Muhammads knowledge divine or learned?

[WhatGod]

Moses did not exist in reality.

The exodus never happened.


We have factual mythology.

Moses is just a convenient label for whoever it was that completely rewrote judaism to be a monotheism from a polytheism with one personal god for them.

 

[Shad]

Got my answer. The word is obscure in which it has several different meanings according to lexicons made after the Quran. Funny that.

So the verse is wrong if the word is translated as "meet"give verse 20. If the verse is "mix" or "merge" this creates an internal contradiction with verse 20 in which there is a barrier to prevent mixing. Due to this internal contradiction merge is dropped from the definition of the verse completely. So like I said mix or merge (19) contradicts (20) barrier and transgress. What you are doing is eisegesis. Every other source for the verse itself is exegesis and supports my view. Eisegesis is dishonest scholarship and is moot given what it is.

You hold an untenable position.


The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Quran Dictionary

 

[Britedream]

Got my answer. The word is obscure in which it has several different meanings according to lexicons made after the Quran. Funny that.

So the verse is wrong if the word is translated as "meet"give verse 20. If the verse is "mix" or "merge" this creates an internal contradiction with verse 20 in which there is a barrier to prevent mixing. Due to this internal contradiction merge is dropped from the definition of the verse completely. So like I said mix or merge (19) contradicts (20) barrier and transgress. What you are doing is eisegesis. Every other source for the verse itself is exegesis and supports my view. Eisegesis is dishonest scholarship and is moot given what it is.

You hold an untenable position.


The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Quran Dictionary

You got nothing, first, the page you linked to , if you look at the words in red, you will not find the word in question "مَرَجَ", the word is in another page, and is translated as "release" based on "Sahih International", one of the translation you listed earlier. What is new, I told you earlier what is the correct translation is.

So nothing in link above, that is related to what you are saying, then you went saying if the translation means "mix", it is so and so.
it does not work that way, we have to arrive at what is the right meaning for the word مَرَجَ then we go on, so we do not go in circle. if you accept now the word to mean merge or mix, then we go to next the verse; verse20. otherwise we have to determine the meanig of مرج.

please refrain from putting empty claim, and stick to the point.

 

[outhouse]

Moses is just a convenient label for whoever it was that completely rewrote judaism to be a monotheism from a polytheism with one personal god for them.

not even close to what happened.


moses is mythology created in pseudo history to help give people an identity that had none.

Israelites at that time had no clue of their origin.

They have been multi cultural most of their existence.

 

[Shad]

You got nothing, first, the page you linked to , if you look at the words in red, you will not find the word in question "مَرَجَ", the word is in another page, and is translated as "release" based on "Sahih International", one of the translation you listed earlier. What is new, I told you earlier what is the correct translation is.

So nothing in link above, that is related to what you are saying, then you went saying if the translation means "mix", it is so and so.
it does not work that way, we have to arrive at what is the right meaning for the word مَرَجَ then we go on, so we do not go in circle. if you accept now the word to mean merge or mix, then we go to next the verse; verse20. otherwise we have to determine the meanig of مرج.

please refrain from putting empty claim, and stick to the point.

Sorry you can not even link one source supporting what you have said without hiding it in Arabic. Yet I have 5 translations, quranic lexicons and Arabic dictionaries support my definitions not yours. You can tell me all you want. I have support from academic sources, you just make assertions you refuse to back up. I do not accept the word means what you claim it as assertions without evidence can be dismissed for just such a reason. Mixing does not apply to this verse. You are being dishonest and using eisegesis to force a definition into the verse while every honest scholar clearly sees that it does not apply. Translations over a century old and modern ones confirm my view, not your claims. More so a second verse corraberates my view not yours. Again a view supported by honest scholarship. Changing a defination after the fact is post hoc rationalizae which is a fallacy. Like I said you have to use fallacies to supports your view which makes the view moot.

http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=mrj
http://quran.com/25/53

 

[YmirGF]

Here is 5. You should read your own holy text more often especially if you are talking about presently...

Sahih International
He released the two seas, meeting [side by side];
Muhsin Khan
He has let loosed the two seas (the salt water and the sweet) meeting together.
Pickthall
He hath loosed the two seas. They meet.
Yusuf Ali
He has let free the two bodies of flowing water, meeting together:
Shakir
He has made the two seas to flow freely (so that) they meet together:
Dr. Ghali
He merged the two seas (that) meet together; ​

I'll raise the bar considerably for you, so there can be no doubt.

This is a side by side examination of 48 English translations. Guess which word they favor?

ar-Rahman 55:19

 

[Shad]

Thanks for the support. If you look at the versions which use merge you will notice all are modern translation made in the last few years. Changing the meaning like this is again post hoc rationalization, changing to fit modern knowledge.

 

[YmirGF]

Thanks for the support. If you look at the versions which use merge you will notice all are modern translation made in the last few years. Changing the meaning like this is again post hoc rationalization, changing to fit modern knowledge.

It's a trend so that Muslim scholars don't look quite so idiotic.

 

[outhouse]

It's a trend so that Muslim scholars don't look quite so idiotic.

They are not considered scholars on a global scale.


They are just apologist, and have no credibility outside their own circles.


As to where our scholars have credibility world wide. :yes:

 

[outhouse]

Thanks for the support. If you look at the versions which use merge you will notice all are modern translation made in the last few years. Changing the meaning like this is again post hoc rationalization, changing to fit modern knowledge.

So like earlier muslims who made the book


They are changing the book with mans hands not any gods what so ever, showing LEARNED not divine.


Why is it so hard for people in this modern time to understand if man makes the book, man created the book, or their god is so ridiculous he cannot even tell people important teachings in a manner that is even understandable to man.

 

[Britedream]

Sorry you can not even link one source supporting what you have said without hiding it in Arabic. Yet I have 5 translations, quranic lexicons and Arabic dictionaries support my definitions not yours. You can tell me all you want. I have support from academic sources, you just make assertions you refuse to back up. I do not accept the word means what you claim it as assertions without evidence can be dismissed for just such a reason. Mixing does not apply to this verse. You are being dishonest and using eisegesis to force a definition into the verse while every honest scholar clearly sees that it does not apply. Translations over a century old and modern ones confirm my view, not your claims. More so a second verse corraberates my view not yours. Again a view supported by honest scholarship. Changing a defination after the fact is post hoc rationalizae which is a fallacy. Like I said you have to use fallacies to supports your view which makes the view moot.

The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Quran Dictionary
Surat Al-Furqan [25:53] - The Noble Qur'an - ?????? ??????

Birds of a feather flock together.
Shad, stop the child play, you are, and I am; it is not about you or about me.

it is about the Arabic word meaning; if you bring up a reference, then it can be used, so the references you listed, as well as the reference that were brought by the same feather; all have a reference that indicates that the word means merge.

So I will leave the nonsense behind, and start to use merge to reason for the next verse, later.

 

[Shad]

Yet this is not the case in tasfirs or lexicons. You are free to use whatever word you wish to inject into the verse. I am free to dismiss it as the consensus in firmly agreement with my view.

Your brought no references. You dodged providing a source and provided a red herring in Arabic.

 

[Britedream]

Yet this is not the case in tasfirs or lexicons. You are free to use whatever word you wish to inject into the verse. I am free to dismiss it as the consensus in firmly agreement with my view.

Your brought no references. You dodged providing a source and provided a red herring in Arabic.

It does not make any big difference in the meaning, if God release, or send the two seas to meet, then it is inherited that they are going to merge, but I am using the word that I believe is the closest to the meaning of the Arabic word.

 

[YmirGF]

It does not make any big a difference in the meaning, if God release, or send the two seas to meet, then it is inherited that they are going to merge, but I am using the word that I believe is the closest to the meaning of the Arabic word.

And yet, so many translators who are fluent in Arabic and English chose to translate it differently. Are you seriously suggesting that some of the highest regarded English translations are not reliable? Seriously?

They are not considered scholars on a global scale.

I know, that butthurt must be terribly embarrassing.

 

[Britedream]

And yet, so many translators who are fluent in Arabic and English chose to translate it differently. Are you seriously suggesting that some of the highest regarded English translations are not reliable? Seriously?
.

You have no idea about the Arabic language or The ranslations, putting such claims out of ignoranc.

Please read What a jew who became a muslim have said about Quran translations, please, read the preface:

http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/...he_Message_of_The_Quran__by_Muhammad_Asad.pdf

 

[outhouse]

Please read What a jew who became a muslim

he is not credible in any way


It is showing your desperation.


Why not admit the truth?


The book factually has some mythology in it

 

[Britedream]

he is not credible in any way


It is showing your desperation.


Why not admit the truth?


The book factually has some mythology in it

Go and search for who created you, once you know that, come here, and play knowledgeable.
The most ignorant ever, anyone who does not know the one caused him to be here.

 

[outhouse]

The most ignorant ever, anyone who does not know the one caused him to be here.

For me the most insane thing is to avoid knowledge and education.


I know I factually evolved.


Do you think evolution is bad too?

 

[Britedream]

For me the most insane thing is to avoid knowledge and education.


I know I factually evolved.


Do you think evolution is bad too?

Created by nothing, is that your knowledge?.

 

[Shad]

55:19 He has given freedom to the two great bodies of water, so that they might meet: (55:20) [yet]
between them is a barrier which they may not transgress.
55:19

Your expert uses a translation which agrees with me. Hilarious I also see a lot of complaining of western academics using an objective standard which does not arrive at the conclusions which Muslim hold. I see a lot of confirmation bias. Which is typical of a Muslim believer writing about their own holy texts..