Print Page | Close Window

What language did Jesus speak?

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Discription: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=22390
Printed Date: 20 October 2014 at 1:33am


Topic: What language did Jesus speak?
Posted By: Bowman
Subject: What language did Jesus speak?
Date Posted: 30 December 2011 at 7:44am
All,
 
I'm interested in hearing input regarding what language(s) Jesus knew during His lifetime....thanks!


-------------
Orthodox Trinitarian Christian



Replies:
Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 31 December 2011 at 3:30pm
Traditionally, it is said that Jesus (pbuh) spoke Aramaic. 


-------------
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)



Posted By: Bowman
Date Posted: 31 December 2011 at 9:09pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

Traditionally, it is said that Jesus (pbuh) spoke Aramaic. 
 
 
If this is the case, then why does He speak Arabic in your Koran?LOL
 
 


-------------
Orthodox Trinitarian Christian


Posted By: Trajik
Date Posted: 31 December 2011 at 9:24pm
Asalamu Alaykum Bowman,
 
Prophet Isa "Jesus" Peace be upon him spoke Aramaic as I understand. 
 
Wasalam,
Anthony "Abdur Rahman" Olivas
 
 
 


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 01 January 2012 at 11:12am
Originally posted by Bowman

If this is the case, then why does He speak Arabic in your Koran?LOL


Well first of all, Aramaic and Arabic are sister languages.  Second of all, where does the Quran say that he spoke Arabic?  The Quran is written in the Arabic language so all the stories and quotes of the prophets would obviously be in Arabic!  Is that really so hard to understand?  Wink


-------------
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)



Posted By: Bowman
Date Posted: 01 January 2012 at 4:11pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Bowman

If this is the case, then why does He speak Arabic in your Koran?LOL


Well first of all, Aramaic and Arabic are sister languages.  Second of all, where does the Quran say that he spoke Arabic?  The Quran is written in the Arabic language so all the stories and quotes of the prophets would obviously be in Arabic!  Is that really so hard to understand?  Wink
 
 
The authors of the Koran have not only Jesus speaking in Arabic, but all the OT prophets such as Moses and Abraham, as well - even before Arabic was invented!
 
See the problem, brother?!
 
This is simply more proof that the Koran is not original, but, in fact, a second-hand copy of the original.
 
 


-------------
Orthodox Trinitarian Christian


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 02 January 2012 at 7:46pm
Originally posted by Bowman



 
The authors of the Koran have not only Jesus speaking in Arabic, but all the OT prophets such as Moses and Abraham, as well - even before Arabic was invented!
 
See the problem, brother?!
 
This is simply more proof that the Koran is not original, but, in fact, a second-hand copy of the original.


Again, the Quran is an Arabic book so...the narratives will be in...Arabic!  Your argument is the same as saying that an English translation of the Quran has the prophets speaking English.  It is a logical absurdity. 

You have not answered my question as to where the Quran actually says that Jesus spoke Arabic. 


-------------
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)



Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 03 January 2012 at 8:14am
Bowman, the Quran like the Bible is in large parts not a history book describing real-life events with people conversing in certain languages. These holy texts contain spiritual truths, myths, parables, poems, and other forms of symbolic texts. As human beings Isa and the Prophet did not live at the same time. 

-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 03 January 2012 at 8:59pm
Jesus was bilingual; he spoke a form of Hebrew and a dialect of Aramaic. However, in his teaching ministry he regularly used the highly Aramaized popular Hebrew.”—Biblical Archaeology, 1962, page 243.

But, when Jesus came to Nazareth in Galilee and entered the synagogue there, he read from the prophecy of Isaiah, evidently as written in Hebrew. Nothing is said about Jesus’ translating this passage into Aramaic.—Luke 4:16-21.

It's also noted that the sign that Pilate had posted on Jesus’ torture stake was written in three languages—Hebrew being the main one.—John 19:20

When the physician Luke says that Paul spoke to the people of Jerusalem in “the Hebrew language,” it seems unlikely that he meant thereby the Aramaic or Syrian language. Ac 21:40; 22:2; compare 26:14.

Adam spoke Hebrew and it was the language spoken of in Noah’s day, but Moses and Abraham speaking Aramaic; that’s a far, far stretch of the imagination.

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

However, it should be noted that in the Christian Greek Scriptures, the language is still referred to as the “Hebrew” language of the Jews, not the Aramaic. (John 5:2; 19:13, 17; Acts 22:2; Rev. 9:11)


-------------


Posted By: truthnowcome
Date Posted: 05 January 2012 at 12:42am
Originally posted by Kish

Jesus was bilingual; he spoke a form of Hebrew and a dialect of Aramaic. However, in his teaching ministry he regularly used the highly Aramaized popular Hebrew.”—Biblical Archaeology, 1962, page 243.

But, when Jesus came to Nazareth in Galilee and entered the synagogue there, he read from the prophecy of Isaiah, evidently as written in Hebrew. Nothing is said about Jesus’ translating this passage into Aramaic.—Luke 4:16-21.

It's also noted that the sign that Pilate had posted on Jesus’ torture stake was written in three languages—Hebrew being the main one.—John 19:20

When the physician Luke says that Paul spoke to the people of Jerusalem in “the Hebrew language,” it seems unlikely that he meant thereby the Aramaic or Syrian language. Ac 21:40; 22:2; compare 26:14.

Adam spoke Hebrew and it was the language spoken of in Noah’s day, but Moses and Abraham speaking Aramaic; that’s a far, far stretch of the imagination.

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

However, it should be noted that in the Christian Greek Scriptures, the language is still referred to as the “Hebrew” language of the Jews, not the Aramaic. (John 5:2; 19:13, 17; Acts 22:2; Rev. 9:11)



MR. Kish, dont push garbage here? This is evidence that the Bible (a collection of books) was not written in it's mother thong (Hebrew and a dialect of Aramaic), why?

 

http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/aramaic_language.html - http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/aramaic_language.html

  <>

The Aramaic Language

Aramaic is one of the Semitic languages, an important group of languages known almost from the beginning of human history and including also Arabic, Hebrew, Ethiopic, and Akkadian (ancient Babylonian and Assyrian). It is particularly closely related to Hebrew, and was written in a variety of alphabetic scripts. (What is usually called "Hebrew" script is actually an Aramaic script.)

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.

Aramaic as an Imperial Language

Aramaic was used by the conquering Assyrians as a language of administration communication, and following them by the Babylonian and Persian empires, which ruled from India to Ethiopia, and employed Aramaic as the official language. For this period, then (about 700–320 B.C.E.), Aramaic held a position similar to that occupied by English today. The most important documents of this period are numerous papyri from Egypt and Palestine.

Biblical Aramaic

Aramaic displaced Hebrew for many purposes among the Jews, a fact reflected in the Bible, where portions of Ezra and Daniel are in Aramaic. Some of the best known stories in biblical literature, including that of Belshazzar’s feast with the famous "handwriting on the wall" are in Aramaic.

Jewish Aramaic Literature

Aramaic remained a dominant language for Jewish worship, scholarship, and everyday life for centuries in both the land of Israel and in the diaspora, especially in Babylon.

Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, the remains of the library of a Jewish sect from around the turn of the Era, are many compositions in Aramaic. These new texts also provide the best evidence for Palestinian Aramaic of the sort used by Jesus and his disciples.

Since the Jews spoke Aramaic, and knowledge of Hebrew was no longer widespread, the practice arose in the synagogue of providing the reading of the sacred Hebrew scriptures with an Aramaic translation or paraphrase, a "Targum" In the course of time a whole array of targums for the Law and other parts of the Bible were composed. More than translations, they incorporated much of traditional Jewish scriptural interpretation.

In their academies the rabbis and their disciples transmitted, commented, and debated Jewish law; the records of their deliberations constitute the two talmuds: that of the land of Israel and the much larger Babylonian Talmud. Although the talmuds contain much material in Hebrew, the basic language of these vast compilations is Aramaic (in Western and Eastern dialects).

Christian Aramaic Literature

Although Jesus spoke Aramaic, the Gospels are in Greek, and only rarely quote actual Aramaic words. Reconstruction of the Aramaic background of the Gospels remains a fascinating, but inordinately difficult area of modern research.

Christians in Palestine eventually rendered portions of Christian Scripture into their dialect of Aramaic; these translations and related writings constitute "Christian Palestinian Aramaic".

A much larger body of Christian Aramaic is known as Syriac. Indeed, Syriac writings surpass in quantity all other Aramaic combined. Syriac is originally the literary language of the city of Edessa (now Urfa in SE Turkey). The language became the tongue of the entire eastern wing of the church, from about the third century C.E. down until well past the Muslim conquest.

Syriac writings include numerous Bible translations, the most important being the so-called Peshitta (simple) translation, and countless devotional, dogmatic, exegetical, liturgical, and historical works. Almost all of the Greek philosophical and scientific tradition was eventually translated into Syriac, and it was through this channel that most found their way into the Islamic World and thence, into post-Dark Ages Europe.

Other Aramaic

There are many other branches of Aramaic literature, including the substantial literature of the Mandaeans, a Gnostic religious group, and the Bible translation, liturgy, and doctrinal works of the Samaritans.

--------------------

WHY GREEK AND NOT ARAMAIC?

TRUTHNOWCOME


-------------
LET'S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL...NO MORE LIES!


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 05 January 2012 at 3:28pm
Originally posted by Bowman

Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Bowman

If this is the case, then why does He speak Arabic in your Koran?LOL


Well first of all, Aramaic and Arabic are sister languages.  Second of all, where does the Quran say that he spoke Arabic?  The Quran is written in the Arabic language so all the stories and quotes of the prophets would obviously be in Arabic!  Is that really so hard to understand?  Wink
 
 
The authors of the Koran have not only Jesus speaking in Arabic, but all the OT prophets such as Moses and Abraham, as well - even before Arabic was invented!
 
See the problem, brother?!
 
This is simply more proof that the Koran is not original, but, in fact, a second-hand copy of the original.
 
 
 
Dear Bowman,
welcome to the forum, I hope you benefit from visiting us as well as we benefit from your visiting us here.
I see you first pose a question. Based on what I know I beleive Aramiac was Prophet Jesus' (pbuh) mother tongue and that it is also possible that he knew and spoke other languages like Greek and Hebrew.
 
You said: "The authors of the Koran have not only Jesus speaking in Arabic, but all the OT prophets such as Moses and Abraham, as well - even before Arabic was invented". Please help me understand you and your level of understanding, do you believe in Santa Claus? Trust me your answer to the question will help me to address your comment from the right angle.
 
Thanks,
Hasan
 


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Bowman
Date Posted: 05 January 2012 at 6:52pm
Originally posted by islamispeace



 Again, the Quran is an Arabic book so...the narratives will be in...Arabic!  Your argument is the same as saying that an English translation of the Quran has the prophets speaking English.  It is a logical absurdity. 
 
The Koran is not even written in the original languages that the prophets spoke, brother.  How then can any of it be original?
 
It can't.
 
What this forces the Muslim to do is seek out the original revealed languages of the Holy Bible.
 

 
 
 
Originally posted by islamispeace



You have not answered my question as to where the Quran actually says that Jesus spoke Arabic. 
 
 
Every place in which Jesus is quoted as talking, brother.
 
 


-------------
Orthodox Trinitarian Christian


Posted By: Bowman
Date Posted: 05 January 2012 at 6:56pm
Originally posted by Matt Browne

Bowman, the Quran like the Bible is in large parts not a history book describing real-life events with people conversing in certain languages. These holy texts contain spiritual truths, myths, parables, poems, and other forms of symbolic texts. As human beings Isa and the Prophet did not live at the same time. 
 
 
The Holy Bible uses the languages in use by the prophets.
 
Jesus was a polyglot (i.e. He spoke several languages), as revealed in the NT.
 
The Koran, however, has Him speaking in Arabic, of which, not a single solitary Muslim ever claimed that He spoke!
 
 


-------------
Orthodox Trinitarian Christian


Posted By: Bowman
Date Posted: 05 January 2012 at 7:05pm
Originally posted by honeto

Originally posted by Bowman

Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Bowman

If this is the case, then why does He speak Arabic in your Koran?LOL


Well first of all, Aramaic and Arabic are sister languages.  Second of all, where does the Quran say that he spoke Arabic?  The Quran is written in the Arabic language so all the stories and quotes of the prophets would obviously be in Arabic!  Is that really so hard to understand?  Wink
 
 
The authors of the Koran have not only Jesus speaking in Arabic, but all the OT prophets such as Moses and Abraham, as well - even before Arabic was invented!
 
See the problem, brother?!
 
This is simply more proof that the Koran is not original, but, in fact, a second-hand copy of the original.
 
 
 
Dear Bowman,
welcome to the forum, I hope you benefit from visiting us as well as we benefit from your visiting us here.
I see you first pose a question. Based on what I know I beleive Aramiac was Prophet Jesus' (pbuh) mother tongue and that it is also possible that he knew and spoke other languages like Greek and Hebrew.
 
You said: "The authors of the Koran have not only Jesus speaking in Arabic, but all the OT prophets such as Moses and Abraham, as well - even before Arabic was invented". Please help me understand you and your level of understanding, do you believe in Santa Claus? Trust me your answer to the question will help me to address your comment from the right angle.
 
Thanks,
Hasan
 
 
 
My simple question posed in the OP forces followers of islam to get the 'deer in the headlights' look.
 
It is so obvious to anyone that the Koran was not revealed in any of the original languages of the prophets.
 
Further, there are an untold number of Arabicized words residing in the Koran borrowed from the Greek.  So, we know that authors of the Koran translated the original languages into Arabic - much more certain to be a copy....
 
 


-------------
Orthodox Trinitarian Christian


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 07 January 2012 at 3:45pm
Originally posted by Bowman

The Koran is not even written in the original languages that the prophets spoke, brother.  How then can any of it be original?


First of all, why does that even matter?

Second, since when did the other prophets speak Greek?

Third, unlike Judaism and Christianity,  Islam does not believe that God is so narrow-minded as to send only Jewish prophets.  Islam states that God sent prophets to all nations, in their own languages.  The Quran states:

"We sent not an apostle except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make (things) clear to them. Now Allah leaves straying those whom He pleases and guides whom He pleases: and He is Exalted in power, full of Wisdom" (14:4). 

Originally posted by Bowman

What this forces the Muslim to do is seek out the original revealed languages of the Holy Bible.


How so?  Just because you say so, does not make it so.  What are the so-called "original revealed languages"?  What proof do you have that these languages are "original" or "revealed"? 

Originally posted by Bowman

Every place in which Jesus is quoted as talking, brother.
 

You still can't seem to understand that the Quran is an Arabic book, so obviously all the stories and narratives will be in Arabic.  So I ask again:  Where does the Quran say that "Jesus spoke Arabic"?

The New Testament is written in Greek, yet there is no evidence that the Jews of Jesus' time spoke Greek.  As brother Zainool has shown, the Palestinian Jews predominately spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew or Greek.  If we use your logic, then since the NT uses Greek, we could claim that it means that Jesus spoke Greek.  But such a claim would be premature and downright false since the NT is written is Greek for the simple readon that it's authors spoke Greek, nothing more.  It cannot be used as evidence to claim that Jesus spoke Greek.

Furthermore, your statement to Matt that "Jesus was a polyglot (i.e. He spoke several languages), as revealed in the NT" is an unsubstantiated statement.  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". 


-------------
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)



Posted By: Bowman
Date Posted: 07 January 2012 at 9:31pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Bowman

The Koran is not even written in the original languages that the prophets spoke, brother.  How then can any of it be original? 
 


First of all, why does that even matter? 
 
 

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


 
 
Originally posted by islamispeace


Second, since when did the other prophets speak Greek? 
 
 

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

 

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.

 

 
 
 
 

Originally posted by islamispeace



Third, unlike Judaism and Christianity,  Islam does not believe that God is so narrow-minded as to send only Jewish prophets.  Islam states that God sent prophets to all nations, in their own languages.  The Quran states:

"We sent not an apostle except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make (things) clear to them. Now Allah leaves straying those whom He pleases and guides whom He pleases: and He is Exalted in power, full of Wisdom" (14:4). 
 
 

No mention of Arabic in this ayah.

 

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.

 

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.

 
 
 
 
 

Originally posted by islamispeace



Originally posted by Bowman

What this forces the Muslim to do is seek out the original revealed languages of the Holy Bible.


How so?  Just because you say so, does not make it so.  What are the so-called "original revealed languages"?  What proof do you have that these languages are "original" or "revealed"? 
 
 
 

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.

 
 
 
 

Originally posted by islamispeace



Originally posted by Bowman

Every place in which Jesus is quoted as talking, brother.
 

You still can't seem to understand that the Quran is an Arabic book, so obviously all the stories and narratives will be in Arabic.  So I ask again:  Where does the Quran say that "Jesus spoke Arabic"?
 
 
 

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

 
 
 
 

Originally posted by islamispeace



The New Testament is written in Greek, yet there is no evidence that the Jews of Jesus' time spoke Greek.  As brother Zainool has shown, the Palestinian Jews predominately spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew or Greek.  If we use your logic, then since the NT uses Greek, we could claim that it means that Jesus spoke Greek.  But such a claim would be premature and downright false since the NT is written is Greek for the simple readon that it's authors spoke Greek, nothing more.  It cannot be used as evidence to claim that Jesus spoke Greek.

Furthermore, your statement to Matt that "Jesus was a polyglot (i.e. He spoke several languages), as revealed in the NT" is an unsubstantiated statement.  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". 
 
 
 

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

 

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

 

Keep yourself in denial, brother…



-------------
Orthodox Trinitarian Christian


Posted By: islamispeace
Date 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)



Posted By: truthnowcome
Date 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!


Posted By: Kish
Date 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


-------------


Posted By: Bowman
Date 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


Posted By: islamispeace
Date 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 http://www.adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrew.htm#_edn1 - - - consists of a group of about 70 distinct language forms closely related to each other and more distantly related to the rest of the http:// - - - - http://www-oi.uchicago.edu/OI/PROJ/CUS/AAindex.html - - - - Ancient Egyptian, Berber and the Cushitic languages http://www.adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrew.htm#_edn2 - - - - The 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 http://www.adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrew.htm#_edn3 - - - - , it is a reasonable and long-held assumption that they are all derived from an original undifferentiated, though rather variable language called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Semitic_language - - - - Although 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" http://www.adath-shalom.ca/history_of_hebrew.htm -

Furthermore, E.Y. Kutscher noted regarding Hebrew:


"Hebrew words have undergone three kinds of transformation http://www.adath-shalom.ca/hebrew_words_history.htm#_edn2 - - - :

·        words which remained in Hebrew;

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

      ·        words which passed from Hebrew into foreign languages" http://www.adath-shalom.ca/hebrew_words_history.htm -

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 http://www.adath-shalom.ca/home%20page/history_of_hebrew.htm#Survey - 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. [...] http://www.adath-shalom.ca/home%20page/eb2bk.htm - Persian rule in Eretz Israel (from the sixth to the fourth century BCE) led to the introduction of Iranian words into Biblical and Rabbinic http://www.adath-shalom.ca/hebrew_words_history.htm#_edn6 - - - [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 http://www.adath-shalom.ca/hebrew_words_history.htm#_edn7 - - - [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.



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. 



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:


  


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. 



-------------
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)



Posted By: Bowman
Date 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.

 



-------------
Orthodox Trinitarian Christian


Posted By: Bowman
Date 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


Posted By: Bowman
Date 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


Posted By: Bowman
Date Posted: 14 January 2012 at 6:54pm

Originally posted by islamispeace

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Observe this Koranic quote from Jesus, which borrows the same phraseology as that of 61.6 – confirming that Jesus is the subject spoken of as “Ahmad”, and also confirming His deity…

 

ومصدقا لما بين يدي من التورية ولأحل لكم

بعض الذي حرم عليكم وجئتكم باية من ربكم

فاتقوا الله وأطيعون

 

Wamusaddiqan lima bayna yadayya mina alttawrati wali-ohilla lakum baAAda allathee hurrima AAalaykum waji/tukum bi-ayatin min rabbikum faittaqoo Allaha waateeAAooni

 

3.50   "And fulfilling the truth altogether manifest before, from the scriptures of the Jews and Christians; and by it has been made lawful by your portion (of) which is forbidden to you, and I came to you on account of an apparent sign from your Lord, so you take as a shield “allah”, and obey me!"

 

 

 

 

More on John the Baptist…

 

When John the Baptist’ name is called-out in the Koran it is always in the context of Jesus Christ:

 

John the Baptist: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.038 - , http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/006.qmt.html#006.085 - -86, http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/019.qmt.html#019.007 - , http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/021.qmt.html#021.090 -  

Thus, it should come as no surprise to discover that John the Baptist’ attributes are also intertwined in the context of the Koranic passages that describe “Muhammad” & “Ahmad” (i.e. Jesus Christ), as John is blazing the path for Jesus - such it is with the two other ayahs that utilize the participle “wamubashshiran” as found in 61.6…

 

 

إنا أرسلنك شهدا ومبشرا ونذيرا

 

Inna arsalnaka shahidan wamubashshiran wanatheeran

 

48.8   Certainly we sent as a witness, and one who rejoices another, and a warner.

 

 

This passage is one of several that describe John the Baptist, in an ayah that culminates with the mentioning of “Muhammad” (i.e. Jesus Christ).

 

 

 

 

Compare to this nearly verbatim ayah…

 

 

 

يأيها النبي إنا أرسلنك شهدا ومبشرا ونذيرا

 

Ya ayyuha alnnabiyyu inna arsalnaka shahidan wamubashshiran wanatheeran

 

33.45   O! you the prophet, certainly we sent as a witness, and one who rejoices another, and a warner.

 

 

 

This ayah builds upon 48.8 by adding the detail that John the Baptist is also a Prophet – as told to us by Jesus in the Gospels.

 

Further, this ayah comes on the heels of the mentioning of “Muhammad” (i.e. Jesus Christ) in 33.40.

 

 

 

 



-------------
Orthodox Trinitarian Christian


Posted By: Bowman
Date Posted: 14 January 2012 at 7:09pm

Originally posted by islamispeace

 

 

 

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:

 

تورية = “tawrati”

 

“tawrati” definition:

 

Noun.  He alluded to a thing equivocally, or ambiguously; equivocated respecting it: he meant such a thing and pretended another

 

التورية = “al” + “tawrati” = “altawrati” = The scriptures of the Jews and Christians.

 

 

It comes from the root “wara”, which means it produced its fire; to eat away the interior of the body, hide, conceal.

 

  

 

 

References:

An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume eight, p. 3052, volume 7, p. 2590

The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar p. 607

 

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by islamispeace

 

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. 

 

 

أحمد = “ahmadu”

 

“ahmadu” definition:

 

He (a man), came to a state, or result, such as was praised, or commended, or approved; properly, his affair, or case, came to such a state or result; or he did or said, that for which he should be praised, or commended; or that which was praiseworthy, or commendable. 

 

It comes from the root “hamida”, which means he praised, eulogized, or commended him; spoke well of him; mentioned him with approbation; sometimes because of favor received.  Also implies admiration; and it implies the magnifying, or honoring, of the object thereof; and lowliness, humility, or submissiveness, in the person who offers it.  He declared the praises of God or he praised God much with good forms of praise.

 

References:

An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume two, pp. 638 – 640

The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar pp. 135 - 136

A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, John Penrice, p. 38

Concordance of the Koran, Gustav Flugel, p. 56

 

 

Thus, from the classic definition, just like the participle “Muhammad”; we are told that “ahmad” is in reference to a man, and that this man is praised or is worthy of praise.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by islamispeace

 

 

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. 

 

 

Why & how they did it:

 

 

والكتب المبين إنا جعلنه قرءنا عربيا لعلكم تعقلون وإنه في أم الكتب لدينا لعلي حكيم

 

Waalkitabi almubeeni inna jaAAalnahu qur-anan AAarabiyyan laAAallakum taAAqiloona wa-innahu fee ommi alkitabi ladayna laAAaliyyun hakeemun

 

And The Book, the clear.  Truly we have made it an Arabic collection, perhaps you comprehend.  And truly it, in company with the source, from The Book, eminent, full of wisdom.  (43.2 – 4)

 

 

 

The authors of the Koran wanted the Koran to be an Arabic accompaniment to the Holy Bible (Alkitabi)….so they converted the Holy Bible into Arabic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

وما كان هذا القرءان أن يفترى من دون الله ولكن تصديق الذي بين يديه وتفصيل الكتب لا ريب فيه من رب العلمين

 

 

Wama kana hatha alqur-anu an yuftara min dooni Allahi walakin tasdeeqa allathee bayna yadayhi watafseela alkitabi la rayba feehi min rabbi alAAalameena

 

10.37    And that this was the collection, that fabricated one, from superior (to) “allah”, and but (a) confirmation (of) Him in His presence, and explaining The Book, no doubt in it, from the lord of the jinn and of mankind.

 

Although the Koran is an admitted fabrication, its purpose was to explain the Holy Bible in Arabic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The conversion of the Holy Bible into an Arabic Koran must be easy to remember…

 

 

 

ولقد يسرنا القرءان للذكر فهل من مدكر

 

Walaqad yassarna alqur-ana lilththikri fahal min muddakirin

 

54.17   And truly we made the Collection easy to remember, so is there from one who will take heed?

 

 

 

 

ولقد يسرنا القرءان للذكر فهل من مدكر

 

Walaqad yassarna alqur-ana lilththikri fahal min muddakirin

 

54.22   And truly we made the Collection easy to remember, so is there from one who will take heed?

 

 

 

 

ولقد يسرنا القرءان للذكر فهل من مدكر

 

Walaqad yassarna alqur-ana lilththikri fahal min muddakirin

 

54.32   And truly we made the Collection easy to remember, so is there from one who will take heed?

 

 

 

 

ولقد يسرنا القرءان للذكر فهل من مدكر

 

Walaqad yassarna alqur-ana lilththikri fahal min muddakirin

 

54.40   And truly we made the Collection easy to remember, so is there from one who will take heed?

 



-------------
Orthodox Trinitarian Christian


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 16 January 2012 at 2:55pm
Dear Bowman,
I did not get your answer to my question yet. Do you believe in Santa Claus?
Trust me your answer to this question will save us all the long walk.
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Bowman
Date Posted: 16 January 2012 at 5:34pm
Originally posted by honeto

Dear Bowman,
I did not get your answer to my question yet. Do you believe in Santa Claus?
Trust me your answer to this question will save us all the long walk.
Hasan
 
 
Do you believe that Muhammad was crucified until death upon the cross?


-------------
Orthodox Trinitarian Christian


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 18 January 2012 at 1:16pm
So now we know that you are not truthful, this talk is just a joke, rather a deception you are leading yourself into. Good luck! And may God guide you toward the right.
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Bowman
Date Posted: 19 January 2012 at 10:26am
Originally posted by honeto

So now we know that you are not truthful, this talk is just a joke, rather a deception you are leading yourself into. Good luck! And may God guide you toward the right.
Hasan
 
 
I am very truthful.
 
Now...answer the question.


-------------
Orthodox Trinitarian Christian


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 30 January 2012 at 11:00am
If you put the question in the proper thread, we will answer it, this thread deals with, as you should know you started it, what language Jesus spoke?
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 20 February 2012 at 10:29am

Islamispeace and Honeto/Hasan, it is very well documented that Jesus did NOT speak Arabic but definitely spoke Hebrew!!! Acts 26:14, 15 tells us ...... And when we had all fallen to the ground I heard a voice say to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? To keep kicking against the goads makes it hard for you.’ 15 But I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting

For a fact!!! We know Jesus spoke Hebrew!!!

For a FACT!!! We know the Prophets in the Bible all spoke Hebrew!!!

For a fact!!! We know Arabic was not even a language!!!

For a FACT!!! We know none of the Prophets were Arabian!!!

However!!! Arabians were among the EARLY Christian Congregation of Jesus at Pentecost!!!


-------------


Posted By: iec786
Date Posted: 21 February 2012 at 9:19am
For a fact!!! We know that Acts 26:14, 15 tells us ...... And when we had all fallen to the ground I heard a voice say to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? To keep kicking against the goads makes it hard for you.’

FOR A FACT WE KNOW YOU MISS QUOTED THE VERSE.HERE IS THE EXACT QUOTE FROM THE BIBLE THAT YOU HOLD IN YOUR HAND.

14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. The Divine Name King James Bibl



Why did you change the word PRICKS TO goaud??????????????

I will leave you at your leisure to explain.Oh yes while you at it could you tell us what does the word PRICKS mean ????//
In my country if you use that word we could be put in jail for 6 months.   


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 29 February 2012 at 8:13pm
See!!! Even iec786 has to finally admit that Jesus spoke Hebrew!!! He agrees by quoting the scripture.

Originally posted by iec786

14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue,


Thanks, although I already knew Jesus spoke Hebrew!!!

-------------


Posted By: iec786
Date Posted: 02 March 2012 at 7:54am
That is not what i asked you.


This is what i said why do you side track.


For a fact!!! We know that Acts 26:14, 15 tells us ...... And when we had all fallen to the ground I heard a voice say to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? To keep kicking against the goads makes it hard for you.’

FOR A FACT WE KNOW YOU MISS QUOTED THE VERSE.HERE IS THE EXACT QUOTE FROM THE BIBLE THAT YOU HOLD IN YOUR HAND.

14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. The Divine Name King James Bibl



Why did you change the word PRICKS TO goaud??????????????

I will leave you at your leisure to explain.Oh yes while you at it could you tell us what does the word PRICKS mean ????//
In my country if you use that word we could be put in jail for 6 months.


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 27 March 2012 at 9:08pm
Originally posted by iec786

I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue,


It has already been confirmed like all the other Prophets, Jesus spoke Hebrew.

Muhammad was the only self-proclaimed prophet who didn't speak Hebrew.

He was not from Moses brothers as you would like to believe!!! Moses believed in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who's name is http://dnkjb.net/1189chapters/OT19PSA083.htm - Jehovah Psalms 83:18

-------------


Posted By: iec786
Date Posted: 30 March 2012 at 9:33am
It is generally agreed that the historical Jesus primarily spoke Aramaic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_of_Jesus


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 30 March 2012 at 8:05pm
Muhammad was the only self-proclaimed prophet who didn't speak Hebrew, therefore he was NOT Moses brother!!!

-------------


Posted By: iec786
Date Posted: 30 March 2012 at 11:39pm

SAY: "DO YOU SEE? WHETHER THIS MESSAGE BE FROM ALLAH
(God Almighty), AND YET YOU REJECT IT, AND A WITNESS FROM
AMONG THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL BORE WITNESS OF ONE
LIKE HIM . . . . . ."
(Holy Qur'an 46:10




I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto
thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto
them all that I shall command him

My next topic on post, but first you.
What The Bible Says About Muhammad (pbuh)

http://ia700306.us.archive.org/13/items/Shk_Ahmed_Deedats_Books/What_The_Bible_Says_About_Muhammad_pbuh.pdf


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 18 April 2012 at 12:32pm
Originally posted by Kish

Muhammad was the only self-proclaimed prophet who didn't speak Hebrew, therefore he was NOT Moses brother!!!
 
Kish that a very st---d ascertain. What language you think Adam spoke?
Arabic, Aramiac and Herbrew are all sister languages emerging from a common source. Arabic and Aramiac are very close in deed, Italian and Spanish would be a close comparison. Jesus' mother tongue was Aramiac not Hebrew, even though he spoke both. That is something scholars of histroy will not disagree with.
It would be racism to say that because if you don't speak Hebrew you cannot be a prophet. Through Islamic teachings we know that God sent His prophets and word to all people. There is a simple logic behind it which I am sure is new to you: God will hold responsible all people for their actions, God did not say anywhere that He will hold responsible only those who speak Hebrew, or English and that His guidance is not limited to only some people. That is why God Almighty addresses in His Final Testament to humanity, " O mankind....".
Truth is beautiful and it is clear, and it makes sense against falshood which will eventually parish, parish in what God called the Hellfire.
 
May God guide all, Ameen.
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 20 April 2012 at 7:21pm
Originally posted by honeto

What language you think Adam spoke?


Did you not read 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.

Adam spoke HEBREW Simple math my friend



-------------


Posted By: BMZ
Date Posted: 26 April 2012 at 8:30am
Hello, Bowman

You wrote:

"The LXX is the Hebrew Bible in Greek."

That is incorrect.

The LXX is a very poor translation of Hebrew Scriptures in Greek.

It was done for Ptolemy's own library and collection, not for the Jews or the San Hedrin. It was not an officially approved translation.

Only the part known as the Torah, was translated by the 70-72 translators.

OT was copied using that poor Greek translation to fit in Jesus wherever the Church fathers wanted him to be shown.

-------------
Shasta's Aunt: "Well, there's the difference you see. The Bible was written by man about God, The Quran was revealed to man by God."


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 11 May 2012 at 6:07am
Now, may I ask what language do you think Adam spoke and what scriptual support do you have, I've shown you Gen. 11:1.

-------------


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 13 May 2012 at 8:32pm
Suppose Adam did spoke Hebrew, its not any big deal. All prophets of God are loved in Islam, no one has superiority over the other based on language, color, race or status. We love Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus (pbut) all. If any has a higher degree in the sight of God Almighty it is due to their piety, according to the Quran.
Now that you know that Adam spoke Hebrew, can you tell me if he believed in a triune God (God the Father, God the son and God the Holy Gost)or not!references please.
 
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: student179
Date Posted: 14 May 2013 at 7:01pm
Bowman,

This is not the case. Jesus does not "speak" in the Koran. The Koran is the word of God.

There are no authors. The word of God was descended upon the Prophet Mohamed via Angel Gabriel.

Do you understand?



Print Page | Close Window