Is Quran copied from Jewish Bible/Torah? : Quran did not copy from Jewish Bible/Torah

[paarsurrey]

Is Quran copied from Jewish Bible/Torah? : Quran did not copy from Jewish Bible/Torah

I give below The Holy Quran : Chapter 92: Al-Lail:

[92:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[92:2] By the night when it covers up!
[92:3] And by the day when it brightens up,
[92:4] And by the creating of the male and the female,
[92:5] Surely, your strivings are diverse.
[92:6] Then as for him who gives and is righteous,
[92:7] And testifies to the truth of what is right,
[92:8] We will facilitate for him every facility.
[92:9] But as for him who is niggardly and is disdainfully indifferent,
[92:10] And rejects what is right,
The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

Please prove that these verses have been copied/plagiarized/adapted or as comes latest from a posters now “spinned” from Jewish Bible/Torah or any other religious scripture in the world.


Regard

 

[outhouse]

And I have asked him to show how Abraham, Moses, Queen of Sheba, and Noah are actual historical persons, and all I hear is crickets


I have also asked him why not one credible scholar in the whole world! uses the koran to study Israelite or christian history.

Nothing but crickets



Circular answer coming soon I can tell.

 

[gnostic]

Please prove that these verses have been copied/plagiarized/adapted or as comes latest from a posters now “spinned” from Jewish Bible/Torah or any other religious scripture in the world.

You STILL don't understand what "adapted" mean, so how could you possibly argue against any issue about it?

Here is an example of adaptation of the original story.

According to Genesis 22, God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac, in the land of Moriah, or Mount Moriah.

But according to the Qur'an, the son was never named, but Muslims always assume it is Ishmael even when Ishmael's never appear in connection to the sacrifice.

1. Qur'an 37:100 wanted a child, a son.
2. Verse 102, say that Abraham informed the son of his vision that he will sacrifice him. And the unnamed son told him he should obeyed the commandment.
3. In verse 103, just when Abraham was about to sacrifice him, God intervened (37:104-105) and God was satisfied. So God gave a ram for Abraham to sacrifice (107).

Now in all of this, from verse 100 to 107, the son was never named.

But in 37:112, God give news to birth of Isaac. If the birth of Isaac occurred after the sacrifices of the son, then I would guess it is easy to assume that the son was Ishmael.

But the Qur'an was never known for its continuity of the timeline, because it has the tendency to jump back and forth in time, so the identity of the unnamed son from 37:100-107 leave room for open interpretation.

Genesis however don't jump back and forth as the Qur'an do about Abraham.

1. Genesis 17 clearly state that God covenant (the land of Canaan) to Abraham will fall to one of his lines, to Abraham's son from Sarah, hence to Isaac (Genesis 17:19 and 17:21); Ishmael has a different blessing.
2. Genesis 18 God announced that Sarah is pregnant, and she will give birth to Isaac in the following year.
3. Genesis 21:1-7 is about Isaac's birth, while Genesis 21:8-21 is about sending Hagar and Ishmael away. Sarah didn't want her husband to give Isaac's inheritance (and covenant) to Ishmael.
4. And Genesis 22 is about the near sacrifice of Isaac.

So the sacrifice occurred AFTER Isaac was born (Genesis 21) and AFTER Ishmael was living in the wilderness of Zin with his mother (Genesis 22).

The two versions are different in detail, but both tell of sacrifice of a son. This is adaptation. Because the Genesis version is the older of the two, the Qur'an would be the adapted version, not the other way around.
​

Adapted version or adaptation can only occurred from newer text using part of the older texts or older sources. Adaptation is never exact copy of the original.

 

[paarsurrey]

You STILL don't understand what "adapted" mean, so how could you possibly argue against any issue about it?

Here is an example of adaptation of the original story.

According to Genesis 22, God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac, in the land of Moriah, or Mount Moriah.

But according to the Qur'an, the son was never named, but Muslims always assume it is Ishmael even when Ishmael's never appear in connection to the sacrifice.

1. Qur'an 37:100 wanted a child, a son.
2. Verse 102, say that Abraham informed the son of his vision that he will sacrifice him. And the unnamed son told him he should obeyed the commandment.
3. In verse 103, just when Abraham was about to sacrifice him, God intervened (37:104-105) and God was satisfied. So God gave a ram for Abraham to sacrifice (107).

Now in all of this, from verse 100 to 107, the son was never named.

But in 37:112, God give news to birth of Isaac. If the birth of Isaac occurred after the sacrifices of the son, then I would guess it is easy to assume that the son was Ishmael.

But the Qur'an was never known for its continuity of the timeline, because it has the tendency to jump back and forth in time, so the identity of the unnamed son from 37:100-107 leave room for open interpretation.

Genesis however don't jump back and forth as the Qur'an do about Abraham.

1. Genesis 17 clearly state that God covenant (the land of Canaan) to Abraham will fall to one of his lines, to Abraham's son from Sarah, hence to Isaac (Genesis 17:19 and 17:21); Ishmael has a different blessing.
2. Genesis 18 God announced that Sarah is pregnant, and she will give birth to Isaac in the following year.
3. Genesis 21:1-7 is about Isaac's birth, while Genesis 21:8-21 is about sending Hagar and Ishmael away. Sarah didn't want her husband to give Isaac's inheritance (and covenant) to Ishmael.
4. And Genesis 22 is about the near sacrifice of Isaac.

So the sacrifice occurred AFTER Isaac was born (Genesis 21) and AFTER Ishmael was living in the wilderness of Zin with his mother (Genesis 22).

The two versions are different in detail, but both tell of sacrifice of a son. This is adaptation. Because the Genesis version is the older of the two, the Qur'an would be the adapted version, not the other way around.
​

Adapted version or adaptation can only occurred from newer text using part of the older texts or older sources. Adaptation is never exact copy of the original.

This proves my point that Quran corrects the narrations of Torah; Quran mentions that it was Ishmael about whom Abraham had seen the dream.

Regards

 

[Shad]

No it doesn't, it proves there are two different versions of the story. A new one and an old one. Neither is proved. Confirmation bias again.

 

[outhouse]

I have asked him to show how Abraham, Moses, Queen of Sheba, and Noah are actual historical persons, and all I hear is crickets


I have also asked him why not one credible scholar in the whole world! uses the koran to study Israelite or christian history.

Nothing but crickets



Circular answer coming soon I can tell.

 

[Shad]

For the sake of the argument I accept these figures as axioms. If I do not there is no discussion as I can reject anything he says as false. Also I am fully aware that these figures have no historical basis outside of religion texts. More so most the early history of the Hebrews can be dismissed as a narrative not factual history. However again I am accepting a true value of these text in order to progress the discussion. Previously I have already linked a number of books which clearly represent my views. Repeating it over and over does nothing in this thread. Besides you are holding down the fort so to speak for a historic point of view. While I am focusing on weak or just false arguments.

Yes the whole argument is based on begging the question from the start. I choose to ignore this

 

[Avi1001]

Hi Paar, what made you even ask this question? Do you believe, deep down, that the Quran was copied from the Torah ? Which is older ?

Is Quran copied from Jewish Bible/Torah? : Quran did not copy from Jewish Bible/Torah

I give below The Holy Quran : Chapter 92: Al-Lail:

[92:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[92:2] By the night when it covers up!
[92:3] And by the day when it brightens up,
[92:4] And by the creating of the male and the female,
[92:5] Surely, your strivings are diverse.
[92:6] Then as for him who gives and is righteous,
[92:7] And testifies to the truth of what is right,
[92:8] We will facilitate for him every facility.
[92:9] But as for him who is niggardly and is disdainfully indifferent,
[92:10] And rejects what is right,
The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

Please prove that these verses have been copied/plagiarized/adapted or as comes latest from a posters now “spinned” from Jewish Bible/Torah or any other religious scripture in the world.


Regard

 

[gnostic]

This proves my point that Quran corrects the narrations of Torah; Quran mentions that it was Ishmael about whom Abraham had seen the dream.

No, paarsurrey.

It only just prove the Qur'an version is just different version, not the correct or true one.

If anything, it proved that Muhammad invented a new version to suit Muhammad himself, because being non-Israelite who self-proclaim himself as a prophet, he needs to deceive people into thinking his illusionary line came from greater than that of Isaac-Jacob lines.

There are no real genealogy of Abraham and Ishmael (or that of Isaac and Jacob), because all of the characters in the Genesis and in the Qur'an were mythological characters, and the new story about Abraham and Ishmael in the Qur'an was just to raise his own profile, and to stroke his ego.

The Qur'an version about the sacrifice is nothing more than propaganda about Muhammad himself, to elevate himself to greatness. People who gullibly believe him to be prophet or his invention of new title "messenger" (to make him into more greater than just a "prophet"), is just a vainglory little man wanting powers for himself.

What Muhammad has done, is no different to what Alexander the Great has done, claim to be descendant of Achilles and Neoptolemus, and that mean his god-like ancestors were also the sea goddess Thetis (Achilles' mother, who married the hero Peleus), and Zeus (father of Aeacus, who was Achilles' grandfather).

Or that of Julius Caesar, who claimed to be descendant of the Trojan hero Aeneas, son of the love goddess Venus (known to the Greeks as Aphrodite). And through this mythological line of Aeneas, Caesar has claim to bloodline of Romulus, Rome's first king.

The kings of Sparta, have claimed to be descendants to Greece's greatest heroes - Heracles (Hercules).

And so many kings of Celtic Britain and of Anglo-Norman England claimed to be descendants of King Arthur. And through Celtic mythology, there is an invention that Arthur also came from the Trojan hero Aeneas, whose fictional grandson Brut, who had migrated to Britain.

The Vikings have done the same thing, invented a number of ancestries to either the Norse god Odin (to both Danish and Norwegian royal bloodline) or Freyr (Swedish house).

As ancestries of Alexander and Caesar were invented to appeal to their respective egos, just as Muhammad's have done with Abraham and Ishmael.

Historical figures claiming they belonged to imaginary and invented genealogies, are quite common. It appeal to their deluded fantasies of grandeur and egos, and Muhammad was as vain as any kings.

What make Muhammad any different to Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar?

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi Paar, what made you even ask this question? Do you believe, deep down, that the Quran was copied from the Torah ? Which is older ?

No doubt Torah is older but it is corrupted by the narrators/scribes/clergy for their own selfish motives. It is not same as revealed on Moses.

Moses received Word of Revelation from G-d.
Zoroaster also received Word of Revelation from G-d.

Neither Zoroaster copied/plagiarized/adapted anything from Moses nor Moses; they both received message from G-d directly.

The same is the case of Muhammad; he received Word of Revelation from G-d directly.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Is Quran copied from Jewish Bible/Torah? : Quran did not copy from Jewish Bible/Torah

I give below The Holy Quran : Chapter 91: Al-Shams
: [1]

[91:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[91:2] By the sun and its growing brightness,
[91:3] And by the moon when it follows it (the sun),
[91:4] And by the day when it reveals its glory,
[91:5] And by the night when it draws a veil over it,
[91:6] And by the heaven and its making,
[91:7] And by the earth and its spreading out,
[91:8] And by the soul and its perfection —
[91:9] And He revealed to it what is wrong for it and what is right for it —
[91:10] He indeed truly prospers who purifies it,

The Holy Quran Arabic text with Translation in English text and Search Engine - Al Islam Online

Please prove that these verses have been copied/plagiarized/adapted or as comes latest from a posters now “spinned” from Jewish Bible/Torah or any other religious scripture in the world.


Regard

 

[outhouse]

And I have asked him to show how Abraham, Moses, Queen of Sheba, and Noah are actual historical persons, and all I hear is crickets


I have also asked him why not one credible scholar in the whole world! uses the koran to study Israelite or christian history.

Nothing but crickets



Circular answer coming soon I can tell.

 

[paarsurrey]

For the sake of the argument I accept these figures as axioms. If I do not there is no discussion as I can reject anything he says as false. Also I am fully aware that these figures have no historical basis outside of religion texts. More so most the early history of the Hebrews can be dismissed as a narrative not factual history. However again I am accepting a true value of these text in order to progress the discussion. Previously I have already linked a number of books which clearly represent my views. Repeating it over and over does nothing in this thread. Besides you are holding down the fort so to speak for a historic point of view. While I am focusing on weak or just false arguments.

Yes the whole argument is based on begging the question from the start. I choose to ignore this

I agree with you here.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Hi Paar, what made you even ask this question? Do you believe, deep down, that the Quran was copied from the Torah ? Which is older ?

Muhammad got it directly from G-d the original source like Moses; he did not copy it.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

No, paarsurrey.

It only just prove the Qur'an version is just different version, not the correct or true one.

If anything, it proved that Muhammad invented a new version to suit Muhammad himself, because being non-Israelite who self-proclaim himself as a prophet, he needs to deceive people into thinking his illusionary line came from greater than that of Isaac-Jacob lines.

There are no real genealogy of Abraham and Ishmael (or that of Isaac and Jacob), because all of the characters in the Genesis and in the Qur'an were mythological characters, and the new story about Abraham and Ishmael in the Qur'an was just to raise his own profile, and to stroke his ego.

The Qur'an version about the sacrifice is nothing more than propaganda about Muhammad himself, to elevate himself to greatness. People who gullibly believe him to be prophet or his invention of new title "messenger" (to make him into more greater than just a "prophet"), is just a vainglory little man wanting powers for himself.

What Muhammad has done, is no different to what Alexander the Great has done, claim to be descendant of Achilles and Neoptolemus, and that mean his god-like ancestors were also the sea goddess Thetis (Achilles' mother, who married the hero Peleus), and Zeus (father of Aeacus, who was Achilles' grandfather).

Or that of Julius Caesar, who claimed to be descendant of the Trojan hero Aeneas, son of the love goddess Venus (known to the Greeks as Aphrodite). And through this mythological line of Aeneas, Caesar has claim to bloodline of Romulus, Rome's first king.

The kings of Sparta, have claimed to be descendants to Greece's greatest heroes - Heracles (Hercules).

And so many kings of Celtic Britain and of Anglo-Norman England claimed to be descendants of King Arthur. And through Celtic mythology, there is an invention that Arthur also came from the Trojan hero Aeneas, whose fictional grandson Brut, who had migrated to Britain.

The Vikings have done the same thing, invented a number of ancestries to either the Norse god Odin (to both Danish and Norwegian royal bloodline) or Freyr (Swedish house).

As ancestries of Alexander and Caesar were invented to appeal to their respective egos, just as Muhammad's have done with Abraham and Ishmael.

Historical figures claiming they belonged to imaginary and invented genealogies, are quite common. It appeal to their deluded fantasies of grandeur and egos, and Muhammad was as vain as any kings.

What make Muhammad any different to Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar?

I have given so many full chapters from Quran; if it had been only a different version; then one could have pointed out to the similar chapters in the Torah to prove one's point of view.

There has been none so far.

Regards

 

[outhouse]

Muhammad got it directly from G-d the original source like Moses; he did not copy it.

Regards

False


God does not exist scientifically, and is not a credible historical source or claim.

 

[outhouse]

Why not one! credible scholar in the whole world! uses the koran to study Israelite or christian history????????????????????????????

 

[Shad]

double post

 

[Shad]

I agree with you here.

Regards

I wouldn't if I were you. You also ignore the rest of the comment and the implications of the topic of agreement. It is a basis to use as a dismissal of Islam. Judaism would be a myth making Islam a religion based on a myth.

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

I wouldn't if I were you. You also ignore the rest of the comment and the implications of the topic of agreement. It is a basis to use as a dismissal of Islam. Judaism would be a myth making Islam a religion based on a myth.

Here we don't want to say that Islam is a myth
But we say that Islam use the Evangelical and biblical sources and Zoroastrianism
And also use the religions of ancient Mecca
This speech is rejected by the Muslim
Because it isolates the Koran confiscated and linked him with thread hanging in the sky and claim that God sent down to Muhammad
This is a myth
When separating the thing about reality and the source
Christian says it's tatmadali Torah
Victher issues
The ten commandments are the same
Christ has completed the first commandment and love of God with human love
The teachings of eating are the same
But drop the formalities of biblical faith
Some concepts
This is another area of discussion
Then there was the myth of the Christian faith in this area
No Christian in the world says that the Bible is the word of God home but say with courage
Analmsih did and said
It did not say anhanzl
Revelation is in the acts of Christ and his
And also who wrote the Gospel of his disciples
So the myth of Christian little
Accept my respect