Muslim gladiator wrote:
in Genesis 6:3 (New International Version)
{3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with [a] man forever, for he is mortal ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." }
The term "120 years" or "hundred and twenty years" -whatever how it has written, there is not problem about that- has been stated in all other versions. So why was the term "ten" being hard to be translated? I will explain this point for you more lately? You will know the secret. The translators for the versions of the Bible are not a stupid.
Kai replies:
Why don’t you read my post again. As I pointed out, the number 10.000 has a special purpose as it not necessarily presents an actual number but a large number of something; this is not the case with 120!
Quote:
simply fail to see the problem here; it is true that numerology is difficult in the Hebrew language; however if it becomes a problem that translating it becomes difficult and it sometimes does, it does not prove that the Bible is interpolated.
Compare the Job 25 (New Living Translation) to ob
25:4 (New International Version)
There is a term has been omitted totally. "Born of woman” This term has been stated in all other versions.
Job 25 (New American Standard Bible)
{4"How then can a man be just with God?
Or how can he be clean who is born of woman?}
Job 25 (Amplified Bible)
{4How then can man be justified and righteous before God? Or how can he who is born of a woman be pure and clean?}
Kai replies:
Thanks for wasting our time! Are we debating translations or the Hebrew Text; secondly both the New Living Translations and the Amplified Bible are not even attempting to present the text (as a word to word translation) in its best accuracy.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Kai replies:
I would challenge this proposition bro.
A range of words in the Koran are not Arabic; Arthur Jeffrey points out a range of foreign words in the Qur’an:
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Books/Jef ... /index.htm
These words include, the Qur’an, Isa, Injeel, which have all been plagiarized from Syrian Greek Christianity
The Translation of the Meanings of the Quran by Pickthall
Kai replies
I NEED WE NEED TO STOP HERE FOR A WHILE, BECAUSE I AM GETTING TOTALLY CONFUSED, THE READER AS WELL. EXACTLY WHERE ARE WE NOW? YOU ARE JUMPING FROM SUBJECT TO SUBJECT WITHOUT ANY WARNING. IF YOU KEEP DOING THIS IN FUTURE I WILL DELETE IT. THESE THREADS ARE MEANT TO RED BY PEOPLE AND USED TO DETERMINE THE CREDABILITY BETWEEN ISLAM AND CHRISTINATY; YET YOUR POSTS ARE A TOTAL CONFUSION.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
[26]
{In the perspicuous Arabic tongue.}
And Quran said also,
The Translation of the Meanings of the Quran by Pickthall
[14]
{And We never sent a messenger save with the language of his folk, that he might make (the message) clear for them. Then Allah sendeth whom He will astray, and guideth whom He will. He is the Mighty, the Wise.}
From these verses we can understand that Quran came in Arabic and all of its language is in Arabic, clear Arabic.
You gave me a good site, and really thank you, I have not known before the Syrian Bible stated the name of Isa (Peace of Allah be upon him and his pure Mother) like how it is in the Quran. That assured my faith inside me. I really wonder why did you choose the term "Jesus" rather than the term “Isa” (Peace of Allah be upon him and his pure mother) in your English Bible? Anyways,
Kai replies:
But if the Koran was revealed in pure Arabic, but a number of its verbs are Greek, Persian, Syrian, etc, then in fact you admit that the Koran contains error. Because the words Isa, Injeel and Qur’an are not Arabic, neither are they original Arabic, they are Syrian.
As to your question why we have chosen the word Jesus instead of Isa, then neither matters, since the correct Hebrew word would be Yeshua, not Jesus or Isa. Yet as Christians we realise that names change according to various languages and dialects even though the meaning remains; e.g. Johannen or Johann becomes John, just to mention one example.
In fact if the Koran uses Isa, it does utilize Greek Syrian language not Arabic nor original Biblical Hebrew.
That should not strengthen your faith but diminish it
Muslim gladiator wrote:
As a matter of fact for any language, it has some words came from other languages, but people use it in their life and it became a part of their life and their own language. Then you can find it in their dictionaries.
Kai replies:
Your are right, and many of these words were adopted from other languages and inserted into the Koran
Muslim gladiator wrote:
There are some English words, the American and English People use it nowadays while it came from Arabic language,
Algebra ( In Arabic Al Jabr)
Aba (in Arabic Abaya)
Bedouin (in Arabic Badawe)
Hajj (in Arabic Hajj)
Harem (in Arabic Harem)
Fakir (in Arabic Faker)
Anyways, all of these terms can be found it in the recent English or American directories.
Kai replies:
You are correct! However, most of the European languages are dominated by Greek or Latin. Secondly, it is a fact that Islam had its era of dominion in which a range of words passed over. Yet that proves nothing if you intend to prove that the religion of Islam is superior, since in comparison to Greek and Latin, Christianity or Greek philosophy would then remain stronger.
Are you sure however Algebra originally is an Arabic word?
Muslim gladiator wrote:
If you talked with any American or English person and you used any of those terms, he will understand you. No one will wonder what is going on?
If Quran has strange terms for the people who were living in this time, they would ask him about what is talking about? But they never say that.
If our prophet (Peace and Mercy of Allah be upon him) used a strange language with his people, so what is the main point then? How could he invite them to a religion with a strange language? Please use your mind? Think. (Suppose that I came to you to invite you to Islam while most or some of my speech was in Arabic, Simply you would ask me to use your own language if I want you to understand me?
Our prophet (Peace and Mercy of Allah be upon him) came to people are kings in Arabic language. There was a market for poetry. Have you seen before even if nowadays a big market for poetry only? People used to there to sell their poetries or buy some?
Kai replies:
NOW THIS REALLY SURPRISES ME! YOU CONSTANTLY ATTACK CHRISTIANITY FOR DEPENDING UPON THE GREEK LANGUAGE RATHER THAN THE HEBREW OR ARAMAIC.
AS I HAVE POINTED OUT EARLIER, WHICH IS A POINT YOU SEEM TO HAVE GRASPED, THE LANGUAGE OF A RELIGION HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD BY IT RECIPIENTS; WHICH IS THE REASON WHY THE GOSPEL WAS WRITTEN AND COMMUNICATED IN GREEK RATHER IN ARAMAIC. OBVIOUSLY ONLY A TINY PROPORTION OF THE ANCIENT ROMAN WORLD POSSESSED ANY KNOWLEDGE ABOUT ARAMAIC.
THIRDLY, AS I HAVE ALSO POINTED OUT, THE APOSTLES ARE TO US WHAT MUHAMMAD IS TO YOU; THE GOSPEL ACCOUNT (NOT NECESSARILY THE WORD TO WORD WRITING) IS TO US WHAT THE KORAN IS FOR YOU; WHICH IS WHY WE FEEL AS CONFIDENT AND COMFORTABLE WITH THE GOSPELS AS YOU DO WITH THE KORAN!
AND DON’T TELLING ME THAT ALL MUSLIMS GRASP ARABIC, WE BOTH KNOW THAT ONLY A TINY MINORITY HAS MANAGED SOMETHING OF THE KIND.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Why Our prophet (Peace and Mercy of Allah be upon him) put a knife on his neck and go through a competition he knew he would lose it? Why did he say
The Translation of the Meanings of the Quran by Pickthall
[26]
{In the perspicuous Arabic tongue.}
if he was not sure 100% he is right? If he was wrong, you will not find someone for example like “Hassan ibn thabit” more about him in this link below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hassan_Ibn_Thabit
follow someone use an ambiguous language. When our prophet died (Peace and Mercy of Allah be upon him) all the towns in Mecca and Medina were under Islam control? Do you want to say more than 120,000 persons (person are kings for using their language) listen to someone use an ambiguous words.
Simply if our (Peace and Mercy of Allah be upon him) used some strange words and then say 26:195, it has no other way, this man kills his invitation and put himself in a very critical position with an experiment people?
Kai replies:
First and most, how much do you really know about early Islam, its origins and the life and accomplishment of Muhammad. The Hadiths which you rely upon were not compiled until 120-200 years later by a Persian. There is SIMPLY NO WAY THAT A HUNDRED YEARS OF HEARSAY WOULD PRESENT AN ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF HISTORICAL REALITY; WHICH IS WHY MOST OF THE SAYING WERE REJECTED, AND WHICH IS WHY MANY MUSLIMS NOW BEGIN REJECTING THE HADITHS EVEN BUKHARI ENTIRELY.
Secondly how sure can you be about the Koran?
Muhammad never compiled his so called material; there was no Qur’an written down in his lifetime!
It is reported ... from Ali who said: "May the mercy of Allah be upon Abu Bakr, the foremost of men to be rewarded with the collection of the manuscripts, for he was the first to collect (the text) between (two) covers". (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.5).
Bukhari reveals clearly that the compilation of the Koran was dubious and complicated; not even Zaid bin had a clue what was going on:
Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr as-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed. Then Abu Bakr said (to me): "You are a wise young man and we do not have any suspicion about you, and you used to write the Divine Inspiration for Allah's Apostle (saw). So you should search for (the fragmentary scripts of) the Qur'an and collect it (in one book)". By Allah! If they had ordered me to shift one of the mountains, it would not have been heavier for me than this ordering me to collect the Qur'an. Then I said to Abu Bakr, "How will you do something which Allah's Apostle (saw) did not do?" Abu Bakr replied "By Allah, it is a good project". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.477).
Much of the Koran was never compiled or collected as it was lost in war:
Many (of the passages) of the Qur'an that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama ... but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Qur'an, nor were they found with even one (person) after them. (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.23).
If Zaid or any of the other reciters fully knew the Qur’an this would not have become an issue, but it did!
Zaid had start a long search:
So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from (what was written on) palm-leaf stalks, thin white stones, and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last verse of Surat at-Tauba (repentance) with Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.478).
Hence no one new the entire Koran, and its main compiler had to search for it here and there, even though he believed that such as task was more or less impossible.
The Hadiths further reveal that after some years, due to a multiple number of collection, some Korans are consider more superior than others, and Arabia is about to be thrown into a civil war.
The solution is to burn all these first versions of the Koran and keep the one of Zaid bin. After this four Arabic scholars are told to rewrite it into the Quraish dialect and make sure they agree with Zaid bin Thabit.
The passage also reveals that it was for political reason that the Korans were burned and the Zaid’s Koran was chosen and changed.
I simply FAIL TO GRASP THE CLAIM THAT THE QURAN IS WITHOUT ERROR AND SUPPOSED TO BE SUPERIOR, AS EVERYTHING REVEALS CORRUPTION; BUT THE NON-PLANED AND THE CORRUPTION DONE BY WILLFULL MOTIVES.
Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sha'm and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to Uthman, 'O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur'an) as Jews and the Christians did before'. So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa, saying, 'Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you'. Hafsa sent It to Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa'id bin al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue'. They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.479).
By Allah, he did not act or do anything in respect of the manuscripts (masahif) except in full consultation with us, for he said, 'What is your opinion in this matter of qira'at (reading)? It has been reported to me that some are saying 'My reading is superior to your reading'. That is a perversion of the truth. We asked him, 'What is your view (on this)?' He answered, 'My view is that we should unite the people on a single text (mushaf waahid), then there will be no further division or disagreement'. We replied, 'What a wonderful idea!' Someone from the gathering there asked, 'Whose is the purest (Arabic) among the people and whose reading (is the best)?' They said the purest (Arabic) among the people was that of Sa'id ibn al-'As and the (best) reader among them was Zaid ibn Thabit. He (Uthman) said, 'Let the one write and the other dictate'. Thereafter they performed their task and he united the people on a (single) text. (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.22).
Even the best reciters of Islam had to give up their collections of the Koran for destruction, MY QUESTION IS WHY? WOULD IT NOT BE MOST CONVENIENT TO LET THESE COMPANIONS OF MUHAMMAD HAVE A SAY IN THE ACTUAL FORMATION OF IT? OR DID THE POLITICAL MIND OF EARLY ISLAM PLAN A CONSPIRACY?
Of the best reciters was Abdullah bin Mas’ud:
Narrated Masruq: Abdullah bin Mas'ud was mentioned before Abdullah bin Amr who said, "That is a man I still love, as I heard the Prophet (saw) saying, 'Learn the recitation of the Qur'an from four: from Abdullah bin Mas'ud - he started with him - Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, Mu'adh bin Jabal and Ubai bin Ka'b". (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p.96)
"I acquired directly from the messenger of Allah (saw) seventy surahs when Zaid was still a childish youth - must I now forsake what I acquired directly from the messenger of Allah?" (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.15).
Yet Abdullah had to surrender his Koran to be destroyed, why???
Muslim gladiator wrote:
When our Prophet (Mercy and Peace of Allah be upon him) spoke to The People of the Book (Jews and Christians) and recite the Quran for them, did they understand him or not? Do you imagine that our prophet (Mercy and Peace of Allah be upon him) will say a term like " Isa" or “injeel” for the Christians while they can not understand it?
Kai replies:
The Christians in Arabia might very well have know ‘Isa’ and ‘Injeel’, especially since the terminology was Christian, before Muhammad ever obtained them.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Look at this verse again and try to understand it
The Translation of the Meanings of the Quran by Pickthall
[14]
{And We never sent a messenger save with the language of his folk, that he might make (the message) clear for them. Then Allah sendeth whom He will astray, and guideth whom He will. He is the Mighty, the Wise.}
Again, what is the main point of the invitation if the people can not understand your language? Of course they must use these words and understand it very well. Otherwise how did they know what is his invitation about? What do they argue with him about?
Kai replies:
Which is why the Gospel account was written and revealed in Greek by the apostles
Muslim gladiator wrote:
If you want to know the person whose people did not understand him, let us read these verses, from John 6:41-42 (New International Version)
{41At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven." 42They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?"}
Kai replies:
Nothing in the text reveals that the language was difficult; if you notice the context, the Jews seemed to have a hard time accepting his incarnation (that he came from heaven).
Muslim gladiator wrote:
And even if when he tried to explain his theory for them more, they could not understand it,
Look at the same Gospel, 6:52 (New International Version)
{52Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"}
And the result was
And from the same Gospel, 6:66 (New International Version)
{66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.}
Kai replies:
Correct, however, again notice the context and the full analogy:
Jesus death was not the message prior to his death and resurrection
Some of his disciples reacted when told their master was not going to kick out the Romans but die
Muslim gladiator wrote:
I will end this article with the opinion of one of the Converted People into Islam four years ago.
When he read your article he said:
“If Mohamed (Mercy and Peace of Allah be upon him) came with strange words to his people, then he was in need to come with a new dictionary to give it to every person he invited him to Islam."
Kai replies:
Which is why you have a range of translations
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Quote:
1. Abu’l-Rabi‘ b. al-Layth (c. 8th century A.D.).
2. ‘Ali b. Rabban al-Tabari (b. 810 A.D.).
3. Abu Muhammad ‘Abd Allah b. Muslim b. Qutayba (b. 828 A.D.).
4. Ahmad b. Abi Ya‘qub b. Ja‘far b. Wahb b. Wadih al-‘Abbasi (b. first quarter of the 9th century A.D.).
5. Abu Ja‘far Muhammad b. Jarir al-Tabari (b. 839 A.D.).
6. Abu’l-Hasan ‘Ali b. al-Husayn al-Mas‘udi (b. 893 A.D.).
7. Abu Bakr Muhammad b. al-Tayyib b. Ja‘far b. Muhammad b. al-Qasim (ibn) al-Baqillani (b. 950)
8. Abu Nasr Mutahhar b. Tahir al-Maqdisi.
9. Abu’l-Rayhan Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Biruni (b. 973 A.D.).
10. Abu Muhammad ‘Ali b. Ahmad b. Hazm (b. 994 A.D.).
The first 7 writers were of the opinion that the Hebrew Scriptures remained intact, with the last 3 claiming that textual corruption had taken
place. Ibn Hazm was the most vociferous of those who held that the text of the Hebrew Bible was corrupted.
It will be our aim here to specifically focus on the views of the first 7 Muslims. We do this to demonstrate that the first Muslims did not hold to the position that the previous books, specifically the books of the Hebrew Bible, were corrupted to such an extent that its message was unreliable, no longer accurately reflecting the original message of the OT prophets.
One of the Islamic Scholars you have stated is my favorite (Ibn Hazm) I read a lot of his books mysefl. I am Zahary. I was the only one in my two who follows Zaharaya Mathab (Zaharaya way). Anyways, I have told you before two things:
1- Do not repeat others words like a parrot. Try to look for the sources yourself.
2- Do not give a lot words without no sense.
Kai replies:
Which is the same I have been telling you from the start
Muslim gladiator wrote:
You gave me a long article to assure your idea but, where did the Muslims scientists say that? Where are the main sources from their books?
Kai replies:
Well, what did the Muslim scientists say? Can you prove that Muslim scholars up to 900 AD believed that the entire Bible had been falsified?
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Quote:
In the epistle of Ibn al-Layth
In which epistle of Ibn al-layth did he say that? For whom did Ibn al-layth send his epistle?
I really did not get who do you mean by al-Layth . If you mean Al-Layth the Imam who lived in Egypt in the second Islamic century, you are totally wrong. You should read his fiqh first before you talk about the man.
Kai replies:
Well, let me refer to a person, whom Muslims generally find notorious, whose origins are from the Muslim world, Sam Shamoun; then I am utilizing the same standard of you utilizing Western scholars against the Bible
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ ... entic1.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/aboutbible2.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/tahrif.htm
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Quote:
Ibn al-Layth categorically denies the possibility of passages having been added to, or omitted from, the scriptures, and professes his belief - and Caliph Harun’s - in the authenticity of these scriptures. This point of view seems to be shared by Ibn Rabban. (p. 224)
I will suppose you are right, although that is impossible for an Imam like “Al- Layth Ibn Sad”. And I repeat that is impossible, anyways, and I say it is impossible for many logical reasons,
1- Quran ordered Christians to the idea of trinity [4]. While Anajeel (Gospels) assure this idea.
Kai replies:
What????????
Muslim gladiator wrote:
2- Quran desribes the people who said Jesus is a God with unbelief [5]. While Anajeel (Gospels) consider them the only faithful believers.
3- Quran differs from the Anajeel “Gospels” in the main though, Quran describes the people who believe in trinity with unbelief [5].
4- Quran assures that Isa (Jesus) is just a human being like Adam (Peace of Allah be upon them both) [3]
Kai replies:
Well, that is all very sad, then in fact the Koran is in error. Yet it seems that the author of the Koran and the early Muslims fail to realise that Christian teaching and the Bible are identical.
When later Muslim scholars realised that the Koran had committed this great error, the idea of Bible-corruption had to be invented.