• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Allah Is Same As Elohim

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
<Not quite…

I don’t 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.
 

Apple Pie

Active Member
Popeyesays said:
<Not quite…

I don’t 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.


Just as offered to Des...Please give us a specific quote that is bothering you...
 

TehuTi

Active Member
ANU
Koran .; 2 ; 255 , 3 ; 138 ; 4 ; 34 , 5 ; 17 , 22 ; 62 , 40 ; 20 , 79 ; 24
ANU means '' He Who Is Above '' and '' The Heavenly One '' . Other names for ANU Are AN, Which mean '' Heavenly '' and Ana , Which means '' I Am . '' In the Koran ANU , Is Called Allah ; But he is the ALLAH Of All The Allahs , Or ALLAHUMMAS , ELOHEEMS , ANUNNAQIS , Meaning , ANU Is the Ruler Of all the ELOHEEM , ANUNNAQI Of The Skies . He is what you would call the gread God . ANU Is the The Warrior , The Noble One , And the Decision Maker , ANU Is also THE MOST HIGH , Referred in the Ashuric / Syriac Arabic Language as The 36th Attribute , Al ' ALIYYU - THE MOSH HIGH . The best names are His , All 99 + 1 Of Them .

AL ' ALIYYU
2; 255 , 4 ; 34 , 20 ; 68 , 22 ; 62 , 31 ; 30 , 40 ; 12 , 92 ; 20 ..
AL ' A;IYYU Means '' The Most High '' . As alot of words found in The Koran , This word was taken from The Hebrew , Elyown Elyown El . Meaning '' The Highest , The Highest El '' Referring to Anu as found in Genesis 14 ; 18 . The Hebrew took this word from The Cuneiform , The Language of The SUMERIANS , Given to them from The Beings From The Heavens Called ANUNNAQI .

ALLAH < Arabic >
2; 255 , 3 ; 23 , 3 ; 62 , 4 ; 87 , 5 ; 47 , 20 ; 8 , 20 ; 14 ,
ALLAH Is another name for ANU , But ALLAH Is not only reserved as his name because all the other beings , The ELOHEEM , ANUNNAQI Are ALLAHS , The Koran Even confirms that , There is more than one ALLAH ( Koran 53 ; 19 , 10 ; 10 , 36 ; 23 , 38 ; 6 ) , ALLAH Means The Source '' . This word ALLAH Came from The Hebrew word Eloh < Aramic > Which is from The Ancient Babylonian , Eloh < Aramic > . ALLAH Is made up of A definite Article Al ( J , The ) And Ha .. Him / It ) The Name ALLAH Stems from the root '' Alaha ''

Meaning ; '' He Worshipped , He Adored , He Served . Don't Believe Me , Check It Out ! You can also find the fact , That Allah < Arabic > Is Not A Name , But Really A Form Of The Aramic / Hebrew Eloh , In A Book By J.R. Smith , Entitled '' Arabic '' - A Complete Course For Beginners '' On Page 155 , Where it definer '' Allah '' And It Says , And I Quote ; '' Allah Not A Name , But Simply A Contracted Form Of The Arabic Word El Elah < Arabic > . Meaning , '' The God '' , Which Is Equivalent To El Eloh < Aramic > .

You will also see this spelling Ilaahu < Arabic > . The true name for the Creator whom we call ALLAH Is Hu , Hu Or Huwa Is the explanation of The Ha In ALLAH . The Egyptian called their great deity '' Hu '' , Meaning '' The Creative Will Of Force '' , Thousand Of Years Before Your Koran .

ALLAHUMMA < Arabic >
3 ; 26 , 5 ; 114 , 8 ; 32 , 10 ; 10 , 39 ; 46 .
The word ALLAHUMMA < Arabic > Means '' O Allah The Source < Arabic > And Hum '' They '' -- The Eloheem Anunnaqis . '' ALLAHUMMA < Arabic > Is another word that was derived from The Hebrew word ELOHEEM , Meaning These Beings , Or A Group Of Elohs , ALLAHUMAS Or ELOHEEM Are Angels Of El , Messengers Of El -- ANU . Usually in The Koran When it says , '' That We Did This , Or We Created This Or Our Signs , Etc '' . It is referring to these ALLAHUMMAS Or ELOHEEM , ANNUNNAQIS . They are physical Angelic Beings ; No Spooks Or Spirits Or Ghosts .

They Are Beings That Do The Work Of El , Or ALLAH . The word ALLAHUMMA , Or ELOHEEM Is found throughout The Scroll of The Koran and is falsely translated , As A Single With The Word , ' God . The name ALLAHUMMA Or ELOHEEM Is Used For Benevolent , Agreeable And Malevolent , Disagreeable Beings ; And Even In The Case For Human Being As Found In Exodus 7 ; 1 ; When Yahuwa Made Moses An ELOHEEM To Pharaoh Rameses ll .

ANUNNAQI
2; 3 , 2 ; 267 , 2 ; 253 , 3 ; 11 , 3 ; 118 , 4 ; 30 , 4 ; 18 , 5 ; 15 ,
The Word '' '' ANUNNAQI Is Cuneiform ANUNNAQ Means '' Those Who Anu Sent Down , From Heave To Earth '' They Came From The Skies To The Planet Earth Which Was Originally Called '' Tiamat Meaning '' Maiden Of Life '' . And Was Also Referred To As '' Tamtu '' And '' Tiwawat , And Qi . Ki , Tiamat Is Also Called Terra , Orb , Arduwt Or Ard . When The Greek Got Hold Of The Word '' Qi '' They Changed It To '' Ge '' Where The Word '' Geo '' Comes From . The Anunnaq In The Bible Are Called Eloheem , They Were Coming To Earth , The Anunnaqi Are A Race Of Supreme Beings . The Word Anunnaqi Is Used Within The Ancient Tablets Such As The Enuma Elish , The Gilgamesh Epics , Etc .


HUWA < Arabic >
2 ; 29 , 2 ; 137 , 2 l 255 , 3 ; 2 , 3 ; 6 , 3 ; 150 , 5 ; 120 , 6 ; 2 . 11 ; 34 .
The Ashuric / Syriac Arabic HUWA < Arabic > Means '' He Who Is '' Like The Words That Preceeded It , This Word Also Came From The Aramic Hebrew Word Also Came From The Aramic / Hebrew Word , YAHUWA , And Translates As '' He Who Is Who He Is '' . Both Of These Came From The Ancient Egyptian Deity HU , '' The Force Of Creative Will , '' Another Name For ANU , HUWA Or YAHUWA Can Be Used For An Agreeable '' Yah '' , Or Disagreeable Being , '' Weh , '' The Word '' YAHUWA '' Is A Title .

This Title Does Not Pertain To Any Individuals . It Can Be Passed On To Another Being ; Even A Mortal Can Be A '' YAHUWA , And More Than One , As Found In Malachi 4 ; 5 , This Is The First Name Called On By Adam And Eve's Children . Without Vowels . It Is YHWH , Which Some Groups Pronounce As YAHWEH ; And Other Pronounce As JEHOVAH , However , In Ancient Babylon , YEHWEH Meat ; YEH '' Good '' And WEH '' '' Evil . ''
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
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).

Ok...so what's your point here? You say it was GIVEN....The Quran says it was REVEALED...(Can basically mean the same thing)...in this context.

I'm not sure why you're referenceing Isa.....here. The Quran, in this sura, does not mention him by name here.

And YES your are correct Isa didn't write it.......OK... we agree on this...Thought the Quran, in this quote, doesn't say he did.



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,


OK.... (scratching my head here)

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.

Two very similar languages rooted from their common symetic language. Word is Hebrew and words is Arabic are closely linked. Torah=Taurat.....Shalom=Salaam...Eloah=Allah...Elohim=Allahuma

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?

NOT ALL MUSLIMS believe this. Do you believe your bible to be fact?

What were the credentals of the translators of the KJV and other versions of the bible? there seem to be a lot of translations of it. The samde can be said of the Quran. It may not be that some have intentionally mistranslated those scriptures. It could have been the amount of knowledge they had at the time when attempting to translate it.
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Soundoc said:
Originally Posted by DreGod07
quot-by-right.gif
quot-top-right-10.gif
You 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.
quot-bot-left.gif


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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).
  1. [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. [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 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.

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).

And how does this statement void what originally said?

What I said was "SOME MUSLIMS" have said "THROUGH TRANSLATION" the scriptures have become corrupt. Maybe some feel this way because of the many translations that exist.

Now I thought the OT was written in Aramaic....hmmmmm
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
The Torah was probably written fy four different authors and the books assembled by a fifth.

Please refer to:http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora.htm

"
Beliefs of mainline and liberal theologians:

They generally accept the "Documentary Hypothesis" which asserts that the Pentateuch was written by a group of four authors, from various locations in Palestine, over a period of centuries. 8 Each wrote with the goal of promoting his/her own religious views:
[FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]J: a writer who used JHWH as the "unpronounceable name of God." It is often translated as Jehovah.[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]E: a writer who used Elohim as the divine name.[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]D: the author of the book of Deuteronomy.[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]P: a writer who added material of major interest to the priesthood.[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]
Finally, a fifth individual was involved :
[/FONT][FONT=trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica]R: a redactor who shaped the contributions of J, E, P and D together into the present Pentateuch."[/FONT]
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Popeyesays said:
<Not quite…

I don’t 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.

THANK YOU.......

I didn't want to totally rely on wikipedia.org but I find it to be a great resoucre. I had never heard of wikislam(?)....

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

Active Member
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.

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...?
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
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...?

WikiIslam is a joke. A tasteless joke, of course, but a joke nonetheless. Until it allows dialogue all it is is diatribe.

Very few regards,

Scott
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
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...?

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

Active Member
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.


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...
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
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...

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
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
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

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

Active Member
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

Again...

Where is your translation of the text...?
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Apple Pie said:
Again...

Where is your translation of the text...?

I wouldn't give you "MY" translation of the text because I wouldn't want you to take my word for it as if it was a correct translation...As you have done.

There have been plenty translating the Quran....might I add that their translations aren't very different. This is why I don't rely on one scholar. I actually reasearch multiple scholars to view their translations and accreditations. The ones that I have used are well known accredited scholars.

Wikislam along with you are not a very good reliable souce for islam.. it's history or being tasked with translating that scripture.

Yours is the ONLY translation that I have encountered that is so far from what true accredited scholars have put forth. You have come here giving us "Your" unverifiable translation of the quran and trying to use biased scholars to prove a point.

You asked where is my translation of the text.... Where is your "VERIFIABLE" trasnslation of the text??????
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
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
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
Apple Pie said:
If they show their verifiable references.

Many times they do not...

OK...I see......

but I think for future references I'll stick with Wikipedia and the vast amount of information there than the wikislam where searching for something for information yields no or biased results.

Let me know where I can find that quranic translation you've been displaying. I actually would like to research the scholar. If it is truly your own translation can you give me your accreditations? I would actually like to look you up and find how you are more qualified than the many scholars whoes translations I''ve read.
 

Dirty Penguin

Master Of Ceremony
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

Thank you......

We seemed to be spinning our wheels in the mud with this one......
 
Top