• 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!

Why does the Quran direct Muslims to Bible?

Morse

To Extinguish
The authors of the Koran repeatedly state that they copied the Holy Bible.

It really does not get much simplier than this brother.

I'm not delving into the Arabic mess.

But I do have a question, why is the part I quoted above relevant? Why does the Koran borrowing material from biblical texts actually matter?
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
The point is you rely on others' renderings in lieu of your own because you don't know any Arabic at all.

Therefore you must constantly be defending someone else's work....of which, you cannot support.

I was born into a Muslin and Christian family Bowman. I know enough Arabic to keep up with you. Your understanding however is weak and you have to constantly rely on lexicons and dictionaries. You're the only one on this forum contesting any rendering of the Quran and for some strange reason believe your renderings are golden even though you've failed to even reach native Arabic speaking people here with your version. No one, but you, is fooled by the weak translation you've been copying and pasting here. If you have a problem with the Quran I use when I use it then point it out but to date you haven't.



None of your renderings show their work.

You've shown a translated verse here or there based on a lexicon and a dictionary from where ever you've been copying and pasting but you've never shown the translator. If it's you then credentials of your abilities to be taken serious should be forthcoming assuming you can produce any of them.

We have already been over this numerous times, brother....and yet you still cling tenaciously to something that you can never defend.

Why defend it if it is backed by serious scholarship and you've failed to refute it?...:facepalm:

That's like me contesting the outcome of an election where I'm the winner!!!!

What would you like them to be?

So you're relying on your own renderings? Got it.... When I ask for credentials I'm asking for your degrees or anything that one would need to ascertain your ability to make the claims you make in the field. Surely you just don't want people here to just 'take your word for it'...? If you don't have any then it's no problem if you admit to such....but there is a problem if you feel as though you are qualified to make the claims you have, based on an ability to define words.


Is this the point in our conversation where you list Arberry's credentials, and then promptly make excuses why he never showed any of his reasoning and why you are unable to defend his renderings?

But see if you knew anything about scholarship you'd know that when they produced their works you rarely got a chance to see their footnotes, rough drafts or any other reasoning. Where is the King James exegetical process and reasoning or that of any of the countless bibles in circulation? See, there is no need to try and get into the mind of Arberry because, as I've said before, his rendering being one of the best ones rendered from the classical Arabic meets the rules of Arabic grammar. I personally haven't found any fault in it. What's your beef with it?



This is a pretty poor excuse for not discussing the Arabic.

You can do better.............stall..... :rolleyes:

Your copy/paste rendering was nothing new. What was there to discuss? It's clearly your own rendering....so as I consult the many Qurans I have I concluded they all say basically the same thing as Arberry.


You have no point....and no, your googled assertions are meaningless and without merit.

What "googled" assertions? This is a historical fact concerning the bible. The oldest fragment is only 120 to 150 after the fact. The NT is a copy, of a copy, of a copy.....the first bible is 300 to 350 years after Yeshua, Some of the stories and laws in the bible are written in earlier civilizations that predate the bible and the Jews. Look, I'm not trying to get you to admit it. There's no need because the history, if you knew it or were aware of its existence, is more than enough and those facts can't be changed.


If you think that you have googled something of merit then start a dedicated thread to it...as if it has not already been debated numerous times already...

Had you not open the door with your spotlight on the Quran there would be no need for me to speak the truth about your bible...but you did. You can't have it both ways and that's not how it works here at RF. We want to know if the Quran tells its followers or readers to refer to the bible....we didn't ask you for pseudo-translation or some sort of history lesson....


The authors of the Koran repeatedly state that they copied the Holy Bible.

It really does not get much simplier than this brother.

And biblical stories, without a doubt, are found in the writings/carvings of civilizations that predate the bible and the Jews. What's your point? What does any of that, so you say, have to do with if the Quran instructs it's followers/readers to look to the bible?
 

Bowman

Active Member
I'm not delving into the Arabic mess.

But I do have a question, why is the part I quoted above relevant? Why does the Koran borrowing material from biblical texts actually matter?

It matters for the simple fact that the Koran proclaims Jesus' divinity.

Of which...is vehemently denied by islam.
 

Bowman

Active Member
I was born into a Muslin and Christian family Bowman. I know enough Arabic to keep up with you.



Let’s see exactly how much you know.

Please tell us what word this is and why Arberry rendered it as he did…



وقفينا على ءاثرهم بعيسى ابن مريم مصدقا لما


بين يديه من التورية وءاتينه الإنجيل فيه هدى


ونور ومصدقا لما بين يديه من التورية وهدى


وموعظة للمتقين
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Let’s see exactly how much you know.

Please tell us what word this is and why Arberry rendered it as he did…



وقفينا على ءاثرهم بعيسى ابن مريم مصدقا لما


بين يديه من التورية وءاتينه الإنجيل فيه هدى


ونور ومصدقا لما بين يديه من التورية وهدى


وموعظة للمتقين

So your intent is to keep throwing the thread off topic...right.....

How about starting a thread and tell us why you translated (the taurat) and rendered it as ("scriptures of the Jews").....
 

Bowman

Active Member
So your intent is to keep throwing the thread off topic...right.....

How about starting a thread and tell us why you translated (the taurat) and rendered it as ("scriptures of the Jews").....


You just busted yourself.

Again.

You want to use Arberry, but then you are completely unable to defend his rendering.....lol...!
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
You just busted yourself.

Again.

You want to use Arberry, but then you are completely unable to defend his rendering.....lol...!

Look, the word is (the taraut or torah). The Torah, if you ask any Jew, was not known as (Scripture of the Jews). They are not the whole OT either. They are the five books of Moses. In fact "Jews" weren't even referred to as Jews in the OT until 2 Kings. Before that they were identified by the tribe they were from or known as (Hebrews). Your lack of understanding of Jewish history is reflected in your weak rendering. The Torah is not simply (scripture of the Jews). All Qurans render the word as it should be rendered...even as the Jews render it....as (Taurat - Torah). There is no need to translate a word that needs no translation....Try again....:rolleyes:
 

Bowman

Active Member
Look, the word is (the taraut or torah). The Torah, if you ask any Jew, was not known as (Scripture of the Jews). They are not the whole OT either. They are the five books of Moses. In fact "Jews" weren't even referred to as Jews in the OT until 2 Kings. Before that they were identified by the tribe they were from or known as (Hebrews). Your lack of understanding of Jewish history is reflected in your weak rendering. The Torah is not simply (scripture of the Jews). All Qurans render the word as it should be rendered...even as the Jews render it....as (Taurat - Torah). There is no need to translate a word that needs no translation....Try again....:rolleyes:

You keep busting yourself, brother.

We asked point-blank for you to give Arberry's reasoning for his rendering of the term...and look at you....running off and doing everything other than providing Arberry's reasoning.

You can't even define the very term you are arguing.

What a hoot!
 

Bowman

Active Member
Is this true? Are you able to say where in the Quran?


There are legions of verses in the Koran which proclaim Jesus' divinity.

Here is an example...



قل إن كان للرحمن ولد فأنا أول العبدين سبحن رب السموت والأرض رب العرش عما


يصفون فذرهم يخوضوا ويلعبوا حتى يلقوا يومهم الذي يوعدون وهو الذي في السماء إله وفي الأرض إله وهو الحكيم العليم


Qul in kana lilrrahmani waladun faana awwalu alAAabideena subhana rabbi alssamawati waal-ardi rabbi alAAarshi AAamma yasifoona fatharhum yakhoodoo wayalAAaboo hatta yulaqoo yawmahumu allathee yooAAadoona wahuwa allathee fee alssama-i ilahun wafee al-ardi ilahun wahuwa alhakeemu alAAaleemu

Say: "Indeed on account of the most Merciful Son, so I myself the worshippers' first Glory be to the Lord (of) the heavens and the earth, the throne's Lord, from what they ascribe. So leave them alone; they indulged and they jest until they meet their day whom they were threatened. And He, whom upon the cloud, God, and upon the earth, God, and He, the wise, the one who knows. (43.81 – 84)




These ayahs proclaim that the Son is worshiped directly as deity.

They also proclaim that the Son is God, not only upon the earth, but in the Cloud upon which he returns...just as copied from the Holy Bible...
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Is this true? Are you able to say where in the Quran?

Word of caution. Bowman's translation of ANY Quranic verse are his own and are not backed by any scholarly consensus. What this means is you'll never be able to take his translation and find it rendered in any Quran.
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Is this true? Are you able to say where in the Quran?

The verse he gave you is this one which is actually rendered my a non-Muslin Arabist Linguist who's scholarly works are published and world renowned.

Arberry (From the classical Arabic)
43:81-84

Say: 'If the All-merciful has a son, then I am the first to serve him. Glory be to the Lord of the heavens and the earth, the Lord of the Throne, above that they describe.' Then leave them alone to plunge and play, until they encounter that day of theirs which they are promised. And it is He who in heaven is God and in earth is God; He is the All-wise, the All-knowing.

You will not find ANY serious scholars out there in the field of Arabic translation, be they Muslim or Non-Muslim, rendering the Quran the way he does.
 
Last edited:

Bowman

Active Member
Word of caution. Bowman's translation of ANY Quranic verse are his own and are not backed by any scholarly consensus. What this means is you'll never be able to take his translation and find it rendered in any Quran.

All renderings are 100% verifiable for those willing to do so.

Renderings such as Arberry cannot be verified as he left no exegesis behind to follow...as you have found out.
 

Bowman

Active Member
The verse he gave you is this one which is actually rendered my a non-Muslin Arabist Linguist who's scholarly works are published and world renowned.

Arberry (From the classical Arabic)
43:81-84

Say: 'If the All-merciful has a son, then I am the first to serve him. Glory be to the Lord of the heavens and the earth, the Lord of the Throne, above that they describe.' Then leave them alone to plunge and play, until they encounter that day of theirs which they are promised. And it is He who in heaven is God and in earth is God; He is the All-wise, the All-knowing.


Even Arberry knew that Jesus is God.

After all, who is God on earth but Jesus.

The god 'allah' never came to earth.

Busted.
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
You keep busting yourself, brother.

We asked point-blank for you to give Arberry's reasoning for his rendering of the term...and look at you....running off and doing everything other than providing Arberry's reasoning.

You can't even define the very term you are arguing.

What a hoot!

Jews don't define the word (Torah) as (Scripture of the Jews) nor do Muslims. In fact, in EVERY Quran from Orthodox to Non-Muslims the word appears as it always has because there is no need to define a word such as that, that needs NO defining. If you don't believe me ask ANY Jewish person here at RF. If I wasn't so sure why would I beg you to ask a Jewish person here....?....:rolleyes:......They're scripture(s), the 5 books, was NEVER regarded as (Scripture of the Jews) as they were not called that anywhere in the 5 books. You don't know their history thus you make assertions that can't be backed up. You can render your own personal understanding of the word but the translation of the word itself would never appear in Jewish or Muslim text....hence the reason why when translating into English it remains (Taurat - Torah).....In essence it means (statute or Law) but the 5 books are more than just laws.
 
Last edited:

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
All renderings are 100% verifiable for those willing to do so.

Renderings such as Arberry cannot be verified as he left no exegesis behind to follow...as you have found out.

I'm still waiting on the King James Version (Exegesis) or that of the thousands of bibles in circulation....where are their exegesis.

Blackheart...do what Bowman says and make up your own mind. Check his rendering against those who are actually qualified in the respective field.
 
Last edited:

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
I'm still waiting on the King James Version (Exegesis) or that of the thousands of bibles in circulation....where are their exegesis.

Blackheart...do what Bowman says and make up your own mind. Check his rendering against those who are actually qualified in the respective field.
I'm amazed at your patience. I have been in only one discussion with Bowman, and I had to just give up because, well I'm sure you know.
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
I'm amazed at your patience. I have been in only one discussion with Bowman, and I had to just give up because, well I'm sure you know.


I actually like this stuff because what it does is exposes his lack of knowledge and whenever he decides to jump into another thread...others will be reminded of his ignorance and just brush his ramblings off as (uneducated drivel from a fundy)...
 

Blackheart

Active Member
The verse he gave you is this one which is actually rendered my a non-Muslin Arabist Linguist who's scholarly works are published and world renowned.

Arberry (From the classical Arabic)
43:81-84

Say: 'If the All-merciful has a son, then I am the first to serve him. Glory be to the Lord of the heavens and the earth, the Lord of the Throne, above that they describe.' Then leave them alone to plunge and play, until they encounter that day of theirs which they are promised. And it is He who in heaven is God and in earth is God; He is the All-wise, the All-knowing.

You will not find ANY serious scholars out there in the field of Arabic translation, be they Muslim or Non-Muslim, rendering the Quran the way he does.

Thank you
 
Top