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

[RabbiO]

Just to repeat your logic (for the umpteenth time):

If no one can prove that a particular text was copied from earlier texts, and if the text claimed to be written by God, it therefore was written by God.

This is your claim, and yet you don't seem to want to embrace the Book of Mormon.

Carrots are a wonderful vegetable. They taste good and provide fiber. Carrots are a good source of Vitamin A. Eating carrots is good for strengthening jaw muscles and provides other dental/oral benefits. Carrots can even be used to make a delicious cake.

The downside of the carrot is that it is impossible to have a meaningful conversation with one. Most of us have learned the hard way, however, that conversations with carrots are invariably more rewarding than trying to engage the OP in dialogue. I know it is tempting as one attempts dialogue to think of Akivah, water, and a stone, but the OP is no Akivah.

 

[rosends]

Carrots are a wonderful vegetable. They taste good and provide fiber. Carrots are a good source of Vitamin A. Eating carrots is good for strengthening jaw muscles and provides other dental/oral benefits. Carrots can even be used to make a delicious cake.

The downside of the carrot is that it is impossible to have a meaningful conversation with one. Most of us have learned the hard way, however, that conversations with carrots are invariably more rewarding than trying to engage the OP in dialogue. I know it is tempting as one attempts dialogue to think of Akivah, water, and a stone, but the OP is no Akivah.

I often speak to the wall because the audience at home might learn something.

 

[RabbiO]

I often speak to the wall because the audience at home might learn something.

That's the same rationale I use with myself..... and sometimes I even convince myself...... just not as often as I used to

 

[paarsurrey]

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

The Holy Quran : Chapter 65: Al-Talaq [2]

[65:11]Allah has prepared for them a severe punishment; so fear Allah, O ye men of understanding, who have believed. Allah has indeed sent down to you a Reminder —
[65:12]A Messenger, who recites unto you the clear Signs of Allah, that he may bring those who believe and do good deeds out of everykind ofdarkness into light. And whoso believes in Allah and does good deeds — He will make him enter Gardens, through which rivers flow, to abide therein for ever. Allah has indeed made excellent provision for him.
[65:13]Allah is He Who created seven heavens, and of the earth the like thereof. Thedivinecommand comes down in their midst, that you may know that Allah has power over all things, and that Allah encompasses all things inHisknowledge.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/showChapter.php?ch=65&verse=11

Please prove that the above verses have been copied/plagiarized/adapted from Jewish Bible/Torah or any other religious revealed scripture in the world by quoting from that book, the reference and providing the link.
Just impossible to do it.
Quran is authored by G-d, it is the reality.

In terms of the notion "Koran dated to before Muhamad birth."and some of the pseudo scholars also , link provided by the poster, saying this. Since Muhammad could not have plagiarized Quran from the old scriptures before his own birth, it must be thrashed out by the said pseudo-scholars, pseudo-history and the pseudo-science all together evidencing on top-priority as to from which old scriptures Muhammad recited the above verses verbatim.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Carrots are a wonderful vegetable. They taste good and provide fiber. Carrots are a good source of Vitamin A. Eating carrots is good for strengthening jaw muscles and provides other dental/oral benefits. Carrots can even be used to make a delicious cake.
The downside of the carrot is that it is impossible to have a meaningful conversation with one. Most of us have learned the hard way, however, that conversations with carrots are invariably more rewarding than trying to engage the OP in dialogue. I know it is tempting as one attempts dialogue to think of Akivah, water, and a stone, but the OP is no Akivah.

If one has a chance to visit India/Pakistan the red carrots are very juicy and delicious in taste there, one would like its juice also. It is very good for health.
Regards

 

[Milton Platt]

Your comments please

Regards

After all this time on this forum you have not been able to even demonstrate your god even exists. Until you do that it doesn't matter a whit where the Quran came from.

 

[paarsurrey]

After all this time on this forum you have not been able to even demonstrate your god even exists. Until you do that it doesn't matter a whit where the Quran came from.

Did all these times the Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism had been writing in these forums prove that "G-d does not exist"? They never did it. Right?
Regards

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Did all these times the Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism had been writing in these forums prove that "G-d does not exist"? They never did it. Right?
Regards

And after all this time you still don't understand how the onus of proof works. It's easy for people to get the impression you don't want to...

 

[Milton Platt]

Did all these times the Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism had been writing in these forums prove that "G-d does not exist"? They never did it. Right?
Regards

the burden of proof rests with the one making the positive claim. I am merely saying I lack belief that your claim is true. I do not need proof of my lack of belief any more than you need you to prove you believe your claim is true. I do not question your belief in your claim, I question the claim itself. I make no claim about any god's existence in the absolute sense. Maybe one does, but the evidence is very lacking.

But I am willing to go down that road for your benifit. It will be fun. Let's do it this way........you prove the other gods do not exist and I will use your methodology to show yours does not exist. Is that fair?

 

[firedragon]

the burden of proof rests with the one making the positive claim. I am merely saying I lack belief that your claim is true. I do not need proof of my lack of belief any more than you need you to prove you believe your claim is true. I do not question your belief in your claim, I question the claim itself. I make no claim about any god's existence in the absolute sense. Maybe one does, but the evidence is very lacking.

But I am willing to go down that road for your benifit. It will be fun. Let's do it this way........you prove the other gods do not exist and I will use your methodology to show yours does not exist. Is that fair?

I wonder why this Gods reality comes to play in a thread discussing if the Quran is a copy of the Bible etc.

But nevertheless I have come to understand that many do this, not intentionally to drive the topic away but to unintentionally sway it to an area that the poster is interested in, or interested in disproving. In this case, disproving if God exists etc.

Thus, its time to give up the notion that we must stick to a topic for all kinds of enhancement of knowledge among other things.

So, tell me brother, how could one try and prove other gods do not exist when the questioned person believes there is only God? A Muslims creed is La Ilaha Illallah. If you have misunderstood it please clarify it. "No deity but the deity".

Its like asking a person who believes that the universe is one to prove there are no other universes. He believes that everything, everywhere, is called universe. Can he answer the question "prove that there are no more universes"?

If there is only one family in the whole of the universe, I mean one family, no more, zilch.

How could you ask him to prove that there are no more mothers. The mother is The Mother.

Well, I am trying to make you understand the idea of Alllah or Al-Ilah. Thats an Arabic word for The God. I may not be able to though.

Cheers.

 

[Milton Platt]

I wonder why this Gods reality comes to play in a thread discussing if the Quran is a copy of the Bible etc.

But nevertheless I have come to understand that many do this, not intentionally to drive the topic away but to unintentionally sway it to an area that the poster is interested in, or interested in disproving. In this case, disproving if God exists etc.

Thus, its time to give up the notion that we must stick to a topic for all kinds of enhancement of knowledge among other things.

So, tell me brother, how could one try and prove other gods do not exist when the questioned person believes there is only God? A Muslims creed is La Ilaha Illallah. If you have misunderstood it please clarify it. "No deity but the deity".

Its like asking a person who believes that the universe is one to prove there are no other universes. He believes that everything, everywhere, is called universe. Can he answer the question "prove that there are no more universes"?

If there is only one family in the whole of the universe, I mean one family, no more, zilch.

How could you ask him to prove that there are no more mothers. The mother is The Mother.

Well, I am trying to make you understand the idea of Alllah or Al-Ilah. Thats an Arabic word for The God. I may not be able to though.

Cheers.

Thanks for your response. Your questions are welcome.

You are right, my question did seem to pull part of the conversation away from trying to directly answer the OP. That was unforseen. I guess my point was that if the god does not exist, then the origin of the text is much less important, therefore only academic in nature.

The person I was responding to implied that I had the burden of proof to show that the god he was referencing did not exist, and if I could not do so, then by default I should assume the god does exist.

By that logic, everything I cannot (or simply have not) proved to not exist must exist. That logic leads to the faulty conclusion that all gods exist, since I have not proven the non-existence of any of them. He was the one demanding that I must demonstrare his god does not exist. It is only fair that he demonstrate that the gods he does not believe in also do not exist. After all, he is making the same claim about those gods, that he says I am making about his, right? If you do not have to prove the others do not exist then I do not have to prove yours does not. Do you understand? You should not ask of me what you are unable to do yourself.

Your belief that there is only one god is not relevant. Zeus is only one god. Thor is only one god, etc. it is not a question of the number of gods. It is a question of you providing the exact same evidence for your claim that you demand of others who are not even making a claim, but merely rejecting your claim.

You are an atheist concerning all the gods except yours. I just go one god further.

 

[Mackerni]

You are an atheist concerning all the gods except yours. I just go one god further.

What about the evidence for a natural God? Naturalistic beliefs such as pantheism and pandeism believe that existence is evidence of a God. As for as myself, I believe in a natural entropic/extropic nature of our existence. It is our Universe that causes the entropy, it is us Humans and other intelligent species that causes extropy. Infinite entropy is the voidness that we are leading into if intelligent life does not reverse the trend. Infinite extropy is what we were and what we want to become yet again. Infinite extropy is the fill from the void, the deliverance from natural causes. Therefore, I see God as not a being but a quality that all of us has possessed and is determined to hold once again. My evidence of this constituent in natural findings, like the big bang - which I see as separation from perfection.

Anyways, going along with the topic of discussion, I do believe the Quran was fashioned from the Bible, which was made from parts of the Torah. But as others have said, they are not perfection representations of the ones before. I know the Quran suggests the Bible and the Torah within it. I'm not too sure if the Bible talks about the Torah. I know certain Bible editions have chronological evidence ("who said what first").

 

[Milton Platt]

What about the evidence for a natural God? Naturalistic beliefs such as pantheism and pandeism believe that existence is evidence of a God. As for as myself, I believe in a natural entropic/extropic nature of our existence. It is our Universe that causes the entropy, it is us Humans and other intelligent species that causes extropy. Infinite entropy is the voidness that we are leading into if intelligent life does not reverse the trend. Infinite extropy is what we were and what we want to become yet again. Infinite extropy is the fill from the void, the deliverance from natural causes. Therefore, I see God as not a being but a quality that all of us has possessed and is determined to hold once again. My evidence of this constituent in natural findings, like the big bang - which I see as separation from perfection.

Anyways, going along with the topic of discussion, I do believe the Quran was fashioned from the Bible, which was made from parts of the Torah. But as others have said, they are not perfection representations of the ones before. I know the Quran suggests the Bible and the Torah within it. I'm not too sure if the Bible talks about the Torah. I know certain Bible editions have chronological evidence ("who said what first").

I fail to see how nature is evidence for any deity. And calling nature god would just be renaming something we already have a name for and have no reason to think of as a god in the traditional sense of the word. Also, I fail to see the causal relationship between existence and a deity.

Your belief about the big bang is nothing more than your own wishful thinking.

The universe is subject to entropy, I don't understand how you think it causes it. I had to look up extropy. It seems to be a term used in something called transhumanism. I am not familiar with that particular philosophical line and don't have time to untangle it.

 

[Augustus]

I'm not too sure if the Bible talks about the Torah.

It's (part of) the Old Testament, part of the Bible.

Anyways, going along with the topic of discussion, I do believe the Quran was fashioned from the Bible

You are right that it clearly reflects a Christian environment, but isn't really fashioned out of the Bible. It references a wide range of canonical and non-canonical (mostly Syriac) Christian texts and para Biblical traditions. It is too narrow to say it is fashioned out of the Bible though, it is more a discourse/commentary with an intertextual relationship to a wide range of sources present in the late antique ME.

 

[paarsurrey]

the burden of proof rests with the one making the positive claim. I am merely saying I lack belief that your claim is true. I do not need proof of my lack of belief any more than you need you to prove you believe your claim is true. I do not question your belief in your claim, I question the claim itself. I make no claim about any god's existence in the absolute sense. Maybe one does, but the evidence is very lacking.

But I am willing to go down that road for your benifit. It will be fun. Let's do it this way........you prove the other gods do not exist and I will use your methodology to show yours does not exist. Is that fair?

"the burden of proof rests with the one making the positive claim"
Is it from science? If it is then quote from a text-book of science or a peer-reviewed article published in a journal of repute.
Regards

 

[rosends]

"the burden of proof rests with the one making the positive claim"
Is it from science? If it is then quote from a text-book of science or a peer-reviewed article published in a journal of repute.
Regards

I found this

"When two parties are in a discussion and one asserts a claim that the other disputes, the one who asserts has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim"
"Cargile, James (January 1997). "On the Burden of Proof". Philosophy (Cambridge University Press) 72 (279): 59–83. doi:10.1017/s0031819100056655.

 

[leibowde84]

There is no point in even responding to utter shameless concoctions like this brother. Koran dated to before Muhamads birth is based on the earliest dating of the manusctipt.

• First they will try the ploy "No early manuscripts". The earliest is 8th century.
• When you show them that the British University has a manuscript dated latest 645 they say "Oh I forgot about that". You cant forget something like that, you could only be ignorant and later upon revelation build up a lie to cover your lying arse.
• Third, in the face of no choice, they will say it predates Muhammed.

Its a fallacy.

Any carbondating or paleographic dating has an earliest and latest date. Also carbon dating can vary because of the life of the animal the skin was taken from. Yes it was skin, not paper. Its a bit more than that. This is the Hijazi script. The Birmingham manuscript dates the fragments latest 645, 13 years after the death of the prophet Muhammed. Earliest being 568. It may very have been written during the lifetime of the prophet.

This cannot be said to the bible. Paul the closest to Jesus' time was born between 5 years before him or 5 years after. The Markan priority makes the Gospel of Mark 30 years later than Jesus. Though that is a source used by later Gospels, no one knows who wrote it. The earliest complete bible is the Codex Sinaiticus. At least 3 centuries after Jesus. Though this is a fantastic find, it still has two books that are not in the current bible. Epistle of Barnabus and the Shepard of Hermes. There is no basis. Manuscripts contradict eachother, each Gospel contract eachother, Pauls books contradict the Gospels, books with no trace of authorship are added into it.

The Quran cannot be a copy of the OT or the NT. There are too many reasons to the fact.

• No story is alike. None. So the prophet Muhammed stands accused "he copied the OT, then changed the stories to fit the bill". Thats because almost all the stories cited in the Quran seemingly plagiarised from the bible are vastly different. The biblical narrations are cruel, murderous, silly and nonsensical. The Quranic versions are much more sensible.
• Muhammed stands accused that he copied form the OT. He copied the stories, but left out the rampant incest and sexual crap found in the OT.
  
• The bible has it that the world is flat, and circular. Quran says that the earth is Geo Spherical.
  
• The bible is the work of at least 40 authors. Quran is one mans work. When authoring a book with 6246 verses, he made sure that he does not copy the contradicting narrations found in the bible. Even in the story of Jesus there are contradictions between one Gospel to another. The geneology of Jesus is just one of them. How could it be so vastly different? Why didnt Muhammed copy that? If Jesus had no father, thats it. He did not have a father. Only a mother. Thats what the Quran does. Thus there is no way the Quran copied the bible.
  
• They say that Muhammed copied the Haman story from the book of Esther. Which esther did he copy from? The hebrew Esther or the Greek Esther. Yep, when this is said with no narration people laugh saying "Dude, its the same thing. Its just a translation". No, that is good for the Kidergarten. It is common knowledge that the Greek version is not a translation, its a retelling of the story. Again, its not a translation. So which one did Muhammed copy from? If he copied only the name Haman, why didnt he copy other names? Like the father of Haman. The Quran says that Pharaoh asked his helper Haamaan to build him a tower (Quran 28:38), or a high platform for him to see. Haamaan is mentioned several times as a Quarry builder for Pharaoh. Esther story is completely different. There is no basis to this lie. Do a research on the Egyptian lit found in the Hof museum, you will find that Haman is the leader of the Quarry builders for the Pharaoh. That is authentication to the Quranic story, Muhammed could not have picked that up from the Bible.
• The bible has stoning for adultery. Quran has death penalty only for murder. Yes some say "corruption on earth" also deserves death penalty as per the Quran. Yes, thats Ufsidhooa fil ardha, very explicitly explained in the Quran as killing in the name of God. Death sentence. TO the likes of ISIS/ISIL, Anfasadhin fil ardha, death sentence. Not for adultery. Thus, Muhammed could not have picked that up from the Bible.
• The bible depicts God as a Greek God, riding cherubims as if he needs to fly. Kul hu allahu Ahad, Allahus Samad, Lamyalid, Walamyulda, Walam yakullahu Kufuwan Ahad.

Peace.

Why on earth would you think that modern historians would be in a conspiracy such as this? And, pointing out an alleged conspiracy in no way supports your argument. Can you provide any evidence whatsoever? Thus far you have merely provided unsubstantiated claims.

 

[firedragon]

Thanks for your response. Your questions are welcome.

You are right, my question did seem to pull part of the conversation away from trying to directly answer the OP. That was unforseen. I guess my point was that if the god does not exist, then the origin of the text is much less important, therefore only academic in nature.

The person I was responding to implied that I had the burden of proof to show that the god he was referencing did not exist, and if I could not do so, then by default I should assume the god does exist.

By that logic, everything I cannot (or simply have not) proved to not exist must exist. That logic leads to the faulty conclusion that all gods exist, since I have not proven the non-existence of any of them. He was the one demanding that I must demonstrare his god does not exist. It is only fair that he demonstrate that the gods he does not believe in also do not exist. After all, he is making the same claim about those gods, that he says I am making about his, right? If you do not have to prove the others do not exist then I do not have to prove yours does not. Do you understand? You should not ask of me what you are unable to do yourself.

Your belief that there is only one god is not relevant. Zeus is only one god. Thor is only one god, etc. it is not a question of the number of gods. It is a question of you providing the exact same evidence for your claim that you demand of others who are not even making a claim, but merely rejecting your claim.

You are an atheist concerning all the gods except yours. I just go one god further.

Apologies if I just barged into your conversation mate, I was just making a point.

Nevertheless, I do agree with you and your point is valid about God. I just would like you to understand the concept of God.

Zeus is a story character. He had sons and his sons had sons. So that analogy is not right.

If you read the Quran, there are stories about God like that. God is not a being like that.

Anyway it will take a long time to explain I guess. And proving God exists or vise versa is not that easy, especially to skeptics, for and against.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Why on earth would you think that modern historians would be in a conspiracy such as this? And, pointing out an alleged conspiracy in no way supports your argument. Can you provide any evidence whatsoever? Thus far you have merely provided unsubstantiated claims.

Ha?

 

[Mackerni]

I fail to see how nature is evidence for any deity. And calling nature god would just be renaming something we already have a name for and have no reason to think of as a god in the traditional sense of the word. Also, I fail to see the causal relationship between existence and a deity.

Deities have qualities that can be possessed by living things, to a certain extent. All seven divine qualities can be possessed by Extropian-line of thought. In fact, I would say that the divine qualities What is God, Where is God, When is God, etc. don't work unless you have a unified theory that possesses all of them, and that force is Extropy. Our human civilization is starting to possess these inspired attributes of divine selection. Nature gave me the reason to think so that I could reverse the trends of entropy and to be the cause of something greater - a human extropy movement. It's already happening and you're in it.

Your belief about the big bang is nothing more than your own wishful thinking.

Is the containment of all the space, energy, and matter into something very tiny not potent, ubiquitous, eternal, benevolent, wise, unique, and versatile? It is as extropy terms would call it - "perfect" as it was. Humankind will lead this back around again. The universe has natural forces causing decay, entropy, and expansion. We will see to it that it gets reassembled back in the right order, again. God is state of perfection of matter, it is not supernatural by any means.

The universe is subject to entropy, I don't understand how you think it causes it. I had to look up extropy. It seems to be a term used in something called transhumanism. I am not familiar with that particular philosophical line and don't have time to untangle it.

Why did you bother to post at all, then? Extropy is the opposite of entropy. Simple as that. As universal forces causes the decay and expansion of the Universe, we will bring our own technology that will reverse such a trend. We are already starting on it.

It's (part of) the Old Testament, part of the Bible.

You are right that it clearly reflects a Christian environment, but isn't really fashioned out of the Bible. It references a wide range of canonical and non-canonical (mostly Syriac) Christian texts and para Biblical traditions. It is too narrow to say it is fashioned out of the Bible though, it is more a discourse/commentary with an intertextual relationship to a wide range of sources present in the late antique ME.

Not only do I agree with you, but I want to say that I couldn't have said it better myself. Your vernacular is fantastic. You earn a like for your post.