des said:My own faith is irrelevant to pointing out hate speech when I see it.
--des
Give us a quote that is bothering you....
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
des said:My own faith is irrelevant to pointing out hate speech when I see it.
--des
Popeyesays said:<Not quite
I dont quote from wiki it quotes from me
Further, anyone can contribute just like any other wiki >
That's the essential problem with Wiki's, there is no vetting of the entries far too often.
Wikipedia has made every effort to vette those who can suggest alterations to articles. The Wiki in question which quotes you has not been vetted. Who are you? What are your credentials? Why should anyone listen to you. I note you quote from books which are very old, and ignore newer sources. Older references often contain biases which the author was unaware of in the first place. Many dubious sources use those biased accounts preferentially.
Why do I say this--from many years hosting websites in support of the historical holocaust. Frankly, I was filled with joy when David Irving decided to recant his dissidence facing a jail term in Germany.
Hate diatribe like his is despiccable. You should take care not to have yourself included in that particular genus and species.
Soundoc said:The Original Torah was written by prophet Musa, but given to Musa by the Allah of the quran.
My proof: [5.44] Surely We revealed the Taurat in which was guidance and light; with it the prophets (like Musa and Isa) who submitted themselves (to Allah) judged (matters) for those who were Jews, ... (Musa and Isa were both prophets of Allah and both were Jews).
The Original Injeel was GIVEN to Isa Al Massih by Allah. (Isa did not write it).
Soundoc said:My proof: [5.46] And We sent after them in their footsteps Isa, son of Marium, verifying what was before him of the Taurat and We gave him the Injeel in which was guidance and light,
Soundoc said:The above 2 proofs establish the fact that both the Taurat and the Injeel were totally the words of the god of Islam.
Soundoc said:Now, there is this ayat in the Quran by which Allah says strongly that his words can never be changed.:
[6.115] And the word of your Lord has been accomplished truly and justly; there is none who can change His words, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing.
Now look at the problem Muslims face.
Allah says in the Quran that the original Taurat and the original Injeel were given by him with all the words in both books coming from him.
Then Allah says that no one will ever be allowed by him to change his words.
But, Muslims have been led to believe by their Mullahs that BOTH original books of Allah have been changed or corrupted.
Please tell me: Who do we Jews and Christians believe to be telling the truth?
Allah or the Mullah?
Soundoc said:Originally Posted by DreGod07You are sterotyping here. Not ALL muslims share that kind of view. a lot of muslims read, study and teach OT to their students and children. I suspect you haven't really talked to a lot of muslims.
A lot of muslims have said that through the bible's many translations the book has become corrupted.
The bible being in Aramic, Hebrew, Greek and Latin...then over time gets translated into English may loose a lot of its inflexion (I guess i'm using the right word here to describe this).
We may have had translations of translations of a trasnlation to get the to the current Bible today.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Holy Bible has two major parts: 1) Old Testament (OT) given by the Holy Spirit to the Jews of Israel and 2) The New testament (NT) given to all mankind by the very same Holy Spirit.
The OT was given in Hebrew only . (Every scribe who wrote into it were Jews of Israel called in the Quran "The children of Israel).
The original NT was writen mainly in Greek with some of it in Aramaic. All the scribes who wrote the words of Almighty God in the NT were fluent in Greek because it was the language of the Roman Empire in the first century after the birth of Jesus Christ.
- [2.40] O children of Israel! call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and be faithful to (your) covenant with Me, I will fulfill (My) covenant with you; and of Me, Me alone, should you be afraid.
- [2.47] O children of Israel! call to mind My favor which I bestowed on you and that I made you excel the nations.
The Original handwritten OT and NT are not in the world now because they became dust after long years of being there. The originals were written on material that decayed and went into fine powder. (Try this: Take a 50 yr old newspaper and see what happens if you touch it. It goes into powder). The same thing happened to the originals.
Fortunately, those who were taking care of Almighty God's words made sure that before the originals became dust that they made 100% perfect IDENTICAL copies of the originals so that they always had the same original words of Almighty God in thier possession in Synagogues and churches and some homes of very rich people who had the money to buy the HAND-WRITTEN , extremely expensive copies.
Now when the second set of Bibles were about to disintegrate, they made copies from the earlier set. And that is how it went on until for thousands of years until printing was invented 500 yrs ago.
The Hebrew copies and Greek/Aramaic copies of the Holy Bible are preserved in the London and Vatical Museums. (Google for Hebrew Bibles and Greek Bibles, and Dead Sea scrolls, the three separately).
Popeyesays said:<Not quite
I dont quote from wiki it quotes from me
Further, anyone can contribute just like any other wiki >
That's the essential problem with Wiki's, there is no vetting of the entries far too often.
Wikipedia has made every effort to vette those who can suggest alterations to articles. The Wiki in question which quotes you has not been vetted. Who are you? What are your credentials? Why should anyone listen to you. I note you quote from books which are very old, and ignore newer sources. Older references often contain biases which the author was unaware of in the first place. Many dubious sources use those biased accounts preferentially.
Why do I say this--from many years hosting websites in support of the historical holocaust. Frankly, I was filled with joy when David Irving decided to recant his dissidence facing a jail term in Germany.
Hate diatribe like his is despiccable. You should take care not to have yourself included in that particular genus and species.
DreGod07 said:I was having great difficulty with "His" translation of the Quran. This was throwing me for a loop because I have read many scholars who have translated the Qur'an, just like the bible, but never read it translated the way he did.
Apple Pie said:If you have questions regarding a translation, then just ask a specific question regarding it...
As we can plainly see...Des and Scott are merely generalists...and become silent when pressed for specifics...
What about you...?
Apple Pie said:If you have questions regarding a translation, then just ask a specific question regarding it...
As we can plainly see...Des and Scott are merely generalists...and become silent when pressed for specifics...
What about you...?
DreGod07 said:No offense but I find your translations weak and unsubstantiated.
Just from our debates here I'm not sure I would ever consider asking you to translate anything for me with confidence you would actually translate it correctly.
I have a problem excepting the outdated souces you cited in earlier post. You have to be very careful of this. There are others, whom you have already encountered, that will catch this classic mistake and call you on it.
Apple Pie said:Seems this has you pretty upset.
Perhaps you can come forth with a better translation that you can back up with verifiable references, such as we have done...
If not, then you have no argument...
DreGod07 said:First: I wasn't upset at all when I wrote it. I knew you would take it that way though....Like I've been saying "Lost in translation".
Second: You keep harping on the "verifiable"....and translation no less. As I recall you ask for verifiable proof of the word ELOAH and ALLAH being the same. Ask and asnwered. It's not what you wanted though. If it didn't work for you then that's on you. Dude I even went to the website at the bottom of you screen and that was useless. I did some searches and it kept coming back with no results. Is this you definition of verifiable? (a site where information can not be found)....It's already known that Hebrew and Arabic are symetic languages that have the same root. I left you a web link that showed a chart with hebrew on one side and arabic on the other and what the english translation was. I tried my hardest, unlike yourself, not to quote old published works by scolars that seemed to be bias.
Third: Your many attempts to show the translated verse of the Qur'an SEEMED TO BE YOUR OWN TRANSLATION........You, not one time, showed where that translation came from....Even when I asked you where it came from or was it your own..... and yet you you want me to show you my sources on who's translated version of the Qur'an I used. I showed you Picthal's, Yusef Ali and Shakir's translation of the quran... By the way they all were very different than yours. I could show more but I guess it wouldn't satify you as being verifiable....:sarcastic .....Although they are.....what isn't verifiable is your translation
DreGod07 said:First: I wasn't upset at all when I wrote it. I knew you would take it that way though....Like I've been saying "Lost in translation'.
Second: You keep harping on the "verifiable"....and translation no less. As I recall you ask for verifiable proof of the word ELOAH and ALLAH being the same. Ask and asnwered. It's not what you wanted though. If it didn't work for you then that's on you. Dude I even wen to the website at the bottom of you screen and that was useless. I did some searches and it kept coming back with results. Is this you definition of verifiable? (a site where information can not be found)....It's already known that Hebrew and Arabic are symetic languages that have the same root. I left you a web link that showed a chart with hebrew on one side and arabic on the other and what the english translation was. I tried my hardest, unlike yourself, not to quote old published works by scolars that seemed to be bias.
Third: Your many attempts to show the translated verse of the Qur'an SEEMED TO BE YOUR OWN TRANSLATION........You, not one time, showed where that translation came from....Even when I asked you where it came from or was it your own..... and yet you you want me to show you my sources on who's translated version of the Qur'an I used. I showed you Picthal's, Yusef Ali and Shakir's translation of the quran... By the way they all were very different than yours. I could show more but I guess it wouldn't satify you as being verifiable....:sarcastic .....Although they are.....what isn't verifiable is your translation
DreGod07 said:I had to make some corrections.
But I did have a question.
Do you not see www.wikipedia.org as a verifiable source for information?
Apple Pie said:Again...
Where is your translation of the text...?
Apple Pie said:If they show their verifiable references.
Many times they do not...
Popeyesays said:As for widely accepted translations, I will take in order:
Rodwell, Palmer, Yusuf Ali and George Muhammad Pickthall. If you can show me something using THOSE translations, I will listen. Apple Pie and YaHuti do not have any credentials or we would know them by their names--not their 'Handles".
Regards,
Scott