Muslim gladiator wrote:
Quote:
Otherwise I will start comparing Koranic translations and post the differences as actual elements that can debunk Islamic religion
Again please give me A Koran Translation? You will never ever find? You will the Translation of The Meanings of the Koran and I already explained it. And what is really strange, how can you attack the Quran if you can speak Arabic. That is very weird?
We Muslims use Arabic Koran in our translations. Have you found a Muslims before whatever its nationality say the translation of the meanings of the Quran in his prayers?
Second, give me a translation of the meanings of the Koran for any person on this planet with some notes on the version referring to that those verses are not included in the original version. Give me any translation of the meanings of the Koran with any language you want has an addition verses in it?
Go and try?
Kai replies:
Well Muslim
Shabir Ally said in a televised debate in Atlanta GA, Oct. 19, 2000:
"It doesn't matter if the Qur'anic manuscripts are corrupted, or have evolved, as long as we have a picture of the true Jesus..." (Televised Debate in Atlanta, Oct. 19, 2000)
In the
introduction to Dawood’s translation of the Koran it says:
"owing to the fact that the kufic script in which the Koran was originally written contained no indication of vowels or diacritical points, variant readings are recognized by Muslims as of equal authority." (N.J. Dawood, The Koran, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1983, p 10, introduction to Dawood’s translation of the Koran)
The International
Journal of Islamic and Arabic Studies, in an article called,
"A Study of Seven Quranic Variants, said in 1989, "It is interesting to note that in scholarly Muslim journals, there is beginning to be a grudging acknowledgment of the fact that there are variant and conflicting readings on the text of the Quran" [One example would be Saleh al-Wahaihu] (A Study of Seven Quranic Variants, International Journal of Islamic and Arabic Studies, Vol. V (1989), #2, pp. 1-57).
Non-Muslims, McClintock and Strong say, "All Western and Muslim scholars admit the presence of variant readings in the text of the Quran" and "The Shiite Muslims claim that Uthman left out 25 percent of the original verses in the Quran for political reasons" (Dashti, 23 Years, p. 28; Mandudi, Meaning of the Quran, pp. 17-18; McClintock and Strong, Cyclopedia, V:152).
In Qur’an 2:55, Moses is raised from the dead,
Yusuf Ali says in footnote #70,
"Now we have some instances from Jewish traditions in the Talmud." This fairy tale came from Jewish Myth.
In Qur’an 7:65, is a story of she-camel who jumped out of a rock and became a prophet of Allah.
Ali says in footnote #1040 and #1043, "Their story belongs to Arabian tradition." Then in Qur’an 7:73, Ali says in footnote #1044, "The story of this wonderful she-camel, that was a Sign to the Thamud, is variously told in tradition. We need not follow the various versions in the traditional story."
Muslim gladiator wrote:
uote:
That is why the Gospels were written down in Greek, the ancient international language so the message could be easily understood and read.
Are you serious? Do you believe yourself that the Gospels have been written originally in Greek?
Friend sorry, that is against Papias. Papias whom you stated him many times said that the Gospels were in Hebrew and each one did his best for translating it.
Papias (according to Eusebius) wrote this:
"Mark having become the interpreter of Peter wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could."
So that is a clear asseveration from Papias that Gospel of Matthew was in Hebrew in its first feature.
Kai replies:
That is what I already said
But Mark, Luke and John were originally in Greek
Muslim gladiator wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papias
Friend kai, Most of Gospels are supposed to be in written in Greek. That is how your phrase should be. That is how the fresh man in college for studying religions knows it.
That is how new scholars refuse the idea of Papais for some reasons,
1- There is no evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was originally composed in Hebrew, otherwise, where is the Hebrew Script which the people interpreted it in the best way? The oldest thing could be found about the Bible is a piece of paper. Its size like a card and it is in Greek Language.
Kai replies:
The evidence is Papias
How do you even know that the Koran was originally written in Arabic? Because Sahih Bukhari says so!
Do you even have a paper of the origina Koran, I mean the real Koran, before it was corrupted by Zaid and Utmann?
No! I knew it!
Muslim gladiator wrote:
2- Papias knew the Gospels only in its current form in this time and had not seen a version in a Semitic language.
The Source is, Complete Gospels which made by more than twenty Christians Scholar and Eidt by Robert J. Miller (Teaches Religious Studies and Philosophy at Midway College, Midway, Kentucky, USA.)
Kai replies:
How do you know that, how does anyone know that? Papias received the Gospel account both in written form and orally.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Third, how does it come that there are different manuscripts, if the people really translated it in the best way? Christianity have about 80,000 Manuscripts but no one is alike the other.
You will never find a translation for the meanings of the Quran with more verses inside it and then tell the people that is the word of God?
Kai replies:
Are you referring to TEXTUAL CRITICISM, textual criticism does not reveal corruption; in fact is preserves the evidences that the Bible has not been changed.
When you have thousands of hand-copied manuscripts and you know there familes, and you can compare all these, it becomes easy to figure out the actual, original text; and that is the case with the New Testament.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Compare the translations of the meanings of the Quran see if it will lead you to the same meanings or not? Because as I have said before,
If the main context was like that, “ I got a prize”
Kai replies:
You will find that a range of Muslim scholars consider the passages of the Koran, not their translations or meanings (whatever you want to call them), but their original form to be corrupted:
Ibn Khallikan:
"Abu Amr states that he received the following revelation from Katada as-Sadusi: "When the first copy of the Qur’an was written out and presented to [the khalif] Othman Ibn Affan, he said: ‘There are faults of language in it, and let the Arabs of the desert rectify them with their tongues." (Biographical Dictionary, Ibn Khallikan, p. 401)
M. Hamidullah:
"Lastly I must bring into relief the case of the word la ( ), which in four or five cases is only l ( ) without the final alif.The word la means no, and the word l means certainly. It is horrible to think when it is meant "the believers certainly shall assemble unto God" and "the unbelievers certainly shall assemble in the hell", and the unfortunate ignorant reader unintentionally says "not" instead of "certainly". We will point out these passages in our second list" (Orthographical Peculiarities In The Text Of The Qur’an, M. Hamidullah, Islamic Order (Karachi), Vol. 3, no. 4, 1981, p.78; article received from Islamic Foundation U.K. as per citation in Ulum al-Qur’an, p.60; emphasis added).
Ibn Khaldun:
"Arabic writing at the beginning of Islam was, therefore, not of the best quality nor of the greatest accuracy and excellence. It was not (even) of medium quality, because the Arabs possessed the savage desert attitude and were not familiar with crafts.
One may compare what happened to the orthography of the Qur’an on account of this situation. The men around Muhammad wrote the Qur’an in their own script which, was not of a firmly established, good quality. Most of the letters were in contradiction to the orthography required by persons versed in the craft of writing.... Consequently, (the Qur’anic orthography of the men around Muhammad was followed and became established, and the scholars acquainted with it have called attention to passages where (this is noticeable).
No attention should be paid in this connection with those incompetent (scholars) that (the men around Muhammad) knew well the art of writing and that the alleged discrepancies between their writing and the principles of orthography are not discrepancies, as has been alleged, but have a reason. For instance, they explain the addition of the alif in la ‘adhbahannahU "I shall indeed slaughter him" as indication that the slaughtering did not take place ( lA ‘adhbahannahU ). The addition of the ya in bi-ayydin "with hands (power)," they explain as an indication that the divine power is perfect. There are similar things based on nothing but purely arbitrary assumptions. The only reason that caused them to (assume such things) is their belief that (their explanations) would free the men around Muhammad from the suspicion of deficiency, in the sense that they were not able to write well. They think that good writing is perfection. Thus, they do not admit the fact that the men around Muhammad were deficient in writing." (Muqqadimah, ibn Khaldun, vol. 2, p.382).
Shabir Ally:
"It doesn't matter if the Qur'anic manuscripts are corrupted, or have evolved, as long as we have a picture of the true Jesus..." (Televised Debate in Atlanta, Oct. 19, 2000)
at-Tabari (d.309 A.H.) in his Tafsir (commentary), includes in his version of this Hadith:
"Hadaifah said, "I took part in the expedition against Armenia where there were Iraqis as well as Syrians. But the Syrians follow the reading of the Qur’an according to Ubai ibn Ka`b, and they say some things which the Iraqis have not heard, so the latter accuse them of unbelief. In the same way the Iraqis, who follow the reading of Ibn Mas`ud, read some things which the Syrians have not heard, and the Syrians accuse
Notice I have here referred to your own Muslim scholars, not my own ideas; according to your criteria therefore, the Koran in its present form does not present the original.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Some one may say it like that “I obtained a prized” for me that is interpreted for the meanings but if you say it like that “I did not obtain the prize” that will change the meanings totally. Like how it is in Acts 3:13 KJV translate the term “His Son Jesus” while NKJV translate the term like that “His Servant Jesus” Do you know the great difference between the term “Son” and the term “Servant”?
Kai replies:
Why are we still correcting translations?
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Because KJV understand that it is impossible for a God to be a Servant. The term “Servant” agreed wit the same thought with us Muslims. But the term “Son” with a Capital letter although it should be written with small letter according to Greek language that really gives a great dishonestly.
Kai replies:
This is still only a translation
Muslim gladiator wrote:
ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ ΤΩΝ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ 3 (1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament)
{13ο θεος αβρααμ και ισαακ και ιακωβ ο θεος των πατερων ημων εδοξασεν τον παιδα αυτου ιησουν ον υμεις μεν παρεδωκατε και ηρνησασθε κατα προσωπον πιλατου κριναντος εκεινου απολυειν}
Do you see the see the term “servant” in this verse has been written in a capital letter?
Kai replies:
Correct, we should stick with the original meaning Servant! But in what sense does a translation which translates it wrongly, change the entire Bible?
Muslim gladiator wrote:
In [Mark 1:1] there are three words entered in Christianity thought. Three words in some manuscripts and it is not in others {Son of God}.
In the same Gospel [Mark 1: 9-19], verses from 9 to 19 which means 11 verses were not in the earlier manuscripts while it is in the Holy Book you have now? Who put it? Who is reasonable for that?
Kai replies:
How do you know they were not in the earlier manuscripts; since we do not possess the first writing, your claim becomes overstated!
Muslim gladiator wrote:
By looking at the Papias words we can see that “"Mark having become the interpreter of Peter wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ”
From his words we can conclude two things,
1- Mark having become the interpreter of Peter wrote down, Which means Peter wrote down his writings with another language.
Kai replies:
How do you know that Peter did not speak in Greek?
Muslim gladiator wrote:
What assures this idea that he add later “Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could”. That is how we can understand the term “Interpreted” here means translated.
2- Mark remembered what he is just remembered.
Kai replies:
The gift of memorizing was in accordance to the day.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
3- Mark put his writings in the order like how in exactly of sayings of deeds of Christ.
And from all of those conclusions we can get that the Gospels main languages are not in Greek?
Kai replies:
Really? Does this not debunk your whole idea about a religious language being understandable? Secondly, if Peter spoke to Gentiles, he would convey the message in Greek.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Mark or (whatever the person’s name that put the Gospel) writes down as much as he remembered? The Gospel’s verses did not put in a right order?
Kai replies:
DO YOU THINK THE KORAN IS IN CORRECT ORDER?
Muslim gladiator wrote:
There is Papias words friend Kai, what do you think about it? That is the your Holy
Book?
Kai replies:
Then in fact you cannot whether the entire Koran was revealed to Muhammad, since you need to believe in Bukhari rather than the Word of God.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
What is really interesting how did Eusebius look at Papias,
“Papias also related a number of traditions that Eusebius had characterized it as "some strange parables and teachings of the savior, and some other more mythical accounts"? For example, Eusebius indicated that Papias heard stories about Justus, surnamed Barsabas, who drank poison but suffered no harm and another story via a daughter of Philip the Evangelist concerning the resurrection of a corpse (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 3.34.377-392).”
So as you see even if Eusebius had characterized Papias with Mythical accounts.
Kai replies:
In what sense is the account mythical
What is mythical are the Koranic accounts about the sun setting in a muddy spring, and stars thrown at space flying jinns, and dogs sleeping hundreds of years.
An account describing a divine miracle is not a myth
Muslim gladiator wrote:
And do you believe Papias in this story as well,
Kai replies:
Why not?
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Papias also related a tradition on the death of Judas Iscariot, in which Judas became so swollen he could not pass where a chariot could easily and was crushed by a chariot, so that his bowels gushed out (Papias Fragment 3, 1742-1744).
Kai replies:
Well, there were many weird ideas about Judas going around
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Papias confirms that there is a Mark’s Gospel, however, Mark’s Gospel is not to be considered as a Gospel compiled or composed by Mark. Papias notes that Mark served in dictating Peter’s teachings, or more correctly Peter’s testimony, possibly in the city of Rome.
I am sorry friend that is not what Papias said according to Eusebius.
Kai replies:
If Mark was dictating an eyewitness, he was indeed compiling material
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Quote:
Interestingly the text clearly confirms that John Martyr’s reference to Peter’s Gospel is in fact Mark’s Gospel, as also Papias confirmed earlier:
Please read what I have said before.
Kai replies:
It makes no sense
It gives no point
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Quote:
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Quote:
Peter has Gospel the Church does not confess with it.
Kai replies:
Sorry please clarify your sen
Peter Gospel (First edition probably 50-100 C.E.)
" In 1886 French archaeologists discovered a small papyrus codex in a monk's grave at Akhmim in Upper Egypt. On pp.2-10 of this condex is a fragmentary Gospel narrative containing significant portions of a passion story, a miraculouse epiphany , an empty tomb story, and an introduction to what is probably a resurrections story . A small crosses stant obove a knotwork interlacing at the bottom of p.10 The presence of the surrounding ornamentation indicates that the writer was copying an already frangmented text. The cursive handwriting of the gospel narriative dates from the eighth or ninth century. This Gospel fragment became known as the Gospel of Peter due to the fact that Simon Peter is presented as its author."
For more about that
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelpeter.html
Kai replies:
So a eigth or nineth centure manuscripts proves that Peter wrote his own Gospel. You do realise that there were apocryphical gospels written by Gnostics; often under the name of apostolic authors.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Quote:
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Quote:
I did not say that my friend from my own desire, who said that Twenty Christians Scholars have a degree “Professor”. We Muslims did not pay for them to say that. Go and read the “Complete Gospels” by Robert J. Miller (Teaches Religious Studies and Philosophy at Midway College, Midway, Kentucky. He made his book with Twenty Christians Scholars. Those people like Scholar Bart Ehram. Who became unbeliever after studying the Bible.
Kai replies:
Say what, about what?
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Say that your Gospels have additions words and verses are not in the manuscripts. Then they wonder, how could we be sure that every other word in this gospels are right?
They could discovered the additions verses like how in Gospel Mark but, what is about the other verses in the Gospel. The scholars knew that the verses are not in the same order and in the same time they know there are additional verses. Some manuscripts have it and others do not.
That is why Scholars call that "Shorter Ending" and "Longer Ending" of Mark Gospel.
But what is about other Gospels, let us just take an example:
Kai replies:
This is called textual criticism; it actually confirms the accuracy of the Bible as the many thousands of manuscripts can be compared and the actual original wording be determined.
However, we are not talking about big time problems, but mainly a few prases, some words and the order in some phrases, which are flexible in the Greek language anyway.
This implies in no way corruption.
If you look at websites I sent you earlier, which is material written by Muslims, you will notice that Muslims scholars have the same problem with the manuscripts of the Arabic Koran.
What do I mean?
Well the early manuscripts of the Koran do not agree. If you get hold on the last debate between Shabir Ally and Shorrosh, which took place in Glasgow, UK 2005 in April. Shabir Ally, who is a scholar on Islam admits this publically.
He actually stated that the Arabic Koran is only the meaning of the eternal heavenly Koran, which is not in Arabic but simply refers to the wisdom or knowledge of Allah.
Hence Shabir Ally takes the opposite position, that actually the divine wisdom is the Word of Allah while the Arabic is its meaning.
He had to bring this up as he was challenged with the fact that Allah is called the King of the day of judgment in one in Sura one according to some Arabic manuscripts and the owner of the day of judgment in another Arabic version.
TRY TO GET HOLD ON THIS BOOK, WHICH IS WRITTEN BY A MUSLIM SCHOLAR AND PROVES THAT AMONG THE EARLIEST FOUND ARABIC VERSIONS OF THE KORAN, AND THIRD OF ALL VERSES IN THE KORAN CONTAIN DIFFERENCES, ADDITIONS, ETC:
Making Easy the Readings of What Has Been Sent Down
The Author is Muhammad Fahd Khaaruun
the details:
The Collector of the 10 Readings
From al-Shaatebeiah and al-Dorraah and al-Taiabah
Revised by
Muhammad Kareem Ragheh
The Chief Reader of Damascus
Daar Beirut