarding Jesus’ fulfillment of the scriptures, to His reception by some of the people – who though that He allied Himself to the devil.

 

 

 

The only problem is that this Koranic direct quote never occurred in Arabic…so the reader must refer back to the Holy Bible from where it was copied!

 

Simply more evidence that the Koran is not original nor divinely inspired.

 

The Koran is simply a translated re-hashment of the original.

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Orthodox Trinitarian Christian
IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2256
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 14 January 2012 at 4:19pm
Originally posted by Bowman

This is simply more evidence that the Koran is not original.

The authors of the Koran are forever referring the reader back to the Holy Bible.

It is never the other way around.



So how does that prove that the Quran says that Jesus spoke Arabic (which was the thesis of this thread)?  You're going in circles here. 


Originally posted by Bowman

None of the prophets spoke Arabic.  Zero.Even you cannot argue this.



This is irrelevant but you are wrong.  Ishmael (pbuh) is considered a prophet in Islam.  So are Hud and Salih (pbut).  They were all Arab prophets.  This brings me back to what I said before.  In Islam, God is not so narrow-minded as to send only Hebrew prophets.  Your understanding of God makes Him appear to be a discriminating God, astagfirAllah.  My understanding makes Him much more universal. 

Originally posted by Bowman

The Biblical languages are the divinely inspired languages of the prophets.

 Arabic was never a divinely inspired language of the prophets.

  


You still haven't answered my question.  How does the fact that the Bible was written in three languages automatically indicate that the prophets spoke those languages?  You brought up the Septuagint, yet you are now stuck in corner since you know that you cannot prove that Moses (pbuh) spoke Greek.  So I ask again: What proof do you have that Moses spoke Greek?  For that matter, what proof do you have that any of the Biblical prophets before John the Baptist and Jesus spoke Greek?


Originally posted by Bowman

Here is one very simply example…

 

 

 

فِرْدَوْسِ = “firdawsi”

 

“firdawsi” definition:

 

A garden; so in the Greek language παραδεισου  (Rev 2:7); or a garden comprising everything that is in gardens; such is the proper signification; and so with the people of every language; and containing grapevines; or a garden in which are grapevines; or a place in which are grapevines; or an ample, beautiful garden; or a garden comprising grapevines and palm trees; or with the Arabs it signifies a valley abounding with herbage, like a garden; or a valley, or valleys, producing various sorts of plants or herbage.  It is Greek transferred to the Arabic language, i.e. Arabicised.  Width; amplitude.  Fertile land; the garden which contains everything that should be in a garden; orchard; fruitful valley; the best place of paradise.  Increase that is in wheat.   الْفِرْدَوْسِ Paradise; or a garden of trees, or walled garden, in Paradise; or in the highest of the stages of Paradise; or the middle and highest part of Paradise.

 

It comes from the root “fardasa”, which means to feel anyone, fashion, prostrate before ones’ adversaries, throw down violently, spread on the ground.  He threw him down, prostrate, on the ground, in an evil, or abominable manner; and flung him upon the ground; smote with him the ground.

 

References:

An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume six, p. 298

The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 421


And this proves what exactly?  You do realize that every language borrows to some extent from other languages?  LOL Let's consider Hebrew, one of the so-called "revealed languages" as you claimed.  Hebrew is a Semitic language and according to David Steinberg:


"The Semitic family consists of a group of about 70 distinct language forms closely related to each other and more distantly related to the rest of the AfroAsiatic group which includes Ancient Egyptian, Berber and the Cushitic languagesThe Semitic languages, as far back as can be traced (2nd and, in some cases, 3rd millennium BCE), have occupied part of present day Iraq and all of present day Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel and the Arabian peninsula.  Since the Semitic languages are clearly closely related[3], it is a reasonable and long-held assumption that they are all derived from an original undifferentiated, though rather variable language called Proto-SemiticAlthough no records of Proto-Semitic exist, through the comparative study of the various languages it is possible to deduce, in outline, Proto-Semitic’s phonology, much of its vocabulary and its grammar including some of its probable syntax.  In general, it can be said that each Semitic language preserved some Proto-Semitic features whereas while diverging from Proto-Semitic in other features" [1].


Furthermore, E.Y. Kutscher noted regarding Hebrew:


"Hebrew words have undergone three kinds of transformation:

·        words which remained in Hebrew;

·        words which passed from foreign languages into Hebrew; and,

      ·        words which passed from Hebrew into foreign languages" [2]


Kutchher also points out that the Hebrew borrowed words from Greek, Akkadian, Aramaic and Persian!  He observed:


"There are also genuine Aramaic words which have passed into Hebrew, sometimes in several forms.  The Hebrew makhatz (“crush”) is found in the Bible (Judges 5:26), while its ancient Aramaic form is מחק (makhak). [...] Aramaic was important in another respect: it served as a medium for the introduction into Hebrew of words from Akkadian, the language of the Babylonians and Assyrians, though it is true that many Akkadian terms found their way into Hebrew in a period preceding the influences of Aramaic.  Akkadian bequeathed not only words of its own, such as מחיר (mekhir – “price) but also words of Sumerian origin (the Sumerians were a non-Semitic (speaking) people living in what is today southern Iraq, before the coming of the Akkadians).  The most obvious of these is היכל (heikhal – “palace” or “temple”), which is e-gal (“a large house”) in Sumerian.  From the same language comes מלח  (malakh – “sailor”), though it may have entered Hebrew via Aramaic. [...] Persian rule in Eretz Israel (from the sixth to the fourth century BCE) led to the introduction of Iranian words into Biblical and Rabbinic[6] Hebrew, and Persian rule in Babylonia (until it conquest by the Arabs in the seventh century CE) brought them into the Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud, from which they entered Israeli Hebrew.  Among the most striking are: ורד (vered – “rose,” actually the same word etymologically!)  The name of the island, Rhodes, comes from the same root; the most ancient form is Vrodos, “island of roses”;  פרדס (pardess) is also from Persia, and since this is the term, also taken over by the Greek, by which the Septuagint[7] translates gan eden (“the Garden of Eden”), it has passed into various European languages as ”paradise” in English, “Paradies” in German and so on.  The word kegon (“for example”) is based on the Persian gon (“color”)" [Ibid.]


So, once again you have proven nothing except that you are quick to jump to conclusions without considering the facts.


Originally posted by Bowman

So…languages other than Arabic contained God’s true message.


Yes!  Why would that come as a shock to you?  It makes perfect sense to me because I believe in a universal God who wanted all mankind to know Him. 


Originally posted by Bowman

As we already know, ‘alkitab’ always refers to the Holy Bible.


Wrong!  Where are you getting your facts from? 


The Arabic word "al-Kitab" simply means "the Book".  It can refer to any book!  In this case, it is referring to the Quran which was revealed to Muhammad (pbuh).  In fact, verse 2 actually uses the word "qur-anan"!  Even the transliterated form you showed has that:


Originally posted by Bowman

عربيا لعلكم تعقلون نحن نقص عليك أحسن القصص بما أوحينا إليك هذا القرءان وإن كنت من قبله لمن الغفلين

 

Alif-lam-ra tilka ayatu alkitabi almubeenu inna anzalnahu qur-anan AAarabiyyan laAAallakum taAAqiloona nahnu naqussu AAalayka ahsana alqasasi bima awhayna ilayka hatha alqur-ana wa-in kunta min qablihi lamina alghafileena

  


How then can you claim that it is referring to the Bible?  LOL


Originally posted by Bowman

Here, we have the bold proclamation that the letters ‘ALR’ are actually verses from the Holy Bible.  Clear verses at that!


Wrong, as I showed!  So not only can you not read Arabic, your comprehension of the meaning of the Quran is hopelessly wrong.  You need to educate yourself, free of all misconceptions and false assumptions.


Originally posted by Bowman

The context then wants to know if the reader can comprehend what has just occurred as this Biblical revelation has been transmitted as an Arabic collection (Koran).

 

According to the context, it shows that one individual narrated the Koran, a person who came before the Koran was put together, someone who was already very intimate with Biblical scripture.



Confused What?!  This is just another non-sequitur and a wild theory which no scholar on earth, Muslim or non-Muslim, would accept.


You are simply making up assumptions as you go along using your own ignorance of the subject to do so.  As I have shown, the text makes it clear that it is referring to the Quran and not to the Bible.      


Originally posted by Bowman

The Book is the Holy Bible.It was translated into an Arabic Koran.

 Thus…how is that Muslims can claim anything against the Holy Bible when their book of faith is merely a second-hand paraphrased copy of the original…?


Because your personal opinions regarding the meaning are just that...personal opinions devoid of any facts.  LOL


How can you childishly insist that the Bible was "translated" into Arabic when there is no similarity whatsoever between the Bible, which contains books like Genesis, Isaiah etc. and the Quran which does not contain those books?  Also, the narratives are not similar and often differ completely.


Originally posted by Bowman

If you admit that Moses never spoke Arabic, then the text is once again referring the reader back to the Holy Bible.


Only in your mind, perhaps. 


By relating the story of Moses (pbuh), the Quran is reminding the disbelieving Jews of Medina that the message that Muhammad (pbuh) is the same as the one brought by Moses (pbuh) to the Jews, which is the Oneness of God and strict adherence to His Laws.


Originally posted by Bowman

No one ever claimed that an ignorant Arab wrote the Koran – except for islam.

Jews and Christians were the only literate ones in ancient Arabia.


More unproven claims.  I dare also say that I detect a little Judeo-Christian supremacist attitude in such a statement.  Even so, you have made just another blanket statement with no proof whatsoever. 

Originally posted by Bowman

Clearly, early Arab Christians penned the text.


LOL Well, if it's so "clear" then you should not be having so much difficulty proving it.  Yet, when pressed for proof, you disappoint. 

"Clearly", Christians had nothing to do with the Quran.  Your personal opinions do not matter.

Originally posted by Bowman

No, brother.

This scripture shows that the world was created through ‘The Truth’…which is an epithet for only the Biblical Jesus Christ.

How is it that your god required the help of Jesus in order to create?
 

Um, no.  The verse says that the universe was created with or in truth, not "through" the truth.  You clearly cannot read Arabic so you can stop pretending like you do.  Interjecting your own personal commentary into the text will not fool anyone. 

Furthemore, one of the 99 names of Allah ?(swt) is "Al-Haqq" which means "The Truth".  So even if your personal translation was correct (which it isn't), there would be nothing to indicate that it was referring to Jesus (pbuh).  In  fact, the Quran makes it abundantly clear that Jesus (pbuh) was a creation of Allah (swt).  This is just one more nail in the coffin for your personal theories about the Quran.  The Quran states that Jesus is nothing more than a man.  Big%20smile

Originally posted by Bowman

61.6 paraphrases Jesus’ quote from Malachi, which pertains to John the Baptist preparing the way for Him, as recorded in the Biblical Gospels.


How do you know this?  Where does it indicate in that verse that it is a paraphrase "from Malachi"?  For once, can you actually provide evidence instead of silly assumptions? 

Even if it was a paraphrase from Malachi, how can it be referring to John the Baptist referring to Jesus when in the ayat, Jesus is the one referring to the coming messenger? 

You are going around in circles and not proving anything.

Originally posted by Bowman

Jesus quotes from the Old Testament (alttawrati).


Wrong.  "At-Taurat" does not refer to the entire Old Testament but to the Torah specifically. 

The rest of the chain is pure nonsense so I will not waste time on it.  However, you then stated:

Originally posted by Bowman

  • This “messenger’s” name (ismuhu) is worthy of praise (ahmadu).  Thus, just like the participle “Muhammad”, “ahmadu” refers to a man that is praised as deity.

You simply made this up.  As I stated, "Ahmad" means "the praise worthy".  The fact that the verse mentions that "Ahmad" will be a messenger refutes the claim that it "refers to a man that is praised as deity".  This is complete nonsense not to mention blasphemy.  A messenger is sent.  Therefore, he cannot be God Himself, who the One who does the sending. 

Originally posted by Bowman

The implication of Jesus’ statement in the Koran is profound, as He is proclaiming that He is the Lord that John the Baptist has prepared the way for.  Jesus is claiming to be God Almighty in this ayah!


Only in your mind!  LOL 

This verse proves conclusively that Jesus is:

1.  An apostle of Allah and hence a man.

2.  That he prophesied the coming of another apostle.

Your personal interpretations mean nothing and will not fool anyone.  

Originally posted by Bowman

The sequence marker “fa” (signifying cause & effect), then connects what we were just told regarding Jesus’ fulfillment of the scriptures, to His reception by some of the people – who though that He allied Himself to the devil.


No, it refers to the unbelievers rejecting Muhammad (pbuh).

Originally posted by Bowman

The only problem is that this Koranic direct quote never occurred in Arabic…so the reader must refer back to the Holy Bible from where it was copied!
 

And where was it "copied" from?  You still haven't shown the alleged "Biblical" verse which was "copied".  You need to get your act together dude! LOL

Originally posted by Bowman

Simply more evidence that the Koran is not original nor divinely inspired.

 

The Koran is simply a translated re-hashment of the original.


Or its actually simply more evidence that you like to make things up and make wild claims but shy away from actually proving your wild claims when pressed to show the evidence. 


The Quran is the final revelation sent to correct the many lies and fabrications that have entered into your Bible.  Anyone who studies the Bible will see the many errors, contradictions and flat-out lies which litter this book.  Some of them are so obvious, one has to wonder if Jews and Christians are simply choosing to shut their eyes to the many embarrassing problems that can be found in their respective books. 



Edited by islamispeace - 14 January 2012 at 4:30pm
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
Bowman
 
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 22 December 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Quote Bowman Replybullet Posted: 14 January 2012 at 6:25pm

Originally posted by islamispeace

 

Originally posted by Bowman

This is simply more evidence that the Koran is not original.

The authors of the Koran are forever referring the reader back to the Holy Bible.

It is never the other way around.

 

 

So how does that prove that the Quran says that Jesus spoke Arabic (which was the thesis of this thread)?  You're going in circles here. 

 

From the legions of first-person quotes of Jesus speaking Arabic in the Koran.

 

Since you agree that Jesus never spoke Arabic, then you have no choice but to accept the Biblical scriptures quoting Him in the Greek.

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Bowman

None of the prophets spoke Arabic.  Zero.Even you cannot argue this.



This is irrelevant but you are wrong.  Ishmael (pbuh) is considered a prophet in Islam.  So are Hud and Salih (pbut).  They were all Arab prophets.  This brings me back to what I said before.  In Islam, God is not so narrow-minded as to send only Hebrew prophets.  Your understanding of God makes Him appear to be a discriminating God, astagfirAllah.  My understanding makes Him much more universal. 

Ishmael never spoke Arabic, brother.

 

Further, ‘hud’ and ‘salih’ are not names of prophets according to the Koran, itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Bowman

The Biblical languages are the divinely inspired languages of the prophets.

 Arabic was never a divinely inspired language of the prophets.

  

 

You still haven't answered my question.  How does the fact that the Bible was written in three languages automatically indicate that the prophets spoke those languages? 

 

 

The scriptural languages of the Bible are the ones in which the divinely inspired scriptures came to mankind.

 

Remember…the authors of the Koran had 114 chapters in which to state that their Arabic scriptures were divinely inspired -  but failed to do so.

 

114 chances – but not a single, solitary mentioning that the Arabic scriptures were divine in nature.

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by islamispeace

 

You brought up the Septuagint, yet you are now stuck in corner since you know that you cannot prove that Moses (pbuh) spoke Greek.  So I ask again: What proof do you have that Moses spoke Greek?  For that matter, what proof do you have that any of the Biblical prophets before John the Baptist and Jesus spoke Greek?

 

Moses spoke Hebrew, not Arabic.

The LXX is the Hebrew Bible in Greek.

Jesus often quoted from it in His teachings.

 

 

 

Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Bowman

Here is one very simply example…

 

 

 

فِرْدَوْسِ = “firdawsi”

 

“firdawsi” definition:

 

A garden; so in the Greek language παραδεισου  (Rev 2:7); or a garden comprising everything that is in gardens; such is the proper signification; and so with the people of every language; and containing grapevines; or a garden in which are grapevines; or a place in which are grapevines; or an ample, beautiful garden; or a garden comprising grapevines and palm trees; or with the Arabs it signifies a valley abounding with herbage, like a garden; or a valley, or valleys, producing various sorts of plants or herbage.  It is Greek transferred to the Arabic language, i.e. Arabicised.  Width; amplitude.  Fertile land; the garden which contains everything that should be in a garden; orchard; fruitful valley; the best place of paradise.  Increase that is in wheat.   الْفِرْدَوْسِ Paradise; or a garden of trees, or walled garden, in Paradise; or in the highest of the stages of Paradise; or the middle and highest part of Paradise.

 

It comes from the root “fardasa”, which means to feel anyone, fashion, prostrate before ones’ adversaries, throw down violently, spread on the ground.  He threw him down, prostrate, on the ground, in an evil, or abominable manner; and flung him upon the ground; smote with him the ground.

 

References:

An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume six, p. 298

The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 421

 

And this proves what exactly?  You do realize that every language borrows to some extent from other languages?  <덴Ţ> Let's consider Hebrew, one of the so-called "revealed languages" as you claimed.  Hebrew is a Semitic language and according to David Steinberg:

 

So, once again you have proven nothing except that you are quick to jump to conclusions without considering the facts.

 
 

You are not reading, before responding.

Hebrew was one of the languages with which God chose to reveal His divinely inspired word, brother.

Arabic was not.

Somehow you missed this crucial point.

Remember…the Koran had 114 failed opportunities to inform the reader that the Arabic scriptures divinely inspired.

 



Edited by Bowman - 14 January 2012 at 6:32pm
Orthodox Trinitarian Christian
IP IP Logged
Bowman
 
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 22 December 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Quote Bowman Replybullet Posted: 14 January 2012 at 6:35pm

Originally posted by islamispeace

 

Originally posted by Bowman

So…languages other than Arabic contained God’s true message.

 

Yes!  Why would that come as a shock to you?  It makes perfect sense to me because I believe in a universal God who wanted all mankind to know Him. 

 

 

Then you should have no issue with the Greek NT.

 

 

 

Originally posted by islamispeace

 

Originally posted by Bowman

As we already know, ‘alkitab’ always refers to the Holy Bible.

 

Wrong!  Where are you getting your facts from? 

 

The Arabic word "al-Kitab" simply means "the Book".  It can refer to any book!  In this case, it is referring to the Quran which was revealed to Muhammad (pbuh).  In fact, verse 2 actually uses the word "qur-anan"!  Even the transliterated form you showed has that:

 

 

 

We can gain a significant understanding of what the Koran really is by simply defining the term itself.

 

 

 

Let's review the premise...

 

 

القرءان = “alqur-ana”

 

“alqur-ana” definition:

 

Proper noun.  Originally meaning the Collection; “I collected together the thing” or “I read, or recited, the book or scripture”; and then conventionally applied to signify the Book of God that was revealed to Muhammad; it also signifies the Revelation, meaning that which is termed the mighty, or imitable which is read, or recited, and written in books or volumes.  A name for the Book of God, like the book of the Law revealed to Moses and the Gospel.  

 

قرءان is so called because it has collected the histories of the prophets, and commands and prohibitions, and promises and threats, and the verses or signs, and the chapters.

 

It comes from the root “qara’a”, which has the primary signification he collected together the thing; put it, or drew it, together; part to part, or portion to portion.  He read, or recited, the scripture chanting; he read or recited anything in any manner, without, or from, or in a book.

 

References:

An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume seven, pp. 2502 - 2504

The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, pp. 448 - 449

 

 

 

The classic Arabic definition is really quite revealing.

 

We have the following proclaimed regarding the original meaning applied to the Koran:

 

  • It’s a collection
  • A collection of books or scriptures

 

 

Whether this collection is read or recited, it still suggests that it emanates from a collected repository of things already written down.

 

It was only later that the meaning changed to signify the Book of God that was revealed to “Muhammad”…and we already understand that the “Muhammad” spoken of in the Koran is  actually the Biblical Jesus Christ.

 

Thus, the Koran is Jesus’ book!

 

This would account for the scores of suras that are titled after Him, and revolve around Him.

 

“Alqur-ana” also means Revelation – which is most appropriate, as >50% of the Koran is directly copied from the Book of Revelation.

 

The root “qara’a” takes us one step deeper with the primary definition “he collected together the thing; put it, or drew it, together; part to part, or portion to portion. 

 

This gives us great insight as to why the Koran was written in the fashion that it was – as the authors who pieced it together and performed the translation, actually did so piecemeal.  These pieces, taken in large part from the Book of Revelation, are actually the paraphrased Arabic counterparts to the Holy Bible, known as suras.

 

 

Orthodox Trinitarian Christian
IP IP Logged
Bowman
 
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 22 December 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Quote Bowman Replybullet Posted: 14 January 2012 at 6:52pm

 

Originally posted by islamispeace

 

 

How can you childishly insist that the Bible was "translated" into Arabic when there is no similarity whatsoever between the Bible, which contains books like Genesis, Isaiah etc. and the Quran which does not contain those books?  Also, the narratives are not similar and often differ completely.

 

 

 

 

The authors of the Koran already admitted centuries ago that they copied the Holy Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by islamispeace

 

Originally posted by Bowman

No one ever claimed that an ignorant Arab wrote the Koran – except for islam.

Jews and Christians were the only literate ones in ancient Arabia.



More unproven claims.  I dare also say that I detect a little Judeo-Christian supremacist attitude in such a statement.  Even so, you have made just another blanket statement with no proof whatsoever. 

 

Well, if it's so "clear" then you should not be having so much difficulty proving it.  Yet, when pressed for proof, you disappoint. 

"Clearly", Christians had nothing to do with the Quran.  Your personal opinions do not matter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Every language without a written literature tends to decay more than to development by reason of foreign influences; and the history of the Arabic exhibits an instance of decay remarkably rapid, and extraordinary in degree.  An immediate consequence of the foreign conquests achieved by the Arabs under Mohammad’s first four successors was an extensive corruption of their language; for the nations that they subdued were naturally obliged to adopt in a great measure the speech of the conquerors, a speech which few persons have ever acquired in such a degree as to be secure from the commission of frequent errors in grammar without learning it from infancy….    

 

Such being the case, it became a matter of the highest importance to the Arabs to preserve the knowledge of that speech which had thus become obsolescent, and to draw a distinct line between the classical and the post-classical languages.  For the former language was that of the Kur-an and of the Traditions of Mohammad, the sources of their religious, moral, civil, criminal, and political code’ and they possessed, in that language, preserved by oral tradition, - for the art of writing, in Arabia, had been almost exclusively confined to Christians and Jews….

 

The classical language they called, by reason of its incomparable excellence, “el-loghah,” or “the language:” and the line between this and the post-classical was easily drawn, on account of the almost sudden commencement, and rapid progress, of the corruption.

 

….I often have found in my knowledge of modern Arabic a solution of a difficulty; but without great caution, such knowledge would frequently have misled me, in consequence of the changes which have taken place in the applications of many words since the classical age.

 

 

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, pp. vii – viii; xxii - xxiii

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by islamispeace

 

Originally posted by Bowman

No, brother.

This scripture shows that the world was created through ‘The Truth’…which is an epithet for only the Biblical Jesus Christ.

How is it that your god required the help of Jesus in order to create?

 

Um, no.  The verse says that the universe was created with or in truth, not "through" the truth.  You clearly cannot read Arabic so you can stop pretending like you do.  Interjecting your own personal commentary into the text will not fool anyone. 



ب = “bi”

 

“bi” definition:

 

An inseparable preposition, prefixed to the word it governs, which, when a noun, is put in the genitive; it has diverse significations as: in, by, at, with, to, into, upon, for, or by reason of; from; with the help of; during; On account of; according to, near, through.  It is used to denote adhesion of the verb to that to which it is itself prefixed; and adjunction, or association.  It is also used to render a verb transitive.  It is used to denote the employing a thing as an aid or instrument.  It denotes a cause.  It is used to denote concomitance.  Before a noun signifying a place or time.  It denotes substitution, meaning instead of, as in place of.  It denotes requital; or the giving, or doing, in return.  It is said to be peculiar to interrogation.  It denotes a part of the whole.  It is used to denote swearing.  It denotes the end of an extent or interval.  It is also redundant, to denote corroboration: and is prefixed to the agent.   Frequently an expletive, when put before the compliment of a negative proposition.  It also denotes the object of a transitive verb and supports the subject that is termed “zaidah” (additional).  It is also used as a corroborative to confirm and to make more certain.  It also denotes swear, comparison, in place of, for, from, over, on, a part of, at all, rest of.

 

References:

An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, pp. 141 – 144

A Grammar of the Arabic Language, W. Wright, Third edition, volume 1, pp. 278 - 279

The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar pp. 40 - 41

A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, John Penrice, p. 14

 

 

Interestingly, “bi” carries with it the same definitions “by”, “through”, & “for”, same as found used to describe Jesus’ creation of the Universe in the Holy Bible.  For this discussion we will just use the definition “through”.

 

Thus, the Koranic term under discussion:

 

بالحق = “bi” + “al” + “haqqi” = “bialhaqqi” = through ‘The Truth’

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by islamispeace

 

Furthemore, one of the 99 names of Allah ?(swt) is "Al-Haqq" which means "The Truth".  So even if your personal translation was correct (which it isn't), there would be nothing to indicate that it was referring to Jesus (pbuh).  In  fact, the Quran makes it abundantly clear that Jesus (pbuh) was a creation of Allah (swt).  This is just one more nail in the coffin for your personal theories about the Quran.  The Quran states that Jesus is nothing more than a man. 

 

 

 

Defining the term…

 

 

الحق = “alhaqqi”

 

“alhaqqi” definition:

 

Singular masculine noun.   The Truth; one of the names of “allah”; one of the names of God; due share; justice; right claim; what ought to be; duty; incumbent. 

 

It comes from the root “haqqa” (ha-qaf-qaf), which means it was, or became, suitable to the requirements of wisdom, justice, right or rightness, truth, or reality, or fact; or to the exigencies of the case; it was, or became, just, proper, right, correct, or true; authentic, genuine, sound, valid, substantial, or real; established, or confirmed as truth or fact; and necessitated, obligatory, incumbent or due; it was, or became, a manifest and an indubitable fact or event; it happened, betided, or befell, surely, without doubt or uncertainty.  To be right, just or fitting, worthy of, justly due to, proper, genuine, real, a fact, true, necessitated, suitable, necessary, incumbent upon, suited to the requirement of justice, become certain, authentic, deserve.

 

References:

An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume two, pp. 605 – 610  

The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar p. 131

A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, John Penrice, pp. 36 - 37

 

 

 

 

Per the classic definition, “alhaqqi” means ‘The Truth’, and is actually a name for “allah”, and a name for God.

 

Knowing this, observe how “alhaqqi” is applied to Jesus Christ in the Koran, as the following quintessential Koranic ayah informs us that ‘The Truth’, is only Jesus Christ…

 

 

 

يأهل الكتب لا تغلوا في دينكم ولا تقولوا على الله

إلا الحق إنما المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول الله

وكلمته ألقيها إلى مريم وروح منه فءامنوا بالله

ورسله ولا تقولوا ثلثة انتهوا خيرا لكم إنما الله

إله وحد سبحنه أن يكون له ولد له ما في 

السموت وما في الأرض وكفى بالله وكيلا

 

Ya ahla alkitabi la taghloo fee deenikum wala taqooloo AAala Allahi illa alhaqqa innama almaseehu AAeesa ibnu maryama rasoolu Allahi wakalimatuhu alqaha ila maryama waroohun minhu faaminoo biAllahi warusulihi wala taqooloo thalathatun intahoo khayran lakum innama Allahu ilahun wahidun subhanahu an yakoona lahu waladun lahu ma fee alssamawati wama fee al-ardi wakafa biAllahi wakeelan

 

4.171   You The Book's family, do not go beyond the limits in your faith, and they do not say on “allah” except The Truth (is) only The Messiah Jesus, Mary's son, “allah’s” messenger,  and his Word, cast forth to her, Mary, and Spirit  from him; so believe by “allah”, and his messengers, and they do not say "Three." Refrain (it is) certainly agreeable to you, only “allah” one god glory be to him, that He has certainly been his Son, truly His what is in the heavens and in the earth and He sufficed by “allah”, a witness.

 

 

Exception…

 

The first word that we encounter in this ayah, after the term “allah”, is “illa” which gives exception to what follows it, as told to us by the classic definition…

 

 

إلا = “illa

 

“illa” definition:

 

Regarded as a simple word.  If not; unless; except; some; otherwise; less; but; and; also.  This word is used to signify the sense of exception.  This exception is of two kinds: 1) Exception in which the thing excepted belongs to the same class or species to which the things from which an exception is sought to be made, belongs.  2) Exception in which the excepted thing belongs to a different class or species.  It commonly governs the accusative.  It also means not even.

 

References:

An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, pp. 76 - 78

The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar p. 27

 

 

 

The exception, which applies to “alhaqqa”, (‘The Truth’) is then juxtaposed to the following word “innama”…

 

 

 

إنما = “innama”

 

“innama” definition:

 

According to the grammarians, it is a compound of “inna” and “ma”, which latter prevents the former’s having any government: it imports restriction: it imports the restriction of that which it precedes to that which follows it.  In other words, it is used to particularize, or specify, or distinguish a thing from other things: it affirms a thing in relation to that which is mentioned after it, and denies it in relation to other things.  Some say that it does not import restriction, but only corroboration of an affirmation, because it is a compound of the corroborative “inna” and the redundant “ma” which restrains the former from exercising government, and that it has no application to denote negation implied in restriction. It therefore seems that it is susceptible of both these meanings, bearing one or the other according as this or that suits the place.  Rendered as “only”, verily. 

 

References:

An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, pp. 103 – 111; 118

A Grammar of the Arabic Language, W. Wright, Third edition, volume 1, p. 285

The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 35

A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, John Penrice, p. 11

 

 

The classic definition quite clearly states that “innama” affirms a thing in relation to that which is mentioned after it.

 

Thus, “alhaqqi” (i.e. The Truth), is the “thing” that is being related to Jesus – which is mentioned after it.

 

The exception is Jesus Christ, in a class all by Himself.

 

Hence, “The Truth is only Jesus Christ”.

 

 

 

 

Orthodox Trinitarian Christian
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 6 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com