Allah Islam Muslim

C

chair

Well-known member
Apple7 said:
Modern-day scholars actually prefer to render Koranic Arabic into English because of the detail in the English language.
Click to expand...

This is absurd. Any scholar worth his salt tries to read texts in their original language. And, even assuming that English has more detail ( I do not know Arabic, but I doubt that this is true), then the added detail available in the translation would be interpretation- not what the detail-poor text actually said.
 
C

chair

Well-known member
Apple7 said:
The MT is a recension to begin with.

A recension, as you know, is an alteration of the original text into a new standard.

It was at this time that diacritical markings were added to the text and obvious manipulation of the text took place as compared to its much, much older reference, the LXX.

The vast amount of Hebrew plurals which existed could not all be covered-up by the Unitarian Jews of the time....and so then invented the term 'plural of majesty' to somehow explain how a single God could repeatedly be described in the plural....and, during the Gen 1 creation, they perform scriptural gymnastics, and invoke the angels as being part of the discussion to cover the obvious plurality.

One elementary example in Gen 2.18, reads as thus in the MT recension:

...I will make'...

The LXX, in the same verse, has:

'Let Us make (plural verb) him a helper suitable for him'.


On and on and on it goes....Jews attempting to make a Trinitarian text into a Unitarian one.
Click to expand...

1. You forgot to say "as is well-known" when making this series of baseless assertions.
2. You know many big words. You may want to check what the word "sources" means in a dictionary.
3. Though some later interpretation does explain the text of Genesis 1:26 in terms of angels, this is not done by changing the text.
4. If they were so keen to hide the true trinitarian nature of the text- why did they neglect to change Genesis 1:26?
 
CherubRam

CherubRam

New member
Apple7 said:
The MT is a recension to begin with.

A recension, as you know, is an alteration of the original text into a new standard.

It was at this time that diacritical markings were added to the text and obvious manipulation of the text took place as compared to its much, much older reference, the LXX.

The vast amount of Hebrew plurals which existed could not all be covered-up by the Unitarian Jews of the time....and so then invented the term 'plural of majesty' to somehow explain how a single God could repeatedly be described in the plural....and, during the Gen 1 creation, they perform scriptural gymnastics, and invoke the angels as being part of the discussion to cover the obvious plurality.

One elementary example in Gen 2.18, reads as thus in the MT recension:

...I will make'...

The LXX, in the same verse, has:

'Let Us make (plural verb) him a helper suitable for him'.


On and on and on it goes....Jews attempting to make a Trinitarian text into a Unitarian one.
Click to expand...

Royal or Majestic "we" in Hebrew

The "Let us" in Genesis1:26, can be easily explained by the following example:

I see a group of children sitting and I tell them, "Let us play soccer!"

It is I who did the talking to an audience.

And Genesis 1:27 clarifies immediately by saying, "And God created man in His image"

Thus, it is still Yahwah who is Elohiym, who created man.
 
CherubRam

CherubRam

New member
(Elohiym / Elohim) (Hebrew: אֱלֹהִים) A plural name title does not make a plural being. If a woman is named Trinity, does that make her three times a lady? All of the Trinity proofs are based upon falsehoods.
 
D

Dennyg1

BANNED
Banned
Apple7 said:
Modern-day scholars actually prefer to render Koranic Arabic into English because of the detail in the English language.

The Islamic polemic that the Koran can only be understood in Arabic is a pathetic excuse for denying critical analysis...as 80% of muslims don't even know the first thing about Arabic in the first place!
Click to expand...

Wow......everything here is wrong. You've graduated to Stripe level
 
Apple7

Apple7

New member
chair said:
This is absurd. Any scholar worth his salt tries to read texts in their original language. And, even assuming that English has more detail ( I do not know Arabic, but I doubt that this is true), then the added detail available in the translation would be interpretation- not what the detail-poor text actually said.
Click to expand...

Key word...'tries'...

Fact is, Koranic Arabic, like Biblical Hebrew, are extinct languages....and the only way to bring out the true original meanings is to render the original languages into a language that has far more detail than the original.

I have studied Koranic Arabic for the better part of 20 years, and this is most definitely the case...
 
Apple7

Apple7

New member
chair said:
1. You forgot to say "as is well-known" when making this series of baseless assertions.
2. You know many big words. You may want to check what the word "sources" means in a dictionary.
3. Though some later interpretation does explain the text of Genesis 1:26 in terms of angels, this is not done by changing the text.
4. If they were so keen to hide the true trinitarian nature of the text- why did they neglect to change Genesis 1:26?
Click to expand...


The sources are the LXX & the MT, side by side.

Most Trinitarian Hebrew scriptures remain intact, but many have not...and then the unitarian Jews are left to invent an excuse...
 
Apple7

Apple7

New member
CherubRam said:
Royal or Majestic "we" in Hebrew

The "Let us" in Genesis1:26, can be easily explained by the following example:

I see a group of children sitting and I tell them, "Let us play soccer!"

It is I who did the talking to an audience.
Click to expand...


Plural of Majesty NEVER existed in the Ancient Near East (ANE).




And Genesis 1:27 clarifies immediately by saying, "And God created man in His image"

Thus, it is still Yahwah who is Elohiym, who created man.
Click to expand...

Gen 1.27 confirms the Trinity via 'bara', 'bara', 'bara'......study up!
 
Repentance

Repentance

BANNED
Banned
Apple7 said:
The Biblical God is One Triune God.

The Koranic 'allah' is the devil, himself....dressed-up to look like the true Biblical God, Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...

Allah = God of the Torah

Give me at least one way in which he differs from the God of the Jews of old. Plural could be used when referring to angels along with Him, so that's out.

Apple7 said:
Moses was Trinitarian.
Click to expand...

Lol. Nope he was more - you forgot about the fire in the bush. That's another incarnation of God.

Moses was a pure monotheist just like Abraham was. He is far above what you speak of him. God is 1 and 1 is 1.
 
egyptianmuslim

egyptianmuslim

New member
Apple7 said:
Ok...I should say that its well known amongst Biblical scholars.

I would expect Jews to be ignorant to this fact...just like Muslims are ignorant to the fact that their Koran was copied from the Holy Bible, etc, etc...
Click to expand...

There is a great agreement between Quran and Torah but Quran is`nt a copy of Torah.
 
C

chair

Well-known member
Apple7 said:
....and the only way to bring out the true original meanings is to render the original languages into a language that has far more detail than the original.
Click to expand...

How does one do this rendering into a more detailed language? Who brings out the "true original meanings"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top