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

[Augustus]

No one says that Quran is from a Aramaic or siriac origini definitely. And again, all three languages are brothers. Arabic has for sure taken enough words from all languages. Especially Siriac. Tur is one definitely.

It is a simple fact. But when one language takes a word from another, that becomes the language.

I didn't say it was a Syriac word, I said it was an etymon of a Syriac word. Yes, of course it is an Arabic word. That the word Quran is Arabic doesn't mean that it is not an etymon of a Syriac word. Plenty of people have made this point regarding its etymology, it is even on the wikipedia page of the Quran.

This is common in all languages, words arrive from other languages. When they do, the word that they evolved from can often give you an insight into the historical usage of a word. You agree with that point so what's the problem here?

As for being brothers, Arabic is probably more like the son as the others are older languages.

The purpose of highlighting the meaning of the Syriac word relates to the question 'What was the role of the Quran in the time of Muhammed?" This is an important question as regards this topic.

Even if Muhammed used Siriac to write the Quran completely, so what?

I'm not arguing anything of the sort so why mention it?

The Quran highlights the fact that it is specifically and necessarily an Arabic Quran. This seems to imply that there are non-Arabic 'qurans' [quran here referring to generic 'reading of scripture in divine service', not the specific Quran of Muhammed]

I know that that is not your view, but thats the thread. If you wanna discuss one subject after another, like historicity of the Quran, Muhammed, linguistic duality and veracity etc, they are different subjects... The Question still remains, did he copy from the bible? Is that all he did? Which would make Muhammed a scientist.

No they are not, they are very much related to the topic and integral to the point I am making.

I am arguing that using the term 'copied/plagiarised' is not accurate because the Quran evolved from an Abrahamic environment and thinking of it as copied is therefore simplistic and misleading.

It is about how a non-Muslim can explain the clear similarities without calling it copied/plagiarised. Otherwise I'm left with the false dichotomy of choosing "plagiarised or miracle".

All of these points relate to how the Quran came to be, and the question can't be answered without recourse to this.

What do you think as to the reason behind the similarities btw?

 

[firedragon]

I know Victor personally. He's a friend of mine. He doesn't think the Noah story is that old.
I've got two signed copies of that book -- among others he authored. I've attended classes he has taught. I read that book in graduate school. I can't imagine I've misquoted him.

Brother. I gain nothing by accusing you of misquoting him. If he is your friend especially.

But the question I asked you was to quote a scholar who said that the Gilgamesh epic is older than Noahs flood story. Noahs flood being 3400 plus years BC.

You quoted Matthew.

It is just ironic that I have read only one of his books and that is the book he co authored. I remember very vividly the part of the introduction where he talks about the GIlgamesh time line. And I know for a fact that he does not say what you said, at least not in the book. If he said that in the lectures or to you personally thats not something I can see, touch or feel right. YOu must understand that.

Also I have friends who quoted his work in their thesis's etc. I cant really remember the university but I know that Matthew is the dean. No negation of that.

 

[firedragon]

I didn't say it was a Syriac word, I said it was an etymon of a Syriac word. Yes, of course it is an Arabic word. That the word Quran is Arabic doesn't mean that it is not an etymon of a Syriac word. Plenty of people have made this point regarding its etymology, it is even on the wikipedia page of the Quran.

This is common in all languages, words arrive from other languages. When they do, the word that they evolved from can often give you an insight into the historical usage of a word. You agree with that point so what's the problem here?

As for being brothers, Arabic is probably more like the son as the others are older languages.

The purpose of highlighting the meaning of the Syriac word relates to the question 'What was the role of the Quran in the time of Muhammed?" This is an important question as regards this topic.

I'm not arguing anything of the sort so why mention it?

The Quran highlights the fact that it is specifically and necessarily an Arabic Quran. This seems to imply that there are non-Arabic 'qurans' [quran here referring to generic 'reading of scripture in divine service', not the specific Quran of Muhammed]

Alright. You seriously wanna discuss this? I keep telling you that the topic is something else.
Alright alright. You have a good point. Good subject.

Siriac is definitely an older or rather I would say provably older language. Hebrew also could be a much older language. But its not definitive like English and Greek.

The issue with most western scholars or experts on this subject is that their knowledge of the language comes from a different route.

The word Quran comes form Qara. The root of Qef, Re, Hamza. The Quran comes from that. To say the word Quran comes the Siriac word Qeryana is correct, but also incorrect. The root of an Arabic word may come from the Siriac root, and the pronuciation aspects and but the word cannot come from there.

One of the main things that many proponents of the bilingual aspect of the Quran etc come from dictionaries. The Quran would have a word, that would give a different meaning in the Arabic dictionary, the proper meaning would be in the Siriac dictionary. This part of their analysis is quite amaturish. Though the other analyses are great.

Anyway, hope you understand that when you, I mean "you" say that the word Quran comes from the etymon of Qeryana that is wrong and extremely shallow. I dont mean to be demeaning. Have you read Luxenburgs work? If you read the work, like Mingana, Luxenburgs are also some guess work. He guesses in his own words that during the time the Quran was written, there was no Arabic existing as a written language.

Raqush is very old. I think 267. Classified as the oldest Arabic inscription. The Zebed inscription is dated 512. It has Syriac, Greek and Arabic. They are not even translations of each other. They are their own information. St. Serges Basilica was not originally a Muslim worship joint or anything like that, it was later. Thats where the inscription was found. Arabic does not have the poetic legacy Syriac has and the ancestry of Edessa is highly held onto. But that does not mean Arabic could not have existed at all. That cannot be said for certainty. Arabs may have been literary as they began to be after the Quran, Quran being the inspiration, but that does not mean there was no literary Arabic. Thus, the evolution could have happened much longer ago from other languages.

Thus Luxenburgs eassy assumption that Syriac would have been the language used at the time of Muhammed, and that later the scribes who were writing a century or two after Muhammed didnt know that it was syriac, they thought it was classical arabic. Anyway, reading his work would shed a lot of light.

Nevertheless, Arabic is Arabic. Not superior to Syriac or Hebrew, just what it is.

o they are not, they are very much related to the topic and integral to the point I am making.

I am arguing that using the term 'copied/plagiarised' is not accurate because the Quran evolved from an Abrahamic environment and thinking of it as copied is therefore simplistic and misleading.

It is about how a non-Muslim can explain the clear similarities without calling it copied/plagiarised. Otherwise I'm left with the false dichotomy of choosing "plagiarised or miracle".

All of these points relate to how the Quran came to be, and the question can't be answered without recourse to this.

What do you think as to the reason behind the similarities btw?

Similarities. That answer will not suit you.

1. If you believe in one source, being divine, then its just one source. Stories changed through tim became corrupt. Like the story of Adam and Eve. Eve having more blame, she will be ruled by man. I mean all women after her will be ruled man. And that her pregnancy will be her punishment for ever. etc. The Quran says both of them are equal.
2. This answer will suit you. Muhammed inherited stories from all over the place. Especially from the existing story telling. The extraparts which give injunctions like Divorce law, and various other things that are not at all counted in this inheritance assumption are what he intellectually developed. Especially things like the world is egg shaped, plants have sexes, the sun also has a course its going towards, earth revolves around its own axis etc.

I'm not arguing anything of the sort so why mention it?

The Quran highlights the fact that it is specifically and necessarily an Arabic Quran. This seems to imply that there are non-Arabic 'qurans' [quran here referring to generic 'reading of scripture in divine service', not the specific Quran of Muhammed]

Now where did you pick that up from?

We have sent it down a Qur’an in Arabic, perhaps you will understand. - Quran 12:2

The Quran does not imply anything of the sort.

I understand what you say and pretty much know where that comes from.

1. Quran says that God send a scripture replacing another.
   
2. There are four scriptures mentioned in the Quran.
3. When its sent, some will say this is not the language, this is Arabic.
4. Two verses later you will see that they are doing this out of malice. Inventing fabrications, only done by those who do not believe.

“And had We made it a Qur’an that was non-Arabic, they would have said: “If only its verses were made clear!” Non-Arabic or Arabic, say: “For those who believe, it is a guide and healing. As for those who disbelieve, there is deafness in their ears, and they are blind to it. These will be called from a place far away.”” (Qur’an 41:44)

This verse clearly shows that language does not matter. Those wanna disbelieve will disbelieve anyway, if it was Arabic or not. They would say some thing anyway.

Peace.

 

[sojourner]

Brother. I gain nothing by accusing you of misquoting him. If he is your friend especially.

But the question I asked you was to quote a scholar who said that the Gilgamesh epic is older than Noahs flood story. Noahs flood being 3400 plus years BC.

You quoted Matthew.

It is just ironic that I have read only one of his books and that is the book he co authored. I remember very vividly the part of the introduction where he talks about the GIlgamesh time line. And I know for a fact that he does not say what you said, at least not in the book. If he said that in the lectures or to you personally thats not something I can see, touch or feel right. YOu must understand that.

Also I have friends who quoted his work in their thesis's etc. I cant really remember the university but I know that Matthew is the dean. No negation of that.

Missouri State University. I'm going to have to go back and take another look at that particular book, if you're so sure. I could be losing my mind...

 

[firedragon]

Missouri State University. I'm going to have to go back and take another look at that particular book, if you're so sure. I could be losing my mind...

Of course not. And if I have missed something, Id be glad you corrected me.

Cheers.

 

[Tumah]

You think Rabbis just cooked the information up?
Where did they get the information from?

Sometimes, yes. We call it Aggadata and its when the Rabbis present a story that's really a parable or metaphor for something else.
Regardless, my point is that your argument requires that you believe that the Rabbis maintained an accurate Oral Tradition for 1,500 years (from Moses) before it was written down.

I cant believe this is necessary.

Bible

1. God made created in six days (Days with day and night. 24 hour days. If some argue those days hours would have been long, still they were day with night and day).
2. He rested the next day and he was refreshed (God needs to be refreshed)
3. God puts man or Adam in the garden of Eden and tells him not eat from the tree of knowledge.
4. God makes all the animals and birds etc. Then brings them all for Adam to see (All creatures of earth in one place!)
   
5. Adam names all the animals.
6. Then when Adam was made to sleep, God takes his rib and out of that creates Eve. (God needs Adams rib to make Eve?)
7. She was called she because she was taken out of man.
   
8. The serpent tells the woman that she would not surely die if she eats off the tree and somehow entices her.
9. It was the woman who eats first and gives the husband as well.
10. When questioned, Adam tells that the woman gave him the fruit.
    
11. The snake is cursed to go on his belly, (Wonder if he had wings prior to that) And the snake will eat dust forever.
    
12. God will create enmity between the serpent and the woman.
    
13. The womans punishment is conception. Childbirth will be painful and that will be her punishment, all women, forever. (I wonder if all female animals were cursed too, because Im sure it hurts at childbirth)
14. Womans desire will be towards the man and the man will rule over her.
15. Adam is only punished because he listened to his wife and ate the fruit and his punishment is nothing compared to the admonishment the woman received.

Quran

1. God made the universe in six days.
2. Nothing about resting
3. There is no Garden of Eden
4. God teaches Adam the names.
   
5. Adam does not name the Animals.
   
6. God didnt need Adams rib to create the woman.
7. She was not called she because she was taken out of man. She was woman, he was man, from the beginning. Man is not superior.
8. Both of them are enticed to eat off the tree.
9. Both of them face the blame equally.
10. Both of them are guilty.
11. The serpent would have always been on his belly. Probably. Going on his belly is not his punishment.
    
12. No enmity towards the serpent or anything like that.
    
13. There is no nonsense like her pregnancy is the punishment. A punishment all women inherit due to Eves mistake.
    
14. Man ruling women is not there. IN fact its harmony.

The Quran says Adam is a prophet of God. THe Quran also says that Moses, Abraham etc are prophets. When they come, they will bring the same message of monotheism, and they will all narrate the stories God deems fit for us to know. How did Adam enter the Torah? Did Adam write it on his own? Well obviously someone later narrated that story. Probably Moses. Thats how the stories are similar in the bible and the Quran.

You don't need the Qur'an to tell you that Adam is a prophet. Anyone that speaks to G-d is a prophet. That's what a prophet does.
But anyway, your argument is that the stories of the Bible were all traditions and G-d never dictated anyone to write it down until Muhammad. And that this is why there are discrepancies between the two stories. Throughout the tradition, many aspects became corrupted and so when it was eventually written, it was written wrongly.
This doesn't seem to fit with what the Qur'an says in 6:154 etc.

But the Quran is not copied off the bible. It was given directly to Muhammed. Thats why the Quran does not have this nonsense.

Qur'an 6:154 "Then We gave Moses the Scripture" That sounds pretty direct.
Qur'an 21:105 "And We have already written in the book [of Psalms]..." That sounds pretty direct.

BTW, how do you put an image like that?

You just copy the image and paste it right into the text like anything else.

Brother, you quoted Arabic letters to me. And you said nonsensical things like He and He can be interchanged. No they cannot, Both he's have different pronunciations. Or how do I say accentuations. This is hieroglyphics, then how could you say that He and he can be interchanged? Brother, you had looked at answering Islam. That website has a lot of errors. Nevertheless please note the below point, in order to debunk some Quranic information, a lot of people do look at things very shallowly. Dont do that, there is no gain.

It is not the same as the English letters hmn. Its Ha. Ma. Na. Just like Arabic. Without vowels, both would read the same.

It seems you misunderstood what I was saying from the beginning. I wasn't quoting Arabic letters to you, I was transliterating them. I know how Arabic letters work, because its the same in Hebrew and Aramaic. The letters are consonants and the vowels are signs that are placed around the letter. What I was saying is that what the rock says is /ḥ-m-n - (ḥ)/ the equivalent of (ح - م - ن -(ح. You are confusing the /ح/ for a /ه/ because in English the /ح/ is written as /ḥ/ and the /ه/ is written as /h/. Notice how the first letter /h/ has a dot underneath and the second one doesn't? That is what I was talking about when I said you are confusing the ḥa (ح)with the ha (ه). Haman is spelled with a /ه/ but the rock in the museum (if it exists) seems to be spelling it with a /ح/.
Secondly, there is no alif in the name on the Egyptian rock to tell you to read it with a fatha. From the transliteration in the image we can see that all they have are consonant hieroglyphs as depicted in the image transliterated into English as /ḥmn - ḥ/. What I tried to explain to you, is that with just these consonants, there is no way to determine the correct pronunciation of the name. You are assuming that it should be read the same way with the hieroglyphic equivalent of a fatha under the first two letters. But there's no reason to make that assumption except convenience for you.

My God.

Baida is egg, lol thats what google translate will return. But do you with confidence say that Dahaha cannot mean egg? Impossible? You should check a lexicon rather than just fishing off the web and places like answering this and answering that. (Actually its Lad. not Dal, so its Baidha(l)thun. I really dont how to explain the correct word in English.

Sure. Lane's Lexicon.
دهو
He spread; spread out, or forth; expanded; or extended...
...The place of the laying of eggs (Ṣ,Ḳ,) and of the hatching thereof, (Ṣ,) of the ostrich (Ṣ,Ḳ,) in the sand; (Ḳ,) because that bird expands it, and makes it wide, with its fit, or leg; for the ostrich has no [such as is termed].

You see, its not the egg that called dahuya, its the nest because the bird spreads out the earth to lay the eggs on.

And what kind of person even says something like Dahy is not a root word? I cant believe this. Bro, without knowing anything why do you just blurt things out like this? OF course Dahy is not a root word. This is not the motessory.

Dahaha literally means egged it. Daha means Egg Shaped or the shape of an egg. Ask me what Dahiyah means, I would say egg shape. Ask an Arab beduin, he would say ostrich egg.

Arabic (and Hebrew and Aramaic) words are derived from root words, not nouns. You can't say "dahaha means and egg, just like dahi" because the word dahaha is not derived from the word "dahi" its derived from the root da-ha-waw. The name of an object can be given for a number of reasons and its shape is only one of them. Even if it were true that eggs are called dahi, it might be because they are laid on the flat, spread out ground. Bringing a proof from a noun is short-sighted.

I linked you a website with 7 different translations from 7 different translators and they all translate the word the same way. Why aren't they choosing your translation?

Anyway, the point was that while copying the bible, why did Muhammed not copy the unscientific bible description of the earth being flat, and circular in two different places? Oh, because he heard only the good and decent parts of the bible. Everything is on hearsay.

Peace.

He did actually. Numerous times.
13:3 And He is the One who مَدَّ stretched out (extended) the Earth...
71:1 And Allah has made for you the Earth بِسَاطًا an expanse (flat, like a carpet).
88:20 And at the Earth, how is it سُطِحَتْ spread out (flattened)

I have more if you like.

 

[Shad]

1. This answer will suit you. Muhammed inherited stories from all over the place. Especially from the existing story telling. The extraparts which give injunctions like Divorce law, and various other things that are not at all counted in this inheritance assumption are what he intellectually developed. Especially things like the world is egg shaped, plants have sexes, the sun also has a course its going towards, earth revolves around its own axis etc.

The Greek figures out the Earth was not flat centuries before Islam just by the horizon. The geocentric model fits with the sun having a course and was the standard of the era. There was little to no development of an alternative model from Muslim astronomers after Islam emerged yet there was partial developed idea of the heliocentric model centuries before in the Hellenistic world. Which the Muslim Empire inherited. None of these is remarkable at all. You seem to ignore all environmental variables except religion

 

[firedragon]

The Greek figures out the Earth was not flat centuries before Islam just by the horizon. The geocentric model fits with the sun having a course and was the standard of the era. There was little to no development of an alternative model from Muslim astronomers after Islam emerged yet there was partial developed idea of the heliocentric model centuries before in the Hellenistic world. Which the Muslim Empire inherited. None of these is remarkable at all. You seem to ignore all environmental variables except religion

Thanks for the info.

 

[firedragon]

Then We gave Moses the Book, to complete for those who do right, and to fully detail all things, and a guide and mercy that they may believe in the meeting of their Lord.

How does it not conform to what I said?

Qur'an 6:154 "Then We gave Moses the Scripture" That sounds pretty direct.
Qur'an 21:105 "And We have already written in the book [of Psalms]..." That sounds pretty direct.

Of course Moses was given the scripture.
And 21:105 does not psalms, it says Zaboor.

It seems you misunderstood what I was saying from the beginning. I wasn't quoting Arabic letters to you, I was transliterating them. I know how Arabic letters work, because its the same in Hebrew and Aramaic. The letters are consonants and the vowels are signs that are placed around the letter. What I was saying is that what the rock says is /ḥ-m-n - (ḥ)/ the equivalent of (ح - م - ن -(ح. You are confusing the /ح/ for a /ه/ because in English the /ح/ is written as /ḥ/ and the /ه/ is written as /h/. Notice how the first letter /h/ has a dot underneath and the second one doesn't? That is what I was talking about when I said you are confusing the ḥa (ح)with the ha (ه). Haman is spelled with a /ه/ but the rock in the museum (if it exists) seems to be spelling it with a /ح/.
Secondly, there is no alif in the name on the Egyptian rock to tell you to read it with a fatha. From the transliteration in the image we can see that all they have are consonant hieroglyphs as depicted in the image transliterated into English as /ḥmn - ḥ/. What I tried to explain to you, is that with just these consonants, there is no way to determine the correct pronunciation of the name. You are assuming that it should be read the same way with the hieroglyphic equivalent of a fatha under the first two letters. But there's no reason to make that assumption except convenience for you.

In that case, you also made a convenient assumption that the arabic name and missing vowels. The arabic and the hieroglyphics are exactly similar in that case.

Also, I do not make assumptions of a fatha. WIthout them, they still are the same.

How can the shallow he be replaced with a deep he. How can that be?
A dot in the hieroglyphic you say? I dont get it. Thats the Nile right on the image?
I still am missing something in what you say.

 

[Tumah]

Then We gave Moses the Book, to complete for those who do right, and to fully detail all things, and a guide and mercy that they may believe in the meeting of their Lord.

How does it not conform to what I said?

It seems like you were saying that the Bible was not given by G-d, it was just various traditions that were written down.
How about to clarify everything, you explain your opinion on the Bible?

Of course Moses was given the scripture.
And 21:105 does not psalms, it says Zaboor.

Right, but the verse that is being quoted is found in Psalms.

In that case, you also made a convenient assumption that the arabic name and missing vowels. The arabic and the hieroglyphics are exactly similar in that case.

Also, I do not make assumptions of a fatha. WIthout them, they still are the same.[

How can the shallow he be replaced with a deep he. How can that be?
A dot in the hieroglyphic you say? I dont get it. Thats the Nile right on the image?
I still am missing something in what you say.

Oh I see. On Wikipedia, it spells Haman with two alif هامان‎ so I thought it was spelled like that in the Qur'an. But now I see that its not.
I will try to explain it again. Here is the image of the name from the dictionary that the guy posted.

On the upper right, we see hieroglyphics. I don't read them, but I assume that its put there because they represent the name that we are discussing.
On the upper left side we see the number 25. I don't know what that is, maybe the entry number.
After that we see the letters, ḥmn-ḥ. These letters are probably meant to be the interpretation of the hieroglyphs. What you don't realize, is that the letter ḥ with a dot under it, is a ح not a ه. If you want to write ه in Arabic, you make a letter h without a dot. So if you wanted to write the name in Arabic, you would spell it حمن-ح NOT همن‎. So the man's name is حمن not همن‎.
That was the first point.
And the second point is that if you look on that image, you will see that there's no vowels by the English letters. That means that we don't have the way to pronounce it. Maybe it says, ḥaman-ḥ, like you want. But maybe it says, ḥeman-ḥ, or ḥuman-ḥ, or ḥyman-ḥ. It could be anything. But the Qur'an only says Haman with fatha. It could be that you are right, but right now, its not known. So its not a good proof for you.

 

[firedragon]

When you say spread out, it does not mean flat. It means expanded. Spread out. Why only quote a bit? How could spread out mean flat.

13:3 And He is the One who has spread out the land, and made in it stabilizers and rivers, and all the fruits He made in pairs. The night covers the day. In that are signs for a people who think.

71:20 That ye may go about therein, in spacious roads

Not like the way the bible says that from the top of the tree you can see the whole of the earth.

Brother, There is a big history in this matter. There was a big issue in the Islamic world in modern times about the rotation of the earth. They did not want the word Yasbahoona interpreted to move while its going forward, implying the earth rotates around its own axis while moving.

They said that we must believe the earth is fixed. They even quoted some hadith. Do you believe them? it is those who are tyrannical like that who insist that we still live in the dark ages.

I do not follow them. Period.

 

[firedragon]

It seems like you were saying that the Bible was not given by G-d, it was just various traditions that were written down.
How about to clarify everything, you explain your opinion on the Bible?

Which bible? 75 books, 66 books or 73 books?

Oh I see. On Wikipedia, it spells Haman with two alif هامان‎ so I thought it was spelled like that in the Qur'an. But now I see that its not.
I will try to explain it again. Here is the image of the name from the dictionary that the guy posted.

On the upper right, we see hieroglyphics. I don't read them, but I assume that its put there because they represent the name that we are discussing.
On the upper left side we see the number 25. I don't know what that is, maybe the entry number.
After that we see the letters, ḥmn-ḥ. These letters are probably meant to be the interpretation of the hieroglyphs. What you don't realize, is that the letter ḥ with a dot under it, is a ح not a ه. If you want to write ه in Arabic, you make a letter h without a dot. So if you wanted to write the name in Arabic, you would spell it حمن-ح NOT همن‎. So the man's name is حمن not همن‎.
That was the first point.
And the second point is that if you look on that image, you will see that there's no vowels by the English letters. That means that we don't have the way to pronounce it. Maybe it says, ḥaman-ḥ, like you want. But maybe it says, ḥeman-ḥ, or ḥuman-ḥ, or ḥyman-ḥ. It could be anything. But the Qur'an only says Haman with fatha. It could be that you are right, but right now, its not known. So its not a good proof for you.

Now I get it.

Alright, this is what little I know.

The h is the h you find in Hieroglyphs. Thats the far left rope like thing. I have heard two versions of it, if its left alone it will be pronounced Ha. Not just H.
The M and N are adjoining. You can recognise the water sign, n, probably from the nile. The dot under the h is because this is the ha with an a deep breath. so thats the deep ha. There is another h in hierglyphs called high ha. This is not that.

Its the same brother.

 

[Tumah]

Which bible? 75 books, 66 books or 73 books?

I don't know which Bible has those numbers. The Jewish Bible only has 24 Books.

Now I get it.

Alright, this is what little I know.

The h is the h you find in Hieroglyphs. Thats the far left rope like thing. I have heard two versions of it, if its left alone it will be pronounced Ha. Not just H.
The M and N are adjoining. You can recognise the water sign, n, probably from the nile. The dot under the h is because this is the ha with an a deep breath. so thats the deep ha. There is another h in hierglyphs called high ha. This is not that.

Its the same brother.

This is not true. You can find a number of charts online showing the hieroglyphs and transliterations.
Here's three random ones I found.

Spoiler: Chart One

Spoiler: Chart Two

Spoiler: Chart Three

In each of them, you can clearly see four types of /h/ each with its own pronunciation. Two of the charts even comes with phonetic pronunciation guides:

The regular /h/ (reed shelter) shows h which is ه
The /ḥ/ (twisted flax) shows ℏ which is ح
The /ḫ/ (sieve) shows x which is خ
The /ẖ/ (animal's belly) shows ç which is a sound that isn't found in Arabic.

So we see that the twisted flax is designated ḥ. Which makes حمن-ح the correct spelling.

 

[firedragon]

I don't know which Bible has those numbers. The Jewish Bible only has 24 Books.


This is not true. You can find a number of charts online showing the hieroglyphs and transliterations.
Here's three random ones I found.

Spoiler: Chart One

Spoiler: Chart Two

Spoiler: Chart Three

In each of them, you can clearly see four types of /h/ each with its own pronunciation. Two of the charts even comes with phonetic pronunciation guides:

The regular /h/ (reed shelter) shows h which is ه
The /ḥ/ (twisted flax) shows ℏ which is ح
The /ḫ/ (sieve) shows x which is خ
The /ẖ/ (animal's belly) shows ç which is a sound that isn't found in Arabic.

So we see that the twisted flax is designated ḥ. Which makes حمن-ح the correct spelling.

I feel like in your cause, you get lost my brother.

I can see that you are only fishing off the internet when something comes up. THen talk as if you know the subject deeply. You quoted the Rosetta stone as if it contains the Haman inscriptions, not knowing the whole story. Now you are quoting Hieroglyphs like you know them. And your assessments copied from those who simply copy for slander.

1. Now even if the pronunciation of the name is not known as you say, the Bible still does not have this Haman who is with Pharaoh.
2. The Quranic narrative is similar.
3. This Haman is completely different to the Esther story. In context, a millennium apart, all settings, everything is different. But you wanna equate the Quranic Haman to that Haman.
4. But the Haman in found after the discovery of the Rosetta stone, though it talks of the Pharaoh, the name is there, the context is similar, but you wanna negate it.

The wick or as you say twisted flax is not really the he you refer to. This is how its shown in lectures, someone has used it against this Haman business.
The reed shelter you cited, we call it house front or front of the house which represents the normal H as in English, That is not the Hay in Arabic.

You cant make conclusions like that. For you to say "This is not true." bro no offense, you have to be ignorant and arrogant. We can all learn from eachother, but lets not pretend that we know something when we had just found it on the net. Like your Rosetta stone and the Arabic.

Medu Netjer is a language that sounds like Arabic. Not the same as Arabic. The arabic stand was taken only to make it easier to understand. Any senior epert would tell you that its 'more of an Arabic sounding language'. The accuracy of the pronunciation is always under debate. And you can in no world say definitely the theory you pose and found on the internet freely.

The other two Hes you portrayed are not Hes. The rope is a deep throat Ha. The sieve is not Ha. Its more like Hugh with some phlegm or rather Khr. Depends on what language you learn it from. If you learn it as an English speaker, then the explanation is different. If you learn from an Arab speakers point of view, its completely different. When even someone like Gardiner does not conclude the way you and answering Islam where you picked your image from conclude, doesnt that smell funny?

).

Peace bro.

 

[firedragon]

Tumah. Let me ask you something.

1. The bible and Quran both talk about Jesus right. Whats their pronunciations.
2. How about Moses, Abraham, how are their pronunciations. How do they differ from the Quran.
   
3. IN that case are they different people?
4. In that case though the stories are similar, they could be completely different people purely because the names are different.
5. If you pose the same case when it comes to the Egyptian Haman Discovered after the Rosetta stone and the Quranic Egyptian Haman, why not the same with all other characters in the bibe and the Quran.
6. Is Jesus Yeheshuah, Yashuah or Iesau? Different people

 

[Tumah]

I feel like in your cause, you get lost my brother.

I can see that you are only fishing off the internet when something comes up. THen talk as if you know the subject deeply. You quoted the Rosetta stone as if it contains the Haman inscriptions, not knowing the whole story. Now you are quoting Hieroglyphs like you know them. And your assessments copied from those who simply copy for slander.

The Rosetta stone doesn't contain the inscription. That inscription was found on a different stone that if I recall correctly was a part of a door post. The ḥmn-ḥ that was found there doesn't actually show any relation to any Pharaoh other than a similar time period to one of them.
How do you know who is speaking the truth? You will notice that there is not a single third party website that picked up this news item that would be rather interesting. The only websites that posted this startling information are the ones that need it to prove what they want. The one guy who does some fairly thorough research, you slander on the basis that he's against Islam. Where are the proofs against him?
Do you understand? You are only believing what Islamic websites tell you because it supports your belief, not because its been proven factually. That means that you are the one who's lost, because you're taking gossip spread by Muslim websites as truth without any support.

1. Now even if the pronunciation of the name is not known as you say, the Bible still does not have this Haman who is with Pharaoh.

The Bible doesn't have hundreds of thousands of people who were with Pharaoh and any of the names of his officers. They're not important enough to name. Why does that mean anything?

2. The Quranic narrative is similar.

Similar to what?

3. This Haman is completely different to the Esther story. In context, a millennium apart, all settings, everything is different. But you wanna equate the Quranic Haman to that Haman.

Yes, we've dealt with this. And we understand that its because Muhammad forgot the Esther story and only recalled the name Haman which he conflated with the Pharaoh story.

4. But the Haman in found after the discovery of the Rosetta stone, though it talks of the Pharaoh, the name is there, the context is similar, but you wanna negate it.

I believe the Rosetta stone was found second.
And I am not necessarily negating it, I'm saying that you have a very shaky basis to support your claim. It relies on too many variables being true which may or may not be so. I don't need to negate your claim, your claim can't get itself off the ground.

The wick or as you say twisted flax is not really the he you refer to. This is how its shown in lectures, someone has used it against this Haman business.
The reed shelter you cited, we call it house front or front of the house which represents the normal H as in English, That is not the Hay in Arabic.

I brought proofs to my transliteration, you are bringing your say so. If I believed everything people told me just because they said so, I'd be Muslim.

You cant make conclusions like that. For you to say "This is not true." bro no offense, you have to be ignorant and arrogant. We can all learn from eachother, but lets not pretend that we know something when we had just found it on the net. Like your Rosetta stone and the Arabic.

Aren't you doing exactly the same thing but in reverse by telling me that I"m wrong and you're right?

Medu Netjer is a language that sounds like Arabic. Not the same as Arabic. The arabic stand was taken only to make it easier to understand. Any senior epert would tell you that its 'more of an Arabic sounding language'. The accuracy of the pronunciation is always under debate. And you can in no world say definitely the theory you pose and found on the internet freely.

There is something called the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). The IPA is an alphabet that contains all or most of the sounds in all or most of the languages around the world. They took all the languages that have a /b/ sound in the world and made /b/ represent that sound and so on with every consonant and vowel. That means the sound that the /ح/ in Arabic and the /ח/ in Hebrew and Aramaic all are given the same letter in the IPA that is /ḥ/. So it doesn't matter what language it comes from, because the sounds were all standardized into single format that encompasses them all. That is why it is correct to to spell it as I've been spelling it.

The other two Hes you portrayed are not Hes. The rope is a deep throat Ha. The sieve is not Ha. Its more like Hugh with some phlegm or rather Khr. Depends on what language you learn it from. If you learn it as an English speaker, then the explanation is different. If you learn from an Arab speakers point of view, its completely different. When even someone like Gardiner does not conclude the way you and answering Islam where you picked your image from conclude, doesnt that smell funny?

).

Peace bro.

Bro. I know Hebrew and Aramaic. I hear Arabic daily. I know exactly how the sounds are supposed to sound in Arabic, Hebrew and English according to how it was transliterated in the dictionary and the various websites that offer tables of the Rosetta stone.
And actually the website does mention my point which is where I got it from.

 

[firedragon]

So you see, with only 3 or 4 consonants on the Rosetta stone there's no real way to determine what the correct pronunciation is and by extension whether any link to the Qur'an can be made.

Why did you say that bro? Then you changed the story to some door thing.

Rosetta stone was the key find, for the whole world.

Anyway, the image you quoted is not from a credible source, its from Answering Islam. Thats where you go for information. They themselves got that image from the Muslims who quoted this story.

Then you delve on inunciation of a letter, forgetting that most biblical characters differ from the Quran in the name. Whats his name? Moisin, Moshe, Musa? Does that make him three different persons?

I know that apologist websites say a lot of things. But just do a search online for people in the new kingdom. It will return either some other stuff or the Haman hoax. Thats because they are vehemently saying its a hoax enough online with no proper reasoning. But the German dictionary of Babylonian names refers to Haman.

Another thing as a theologian or historian you must realise is that names can change in writing and pronunciation when referred. It could be similar also.

Ghandhi in India is Ghandhi. In Arabic also its Ghandhi. I mean in English writing. But the pronunciations differ vividly. Same Person. Jesus in Greek is Iesau. In Arabic its Iesa. Same Person. Whats it in Hebrew? Is it a different person?

You are talking of four H's because you found the alphabet in English online. Prior to finding it you didnt know anything about it. But if you learn it in Arabic, or maybe your languages. ITs alright to do that, but dont make conclusions and stick to them arrogantly.

There is no way that Muhammed could have picked up the Haman name from Esther and just use the name together with Moses and Pharaoh. That is an absurd assumption. Absurd.

 

[Augustus]

The issue with most western scholars or experts on this subject is that their knowledge of the language comes from a different route.

The word Quran comes form Qara. The root of Qef, Re, Hamza. The Quran comes from that. To say the word Quran comes the Siriac word Qeryana is correct, but also incorrect. The root of an Arabic word may come from the Siriac root, and the pronuciation aspects and but the word cannot come from there... Anyway, hope you understand that when you, I mean "you" say that the word Quran comes from the etymon of Qeryana that is wrong and extremely shallow. I dont mean to be demeaning.

Strangely enough, I consider writing off the idea out of hand as being pretty shallow. Given that there is very little recorded Arabic from the pre-Islamic era and much of Arabic was standardised around religious needs, the etymology of Quran is uncertain.

Also remember that this is not a word being interpreted in isolation, there are other pieces of information that need to be taken into account when assessing possibility/probability.

Given that it is untenable in terms of the historical methodology to believe that the material in the Quran was entirely uninfluenced by any existing tradition, we need to look at the influences to understand its evolution.

We know that specifically religious vocabulary (names, etc) is often Arabicised Syriac. We know that some stories in the Quran share a very close similarity (often bordering on word-for-word) with Syriac texts. We know that many Arabic words have Syrio-Arameaic origins.

Qeryana (reading of scripture in divine service) reflects a religious practice of the times. The Quran obviously served a religious purpose. It often seems to read as homily, discourse or criticism of existing religious narratives rather than actually telling the stories itself. In short, it seems to match the meaning of qeryana pretty well.

I'd say there is enough reason to consider it highly plausible without being 'shallow'.

Have you read Luxenburgs work? If you read the work, like Mingana, Luxenburgs are also some guess work. He guesses in his own words that during the time the Quran was written, there was no Arabic existing as a written language. Thus Luxenburgs eassy assumption that Syriac would have been the language used at the time of Muhammed, and that later the scribes who were writing a century or two after Muhammed didnt know that it was syriac, they thought it was classical arabic. Anyway, reading his work would shed a lot of light.

You are presenting an extreme position that I have never supported and arguing against this.

Luxenburg suffered from the same problem that affected Crone and Cook with Hagarism, they all went too far. Depite the fact that their conclusions were mostly wrong, they were correct in their approach. Crone and Cook because they linked Islam to the religious environment of the late antique ME, and Luxenburg because some words semm to make more sense when viewed through a Syriac lens. He then took this idea too far though and started clumsily trying to force Syriac into everything in a not very persuasive manner.

No need to throw the baby out with the bathwater though.

Given that medieval exegetes clearly did not understand parts of the Quran, why should one assume that there are no cases in which knowledge of the Syriac literary tradition could increase understanding?

Raqush is very old. I think 267. Classified as the oldest Arabic inscription. The Zebed inscription is dated 512. It has Syriac, Greek and Arabic. They are not even translations of each other. They are their own information. St. Serges Basilica was not originally a Muslim worship joint or anything like that, it was later. Thats where the inscription was found. Arabic does not have the poetic legacy Syriac has and the ancestry of Edessa is highly held onto. But that does not mean Arabic could not have existed at all. That cannot be said for certainty. Arabs may have been literary as they began to be after the Quran, Quran being the inspiration, but that does not mean there was no literary Arabic. Thus, the evolution could have happened much longer ago from other languages.

Before Muhammed and the Quran there was an Arabic language and an Arabic identity I fully agree.

This answer will suit you. Muhammed inherited stories from all over the place. Especially from the existing story telling. The extraparts which give injunctions like Divorce law, and various other things that are not at all counted in this inheritance assumption are what he intellectually developed. Especially things like the world is egg shaped, plants have sexes, the sun also has a course its going towards, earth revolves around its own axis etc.

The 'scientific miracles' were invented in1980s Saudi Arabia based on reinterpreting scripture and a shallow and specious logic. They show far more about the flexibility of language than anything amazing. I could go and find 'miracles' in any poetic and allusive text. It's basically about as persuasive as the prophecies of Nostradamus.

"In the Beginning how the Heav'ns and Earth Rose out of Chaos" Milton Paradise lost

This miraculous text shows how Milton was aware of the big bang. Both heaven and earth are given as having a common origin, and the moments after the bang would certainly be chaotic. No man could have known this in Milton's time therefore it must have a Divine origin. It's a miracle!

That took me about 25 seconds to find and come up with. That's how easy it is to find 'scientific miracles' if you want

Seeing as I can create 'miracles' in seconds based on a random text, forgive me if I remain unimpressed as regards plant sexes and egg shaped earths based on interpreting verses in a way that nobody did for 1400 years.

 

[Tumah]

Tumah. Let me ask you something.

1. The bible and Quran both talk about Jesus right. Whats their pronunciations.
2. How about Moses, Abraham, how are their pronunciations. How do they differ from the Quran.
   
3. IN that case are they different people?
4. In that case though the stories are similar, they could be completely different people purely because the names are different.
5. If you pose the same case when it comes to the Egyptian Haman Discovered after the Rosetta stone and the Quranic Egyptian Haman, why not the same with all other characters in the bibe and the Quran.
6. Is Jesus Yeheshuah, Yashuah or Iesau? Different people

That's easy. Because we can draw many clear parallels between the two from both sides of the equation. And of course, the Qur'an was written based on the Biblical stories, so we can tell that similar sounding names are meant to portray similar characters, even if they don't clearly match up.
Although of course they do, since the Arabic names are derived from another Semitic abjad- Hebrew.

On the other hand, we have no other correlation between the Pharaoh and the ḥmn-ḥ so suspect that these names are meant to be the same other than the say so of the Qur'an. That's only one side and not enough to logically equate them.

 

[Tumah]

Why did you say that bro? Then you changed the story to some door thing.

Yes, because the name was found on a door post.

Rosetta stone was the key find, for the whole world.

Anyway, the image you quoted is not from a credible source, its from Answering Islam. Thats where you go for information. They themselves got that image from the Muslims who quoted this story.

The image I posted is an entry from Leopold von Ranke's hieroglyphic dictionary. You can find the image posted on other sites as well.

Then you delve on inunciation of a letter, forgetting that most biblical characters differ from the Quran in the name. Whats his name? Moisin, Moshe, Musa? Does that make him three different persons?

The two cases are not similar at all. We already have enough information to draw parallel's between the two names from both the Torah and Qur'an sides and we have people who speak both languages to identify the parallel names. Aside from the ha to alif switch which is a verifiable change when switching between Hebrew to Aramaic/Arabic, the names are spelled the same. On the other hand, when it comes to ḥmn-ḥ, we have no verifiable evidence that ه to ح is a normal change when switching between Ancient Egyptian and Arabic.
To sum it up, the difference is evidence vs. say so.

I know that apologist websites say a lot of things. But just do a search online for people in the new kingdom. It will return either some other stuff or the Haman hoax. Thats because they are vehemently saying its a hoax enough online with no proper reasoning. But the German dictionary of Babylonian names refers to Haman.

That image I copied is from the German dictionary.

Another thing as a theologian or historian you must realise is that names can change in writing and pronunciation when referred. It could be similar also.

Ghandhi in India is Ghandhi. In Arabic also its Ghandhi. I mean in English writing. But the pronunciations differ vividly. Same Person. Jesus in Greek is Iesau. In Arabic its Iesa. Same Person. Whats it in Hebrew? Is it a different person?

It is the same name because we can verify that its the same name. One of the Jewish kings of Judea was named Asa. Another king of Israel was named Yehu. How do you know they are not the same names? They are very similar. Maybe Iesous (pronounced yesu) in Greek is Yehu in Hebrew? How do you know its not?

You are talking of four H's because you found the alphabet in English online. Prior to finding it you didnt know anything about it. But if you learn it in Arabic, or maybe your languages. ITs alright to do that, but dont make conclusions and stick to them arrogantly.

No, I brought four H's to further prove that the dot under the h in Ranke's dictionary is meant to be there in the name ḥmn-ḥ and that it represents exactly what it should: the phonetic pronunciation of the letter.
Probably the article you read in Arabic, didn't realize that there was such a thing and just saw the h so automatically assumed it was a /ه/. But when you read it in the language the dictionary entry was written in, you can see that this is not the case.
So maybe you should stop making conclusions and arrogantly sticking to them.

There is no way that Muhammed could have picked up the Haman name from Esther and just use the name together with Moses and Pharaoh. That is an absurd assumption. Absurd.

That's not a logical reason. That's just what you want to believe. I didn't say he picked it up, I said he forgot the original story and confused it with the Pharaoh story. On fact, there is a Midrash that Job, Jethro and Bil'am were all advisers to Pharaoh. Maybe he heard that Midrash remembered that Pharaoh had advisers but thought it was Haman. Very simple.