The same goes for every other language on earth! EVERY language has nuances that CANNOT be translated literally. As such, translators must use different METHODS, like CLOSEST CORRESPONDING WORDS, THOUGHT FOR THOUGHT or MEET IN THE MIDDLE of these other two.
No Muslim scholar can CLAIM they have the correct translation of Muhammad's original, since the original HAD NO DIACRITICAL MARKS. AS SUCH, UTHMANIC SCRIBES WERE FREE TO INTERPRET THE KORAN AS THEY PLEASED.
the quran can not be legitemetly translated. The only proper form is in arabic, any other translation is a mere attempt in trying to show the message in another language. I dont even need to watch the rest of your video to answer this one
@69, You should talk to thefotfoundation, he is muslim and he say that that is not necessary. The fact that it can not be "legitimately" translated according to you, should worry you and all who think like you. It makes it an arabic thing, not truly universal, and incomprehensible to all other people. It makes it "legitimately" the religion of arabs of the six century...
@69pmac wrote: ichoseanother is right. o, what im trying to say is that the quran cannot be fully translated into another language, because every translator can use a different word etc. You know what yessua9ibnallah, prove me wrong! prove to me that there is a way to completely translate an arabic text into anothr language! and no, the quran is not for everyone, the general message can be translated, however if you are debating over little things, the best way to do it is through arabic
@69pmac, u said, "prove to me that there is a way to completely translate Arabic text into another language" The fact is that there is no possible way to COMPLETELY translate any language to another
LITERALLY, word by word equivalent. That one word in one language to another
single word in another. As ichoose has
explain there are some one word to one
word translations, it takes more than a dictionary to produce a reliable
translation. Reliable translations are available for the Quran.
@69pmac, Second you said "the quran is not for everyone", you are the first one to say this. I thought Islam was universal, but if the quran is not for everyone, then you have excluded all non-arabic speakers from knowing the true Islam, as the "quran is not for everyone". Or may I ask for whom is the Quran for, if as you say t is not for everyone? You are beginning to contradict yourself or the tenants of your religion to win an argument, be careful!
Ponder, think, then decide. It is fascinating to consider that the story of the Koran can be given a completely different direction and the history and religion of Islam can be turned over BY JUST ONE DIACRITICAL POINT!
@armen, again, where are the original Aramaic book? Nobody know if there were really written in Aramaic in the first place. According to some scholar it was probably written in Greek in the first place: "the variety of styles in the Greek New Testament is one of the strongest arguments for its being written in Greek originally. The styles vary book to book." see orvillejenkins(dot)com languages(slash)aramaicprimacy(dot)htm as an example. It is also very probable Jesus spoke Greek and Aramaic.
@armen, u can believe whatever u want about Christianity. It is sad that your view of christianity comes from agnostics. So I can think you give the same credit to what agnostics say about Islam, just do a quick search. Soon you will figure out that agnostics are not in favor of Islam neither and conclude they are right about Christianity and wrong about Islam??!!! Very convenient to choose what to believe and what not to believe, or are you willing to accept what agnostics say about Islam too?
@armen, I you believe SOO MUUUCH what ROBERT EISENMAN believes and propose about christianity, you should check what he believes about Islam and the Quran. He thinks James is the source of the Quran TOO! are you willing to believe this??? Everybody check out what armen believes about Islam in accordance to the EisenmanTalks channel. Armen follows R Eidenman views about christianity and Islam as you can see.. or very conveniently what he says about Christianity but not Islam? Convenient right?
@armen, Just in case you discredit R. Eisenman as a Islam scholar, he has a PhD from Columbia University in Middle East Languages and Cultures and Islamic Law too! check his website roberteisenma(dot).com and watch the his series of videos on Islam in relation to the dead sea scrolls (watch?v=5D5v9WV4yXU). Are you willing to give him credibility now? or are you going to pick and choose what he says? Do you believe what he says about Islam and the Quran too?
Good point, besides written surahs the Quran was memorized by hendreds of people, and it was done easily because it is written in rhyme. today even 6 year old kids can memorize it completely!
now tell me what about the old testament language script, did it contain diacritical points? Hebrew like arabic are semitic languages that only write consonants and no vowels. secondly, where are the original scrolls for the new testament in aramaic
@armen, memorization by hundreds does not ensure accuracy, it just multiplies the probability of mistakes and at one point SOMEONE have to decide which memorization is the "official" one as happened with Zaid ibn Thabbit, Abu Bakar and Usman.
@yessua9ibnallah Memorization plus the original script of the verses were writtin on skin bone palm branches clay etc. plus the testemony of at least two reliable and trustworthy people.
so it is not just about memory.
You obviously do not know what you are talking about so please do not waste my time.
REMEMBER NOW THAT THE ORIGINAL KORANIC LANGUAGE WAS NOT PUNCTUATED! Punctuation was added later by non-divinely inspired laymen who were fluent in the Arabic language and nothing more.
This confession is very logic for Christians. But if this was the confession of Muhammad and his Koran, what would then be the outcome?
What you just said proves you do not know the history of the Quran nor the history of islam as a whole. I agree there were no diacritical marks like in Hebrew in the old testament scrolls. Like the name YHWH which was vocalized as YEHWAH in the 19th century. But there were hendreds of Huffadh who learned the quran by heart. Quran is writtin in rhyme today even six year old kids can memorize the wholeof it.
Let's read the sentence after adding just one point below the letter "Ba", changing it into "ya". The sentence would be, "ALMsyyh Raboka Al 'Azzaam."
NOTICE THAT Just this ONE DIACRITICAL POINT will turn over the entire Islamic religion, because the sentence now means: THE CHRIST IS YOUR GLORIFIED GOD!!!
SEE NOW THE IMPORTANCE OF THOSE DIACRITICAL POINTS?
Before criticizing the Quran for that why dont you ask the same question about the old testament that was the same. YHWH IS NOT VOCALIZED BECAUSE THE SCROLLS DID NOT HAVE DIACRITICAL POINTS
EXCEPT THAT THE QURAN WAS LEARNED BY HEART CAUSE IT IS WRITTEN IN FREE VERSE.
@armen, you really need to make sense. Aramaic or Hebrew follow almost the same grammatical rules because they are Semitic languages. Nevertheless, with regards to translation or "purity" of the sacred text, no hebrew or christian scholars resort to the kind of fallacies that most muslims do. Although it is advisable to read the text in the original available language, translations are as good as the original provided that the process is open and revised periodically.
First of all you did not answer my question concerning diacritical points in original old testament scrolls! secondly the fact that arabic aramaic and hebrew congnate from the same language family does not mean hebrew = aramaic= arabic. french and italian cognate from latin but both are different langaugees
Jesus spoke aramaic not hebrew. No aramaic New testament scroll is found.. all are in greek. translation altered the meaning and that is a fact... Just read scholars like Bart Ehrman,
HAHAHA do you speak arabic obviously you do not at all, did you read the quran of course you did not at all. yet like most american evangelical ignorants you speculate on something you do not know. the quran is clear in more than a verse that Jesus is a man a prophet not God. the trinity is not read in the bible yet the Quran says the trinity is a lie and that God is one
This second point below the letter "Ba" would only slightly change the FORM of the sentence BUT IT WOULD RADICALLY CHANGE THE MEANING 180 DEGREES IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. Changing this one letter would turn the whole story, history, and faith of Islam upside down! DO YOU KNOW WHY?
Attempting to explain it, some Muslims CLAIM that it may be a part of the succeeding word "Sabbeh" which translates as "praise", but then the formulation of the sentence will not be grammatically correct when we apply the known facts about the diacritical points. When we apply them to this verse, we find that the letter "Ba" in the word "ALM saBBeh" was ORIGINALLY NOT PUNCTUATED. So, it may be "Ba" if one point is put below it, or it may be "ya" if you add a second point below it.
'traduttore, traditore' the Quran is full of words that fit the context and may have more than a meaning.some concepts do not have a proper word in English...
Muslims did not wait for you to have exegesis or tafseer... Please!! before making comments read the Quran and the history of islam all you are doing here is just proving your ignorance.Even a baby can go to a hate site and copy and paste the Quran out of context and make it say what they want... this is all stupid and a waist of time.
Explain to me just HOW it would be possible for you to translate the Koran today, if you had no DIACRITICAL POINTS to guide you?
As a matter of FACT, there is a Koranic verse that states: "ALM Sabbeh Raboka Al Azzaam", which translates as: "ALM praise your glorified God". Yet, if we ask the question what is ALM? NO ISLAMIC PERSON HAS THE ANSWER!
Muslim scholars say it's just a divine symbol that has no definite meaning and it should be accepted as such. YEAH RIGHT!
In Luke 4 Jesus went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, where he read a section from the prophet Isaiah (Luke 4:16-19). WERE THE JEWISH SCROLLS WRITTEN IN HEBREW, OR ARAMAIC?
Other passages that indicate Jesus' knowledge of Hebrew are those in which he debates theology with learned Jewish teachers (scribes and Pharisees).
These debates occurred in Hebrew, much as Catholic theologians have used Latin for scholarly debates at the Vatican, EVEN INTO MODERN TIMES!
I was not talking about the old testament? I am talking about the New testament? What language did Jesus speak? Where are the scroll in his native language... All there is just different scrolls written in old greek and not two of them match!
If Jesus observed the Sabbath why christians dont, if Jesus was circumcised why are not christians, if jews do not eat pork why do they christians... thes answer is clear Paul of tarsus is your prophet he fooled you all.
Hahahaha h! keep on translating your corrupt bible as you wish! Jesus spoke Aramaic, but the written "sources" for the bible were in greek... as a result there have been a lot of mistransltaions and corruption. Some concepts in Aramaic did not have a counterpart in Greek and vise versa! this led translators to interprete words according to their understanding. A simple Example that can give you an idea.
@Armen, try to understand this vid is about the fact that according to some muslims a muslim HAS to KNOW arabic to know the REAL Islam. And when ever in a tight situation most muslims go to the fallacy of translation to indicate that the translatiions of the Qur'an, because arabic is rich and is a "special language". that is a fallacy, because all other knowledge in Koranic arabic that there is available has been translated accurately. Christians have no problem with tranlation, muslims do.
@armen, additionally to my knowledge there is no verse in the Qur'an that prohibits translation on basis of accuracy or mistranslation. So we need to ask why this argument is used so frequently in all levels of discussion between muslims and other religions. If you have a verse that prohibits translation directly provide it please...
SO IT WAS TRANSLATED DIFFERENTLY TO CONVEY THE PROPER (modern) MEANING AS FOLLOWS:
According to the Lords own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not PRECEDE those who have fallen asleep (NIV).
Therefore, to keep the translation of Gods Word living, it must be kept in the living language the people are using. The same principles, when applied to Hebrew (or any language), render EXACTLY the same results.
THE TRANSLATORS IN THAT DAY RENDERED 1 THESSALONIANS 4:15 AS FOLLOWS,
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not PREVENT them which are asleep.
As you can see, TODAY, the word prevent has lost that earlier meaning (come before). Can you see how not knowing what the word prevent meant at that time could affect OUR understanding of the passage today?
AS THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE CONTINUED TO CHANGE OVER TIME, it became increasingly more difficult for people to understand the Old English vernacular. Faced with the obvious need for our society to understand Gods Word, scholars sought to update the scriptures into more contemporary language. IT IS A GIVEN FACT, THAT WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME, WORDS CHANGE IN MEANINGS. For example, in King James day, the word prevent could mean come before but not necessarily in a hindering way.
VOWELS AND PUNCTUATION WERE NOT INVENTED UNTIL MODERN TIMES. As such, different men took upon themselves the task of trying to figure out what each word actually meant within the context it was written in. So knowing Hebrew alone is no guarantee that you are properly interpreting Hebrew texts.
Let me give an example using the King James Version Bible, published in 1611, which was the prominent translation used in most Protestant churches of the time.
Actually, reading ancient texts in whatever language they may be written produces no discernible increment in knowledge, UNLESS you also learn about the cultural nuances and what those words actually meant at the time they were written. Texts written in languages like Aramaic and Hebrew have undergone many changes through the centuries.
Just like the Koran DID NOT have DIACRITICAL POINTS originally, THE ORIGINAL HEBREW HAD NO PUNCTUATION either! As Such, a word can have MANY meanings.
In Religion it is more metaphorical the history or philosophy, once I began learning Hebrew I started to find parell translations annoying. And translations and commentaries filled with exegesis. Why read a Christian translations of OT when you can read it yourself in Hebrew? Take the hard way. It's rewarding.
@wayman, thanks for your comment. I can agree with you. The only concern I have with this is that knowledge is not really available to all people. As for me, I have come to see that is the result of my "indulgent" in knowledge, as it has been fairly easy for me to access it, but I have realize that what I have experienced is a exception rather than the rule for other people. I as for this it is practical to use translations, and realize God intended for this too. As it is a human condition.
This comment was from Wayman, Acidentally removed it, so I am reposting it, sorry wayman was trully an accident, I wanted to reply to it.
"Nice thoughts here. I find the topic interesting. I think it is a benefit if we do know the language, if we do not we have to do many comparisons of the text in our own language and read English commentary. But we do the best we can."
The men who added the diacritical points to the Koran long after it was first written, assumed the responsibility of INTERPRETING THE ENTIRE BOOK, and were in the position to CHANGE AND REWRITE ANYTHING that they did not agree with. THIS OCCURRENCE IS UNIQUE ONLY TO ISLAM AND THE KORAN.
To read the Koran as it was originally written would leave the reader TO INTERPRET AND CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES from the THOUSANDS OF POSSIBLE MEANINGS AVAILABLE in the Arabic when it is without diacritical points!
The Koran we have today IS NOT the same Koran Muhammad uttered. During Muhammad's time, THE KORAN WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN IN THE ARABIC LANGUAGE WITHOUT DIACRITICAL POINTS!
It's ESSENTIAL to understand how this affected the now extant text of the original Koran.The diacritical points were added to the text of the Koran MANY YEARS AFTER what is called the "Divine Inspiration" of the Koran. So, many years passed seeing a Koran without diacritical points.
@thefot, as always, you prefer to avoid any argument. That's your choice, I can respect it, but the act of calling something "self-refuting" does not means that it is unless you can prove it. I am less impress arrogant with your attitude.
@fot, thanks for the clarification. I can understand your point. From your perspective it is an evident self-refuting argument. YES, that is the point, it is simple for you to understand, because your are looking at the argument from evidence. But first, you really do not represent most of muslims, sad to say it looks you represent the minority in Islam. As you can see by the "evidence" in the comments of this vid.
@fot, second, the fact that there is translation in arabic is not proof that the argument is self-refuting. You have to see that all this "translations" are referred to a "the meaning of" rather as just plainly The Quran. The scholars who translate them are directly implying the impossibility of translation from the original arabic. You again are right but the evidence tell me that you are a minority in Islam.
Your mixing a Theological position with a literary objection. You say because Muslims say the Quran is only in Arabic (theological position) so translations are referred to as "the meaning of" (which is what a translations actually IS) so the Quran cant be translated (literary objection).
Apples and oranges.
The Quran (The Recitation) was revealed in Arabic, so words in any other langauge are not those words, but we have many translations for all to read "the meaning of" those words.
@thefot, all words have meaning, the meaning of words are abstrac or concrete things. that is the nature of languages, sounds that correlate to an abstrac or concrete thing. To say that translations are "the meaning of" points inevitably to the theological position. I personally think that the Quran can be completly translated with no major theological issue. the only thing that will be lost id the flow or poetic form that will only be arabic in nature. i have no objection to translations.
the word is machmadim not machmad, it's plural , "IM" in hebrew is always plural, muslims are prety desperate because muhammad told tham that he would be ifound in the Bible and he is not in any shape or form in the bible, other than the false prophet JESUS did warn us abt
hnnnahr it is no plural because Mohammad (pbuh) is one person and Song of Song is speaking for one man and one woman!!!!!!! you see how you liar???????
and of course now your an expert in hebrew, you haven't even read the text and you don't understand ivrit either and if any 1 here is a liar it's you and your pack of lying no good fo rnothing imams, let me spell the word for you in hebrew, mem-che-mem-dalet-yod- memsofit and now ask any hebrew speaking person here on YT what it means and where it's found. Go on search a Hebrew Bible or the Tanak as it's called in ivrit
He would be found in the Torah and Gospel not in the Bible because Bible is not the word of God. It a library of books and the distorted history of the Jews.
@voice, please elaborate your are not making sense. The Torah and the Gospel are part of the Christian Bible. The Song of Solomon was cited by ichoose, and janisar(muslim) agreed on it to be a correct citation by his response. So for your knowledge Song of Solomon is not a Gospel or part of the Torah, so janisar response then is out of line. so provide the correct citation from the Torah or the Bible.
Torah and Gospel were given to Moses and Jesus respectively but were are those books? The books that you say Torah or Gospel is just according to, for instance Mathew,Mark, Luke and John and that too is according to. So the point here if you say the book that was given to Jesus was the Gospel where is the Gospel of Jesus? In the Old Testament which says God spoke to Moses and Moses spoke to God, continues
so this is a third party account of the book. Of course there are words of God in there written by some unknown and faceless people and we really don't know the authenticity of the verses that are there but the Qur'an whether you accept it or not it is the book given to the Prophet. When it comes to Bible there are words of God, words of prophets and words of various people, so the conclusion here is that it is not the word of God.
@ador, toqout you "the Qur'an whether you accept it or not it is the book given to the Prophet", my opinion or acceptance of the Qur'an is not the issue here, nor the Bible authenticity as the Word of God. The impossibility of translating of the Quran to any language in a proper manner according to muslim scholars is the issue. Can you post you opinion on this issue?
Yeah, it's difficult to completely and accurately translate the Qur'an into any other language but can be translated to give an understanding of the Qur'an normally but to understand the the deep set wisdom behind the Arabic words is something not possible unless master the Arabic language and its history. It is the same with Hebrew as well. For instance Imaan is not just faith but believing something after verifying the truth but the English translation says faith.
I don't have to lie and pick and choose which comemnts I want to address. You on the other hand, fabricated what i said and deliberately LIED to desperately make a fallacious point.
You've completely lost all respect and credibility.
@sam, all your comments have been approved. I it you will is running from the argument, for fear of proving that you are wrong. The record stays, people can judge by themselves on who ran away.
Tell me the difference between Nazala and Anzalna in the Qu'ran. Give me a single word in English that translates the word "ahad" when it comes to God.
Now tell me how a non Arabic speaker would know by plain translation.
Please don;t post such garbage before knowing what you are talking about.
@sam, you just proved the argument of the video, if Quran cant be translated then it is not universal and just for arab native speakers. Ahad أَحَد according to and islamic site is THE ONE AND ONLY, (muhammad(dot)net). Ahad, comes from the arabic referring to order of numeral, in other words is equivalent in every sense to the word "first or initial or source". As it refers to God, well arabs in this site have done the work for you...
WRONG - the Qu'ran can be TRANSLATED, it cannot however be perfect in translation. And ahad does not mean the one and only. I asked for ONE English word that can translate it, you gave me a few that were wrong anyway which proves my point - the Arabic language is rich.
@sam, go the the site and complain to the webmasters. It is not my translation, it is theirs, if you cant understand Allah only in arabic, then Allah is the god of ONLY the arabs, who were born in arabic countries and have arabic as a mother language. Otherwise you have to relinquish of that un-islamic view of revelation.
@sam, yet 85% of them can not really undertand Islam, are confused and ignorant because they dont know what and will never know "ahad" means. Who are the ones that are prisoners of arabic speaking scholars?
@sam, all languages are rich. Can you tell me, how many meanings the word "run" have in English? The fact that the arabic language is rich, does not make it different from any other languages, better or un-translatable to it FULL meaning.
Every religious text has an original language and a translated one/s, The translated won't ever be the exact same or give the identical meaning in ANY language.
@sam, my point is clear in the vid. Most muslims, when challenged about Islam and the Quran contents, will use the "translation fallacy" to try to escape and direct argument or possible "loosing of face". The argument is "that is not what the Quran says, is only and English interpretation" or "you have to know arabic to know what it says, Arabic is rich". The fact is that arabic like any language can be fully translated. The imprecision of translation can be supplemented by a mere explanation.
In translations is there some requirement that every word needs to be translated to just one english word? If the translators are any good, I should hope not.
@harsh, no there isn't, it is try from sam to hold on to the "translation fallacy" and another argument is "arabic a rich language" when in fact all languages are rich.
You are deliberately misrepresenting what I say because you know I am right. You will never be able to get the exact meaning. Here's an example Id like you to translate into english:
What is the difference between '3athabun ghaleeth" 3atahbun aleem" 3atahbun shadeed and 3atahbun muheen?"
And why are the different words used? Why isnt it all just '3atahbun kabeer?" WHy didn't he say 'Qul huwa Allahu wahid?" Why ahad? You're going to say a translation is going to give you all that detailed explanation?
@sam, the explanation of ahad is not even clear for arabic speakers, which in another way of putting it is a flaw on your theology or a wrong used of the word in Arabic. You choose what you want.
@sam, are you trying to see how much arabic i know? do you want me to translate the Quran next? I already provent to you it do not take much to translate from arabic to english or any language. I dont have to prove you anything more, about if I can translate or not.
There's the answer right there - you don't know how to translate those words so you launch a diversion. Just be honest and admit that not every word can be translated :)
@sam, my lack of knowledge or expertise in arabic does not prove your argument. I can translate, if I wanted, but transliteration of arabic to traditional English character is not Arabic. All words can be translated, and the concept behind words can also be explained and translated to any language, including arabic. Anything else will render Allan unable to be known by non-koranic arabic speakers even arabic speakers as you clearly explained that not even arabs today know why they used ahad.
Ok, you are now flat out lying to make a point which I don't appreciate. On top of that, you are not posting my responses which is typical of Chrtistians when they get refuted.
Been in this game a long time buddy and I see straight through you.
No, he was stating you can get the exact same "feeling in meaning" in Arabic and any other language which is plainly false in any language you compare.
@sam, you are wrong. Word by word translation of any language to any language is impossible. That is what you refer. The same way that koranic-arabic do not have a one-word translation for "television", for obvious reasons, but you can translate the concept, but it will take more than one word to do it. But in fact can be translated and perfectly understood.
@sam, can you translate words from Spanish to English? May be yes or no, but what that has to do with the fact that both languages are perfectly translatable from one side to the other? Nothing. I am not translating, because my ability of translating to one language to the other is not the issue and will not prove your point even if I fail, because there are infinite resources and people that can translate if my abilities fail.
@sam, let me tell u I have knowledge of Arabic, Spanish and English. I can perfectly, without any problem understand the difference between "nazala" and "anzala", they are both (if ur transliteration is correct) forms of the same verb "nzl" which means descended. The verb forms in arabic carry the termination of the person doing the work, exactly as in Spanish. Both words have many meanings depending the context with in the case for anzala can mean revelation, exactly as it will mean in Spanish
Qu'ranic Arabic is not like anything else and your descritpion whilst somewhat accurate does not give the words as used in the Qu'ran the right meaning.
I'm still confused as to what point you are trying to make.
EVERY religious book including the Bible won't have the exact, identical meaning from a translated language when compared to the original.
@sam, The Bible has been translated and is still translated to approach even more it meaning in the original languages it was written. Not even arabs today can fully relate to Koranic Arabic, because Koranic Arabic is actually a mainly dead language (linguistically speaking no offense intended) , spoken by very few people within Islam. If what you propose is an absolute truth even Arabs today need some sort of translation since their mother language is not Koranic Arabic.
Biblical Aramaic and Hebrew is a dead language today as well. Please don't try to sell me that.
The Qu'ranic Arabic is unique on it's own and more advanced than the ancient Arabs used to know.. But the point here is - you will never be able to get the identical meaning of the Aramaic (or what's left of it) in the OT or any other book.
@sam, no christian or jew that respect himself will ever use a "fallacy of translation" with regards to the translation of the Bible. That is why there are many translation of the Bible, as all muslims know. All of then regarded as the Word of God in the target language, including arabic. This "fallacy" is a muslim thing.
@sam, that is why Christianity is superior to Islam in this sense, (no offense intended by this remark), everybody can understand it in every language. That makes Christianity universal, and you dont have to be greek or hebrew to be a true scholar. Christians have nothing to hide by resorting to "fallacies of translation" everybody can study Christianity, even muslims can go to christian seminar and study the Bible, not the same on Islam.
@sam, every one can understand, and in fact the existence of Christians even in the most hostile of muslim countries proves it. They have no need to unsdertand the original greek, aramaic or hebrew to do so. Understanding it, in greek, aramaic and hebrew just makes their faiths even stronger. Understanding is what make Christianity more accessible than Islam.
Nobody understands the fabricated trinity and you know it. Your points have all been refuted and you are a certified liar and dont post everything I write. You know it as well.
@sam, but every christian does, and even the christians who dont believe it call themselves christians not muslims. there is no requirement to believe in the trinity for christians, although the overwhelming majority does believe it, not all the church father believe it. All have to believe in salvation throughout Jesus Christ, that is what makes you a christian, not your believe in the trinity, you have no argument.
You apparently have no argument and no idea of your own faith. You don't even know what you believe.
Salvation through Jesus is what makes one a Christian? What a load of garbage - the whole reason why you believe that is he died for the sins of the world as GOD or Gods son who is also God, something, yeah really makes sense.
You have no answer and you continue blocking my comments you coward.
@sam, it is enough with the personal attack. you should be ashamed. When you can tell me what is ahad, you will have credibility to tell me what or what not is christianity. Try to understand and explain your own argument and religion, and above all have respect for people. If I as a christian can only lie about Islam you as a muslim can neither only lie about Christianity.
Your own Bible says faith without works is dead. Jesus Christ didn't die for your sins buddy. That makes NO LOGICAL sense from any standpoint. That's like you killing someone and I get puinished for it. That's against God's justice.
@sam, the bible says many things, If I cant tell uyou what the Quran is because I am a Christian that has no eal knowledge of arabic and the Quran, you as a muslim have no credibility to challenge me anything about thr Bible. the subject of this vid is the Qur'an. This is the last time I tel you to send me a friend invite since I don't know how to resend it.
Sam, I'm not Catholic and I admit that the word trinity doesn't appear on the Bible but you don't have to put the word trinity in a book, you can imply its meaning in the contents. And such is the case of the Bible. Yah'shua (Jesus) as God is clearly implied in the Bible and such is the Holy Spirit and the Father. In prophecy, the prophet Isaiah calls haMashiach (Christ) by the following titles: Mighty God, Father, Prince of Peace, etc. Once Jesus was born, His natural spirit was YHVH's spirit.
You don't understand the concept of God from the Christian perspective because in your religion of Islam, your Allah revealed to Muhammad the carnal aspects of the things of this world instead of doing it from the spiritual perspective. Islam was designed to please the flesh, not the spirit. Christianity is designed to turn yourself into a spiritual being. So, when Bible implies that Jesus is Son but also God, you cannot analyze that from a carnal context but rather from a spiritual perspective.
Your mind was trained in Islam to think that a son is only someone born of a father and a mother; and God is a spirit that in no way can become a person, can have no son, and cannot live inside people through a spiritual presence (Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit). In Christianity, Jesus can be Son of God even without a human father because we see things from the spiritual context. Jesus' spirit was present from the beginning of all that exists. When He was born as human, He became a Son like all of us.
The difference between Jesus and us is this: we didn't exist as unique and conscious beings before being born. Our spirits formed for the first time when we were conceived in our mother's womb. Jesus' spirit wasn't formed when He was born but His spirit which is the Spirit of God pre-existed and was simply " transferred" to a body. This is why in Christianity we call simple humans beings "sons" but we use capital "S" for "Son" when referring to Jesus. Because He is a "special" kind of Son.
Now, am I inventing this stuff? Am I creating my own kind of Christianity or dogma when explaining all this? ANSWER IS NO. What I'm saying here is really what Jesus Himself said when He was in this world. Read it for yourself.
John 8:58 "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (shows pre-existence)
Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born...his name shall be called...The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (called God by prophets)
Matthew 3:17 "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (called Son by the Father YHVH)
In these verses, after Jesus was arrested and about to be condemned to death, he admitted to be SON OF GOD which was the proof used by the Sanhedrin to condemn Him to death.
Mark 14:61 "...Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"
Son of God means Servant of God: Gal. 4:6-7, Mat. 3:17, Luke 3:22, Mark 1:11, John 1:32, Psalm 82:6, Exo. 4:22, Jer. 31:9, Psalm 2:7, Job 1:6, 2:1, Psalm 88:7, Rev. 21:7
@sura, can you tell me why Mohammad never called himself "Son of God"? Certainly, Mohammad more than any other prophet can call himself a servant of God or "Son of God"? Dont you think? Can you post here as a reply that you accept that Mohammad is a "Son of God" meaning according to you he is the best and more perfect servant of Allah? I challenge you to write it! If you cant do it, write WHY?
@sura, you say that Son of God means servant of God. that means that they are synonyms. And you even implied that that is what the Bible means by Son of God. Then ot should be clear to you that Mohammad is for you as a Muslim a Son of God, since he is a Servant of god, Why can u type this in a small reply? do you believe what you stated previously or are you now say "it is a christian concept". There should be no problem if both concepts for a Muslim are synonyms to call Mohammad Son of God!
@sura, please if you cant even accept your own arguments and believe in them, then How can you expect me to give you any credibility? the truth behind you calling Mohammad a Son of god, is because for muslims and christians "Son of God" does not means "Servant of God", now nor when it was used in Jesus times. Your argument may seams good to you but your denial to putting it to practice reveals that is just a vague, vane and fallacious also argument you really don't believe to be correct.
Son of god does not mean best and more perfect servant of Allah. There is no such thing as "son of god". Also, the Prophet of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم is a mercy from Allah sent to all mankind. Other beloved prophets and messengers of Allah (like musa, ibrahim, sulayman etc) عليهم السلام they were sent to a certain audience. Dont embarass yourself trying to make shit up.
@shahira, I am certain Son of God does not mean servant of Allah. It was Sura72 who posted that Son of God means Servant of God. If someone is making things up, it is sura72, your issue is with him then. Next time try to avoid the word "shit".
If God says He is 3, yet 1 God. That's a spiritual mystery. Just like if Hindus claims that their God is a Cow, or an elephant, Who am I to say? Maybe it's true, who knows? Have we seen God? And we tell God what form He can or cannot be ?
But we can tell if our God is HOLY, by the teachings and laws and statues given to us in the Bible.
So if the Quran says you can have slave captive girls and sex them, or that you can practise temporary Mu'ta marriage, then its GAME OVER !
then call me nobody, because I understand the Trinity, and why did muhammad tell you ppl to believe in the gospel and also in the torah?? didn't he understand the concept of the Trinity or didn't he know that the concept of the Trinity would be found in the Gospel, did he ever bother to read the Bible or did he just pretend
You posted "The Qu'ranic Arabic is unique on it's own and more advanced than the ancient Arabs used to know." Which is in clear contradiction with sura 41:44 posted by arabian, please try to learn Islam from him, it looks he know more than you...
If the arabic in the Qur'an was to advance for ancient arabs, How did they understood Islam? then Islam is an incomprehensible and inaccessible religion and Allah has no relevance to us. Is Qur'an not as advance today for arab speakers?
Shalom my dear lost friend, so now your an expert on Christianity congrat, and if the name is wrong why don't you tell us HIS real name, and if the Romans imposed Christianity in Rome then tell me why Nero tried to kill all the Christians? The Romans hated the Christians so did almost all of Europe now you try better my dear ignorant friend, once again JESUS was from the tribe of YEHUDA=Jew, and we know that the GOD we serve is the GOD OF ISRAEL not arabia
God of Israel? God is the God of mankind, not of israel u foolish. God never sent a prophet to the west, no wonder why u lack piety and wisdom. Too bad that you all become slaves of Middle East. If i meet God, i would ask Him why did He never send a prophet to Europe to enlighten the Europeans on who God is! God of Israel is a joke. Mankind belongs to God. You don't even know who GOD is. Ignorant pagan.
@arabian, are you aware that you are looking time and time again more racist and as ethnocentric arab? I love arabs, arabic culture, and language. I have noting more than respect and admiration for arab culture, but your remarks are so ethnocentric that I think you should rethink your dawa. Are you aware that following your line of thought God never sent a prophet to Malaysians or Indonesia and yet they are the largest Islamic countries? are they less muslims than Saudis because this fact?
@arabian, are your dawa is wrong according to clasical islamic believe, recorded both in the Quran and the hadith, in that Allah, before Mohammad had sent prophets, many of them unknown, to ALL of humankind, all tribes and languages throughout history. Your comments reflect ethnocentrism and racism, I know you are not either, I hope. Please reflect and as a good Muslim retract and repent of your wrong deeds.
^^You sound like a self-professed Christian universalist who believes in a careless Deity who accepts homosexuality the way it is and that everyone on earth is going to heaven. The above statement you have made is a mark of a very dangerous stance which can cost your very own soul for eternity.
If all of mankind belongs to Elohim regardless, then truly it is pointless to even try to serve Him or prepare for the hereafter knowing that the Deity will blindly accept you as His own whether you seek Him or not. 70%+ of the human population are as of yet under the bondage of Satan whether you like it or not. Your theology is utterly broken, sir. Do atheists, agnostics, Hindus, Satanists, Left Hand Pathologists, etc. belong to the Creator?
Indeed we do serve the EL of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel since all three of these great patriarchs served Him and were blessed by Him, and counted as one of His own. You say "the G-d of Israel" is a joke, when in fact Israel (Yakob the patriarch) served the very G-d that you have just carelessly mocked and blasphemed out of your foolish countenance. You serve the "G-d of mankind", which means you serve the very deity that the masonic PANTHEISTS worship.
YAHUWAH is the EL and Father of those who truly serve Him and revere Him in spirit and truth. Not everyone is a child of Elohim. Learn to distinguish the children of Satan and the children of YAHUWAH. They're all around us.
yes it does mean that our GOD is the HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL, and JESUS did not say in any shape or form Elah, HE said Abba, ELI, ELOHIM, or YHVH, you do know that JESUS spoke Hebrew being a Hebrew living in Israel and also from the tribe of YEHUDA. You ppl say that Adam was a prophet which shows that you ppl dont even know what a propeht is.
Matt 22
I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, He is not the God of the dead but of the living
Mohammad is not mentioned here because he came after Jesus hahaha how foolish you are. You need to be wiser little boy. Jesus said ELAH. He was a Hebrew, not Jewish. If Jesus is god, then this would make him a jewish god. Grow up kid.
@arabian, Jesus was Jew, and that does not make God a Jew. If I follow ur logic, then Allah would be an arab from the Yasira, since he chose to preserve ONLY the Arabic rendering of his will reveled to Arabs in Mohammad's time. Ur arguments until know have been some how elevated and more strong, I advise you to keep your comments regarding Islam and Quran, which is what you really know and what this vid is about, I fear that you are exposing your weakness and is not wise. Meditate on ur dawa.
the Koran is highest level of language in Arabic. it has no change ever and is same like book in heaven by Allah. was writen in time by followers of Mohammad (pbuh) before he die. the Koran is only book to be memorized becaues is perfect style of writing. is great miracle for proof of truth for Islam.
so it means that you have the original manuscript of muhammad, and do you know that muhammad could wrtie and read, and do you also know that some of the ppl memorizing the quran died in Yeman before it could be written down so how do you know what they had memorized since it hadn't been recorded anywhere, and what abt the goat eating verses, you ppl are really naive abt your own books
hannahr you show you no hebrew yes?????? what mean מחמד
It mean Mohammad (pbuh) and also I show you proof for Mohammad (pbuh) in Isaiah book 29.12 and you compare for what you say about Mohammad (pbuh) who can no read or right. Now you see proof!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
oh really then show me where in the O.T it says muhammad or mohammad, in Hebrew or English and remember the whole word not just the first part of the word
Do you know who Elah is? And you have not refuted anything what you have done here is cursed and shown ignorance, and the only 1 here who's a joke is you my dear lost friend, and JESUS CHRIST is not a muslim HE'S A JEW SO WHY DONT YOU PPL LEAVE HIM ALONE unless you convert.
And you didn't answer the question is ill-allah the FATHER OF JESUS and if so where does it say so in the quran?
If Jesus was a Jew, does that mean the "god" of the christians is a jew? Well, can GOD be jewish? or universal? Well, can God has a religion? lol Christians are funny.Actually,Europeans are funny, not Christians! GOD never sent a single prophet to the west, no wonder why u lack wisdom and piety. The Truth is that Jesus was a Hebrew(a race, not Judaism). Jesus used the word "ELAH" for god which is in Aramaic language. Arabs say ALLAH in Arabic. Jesus' god is ELAH but christians say Jesus a godLOL
2arabian, the fact that God revealed himself using the jewish people does not make him a jew, nor the fact that allah revealed himself to arabs makes him an arab. your arguemts are foolish. The fact that Jesus was jewish and that most christians Jesus to be God, does makes god a jew. God is eternal, the Trinity existed since eternity BEFORE the incarnation of Jesus as a jewish man. Nevertheless the Trinity nor Jesus divinity are the subject of this vid. Try to address the issue in the vid.
@arabian, since your whole arguement is on Elah, let see what Elah means:
The origin of the Aramaic word Elah is somewhat uncertain, though it might be related to a root meaning fear or reverence. It is found only in the books of Ezra and Daniel. (hebrew4christians(dot)net)
@arabian, Second the use of the word ELAH, which may mean fear or reverence, is not closely related to the meaning in arabic of "illah", as according to you in another post means "Creator". Even if we admit a relationship, it only proves that the real name for God is not Allah, but ELAH, which is pronounced differently in aramaic. Quran then would have to be revised to include the REAL NAME of God, not its arabic equivalent. Islam are then teaching the wrong name of God when you say Allah...
And oops, the Bible is not a European book, but Middle Eastern. You European elites have turned it into a political book while the Christian people are left to be drowned in secularism which is anti-Bible. the western world is ruled by the anti-Christ system, yet you are unconscious of it because you are too busy spreading lies,manipulations,ignorance on Islam which by the way is the religion of Jesus. And Paul is the founder of Christianity!
I have answered all your questions in a way that it makes you to ask the same stupid questions again? You can't face the Truth hey? I enjoy talking to such intelligent people like you!!!
Paul is not the founder of Christianity and yes Paul did se JESUS in a vision you do believe in visions? And ill-allah never spoke to muhammad, he never meet JESUS or knew of HIM, Paul was known by the disciple of JESUS CHRIST, Paul was also a well known rabbi, it goes like this CHRIST=Christians=Christianity does this ring a bell like ding dong, it should unless your deaf
Jesus real name was not even "christ". This is a greek word invented by man. Therefore all your theory "christ=christians=christianity" is faulted. Jesus never asked for unmarried priests,nuns,pope,church,crusade(war crime). All these are man-made ideologies invented by illusionists "white pagans" over the centuries. The Romans imposed pagan christianity in Europe to cope with your historic Dark Ages. Jesus has nothing to do with that shit cold place. Wise up little man,
69pmac
The same goes for every other language on earth! EVERY language has nuances that CANNOT be translated literally. As such, translators must use different METHODS, like CLOSEST CORRESPONDING WORDS, THOUGHT FOR THOUGHT or MEET IN THE MIDDLE of these other two.
No Muslim scholar can CLAIM they have the correct translation of Muhammad's original, since the original HAD NO DIACRITICAL MARKS. AS SUCH, UTHMANIC SCRIBES WERE FREE TO INTERPRET THE KORAN AS THEY PLEASED.
ichooseanother 2 years ago
the quran can not be legitemetly translated. The only proper form is in arabic, any other translation is a mere attempt in trying to show the message in another language. I dont even need to watch the rest of your video to answer this one
69pmac 2 years ago
@69, You should talk to thefotfoundation, he is muslim and he say that that is not necessary. The fact that it can not be "legitimately" translated according to you, should worry you and all who think like you. It makes it an arabic thing, not truly universal, and incomprehensible to all other people. It makes it "legitimately" the religion of arabs of the six century...
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
@69pmac, Due to the new way YT organized the
comments area, I inadvertently delete your last comment while trying to respond to it. I re-posted with my apologies.
yessua9ibnallah 1 year ago
@69pmac wrote: ichoseanother is right. o, what im trying to say is that the quran cannot be fully translated into another language, because every translator can use a different word etc. You know what yessua9ibnallah, prove me wrong! prove to me that there is a way to completely translate an arabic text into anothr language! and no, the quran is not for everyone, the general message can be translated, however if you are debating over little things, the best way to do it is through arabic
yessua9ibnallah 1 year ago
@69pmac, u said, "prove to me that there is a way to completely translate Arabic text into another language" The fact is that there is no possible way to COMPLETELY translate any language to another
LITERALLY, word by word equivalent. That one word in one language to another
single word in another. As ichoose has
explain there are some one word to one
word translations, it takes more than a dictionary to produce a reliable
translation. Reliable translations are available for the Quran.
yessua9ibnallah 1 year ago
@69pmac, Second you said "the quran is not for everyone", you are the first one to say this. I thought Islam was universal, but if the quran is not for everyone, then you have excluded all non-arabic speakers from knowing the true Islam, as the "quran is not for everyone". Or may I ask for whom is the Quran for, if as you say t is not for everyone? You are beginning to contradict yourself or the tenants of your religion to win an argument, be careful!
yessua9ibnallah 1 year ago
ArmenFirman01
Ponder, think, then decide. It is fascinating to consider that the story of the Koran can be given a completely different direction and the history and religion of Islam can be turned over BY JUST ONE DIACRITICAL POINT!
ichooseanother 2 years ago
Now tell me if the original Hebrew scrolls for the new testament contained diacritical points and when the were vocalized
If the new testament was written in Aramaic the original language of jesus tell me where the aramaic scrolls are?
ArmenFirman01 2 years ago
@armen, again, where are the original Aramaic book? Nobody know if there were really written in Aramaic in the first place. According to some scholar it was probably written in Greek in the first place: "the variety of styles in the Greek New Testament is one of the strongest arguments for its being written in Greek originally. The styles vary book to book." see orvillejenkins(dot)com languages(slash)aramaicprimacy(dot)htm as an example. It is also very probable Jesus spoke Greek and Aramaic.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
@yessua9ibnallah maybe probably no one knows this is christianity all based on uncertainty yet you criticize the Quran
Find your lost books then compare them to the Quran.
What you have at hand the "bible" is just the result of corruption
the sources are unknown hahah
Read BART EHERMAN AND ROBERT EISENMAN they say it all
ArmenFirman01 2 years ago
@armen, u can believe whatever u want about Christianity. It is sad that your view of christianity comes from agnostics. So I can think you give the same credit to what agnostics say about Islam, just do a quick search. Soon you will figure out that agnostics are not in favor of Islam neither and conclude they are right about Christianity and wrong about Islam??!!! Very convenient to choose what to believe and what not to believe, or are you willing to accept what agnostics say about Islam too?
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
@armen, I you believe SOO MUUUCH what ROBERT EISENMAN believes and propose about christianity, you should check what he believes about Islam and the Quran. He thinks James is the source of the Quran TOO! are you willing to believe this??? Everybody check out what armen believes about Islam in accordance to the EisenmanTalks channel. Armen follows R Eidenman views about christianity and Islam as you can see.. or very conveniently what he says about Christianity but not Islam? Convenient right?
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
@armen, Just in case you discredit R. Eisenman as a Islam scholar, he has a PhD from Columbia University in Middle East Languages and Cultures and Islamic Law too! check his website roberteisenma(dot).com and watch the his series of videos on Islam in relation to the dead sea scrolls (watch?v=5D5v9WV4yXU). Are you willing to give him credibility now? or are you going to pick and choose what he says? Do you believe what he says about Islam and the Quran too?
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
Good point, besides written surahs the Quran was memorized by hendreds of people, and it was done easily because it is written in rhyme. today even 6 year old kids can memorize it completely!
now tell me what about the old testament language script, did it contain diacritical points? Hebrew like arabic are semitic languages that only write consonants and no vowels. secondly, where are the original scrolls for the new testament in aramaic
ArmenFirman01 2 years ago
@armen, memorization by hundreds does not ensure accuracy, it just multiplies the probability of mistakes and at one point SOMEONE have to decide which memorization is the "official" one as happened with Zaid ibn Thabbit, Abu Bakar and Usman.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
@yessua9ibnallah Memorization plus the original script of the verses were writtin on skin bone palm branches clay etc. plus the testemony of at least two reliable and trustworthy people.
so it is not just about memory.
You obviously do not know what you are talking about so please do not waste my time.
ArmenFirman01 2 years ago
ArmenFirman01
REMEMBER NOW THAT THE ORIGINAL KORANIC LANGUAGE WAS NOT PUNCTUATED! Punctuation was added later by non-divinely inspired laymen who were fluent in the Arabic language and nothing more.
This confession is very logic for Christians. But if this was the confession of Muhammad and his Koran, what would then be the outcome?
ichooseanother 2 years ago
What you just said proves you do not know the history of the Quran nor the history of islam as a whole. I agree there were no diacritical marks like in Hebrew in the old testament scrolls. Like the name YHWH which was vocalized as YEHWAH in the 19th century. But there were hendreds of Huffadh who learned the quran by heart. Quran is writtin in rhyme today even six year old kids can memorize the wholeof it.
ArmenFirman01 2 years ago
ArmenFirman01
Let's read the sentence after adding just one point below the letter "Ba", changing it into "ya". The sentence would be, "ALMsyyh Raboka Al 'Azzaam."
NOTICE THAT Just this ONE DIACRITICAL POINT will turn over the entire Islamic religion, because the sentence now means: THE CHRIST IS YOUR GLORIFIED GOD!!!
SEE NOW THE IMPORTANCE OF THOSE DIACRITICAL POINTS?
ichooseanother 2 years ago
Before criticizing the Quran for that why dont you ask the same question about the old testament that was the same. YHWH IS NOT VOCALIZED BECAUSE THE SCROLLS DID NOT HAVE DIACRITICAL POINTS
EXCEPT THAT THE QURAN WAS LEARNED BY HEART CAUSE IT IS WRITTEN IN FREE VERSE.
ArmenFirman01 2 years ago
@armen, you really need to make sense. Aramaic or Hebrew follow almost the same grammatical rules because they are Semitic languages. Nevertheless, with regards to translation or "purity" of the sacred text, no hebrew or christian scholars resort to the kind of fallacies that most muslims do. Although it is advisable to read the text in the original available language, translations are as good as the original provided that the process is open and revised periodically.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
First of all you did not answer my question concerning diacritical points in original old testament scrolls! secondly the fact that arabic aramaic and hebrew congnate from the same language family does not mean hebrew = aramaic= arabic. french and italian cognate from latin but both are different langaugees
Jesus spoke aramaic not hebrew. No aramaic New testament scroll is found.. all are in greek. translation altered the meaning and that is a fact... Just read scholars like Bart Ehrman,
ArmenFirman01 2 years ago
HAHAHA do you speak arabic obviously you do not at all, did you read the quran of course you did not at all. yet like most american evangelical ignorants you speculate on something you do not know. the quran is clear in more than a verse that Jesus is a man a prophet not God. the trinity is not read in the bible yet the Quran says the trinity is a lie and that God is one
ArmenFirman01 2 years ago
ArmenFirman01
This second point below the letter "Ba" would only slightly change the FORM of the sentence BUT IT WOULD RADICALLY CHANGE THE MEANING 180 DEGREES IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. Changing this one letter would turn the whole story, history, and faith of Islam upside down! DO YOU KNOW WHY?
ichooseanother 2 years ago
ArmenFirman01
Attempting to explain it, some Muslims CLAIM that it may be a part of the succeeding word "Sabbeh" which translates as "praise", but then the formulation of the sentence will not be grammatically correct when we apply the known facts about the diacritical points. When we apply them to this verse, we find that the letter "Ba" in the word "ALM saBBeh" was ORIGINALLY NOT PUNCTUATED. So, it may be "Ba" if one point is put below it, or it may be "ya" if you add a second point below it.
ichooseanother 2 years ago
dots were added to help non arab muslims to read the Quran.
ArmenFirman01 2 years ago
'traduttore, traditore' the Quran is full of words that fit the context and may have more than a meaning.some concepts do not have a proper word in English...
Muslims did not wait for you to have exegesis or tafseer... Please!! before making comments read the Quran and the history of islam all you are doing here is just proving your ignorance.Even a baby can go to a hate site and copy and paste the Quran out of context and make it say what they want... this is all stupid and a waist of time.
ArmenFirman01 2 years ago
ArmenFirman01
Explain to me just HOW it would be possible for you to translate the Koran today, if you had no DIACRITICAL POINTS to guide you?
As a matter of FACT, there is a Koranic verse that states: "ALM Sabbeh Raboka Al Azzaam", which translates as: "ALM praise your glorified God". Yet, if we ask the question what is ALM? NO ISLAMIC PERSON HAS THE ANSWER!
Muslim scholars say it's just a divine symbol that has no definite meaning and it should be accepted as such. YEAH RIGHT!
ichooseanother 2 years ago
ArmenFirman01
In Luke 4 Jesus went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, where he read a section from the prophet Isaiah (Luke 4:16-19). WERE THE JEWISH SCROLLS WRITTEN IN HEBREW, OR ARAMAIC?
Other passages that indicate Jesus' knowledge of Hebrew are those in which he debates theology with learned Jewish teachers (scribes and Pharisees).
These debates occurred in Hebrew, much as Catholic theologians have used Latin for scholarly debates at the Vatican, EVEN INTO MODERN TIMES!
ichooseanother 2 years ago
I was not talking about the old testament? I am talking about the New testament? What language did Jesus speak? Where are the scroll in his native language... All there is just different scrolls written in old greek and not two of them match!
If Jesus observed the Sabbath why christians dont, if Jesus was circumcised why are not christians, if jews do not eat pork why do they christians... thes answer is clear Paul of tarsus is your prophet he fooled you all.
ArmenFirman01 2 years ago
Hahahaha h! keep on translating your corrupt bible as you wish! Jesus spoke Aramaic, but the written "sources" for the bible were in greek... as a result there have been a lot of mistransltaions and corruption. Some concepts in Aramaic did not have a counterpart in Greek and vise versa! this led translators to interprete words according to their understanding. A simple Example that can give you an idea.
ArmenFirman01 2 years ago
@Armen, try to understand this vid is about the fact that according to some muslims a muslim HAS to KNOW arabic to know the REAL Islam. And when ever in a tight situation most muslims go to the fallacy of translation to indicate that the translatiions of the Qur'an, because arabic is rich and is a "special language". that is a fallacy, because all other knowledge in Koranic arabic that there is available has been translated accurately. Christians have no problem with tranlation, muslims do.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
@armen, additionally to my knowledge there is no verse in the Qur'an that prohibits translation on basis of accuracy or mistranslation. So we need to ask why this argument is used so frequently in all levels of discussion between muslims and other religions. If you have a verse that prohibits translation directly provide it please...
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
5of 5
SO IT WAS TRANSLATED DIFFERENTLY TO CONVEY THE PROPER (modern) MEANING AS FOLLOWS:
According to the Lords own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not PRECEDE those who have fallen asleep (NIV).
Therefore, to keep the translation of Gods Word living, it must be kept in the living language the people are using. The same principles, when applied to Hebrew (or any language), render EXACTLY the same results.
ichooseanother 2 years ago
4of 5
THE TRANSLATORS IN THAT DAY RENDERED 1 THESSALONIANS 4:15 AS FOLLOWS,
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not PREVENT them which are asleep.
As you can see, TODAY, the word prevent has lost that earlier meaning (come before). Can you see how not knowing what the word prevent meant at that time could affect OUR understanding of the passage today?
ichooseanother 2 years ago
3of 5
AS THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE CONTINUED TO CHANGE OVER TIME, it became increasingly more difficult for people to understand the Old English vernacular. Faced with the obvious need for our society to understand Gods Word, scholars sought to update the scriptures into more contemporary language. IT IS A GIVEN FACT, THAT WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME, WORDS CHANGE IN MEANINGS. For example, in King James day, the word prevent could mean come before but not necessarily in a hindering way.
ichooseanother 2 years ago
2of 5
VOWELS AND PUNCTUATION WERE NOT INVENTED UNTIL MODERN TIMES. As such, different men took upon themselves the task of trying to figure out what each word actually meant within the context it was written in. So knowing Hebrew alone is no guarantee that you are properly interpreting Hebrew texts.
Let me give an example using the King James Version Bible, published in 1611, which was the prominent translation used in most Protestant churches of the time.
ichooseanother 2 years ago
1of 5
Actually, reading ancient texts in whatever language they may be written produces no discernible increment in knowledge, UNLESS you also learn about the cultural nuances and what those words actually meant at the time they were written. Texts written in languages like Aramaic and Hebrew have undergone many changes through the centuries.
Just like the Koran DID NOT have DIACRITICAL POINTS originally, THE ORIGINAL HEBREW HAD NO PUNCTUATION either! As Such, a word can have MANY meanings.
ichooseanother 2 years ago
In Religion it is more metaphorical the history or philosophy, once I began learning Hebrew I started to find parell translations annoying. And translations and commentaries filled with exegesis. Why read a Christian translations of OT when you can read it yourself in Hebrew? Take the hard way. It's rewarding.
wayman29 2 years ago
@wayman, thanks for your comment. I can agree with you. The only concern I have with this is that knowledge is not really available to all people. As for me, I have come to see that is the result of my "indulgent" in knowledge, as it has been fairly easy for me to access it, but I have realize that what I have experienced is a exception rather than the rule for other people. I as for this it is practical to use translations, and realize God intended for this too. As it is a human condition.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
This comment was from Wayman, Acidentally removed it, so I am reposting it, sorry wayman was trully an accident, I wanted to reply to it.
"Nice thoughts here. I find the topic interesting. I think it is a benefit if we do know the language, if we do not we have to do many comparisons of the text in our own language and read English commentary. But we do the best we can."
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
The men who added the diacritical points to the Koran long after it was first written, assumed the responsibility of INTERPRETING THE ENTIRE BOOK, and were in the position to CHANGE AND REWRITE ANYTHING that they did not agree with. THIS OCCURRENCE IS UNIQUE ONLY TO ISLAM AND THE KORAN.
To read the Koran as it was originally written would leave the reader TO INTERPRET AND CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES from the THOUSANDS OF POSSIBLE MEANINGS AVAILABLE in the Arabic when it is without diacritical points!
InfidelForce2009 2 years ago 2
The Koran we have today IS NOT the same Koran Muhammad uttered. During Muhammad's time, THE KORAN WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN IN THE ARABIC LANGUAGE WITHOUT DIACRITICAL POINTS!
It's ESSENTIAL to understand how this affected the now extant text of the original Koran.The diacritical points were added to the text of the Koran MANY YEARS AFTER what is called the "Divine Inspiration" of the Koran. So, many years passed seeing a Koran without diacritical points.
InfidelForce2009 2 years ago 2
Another video based on a made up assertion about what Muslims say. I dont know why people buy this stuff.
Thanks for the PM but I am not impressed with your "argument". Its self-refuting.
thefotfoundation 2 years ago
@thefot, as always, you prefer to avoid any argument. That's your choice, I can respect it, but the act of calling something "self-refuting" does not means that it is unless you can prove it. I am less impress arrogant with your attitude.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
Apologies if I come across as arrogant, that wasnt my intention.
Simply put your assertion that: most Muslims say that to know what is Islam and to understand the Quran you must know Quanic Arabic is false.
The rest of your argument is therefore not relevent.
The fact the Muslims translate the Quran into other languages enmasse is a refutation of your initial claim, hence the self-refuting comment.
thefotfoundation 2 years ago
@fot, thanks for the clarification. I can understand your point. From your perspective it is an evident self-refuting argument. YES, that is the point, it is simple for you to understand, because your are looking at the argument from evidence. But first, you really do not represent most of muslims, sad to say it looks you represent the minority in Islam. As you can see by the "evidence" in the comments of this vid.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
You do not have any evidence in these comments. The evidence would, at least, have to be from a Scholarly Islamic source.
I see where youare going wrong from you next comment below and will try help.
thefotfoundation 2 years ago
@fot, second, the fact that there is translation in arabic is not proof that the argument is self-refuting. You have to see that all this "translations" are referred to a "the meaning of" rather as just plainly The Quran. The scholars who translate them are directly implying the impossibility of translation from the original arabic. You again are right but the evidence tell me that you are a minority in Islam.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
Your mixing a Theological position with a literary objection. You say because Muslims say the Quran is only in Arabic (theological position) so translations are referred to as "the meaning of" (which is what a translations actually IS) so the Quran cant be translated (literary objection).
Apples and oranges.
The Quran (The Recitation) was revealed in Arabic, so words in any other langauge are not those words, but we have many translations for all to read "the meaning of" those words.
thefotfoundation 2 years ago
@thefot, all words have meaning, the meaning of words are abstrac or concrete things. that is the nature of languages, sounds that correlate to an abstrac or concrete thing. To say that translations are "the meaning of" points inevitably to the theological position. I personally think that the Quran can be completly translated with no major theological issue. the only thing that will be lost id the flow or poetic form that will only be arabic in nature. i have no objection to translations.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
Song of Solomon 5:16
Muslims find the name of Muhammad in the Hebrew word "machmad".
YET, Did Muhammad ever court a woman in Jerusalem? This passage is not prophetic, it is just talking about Solomon.
ichooseanother 2 years ago
@ichooseanother
the word is machmadim not machmad, it's plural , "IM" in hebrew is always plural, muslims are prety desperate because muhammad told tham that he would be ifound in the Bible and he is not in any shape or form in the bible, other than the false prophet JESUS did warn us abt
hannahr77 2 years ago
hnnnahr it is no plural because Mohammad (pbuh) is one person and Song of Song is speaking for one man and one woman!!!!!!! you see how you liar???????
JANISARI4ISLAM 2 years ago
@JANISARI4ISLAM
and of course now your an expert in hebrew, you haven't even read the text and you don't understand ivrit either and if any 1 here is a liar it's you and your pack of lying no good fo rnothing imams, let me spell the word for you in hebrew, mem-che-mem-dalet-yod- memsofit and now ask any hebrew speaking person here on YT what it means and where it's found. Go on search a Hebrew Bible or the Tanak as it's called in ivrit
hannahr77 2 years ago
hannahr77
He would be found in the Torah and Gospel not in the Bible because Bible is not the word of God. It a library of books and the distorted history of the Jews.
voiceofreasoning 2 years ago
@voice, please elaborate your are not making sense. The Torah and the Gospel are part of the Christian Bible. The Song of Solomon was cited by ichoose, and janisar(muslim) agreed on it to be a correct citation by his response. So for your knowledge Song of Solomon is not a Gospel or part of the Torah, so janisar response then is out of line. so provide the correct citation from the Torah or the Bible.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
yessua9ibnallah
Torah and Gospel were given to Moses and Jesus respectively but were are those books? The books that you say Torah or Gospel is just according to, for instance Mathew,Mark, Luke and John and that too is according to. So the point here if you say the book that was given to Jesus was the Gospel where is the Gospel of Jesus? In the Old Testament which says God spoke to Moses and Moses spoke to God, continues
AdorIslam 2 years ago
yessua9ibnallah
so this is a third party account of the book. Of course there are words of God in there written by some unknown and faceless people and we really don't know the authenticity of the verses that are there but the Qur'an whether you accept it or not it is the book given to the Prophet. When it comes to Bible there are words of God, words of prophets and words of various people, so the conclusion here is that it is not the word of God.
AdorIslam 2 years ago
@ador, toqout you "the Qur'an whether you accept it or not it is the book given to the Prophet", my opinion or acceptance of the Qur'an is not the issue here, nor the Bible authenticity as the Word of God. The impossibility of translating of the Quran to any language in a proper manner according to muslim scholars is the issue. Can you post you opinion on this issue?
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
yessua9ibnallah
Yeah, it's difficult to completely and accurately translate the Qur'an into any other language but can be translated to give an understanding of the Qur'an normally but to understand the the deep set wisdom behind the Arabic words is something not possible unless master the Arabic language and its history. It is the same with Hebrew as well. For instance Imaan is not just faith but believing something after verifying the truth but the English translation says faith.
AdorIslam 2 years ago
I don't have to lie and pick and choose which comemnts I want to address. You on the other hand, fabricated what i said and deliberately LIED to desperately make a fallacious point.
You've completely lost all respect and credibility.
Caio.
sam7666 2 years ago
@sam, all your comments have been approved. I it you will is running from the argument, for fear of proving that you are wrong. The record stays, people can judge by themselves on who ran away.
bye.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
@sam, Sorry deleted the last one on me being a "lair", posted again...
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
LOL, what a useless video.
Tell me the difference between Nazala and Anzalna in the Qu'ran. Give me a single word in English that translates the word "ahad" when it comes to God.
Now tell me how a non Arabic speaker would know by plain translation.
Please don;t post such garbage before knowing what you are talking about.
sam7666 2 years ago
@sam, you just proved the argument of the video, if Quran cant be translated then it is not universal and just for arab native speakers. Ahad أَحَد according to and islamic site is THE ONE AND ONLY, (muhammad(dot)net). Ahad, comes from the arabic referring to order of numeral, in other words is equivalent in every sense to the word "first or initial or source". As it refers to God, well arabs in this site have done the work for you...
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
WRONG - the Qu'ran can be TRANSLATED, it cannot however be perfect in translation. And ahad does not mean the one and only. I asked for ONE English word that can translate it, you gave me a few that were wrong anyway which proves my point - the Arabic language is rich.
sam7666 2 years ago
@sam, go the the site and complain to the webmasters. It is not my translation, it is theirs, if you cant understand Allah only in arabic, then Allah is the god of ONLY the arabs, who were born in arabic countries and have arabic as a mother language. Otherwise you have to relinquish of that un-islamic view of revelation.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
Yes, that's why 85% of today's Muslim world are non Arabs.
Good one.
sam7666 2 years ago
@sam, yet 85% of them can not really undertand Islam, are confused and ignorant because they dont know what and will never know "ahad" means. Who are the ones that are prisoners of arabic speaking scholars?
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
@sam, all languages are rich. Can you tell me, how many meanings the word "run" have in English? The fact that the arabic language is rich, does not make it different from any other languages, better or un-translatable to it FULL meaning.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
I don't know what you are arguing.
Every religious text has an original language and a translated one/s, The translated won't ever be the exact same or give the identical meaning in ANY language.
sam7666 2 years ago
@sam, my point is clear in the vid. Most muslims, when challenged about Islam and the Quran contents, will use the "translation fallacy" to try to escape and direct argument or possible "loosing of face". The argument is "that is not what the Quran says, is only and English interpretation" or "you have to know arabic to know what it says, Arabic is rich". The fact is that arabic like any language can be fully translated. The imprecision of translation can be supplemented by a mere explanation.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
No, Arabic cannot be fully translated, that's the point.
I just proved to you AHAD and you gave me the wrong meaning when it relates to God.
sam7666 2 years ago
In translations is there some requirement that every word needs to be translated to just one english word? If the translators are any good, I should hope not.
HarshColby 2 years ago
@harsh, no there isn't, it is try from sam to hold on to the "translation fallacy" and another argument is "arabic a rich language" when in fact all languages are rich.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
You are deliberately misrepresenting what I say because you know I am right. You will never be able to get the exact meaning. Here's an example Id like you to translate into english:
What is the difference between '3athabun ghaleeth" 3atahbun aleem" 3atahbun shadeed and 3atahbun muheen?"
sam7666 2 years ago
And why are the different words used? Why isnt it all just '3atahbun kabeer?" WHy didn't he say 'Qul huwa Allahu wahid?" Why ahad? You're going to say a translation is going to give you all that detailed explanation?
sam7666 2 years ago
@sam, the explanation of ahad is not even clear for arabic speakers, which in another way of putting it is a flaw on your theology or a wrong used of the word in Arabic. You choose what you want.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
I am an Arabic speaker and it is CRYSTAL CLEAR why ahad is used and why and where. Thank you for proving my point.
sam7666 2 years ago
@sam, Then what is ahad it in plain English?
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
@sam, are you trying to see how much arabic i know? do you want me to translate the Quran next? I already provent to you it do not take much to translate from arabic to english or any language. I dont have to prove you anything more, about if I can translate or not.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
There's the answer right there - you don't know how to translate those words so you launch a diversion. Just be honest and admit that not every word can be translated :)
sam7666 2 years ago
@sam, my lack of knowledge or expertise in arabic does not prove your argument. I can translate, if I wanted, but transliteration of arabic to traditional English character is not Arabic. All words can be translated, and the concept behind words can also be explained and translated to any language, including arabic. Anything else will render Allan unable to be known by non-koranic arabic speakers even arabic speakers as you clearly explained that not even arabs today know why they used ahad.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
Ok, you are now flat out lying to make a point which I don't appreciate. On top of that, you are not posting my responses which is typical of Chrtistians when they get refuted.
Been in this game a long time buddy and I see straight through you.
sam7666 2 years ago
@sam, all your comments have been posted and approved, send me a friend invite and you will not need my approval.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
No, he was stating you can get the exact same "feeling in meaning" in Arabic and any other language which is plainly false in any language you compare.
sam7666 2 years ago
@sam, you are wrong. Word by word translation of any language to any language is impossible. That is what you refer. The same way that koranic-arabic do not have a one-word translation for "television", for obvious reasons, but you can translate the concept, but it will take more than one word to do it. But in fact can be translated and perfectly understood.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
I just told you to translate the different types of "3athaab" and you failed and insist you are right.
Goodbye, lol.
sam7666 2 years ago
@sam, can you translate words from Spanish to English? May be yes or no, but what that has to do with the fact that both languages are perfectly translatable from one side to the other? Nothing. I am not translating, because my ability of translating to one language to the other is not the issue and will not prove your point even if I fail, because there are infinite resources and people that can translate if my abilities fail.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
@sam, let me tell u I have knowledge of Arabic, Spanish and English. I can perfectly, without any problem understand the difference between "nazala" and "anzala", they are both (if ur transliteration is correct) forms of the same verb "nzl" which means descended. The verb forms in arabic carry the termination of the person doing the work, exactly as in Spanish. Both words have many meanings depending the context with in the case for anzala can mean revelation, exactly as it will mean in Spanish
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
Qu'ranic Arabic is not like anything else and your descritpion whilst somewhat accurate does not give the words as used in the Qu'ran the right meaning.
I'm still confused as to what point you are trying to make.
EVERY religious book including the Bible won't have the exact, identical meaning from a translated language when compared to the original.
sam7666 2 years ago
@sam, The Bible has been translated and is still translated to approach even more it meaning in the original languages it was written. Not even arabs today can fully relate to Koranic Arabic, because Koranic Arabic is actually a mainly dead language (linguistically speaking no offense intended) , spoken by very few people within Islam. If what you propose is an absolute truth even Arabs today need some sort of translation since their mother language is not Koranic Arabic.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
Biblical Aramaic and Hebrew is a dead language today as well. Please don't try to sell me that.
The Qu'ranic Arabic is unique on it's own and more advanced than the ancient Arabs used to know.. But the point here is - you will never be able to get the identical meaning of the Aramaic (or what's left of it) in the OT or any other book.
sam7666 2 years ago
@sam, no christian or jew that respect himself will ever use a "fallacy of translation" with regards to the translation of the Bible. That is why there are many translation of the Bible, as all muslims know. All of then regarded as the Word of God in the target language, including arabic. This "fallacy" is a muslim thing.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
No, don't pull that one on me. There are many VERSIONS of the Bible.
If you think you are getting the exact meaning from the Biblical Hebrew or Koin Greek, you are deluding yourself.
sam7666 2 years ago
@sam, that is why Christianity is superior to Islam in this sense, (no offense intended by this remark), everybody can understand it in every language. That makes Christianity universal, and you dont have to be greek or hebrew to be a true scholar. Christians have nothing to hide by resorting to "fallacies of translation" everybody can study Christianity, even muslims can go to christian seminar and study the Bible, not the same on Islam.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
Yes, everybody can understand 3 in 1 and 1 in 3 in evry language! Congratulations, lol.
Now I will waste no further time with you.
sam7666 2 years ago
@sam, every one can understand, and in fact the existence of Christians even in the most hostile of muslim countries proves it. They have no need to unsdertand the original greek, aramaic or hebrew to do so. Understanding it, in greek, aramaic and hebrew just makes their faiths even stronger. Understanding is what make Christianity more accessible than Islam.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
Nobody understands the fabricated trinity and you know it. Your points have all been refuted and you are a certified liar and dont post everything I write. You know it as well.
sam7666 2 years ago
@sam, but every christian does, and even the christians who dont believe it call themselves christians not muslims. there is no requirement to believe in the trinity for christians, although the overwhelming majority does believe it, not all the church father believe it. All have to believe in salvation throughout Jesus Christ, that is what makes you a christian, not your believe in the trinity, you have no argument.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
You apparently have no argument and no idea of your own faith. You don't even know what you believe.
Salvation through Jesus is what makes one a Christian? What a load of garbage - the whole reason why you believe that is he died for the sins of the world as GOD or Gods son who is also God, something, yeah really makes sense.
You have no answer and you continue blocking my comments you coward.
sam7666 2 years ago
@sam, it is enough with the personal attack. you should be ashamed. When you can tell me what is ahad, you will have credibility to tell me what or what not is christianity. Try to understand and explain your own argument and religion, and above all have respect for people. If I as a christian can only lie about Islam you as a muslim can neither only lie about Christianity.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
Your own Bible says faith without works is dead. Jesus Christ didn't die for your sins buddy. That makes NO LOGICAL sense from any standpoint. That's like you killing someone and I get puinished for it. That's against God's justice.
sam7666 2 years ago
@sam, the bible says many things, If I cant tell uyou what the Quran is because I am a Christian that has no eal knowledge of arabic and the Quran, you as a muslim have no credibility to challenge me anything about thr Bible. the subject of this vid is the Qur'an. This is the last time I tel you to send me a friend invite since I don't know how to resend it.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
@sam, I sent you a friend invite a long time ago, send me one, and your comments will not need my approval, this is the second time I ask you this.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
Sam, I'm not Catholic and I admit that the word trinity doesn't appear on the Bible but you don't have to put the word trinity in a book, you can imply its meaning in the contents. And such is the case of the Bible. Yah'shua (Jesus) as God is clearly implied in the Bible and such is the Holy Spirit and the Father. In prophecy, the prophet Isaiah calls haMashiach (Christ) by the following titles: Mighty God, Father, Prince of Peace, etc. Once Jesus was born, His natural spirit was YHVH's spirit.
MoooHamMad 2 years ago
You don't understand the concept of God from the Christian perspective because in your religion of Islam, your Allah revealed to Muhammad the carnal aspects of the things of this world instead of doing it from the spiritual perspective. Islam was designed to please the flesh, not the spirit. Christianity is designed to turn yourself into a spiritual being. So, when Bible implies that Jesus is Son but also God, you cannot analyze that from a carnal context but rather from a spiritual perspective.
MoooHamMad 2 years ago
Your mind was trained in Islam to think that a son is only someone born of a father and a mother; and God is a spirit that in no way can become a person, can have no son, and cannot live inside people through a spiritual presence (Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit). In Christianity, Jesus can be Son of God even without a human father because we see things from the spiritual context. Jesus' spirit was present from the beginning of all that exists. When He was born as human, He became a Son like all of us.
MoooHamMad 2 years ago
The difference between Jesus and us is this: we didn't exist as unique and conscious beings before being born. Our spirits formed for the first time when we were conceived in our mother's womb. Jesus' spirit wasn't formed when He was born but His spirit which is the Spirit of God pre-existed and was simply " transferred" to a body. This is why in Christianity we call simple humans beings "sons" but we use capital "S" for "Son" when referring to Jesus. Because He is a "special" kind of Son.
MoooHamMad 2 years ago
Now, am I inventing this stuff? Am I creating my own kind of Christianity or dogma when explaining all this? ANSWER IS NO. What I'm saying here is really what Jesus Himself said when He was in this world. Read it for yourself.
John 8:58 "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." (shows pre-existence)
Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born...his name shall be called...The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." (called God by prophets)
MoooHamMad 2 years ago
Matthew 3:17 "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (called Son by the Father YHVH)
In these verses, after Jesus was arrested and about to be condemned to death, he admitted to be SON OF GOD which was the proof used by the Sanhedrin to condemn Him to death.
Mark 14:61 "...Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"
Mark 14:62 "And Jesus said, I am..."
Crystal! He said: I AM (the Son of God)
MoooHamMad 2 years ago
Son of God means Servant of God: Gal. 4:6-7, Mat. 3:17, Luke 3:22, Mark 1:11, John 1:32, Psalm 82:6, Exo. 4:22, Jer. 31:9, Psalm 2:7, Job 1:6, 2:1, Psalm 88:7, Rev. 21:7
Surah 21:26, 4:172
Begotten sons: Heb. 11:17, Gen. 22:2, Exo. 4:22, Psalm 2:7
Son of man:
Job: Job 25:6
David: Psalm 8:4, Psalm 80:17, Psalm 144:3
Ezekiel: Eze. 2:1-8, Eze. 3:1-25, Eze. 4:1,16, (plenty more, chapters 1-47.)
Daniel: Dan. 8:17
Surah72 2 years ago
@sura, can you tell me why Mohammad never called himself "Son of God"? Certainly, Mohammad more than any other prophet can call himself a servant of God or "Son of God"? Dont you think? Can you post here as a reply that you accept that Mohammad is a "Son of God" meaning according to you he is the best and more perfect servant of Allah? I challenge you to write it! If you cant do it, write WHY?
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
Muhammad (pbuh) is called servant of Allah. Surah 2:23, 17:1, 18:1
Muhammad (pbuh) even states it: Surah 19:30
The Bible is proven corrupted by man, notably the Yahudians and Nazarenes. This isn't a muslim concept. Jer. 8:8
Man made doctrine changed the term Son of Man to include divinity, the Bible does not.
The Quran is clear, obvious.
You are warned about associating partners to our Creator. In the End, you will have no excuses.
Enjoy this life. Surah 4:56, 14:30
Surah 5:57
Peace.
Surah72 2 years ago
@sura, you say that Son of God means servant of God. that means that they are synonyms. And you even implied that that is what the Bible means by Son of God. Then ot should be clear to you that Mohammad is for you as a Muslim a Son of God, since he is a Servant of god, Why can u type this in a small reply? do you believe what you stated previously or are you now say "it is a christian concept". There should be no problem if both concepts for a Muslim are synonyms to call Mohammad Son of God!
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
@sura, please if you cant even accept your own arguments and believe in them, then How can you expect me to give you any credibility? the truth behind you calling Mohammad a Son of god, is because for muslims and christians "Son of God" does not means "Servant of God", now nor when it was used in Jesus times. Your argument may seams good to you but your denial to putting it to practice reveals that is just a vague, vane and fallacious also argument you really don't believe to be correct.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
Son of god does not mean best and more perfect servant of Allah. There is no such thing as "son of god". Also, the Prophet of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم is a mercy from Allah sent to all mankind. Other beloved prophets and messengers of Allah (like musa, ibrahim, sulayman etc) عليهم السلام they were sent to a certain audience. Dont embarass yourself trying to make shit up.
ShahirahMonet 2 years ago
@shahira, I am certain Son of God does not mean servant of Allah. It was Sura72 who posted that Son of God means Servant of God. If someone is making things up, it is sura72, your issue is with him then. Next time try to avoid the word "shit".
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
@sam,
If God says He is 3, yet 1 God. That's a spiritual mystery. Just like if Hindus claims that their God is a Cow, or an elephant, Who am I to say? Maybe it's true, who knows? Have we seen God? And we tell God what form He can or cannot be ?
But we can tell if our God is HOLY, by the teachings and laws and statues given to us in the Bible.
So if the Quran says you can have slave captive girls and sex them, or that you can practise temporary Mu'ta marriage, then its GAME OVER !
MuhammadOnLine 2 years ago
@sam7666
then call me nobody, because I understand the Trinity, and why did muhammad tell you ppl to believe in the gospel and also in the torah?? didn't he understand the concept of the Trinity or didn't he know that the concept of the Trinity would be found in the Gospel, did he ever bother to read the Bible or did he just pretend
hannahr77 2 years ago
@sam:
You posted "The Qu'ranic Arabic is unique on it's own and more advanced than the ancient Arabs used to know." Which is in clear contradiction with sura 41:44 posted by arabian, please try to learn Islam from him, it looks he know more than you...
If the arabic in the Qur'an was to advance for ancient arabs, How did they understood Islam? then Islam is an incomprehensible and inaccessible religion and Allah has no relevance to us. Is Qur'an not as advance today for arab speakers?
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
I think many Muslims have a blind faith in the book. Sings the verses without trurly knowing What they are singing.
futureseven 2 years ago
Anyone? If Jesus was a Jew, does that mean the "god" of the Christians is Jew? Can God be Jewish? Hello? Anyone?
ArabianRhythm 2 years ago
@ArabianRhythm
@ArabianRhythm
Shalom my dear lost friend, so now your an expert on Christianity congrat, and if the name is wrong why don't you tell us HIS real name, and if the Romans imposed Christianity in Rome then tell me why Nero tried to kill all the Christians? The Romans hated the Christians so did almost all of Europe now you try better my dear ignorant friend, once again JESUS was from the tribe of YEHUDA=Jew, and we know that the GOD we serve is the GOD OF ISRAEL not arabia
hannahr77 2 years ago
God of Israel? God is the God of mankind, not of israel u foolish. God never sent a prophet to the west, no wonder why u lack piety and wisdom. Too bad that you all become slaves of Middle East. If i meet God, i would ask Him why did He never send a prophet to Europe to enlighten the Europeans on who God is! God of Israel is a joke. Mankind belongs to God. You don't even know who GOD is. Ignorant pagan.
ArabianRhythm 2 years ago
@arabian, are you aware that you are looking time and time again more racist and as ethnocentric arab? I love arabs, arabic culture, and language. I have noting more than respect and admiration for arab culture, but your remarks are so ethnocentric that I think you should rethink your dawa. Are you aware that following your line of thought God never sent a prophet to Malaysians or Indonesia and yet they are the largest Islamic countries? are they less muslims than Saudis because this fact?
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
@arabian, are your dawa is wrong according to clasical islamic believe, recorded both in the Quran and the hadith, in that Allah, before Mohammad had sent prophets, many of them unknown, to ALL of humankind, all tribes and languages throughout history. Your comments reflect ethnocentrism and racism, I know you are not either, I hope. Please reflect and as a good Muslim retract and repent of your wrong deeds.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
"Mankind belongs to God"
^^You sound like a self-professed Christian universalist who believes in a careless Deity who accepts homosexuality the way it is and that everyone on earth is going to heaven. The above statement you have made is a mark of a very dangerous stance which can cost your very own soul for eternity.
HeresyCrusher 2 years ago 2
If all of mankind belongs to Elohim regardless, then truly it is pointless to even try to serve Him or prepare for the hereafter knowing that the Deity will blindly accept you as His own whether you seek Him or not. 70%+ of the human population are as of yet under the bondage of Satan whether you like it or not. Your theology is utterly broken, sir. Do atheists, agnostics, Hindus, Satanists, Left Hand Pathologists, etc. belong to the Creator?
HeresyCrusher 2 years ago
Indeed we do serve the EL of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel since all three of these great patriarchs served Him and were blessed by Him, and counted as one of His own. You say "the G-d of Israel" is a joke, when in fact Israel (Yakob the patriarch) served the very G-d that you have just carelessly mocked and blasphemed out of your foolish countenance. You serve the "G-d of mankind", which means you serve the very deity that the masonic PANTHEISTS worship.
HeresyCrusher 2 years ago 2
YAHUWAH is the EL and Father of those who truly serve Him and revere Him in spirit and truth. Not everyone is a child of Elohim. Learn to distinguish the children of Satan and the children of YAHUWAH. They're all around us.
HeresyCrusher 2 years ago 2
@ArabianRhythm
yes it does mean that our GOD is the HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL, and JESUS did not say in any shape or form Elah, HE said Abba, ELI, ELOHIM, or YHVH, you do know that JESUS spoke Hebrew being a Hebrew living in Israel and also from the tribe of YEHUDA. You ppl say that Adam was a prophet which shows that you ppl dont even know what a propeht is.
Matt 22
I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, He is not the God of the dead but of the living
no muhammad
hannahr77 2 years ago
Mohammad is not mentioned here because he came after Jesus hahaha how foolish you are. You need to be wiser little boy. Jesus said ELAH. He was a Hebrew, not Jewish. If Jesus is god, then this would make him a jewish god. Grow up kid.
ArabianRhythm 2 years ago
@arabian, Jesus was Jew, and that does not make God a Jew. If I follow ur logic, then Allah would be an arab from the Yasira, since he chose to preserve ONLY the Arabic rendering of his will reveled to Arabs in Mohammad's time. Ur arguments until know have been some how elevated and more strong, I advise you to keep your comments regarding Islam and Quran, which is what you really know and what this vid is about, I fear that you are exposing your weakness and is not wise. Meditate on ur dawa.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
PAUL IS NOT MESSIAH KING JESUS huh?
2TRUE2 2 years ago
the Koran is highest level of language in Arabic. it has no change ever and is same like book in heaven by Allah. was writen in time by followers of Mohammad (pbuh) before he die. the Koran is only book to be memorized becaues is perfect style of writing. is great miracle for proof of truth for Islam.
JANISARI4ISLAM 2 years ago
@JANISARI4ISLAM
so it means that you have the original manuscript of muhammad, and do you know that muhammad could wrtie and read, and do you also know that some of the ppl memorizing the quran died in Yeman before it could be written down so how do you know what they had memorized since it hadn't been recorded anywhere, and what abt the goat eating verses, you ppl are really naive abt your own books
hannahr77 2 years ago
hannahr you show you no hebrew yes?????? what mean מחמד
It mean Mohammad (pbuh) and also I show you proof for Mohammad (pbuh) in Isaiah book 29.12 and you compare for what you say about Mohammad (pbuh) who can no read or right. Now you see proof!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JANISARI4ISLAM 2 years ago
@JANISARI4ISLAM
Excuse me but what's your point with mem-chet-mem-dalet????
And you lying muslims have no case or no proof of muhammad being in the Bible, and muhammad could read and write, so where's your proof now?????
hannahr77 2 years ago
hnnarh it is hebrew for Mohammad (pbuh). It is proof for bible for Islam.
JANISARI4ISLAM 2 years ago
@JANISARI4ISLAM
oh really then show me where in the O.T it says muhammad or mohammad, in Hebrew or English and remember the whole word not just the first part of the word
hannahr77 2 years ago
@ArabianRhythm
Do you know who Elah is? And you have not refuted anything what you have done here is cursed and shown ignorance, and the only 1 here who's a joke is you my dear lost friend, and JESUS CHRIST is not a muslim HE'S A JEW SO WHY DONT YOU PPL LEAVE HIM ALONE unless you convert.
And you didn't answer the question is ill-allah the FATHER OF JESUS and if so where does it say so in the quran?
hannahr77 2 years ago
If Jesus was a Jew, does that mean the "god" of the christians is a jew? Well, can GOD be jewish? or universal? Well, can God has a religion? lol Christians are funny.Actually,Europeans are funny, not Christians! GOD never sent a single prophet to the west, no wonder why u lack wisdom and piety. The Truth is that Jesus was a Hebrew(a race, not Judaism). Jesus used the word "ELAH" for god which is in Aramaic language. Arabs say ALLAH in Arabic. Jesus' god is ELAH but christians say Jesus a godLOL
ArabianRhythm 2 years ago
2arabian, the fact that God revealed himself using the jewish people does not make him a jew, nor the fact that allah revealed himself to arabs makes him an arab. your arguemts are foolish. The fact that Jesus was jewish and that most christians Jesus to be God, does makes god a jew. God is eternal, the Trinity existed since eternity BEFORE the incarnation of Jesus as a jewish man. Nevertheless the Trinity nor Jesus divinity are the subject of this vid. Try to address the issue in the vid.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
@arabian, since your whole arguement is on Elah, let see what Elah means:
The origin of the Aramaic word Elah is somewhat uncertain, though it might be related to a root meaning fear or reverence. It is found only in the books of Ezra and Daniel. (hebrew4christians(dot)net)
I
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
@arabian, Second the use of the word ELAH, which may mean fear or reverence, is not closely related to the meaning in arabic of "illah", as according to you in another post means "Creator". Even if we admit a relationship, it only proves that the real name for God is not Allah, but ELAH, which is pronounced differently in aramaic. Quran then would have to be revised to include the REAL NAME of God, not its arabic equivalent. Islam are then teaching the wrong name of God when you say Allah...
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
Khaaliq= creator
ShahirahMonet 2 years ago
@shahira, you are correct, It is correct that the word for creator in Arabic is khaaliq, not "ILLAH " like it was posted by arabian.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
Mabey the Qur'an can be translated but it cannot be trusted.
futureseven 2 years ago
which koran? there are MANY ARABIC VERSIONS
2TRUE2 2 years ago
@ 2TRUE2
Shut up u liar, hypocrite. There is only one Koran. And it is intact unlike the bible.
ArabianRhythm 2 years ago
@arabian please keep your tone at a debate level. This is the last personal attack I will post from you.
yessua9ibnallah 2 years ago
And oops, the Bible is not a European book, but Middle Eastern. You European elites have turned it into a political book while the Christian people are left to be drowned in secularism which is anti-Bible. the western world is ruled by the anti-Christ system, yet you are unconscious of it because you are too busy spreading lies,manipulations,ignorance on Islam which by the way is the religion of Jesus. And Paul is the founder of Christianity!
ArabianRhythm 2 years ago
@ArabianRhythm
A simple yes or no would have sufficed.
Again.
Do you believe Jesus' Father is allah?
or
Do YOU agree that we have different dieties, distinct in our beliefs?
Are you one of those who believe we worship the same god?
How does allah fit in the Christian belief system, to you?
So, back to my original question.
DO YOU BELIEVE JESUS' FATHER IS ALLAH?
jefeisdguard 2 years ago
I have answered all your questions in a way that it makes you to ask the same stupid questions again? You can't face the Truth hey? I enjoy talking to such intelligent people like you!!!
ArabianRhythm 2 years ago
@ArabianRhythm
yeah lets hear it from a muslim is ill-allah the FATHER of JESUS CHRIST? And who is Elah?
hannahr77 2 years ago
@ArabianRhythm
@ArabianRhythm
Paul is not the founder of Christianity and yes Paul did se JESUS in a vision you do believe in visions? And ill-allah never spoke to muhammad, he never meet JESUS or knew of HIM, Paul was known by the disciple of JESUS CHRIST, Paul was also a well known rabbi, it goes like this CHRIST=Christians=Christianity does this ring a bell like ding dong, it should unless your deaf
hannahr77 2 years ago
Jesus real name was not even "christ". This is a greek word invented by man. Therefore all your theory "christ=christians=christianity" is faulted. Jesus never asked for unmarried priests,nuns,pope,church,crusade(war crime). All these are man-made ideologies invented by illusionists "white pagans" over the centuries. The Romans imposed pagan christianity in Europe to cope with your historic Dark Ages. Jesus has nothing to do with that shit cold place. Wise up little man,
ArabianRhythm 2 years ago