This is the Koran, what about the others

[Socratic Berean]

I don't follow Jewish, Christian or Islamic doctrine personally. But in the Jewish or Muslim belief, God or angels speak to prophets which Genesis 13 speaks to.

I'm sorry, I meant Genesis 18, where God clearly appears as a man...to Abraham. (Genesis 13's content is unrelated.)

 

[Tumah]

I'm sorry, I meant Genesis 18, where God clearly appears as a man...to Abraham. (Genesis 13's content is unrelated.)

That's the Christian explanation to what's going on. In the Jewish explanation, G-d appears to Abraham first (verse 1), in the non-physical way, and then three men (in Judaism they're angels dressed as men) come for a visit.

 

[Socratic Berean]

That's the Christian explanation to what's going on. In the Jewish explanation, G-d appears to Abraham first (verse 1), in the non-physical way, and then three men (in Judaism they're angels dressed as men) come for a visit.

Interesting. 18 notes that, at some point, "the men" turn to leave for Sodom and Abraham goes on standing before and talking to G-d. It doesn't specify all three men in most English translations, but NLT and NET do specify that only two turn away, the implication being that the one who remained behind was Abraham's interlocutor--G-d. How does the original Hebrew handle this passage?

When we get to 19, there are only two of the men entering Sodom, again suggesting that the one--Abraham's interlocutor--stayed behind/broke off at some point. How is that conveyed in the Hebrew?

 

[Tumah]

Interesting. 18 notes that, at some point, "the men" turn to leave for Sodom and Abraham goes on standing before and talking to G-d. It doesn't specify all three men in most English translations, but NLT and NET do specify that only two turn away, the implication being that the one who remained behind was Abraham's interlocutor--G-d. How does the original Hebrew handle this passage?

When we get to 19, there are only two of the men entering Sodom, again suggesting that the one--Abraham's interlocutor--stayed behind/broke off at some point. How is that conveyed in the Hebrew?

In the Hebrew it just repeatedly uses the phrase "the men". It never specifies how many men except in verse two.

The Jewish understanding is that there were three angels, Michael, Gabriel and Raphael.
Michael is the angel of Israel, so he comes to tell Abraham about the birth of the second patriarch of Israel (v. 18:10 is in the singular, "and he said, '...and behold a son to Sarah your wife'"). After that, he leaves with the other two, but doesn't carry on to Sodom.
Gabriel is the angel of might, so he's stopping by on his way to Sodom (v. 19:22 in the singular "I will not be able to do anything (ie. destroy the city)").
Raphael is the angel of healing, so he's there to heal Abraham who just had his circumcision three days ago, then he's going to head out with Gabriel to Sodom to save Lot (v. 19:17 in the singular, "And he said, 'escape for your life'").

 

[Socratic Berean]

In the Hebrew it just repeatedly uses the phrase "the men". It never specifies how many men except in verse two.

The Jewish understanding is that there were three angels, Michael, Gabriel and Raphael.
Michael is the angel of Israel, so he comes to tell Abraham about the birth of the second patriarch of Israel (v. 18:10 is in the singular, "and he said, '...and behold a son to Sarah your wife'"). After that, he leaves with the other two, but doesn't carry on to Sodom.
Gabriel is the angel of might, so he's stopping by on his way to Sodom (v. 19:22 in the singular "I will not be able to do anything (ie. destroy the city)").
Raphael is the angel of healing, so he's there to heal Abraham who just had his circumcision three days ago, then he's going to head out with Gabriel to Sodom to save Lot (v. 19:17 in the singular, "And he said, 'escape for your life'").

Thanks for sharing. Where does the extra-scriptural material (the identification of the three, healing of Abraham, etc.) come from?

 

[Tumah]

Thanks for sharing. Where does the extra-scriptural material (the identification of the three, healing of Abraham, etc.) come from?

It comes from a body of early Rabbinic literature called Midrash or specifically, Midrash Aggadah.
Aggadah - Wikipedia

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Where does that say anything about babies? Islam believes that babies are innocent and believe in God.

It's implied that the Abrahamic god drowned babies when he caused the Flood. Unless of course he chose to flood the planet during a period when there were no human children on Earth, nor foetuses in mothers' wombs at all.

 

[LukeS]

So is this thread about the whereabouts of God?

What are we asking, in what way are we interrogating?

The only ideas I have relate to the phenomenology of religion.

 

[herushura]

You mean aside from the fact that Christianity arose in the Levant and spread through Asia Minor decades before it hit Rome, and that almost all the development in Christian worship, practice, thought, theology and liturgy arose in the East in places like Cappadocia, Syria and Egypt?

For the first four hundred years of Christianity's existence, Rome was small fry compared to the churches in Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Caesarea (and later Jerusalem). It was isolated from the other loci in the East, and due to the language barrier between Greek and Latin, was often largely left out of many of the theological discussions of the day. There's a reason that Augustine is about the only Church Father the Latins can name: He was about the only big-time theologian Rome had. Of course you have a few others like Ambrose, Pope Leo and Jerome, but that was just about all the Church of Rome had to offer until the Scholastic period.

The presence of off Roman praenomens, Marcus, Lucius, Mettius, Paulus and Petrus.

Gospel of Mark and Luke
Marcus/Lucius- Used by both patrician and plebeian families
Peter - Petrus, Petronius.
John, Latin Ivvenis
Paul, Latin Paulus
Matthew, Latin Mettius.

The beliefs of Christianity, such as Clemency (forgiveness of Sins) , Baptism, Gospel (Good News for military victory), the Christian Cross (Cruciform tropaeum), Easter ( Caesar's funeral liturgy), all are Roman in origin.

 

[England my lionheart]

I will review some of the meanings found in the Koran
If your religion has a similar meaning, tell us
If your religion does not have that meaning - ask yourself why

1-If my slaves ask about me, then I will answer the question of the questioner if he asks me

The meaning
God says
If people ask where I am, tell them I'm close to them, just ask me and I'll answer them

Our secular system doesn't allow slavery,after asking myself why I readily agree that its wrong.

 

[Augustus]

, there are very few ideas in the Quran, and most of the ideas it does have, are plagiarized... it retells many of the stories in the Bible.

You can't 'plagiarise' cultural traditions, especially those which are prevalent in your own environment. It's a bit like accusing somebody who writes fiction based on historical events of plagiarising history.

Calling 'plagiarism' just facile and a failure to think outside of a modern mindset where the Bible, it's characters and its narratives are all someone else's intellectual property like Star Wars or Harry Potter. Even if you want to misapply a modern concept to the past, 'cultural appropriation' would make far more sense.

Also, the Quran doesn't actually retell many stories from the Bible, it usually refers to comments on them without narrating them. It assumes the audience is already familiar with them and thus the commentary will make sense. In this context, 'plagiarism' makes even less sense.

 

[icehorse]

You can't 'plagiarise' cultural traditions, especially those which are prevalent in your own environment.

If you are basing your argument on the idea that the Quran is man-made and based on the cultural traditions of the region, I agree.

Also, the Quran doesn't actually retell many stories from the Bible, it usually refers to comments on them without narrating them. It assumes the audience is already familiar with them and thus the commentary will make sense. In this context, 'plagiarism' makes even less sense.

I guess the word "many" really depends on context. So, man-made, or from the creator of the universe?

 

[Augustus]

If you are basing your argument on the idea that the Quran is man-made and based on the cultural traditions of the region, I agree.

Isn't that the only situation in which you could consider calling it 'plagiarism' though?

I guess the word "many" really depends on context.

I'm not sure it retells any although might be wrong. Many stories are referred to intertextually and incorporated into a work of rhetoric though.

It's more like how a preacher would refer to stories to make a point, but wouldn't narrate them.

So, man-made, or from the creator of the universe?

Neither could be described as plagiarism though.

 

[icehorse]

I'm not sure it retells any although might be wrong

Looking at my summary notes (by Surah #):

11 - stories of Noah, Abraham, Lot
12 - Joseph and Jacob
15 - Abraham and Lot
18 - Gog and Magog?
19 - Zachariah, Mary, Isaac, JAcob, Ishmael, Enoch
20 - Moses, Adam (and Eve)
21 - David and Solomon, Job, Ishmael, Enoch, Isaiah, Jonah, Zachariah
22 - Adam, Noah
26 - Moses and the Pharaoh
27 - Moses, David, soloman, Lot
28 - Moses
29 - Noah, Abraham, Lot, Isaac, Jacob
34 - David, Solomon, sheba
37 - Sodom
38 - David, Solomon, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob
40 - Moses
44 - Moses
51 - Lot, Moses
53 - Ad, Noah. Lot
54 - Noah
79 - Moses and pharaoh

 

[Augustus]

Looking at my summary notes (by Surah #):

Retells or refers to/comments on/etc?

I think we are referring to slightly different things. The Bible narrates stories whereas the Quran tends to eschew narrative in favour of rhetoric.

This article explains what I mean Reading the Qur’an Through the Bible | Gabriel Said Reynolds

 

[icehorse]

Retells or refers to/comments on/etc?

some of both.

 

[Augustus]

some of both.

What limited narration there is (and it is very limited) is always for the purpose of making a rhetorical point though.

 

[sun rise]

That's a really interesting perspective. I guess maybe it gets back to the intention of the writer. My sense has always been that the writer(s) of the Quran needed some more material.

What is different to me is the nature of Arabic, at least Quranic Arabic. And after finding some verses translated very differently by different people, I appreciate the statement by Muslims that translations are a problem. Translation is a problem in many fields, but here it seems that what we read is the opinion of the translator in many cases.

Take 17:104 which has been translated to basically say that the State of Israel is proof we're living in the end times or that the Jews will be judged by Allah. And given the nature of the language - even the tense, past or future, are both used in translation. The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation

 

[icehorse]

What is different to me is the nature of Arabic, at least Quranic Arabic. And after finding some verses translated very differently by different people, I appreciate the statement by Muslims that translations are a problem. Translation is a problem in many fields, but here it seems that what we read is the opinion of the translator in many cases.

Take 17:104 which has been translated to basically say that the State of Israel is proof we're living in the end times or that the Jews will be judged by Allah. And given the nature of the language - even the tense, past or future, are both used in translation. The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Translation

I have studied three different translations. Two of them in a limited way, mainly to compare and contrast specific passages. The third I studied cover to cover, and I picked that one because as I understand it, it's the translation that's been reprinted the most in the world (about 270 million copies have been printed(?)).

I'm a little bit interested in the history. I'm VERY interested in what's true in 2017, which is why I picked the most popular translation, that's the one that's getting read.

 

[Socratic Berean]

It comes from a body of early Rabbinic literature called Midrash or specifically, Midrash Aggadah.
Aggadah - Wikipedia

Again, many thanks. While superficially acquainted with the Mishnah, I was unfamiliar with this line of exegesis and commentary. Interesting stuff.