-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Koran:...Jesus is the Son...
- Thread starter Apple Pie
- Start date
MaddLlama
Obstructor of justice
Apple Pie said:
Why won't you answer my question? It's requires only a simple answer.
You said that the only way to know if a translation is accurate is to verify its original language rather than just accept the translation given to you.
So, I want to know if you have personally verified the original language and english translation of every book of the Bible, or if you simply accept the translation.
Please don't embarass yourself by dismissing my question.
MaddLlama
Obstructor of justice
Apple Pie said:When you can answer the questions in the order in which they are served...then, you will have your answer...
Till then....
Well, obviously since you insist on avoiding my question the answer is no. Why don't you get on that? How do you know that the term "son of god" appears anywhere in the original greek or hebrew? By your own admission, if you haven't translated the text yourself, then you don't know.
And, if you can't show that you have the ability to translate the text of your own faith, then I don't think anyone in their right mind is going to accept your ability to translate someone elses. Next thing you know you'll be telling me that Zeus is the god of popcorn.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
love said:
KJV and NIV are widely accepted version (Translations) of the bible.
I will read from multiple versions...KJV, NIV and NWT...I also use hebrew..and Greek to english lexicons...My wife is fluent in latin and spanish so some things i may have trouble with she will help me.
The muslims i know do read the OT.....Although the 4 gospels differ through the opinions or perception of the authors of the NT (matt, mark, luke & john)...the muslims I know will read them.....although they seem to not accept the NT....
DreGod07 said:
Since you now study the original languages...let's pose this question to you...and see if the outcome is the same.
Which rendering do you adhere to....?
The classic Arabic rendering which states that Jesus is his Son...or....the popular renderings which state that he is not the Son...?
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Apple Pie said:
It's a fact that they translated it that way. If this is the version you choose to accept then that is on you. While they are mainstram they are not widely accepted and they are highly scrutanized and criticized. This is fact...Review the links i posted.
Apple Pie said:
your wiki won't due. This has already been discussed in another forum.
Apple Pie said:
Sorry....Read It Again....
He begets NOT (He has no children)
NOR is HE BEGOTTEN (Nor is he a child of)
As short as 112 is..it is the perfect example that;
1.) Allah is the one and only God
2
Allah has no children3.) There is no one like Allah
Simple and clear...regardless of what you say. Nothing in one twelve mentions Isa....It clearly states Allah has no chilldren.
The bible uses the same expression when describing geneology;
Genesis 17:20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
Deuteronomy 4:25 When thou shalt beget children, and children's children, and ye shall have remained long in the land, and shall corrupt yourselves, and make a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, and shall do evil in the sight of
Deuteronomy 28:41 Thou shalt beget sons and daughters, but thou shalt not enjoy them; for they shall go into captivity.
2Kings 20:18 And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.
Ecclesiastes 6:3 If a man beget an hundred children, and live many years, so that the days of his years be many, and his soul be not filled with good, and also that he have no burial; I say, that an untimely birth is better than he.
Isaiah 39:7 And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.
Jeremiah 29:6 Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished.
Ezekiel 18:10 If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that doeth the like to any one of these things,
Ezekiel 18:14 Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his father's sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like,
Ezekiel 47:22 And it shall come to pass, that ye shall divide it by lot for an inheritance unto you, and to the strangers that sojourn among you, which shall beget children among you: and they shall be unto you as born in the country among the children of Israel; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel.
To tell you the truth, i could find no mention of God's suppoesed son in the OT. It appears that Son of God is reserved to christians.....
Apple Pie said:
Not sure How you conclude 30 and 31 as testifying to deity of Isa. In 3o it says this is what the christians say and in 31 it, (ONCE AGAIN) calls Isa the SON OF MARY (waalmaseehaibna maryama)
DreGod07 said:
Which version do you, yourself believe in...?
Where...?
Sorry....Read It Again....
He begets NOT (He has no children)
NOR is HE BEGOTTEN (Nor is he a child of)
As short as 112 is..it is the perfect example that;
1.) Allah is the one and only God
2
3.) There is no one like Allah
Simple and clear...regardless of what you say. Nothing in one twelve mentions Isa....It clearly states Allah has no chilldren.
You stated that you downloaded the Arabic lexicon.
Are you going to start using it...?
Let's look...
اتخذوا أحبارهم ورهبنهم أربابا من دون الله
والمسيح ابن مريم وما أمروا إلا ليعبدوا إلها
وحدا لا إله إلا هو سبحنه عما يشركون
وحدا لا إله إلا هو سبحنه عما يشركون
Ittakhathoo ahbarahum waruhbanahum arbaban min dooni Allahi waalmaseeha ibna maryama wama omiroo illa liyaAAbudoo ilahan wahidan la ilaha illa huwa subhanahu AAamma yushrikoona
9.31 They have taken their learned persons and their monks (as) lords from superior (to) allah and The Messiah, Mary's Son; and they commanded not except that they may worship one god, no god except He, glory be to Him from what they associate partners.
The Messiah is included along with allah via the copulative conjunction wa, as being part and parcel of the prepositional phrase initiating with min (from).
You will see the modern English translators deceitfully butchering this text by inserting all sorts of add-on-words in parenthesis in order to make this ayah conform to the Islamic paradigm.
Fact of the matter is that this ayah proclaims Jesus Christ as God Almighty.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Apple Pie said:
Oh....I see...
So when you posted that quote in earlier postings along with classic arabic and the english...it WASN'T YOUR TRANSLATION????????
You gave me the impression, from your earlier post, that, that rendering was yours....OH well that settles it. If that rendering is not yours and it belongs to some one else....what's the problem?
Where is your verifiable..qualifiable translation??
You should have just informed us you did a cut and paste job from some one else's translation. You've been using that translation for a long time and here I go..thinking it was yours.
Give me the direct link or book where that translation came from. I'd like to see that person's qualifications for making such a translation.
Apple Pie said:
Are you posting it so that we should believe that rendering. It appears that you except that rendering. Would it surprise you that the vast majority of muslims don't? the many scholars that have translated the quran over the past 1400 years render it totally different.
Can you show what qualifies that person to make such a translation. does he possess a degree or is he accredited in some recognized way to make such a translation?
Apple Pie said:
Yea... but I didn't have to show that...It was enough that others showed his many inaccuracies which renders his translation useless. Why woould I need to go further??
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Apple Pie said:
I DIDN'T HAVE TO SHOW THIS FROM THAT SCHOLAR......!!!!
Others had already shown the many inaccuracies from that scholar..... To disprove that scholar any further would be futile and a waste of time.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Apple Pie said:
No time to rehash the thread of ALLAH abd ELOAH being the same semetic word.
Apple Pie said:
Yea....but back in 9:30 It was stating that the christians say that Isa was the son of Allah
This is why in 9:31 it clears that misconception up by reiterating that Isa is Ibn (son Of) Maryum
There's that dang (Ibn Maryum) AGIAN..... Seems like all throughout the Quran it keeps smaking us in the face. Why is that?.......hmmmmmm!!!
Seems that the writings have come to fruition...christians say that Isa is the some of Allah and then say he is Allah....but the quran...is bold and direct in saying he is not...he is the Son of Mary.
Apple Pie said:
If you are reading it in Arabic then these text aren't there. I've only seen them in the english translation. Most qurans around the world that are read by muslims whoes first language is arabic will have a quran entirely written in arabic.
That's why it is important for non arabic speaking people to try their hardest to find an arabic/english translation with out these text.
I have a couple of qurans and I have made it a habbit to skip over the text when I read it.
Apple Pie said:
Apple Pie said:
But it realy doesn't. 9:30 said that it's what you christians say so then it states in 9:31 that he is Ibm Maryum (Son Of Mary)....
Even the bible confirms that he is not God....
John 7:16
John 18:19
Mark 10:18
This just a taste..... There are PLENTY of areas in the NT where Yeshua shows that he is seperate from God.
Trinity is not a Jewish or Muslim concept. It's primarily a christian concept.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Apple Pie said:
I took your classical arabic quote to a couple of my friends who are native arabic speaking. One of them almost didn't know what it was because it lacked the vowels. He was still able to read it. He told me at first glance he thought it was a dialect of arabic but realized it was the classic writing.
He read it..start to finish.... and asked me "so what was my question?"
I said read it again and tell me if there is anything wrong.... He did. He said there was nothing wrong. I asked him to comapare it to his quran and read it again.. He did.
He asked me again.....what was my question..... I said to him I can clearly hear you reading it quite different..... He said to me it was because the classic arabic did have the markings that modern arabic does so when he was reading the classic he could not stop or pause.
He explained to me that a native arabic speaking person will find this hard to do because the flow is not the same. He explained to me that when the classic was written....It was written from those who had memorized the quran.
He told me to think of it as an english run on sentence. He said it doesn't make sense to read it that way because the whole verse gets garbled as if it was one sentence. He said this would make it difficult to recite back to another arabic speaking person beacause it would seem like it was information overload. He also explained that there are other verses that are much longer in the quran and to try and recite them in one breath would be extremely difficult or impossible and it would come off as incoherent to the listener.
Now my other friend is a teacher of math at a local high school. i met with her today. She is very familiar with the classic arabic. she said it was something her father had her to read as she was growing up. She as well stated the same thing that the verses seemed to keep going and almost not making sense to her until her farther told her she had to read it slower and she would understand it. she said it's pretty much a necessity to read the verse in a sentence style because the followers of Muhammed committed the quran to memory and would have been easier to remember it complete with no breaks. How they wrote it and how they spoke it was two totally different things. She told me that yes...as it is written apppears to be the way they remembered it and wrote it down that way..but to read it straight through wouldn't make sense..... and that's why the breaks were added by the followers of Muhammed later on.
The kicker to me wasn't all of that....because I knew that....The kicker was when I showed both of them the debate we all have been having and they both were confused as to why you were translating it that way. My one friend Jenny said you appear to be taking a piece but quoting out of context with a lack of understanding as how to read the quran.... She wen't on and on pulling out verses of Isa Ibn Maryiam...I said that I agree.
My other frinend David just said you were and idiot.... I just laughed.....but I didn't agree with him....Although I normally side with Jenny...since she has a better background in the classic than David...
Again, I think I'm gonna stick with them and the scholars on this. We will continue to go in circles on this issue....... It will never end I believe...
It's just you and I now......but I'm moving on to some other threads....But I look forward in seeing your post on scrutanizing the Bible....I'm so in when you start questioning the inaccuracies of the Bible.....
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Apple Pie said:
I'm going to stick with the popular translation.... That's just me because after all your cut and paste translation of that verse you have not convinced me that he is the son of Allah..... The quran, to me, is clear in stating that (Isa ibn Maryum)....
Let us know when you really want to start that debate on the accuracy of the bible....we're waiting.....
If you believe you already have your answer on 4:171 through your translation then we can now move on. The next logical step is your Holy Bible....
Your move.....
DreGod07 said:I took your classical arabic quote to a couple of my friends who are native arabic speaking. One of them almost didn't know what it was because it lacked the vowels. He was still able to read it. He told me at first glance he thought it was a dialect of arabic but realized it was the classic writing.
He read it..start to finish.... and asked me "so what was my question?"
I said read it again and tell me if there is anything wrong.... He did. He said there was nothing wrong. I asked him to comapare it to his quran and read it again.. He did.
He asked me again.....what was my question..... I said to him I can clearly hear you reading it quite different..... He said to me it was because the classic arabic did have the markings that modern arabic does so when he was reading the classic he could not stop or pause.
He explained to me that a native arabic speaking person will find this hard to do because the flow is not the same. He explained to me that when the classic was written....It was written from those who had memorized the quran.
He told me to think of it as an english run on sentence. He said it doesn't make sense to read it that way because the whole verse gets garbled as if it was one sentence. He said this would make it difficult to recite back to another arabic speaking person beacause it would seem like it was information overload. He also explained that there are other verses that are much longer in the quran and to try and recite them in one breath would be extremely difficult or impossible and it would come off as incoherent to the listener.
Now my other friend is a teacher of math at a local high school. i met with her today. She is very familiar with the classic arabic. she said it was something her father had her to read as she was growing up. She as well stated the same thing that the verses seemed to keep going and almost not making sense to her until her farther told her she had to read it slower and she would understand it. she said it's pretty much a necessity to read the verse in a sentence style because the followers of Muhammed committed the quran to memory and would have been easier to remember it complete with no breaks. How they wrote it and how they spoke it was two totally different things. She told me that yes...as it is written apppears to be the way they remembered it and wrote it down that way..but to read it straight through wouldn't make sense..... and that's why the breaks were added by the followers of Muhammed later on.
The kicker to me wasn't all of that....because I knew that....The kicker was when I showed both of them the debate we all have been having and they both were confused as to why you were translating it that way. My one friend Jenny said you appear to be taking a piece but quoting out of context with a lack of understanding as how to read the quran.... She wen't on and on pulling out verses of Isa Ibn Maryiam...I said that I agree.
My other frinend David just said you were and idiot.... I just laughed.....but I didn't agree with him....Although I normally side with Jenny...since she has a better background in the classic than David...
Again, I think I'm gonna stick with them and the scholars on this. We will continue to go in circles on this issue....... It will never end I believe...
It's just you and I now......but I'm moving on to some other threads....But I look forward in seeing your post on scrutanizing the Bible....I'm so in when you start questioning the inaccuracies of the Bible.....
Thanks for sharing this...
It looks like you have indeed verified that few modern Muslims truely understand the classic Arabic in which their book of faith was first penned.
Diacritical markings were artificially added to the text after it was first penned...hence the text has already been tampered with...
Further, Arabic is a horrendously corrupted language. The meanings of the original words have changed substantially in the post-classical era.
However, regardless of these two fact, 4.171 clearly reads that Jesus is his Son.
You have already witnessed this in some of the (more honest) mainstream renderings.
The fact that mainstream renderings can have a total opposite rendering of the same exact ayah is definately cause for concern.