The Aramaic Language of the Qur'an: Jesus was Crucified!

[moose7237]

Folks, this is shocking I know, but I quote author: Gabriel Sawma

"The problem lies in the fact the Muslim commentators do not understand the language in which the Quran was written. The language of the Quran has always been Aramaic. Aramaic renders interpretations that are totally different from those rendered by Muslim commentators throughout the last fourteen centuries.

The Quran states that its language is Arabic, but Arab speaking people have difficulty understanding its language. The difficulty stems from the fact that the language of the Quran has always been and still is Aramaic. In the seventh century, the written language of the Near East was Syriac, a dialect of Aramaic, not Arabic.

http://www.assyriatimes.com/engine/m...p?storyid=3182

Note: Gabriel Sawma is a lawyer with emphasis on International Law and, Professor of Aramaic, and a recognized authority on Islamic studies. He is expert on the Aramaic influence on the Qur’an and on Biblical Hebrew. He speaks, reads, and writes Arabic, Aramaic, and Hebrew.

Here is the CRUX of our continuing discussion:

The Qur'an states the following:

"Waqawlihim inna qatalna al Massih Issa ibn Maryam rasul Allah, wama qataluhu wama salabuhu walaken shubbiha lahum", Q. 4: 158,

Translation: "...and their saying, we did kill the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah; whereas they slew him not nor crucified him, but he was made to appear to them like the one crucified" (M. Sher Ali).

Gabriel Sawma teaches, and I quote:

The Qur'anic conjugation "w" is similar to Aramaic "w" means 'so, then, and'; Akkadian "u". The Qur'anic word "wama" has been interpreted erroneously as 'did not'. Syriac "wmo, wma" is an interrogative pronoun 'what?' "wmo li wlock" or "wma li wlak" means 'and what have I to do with you'. The Qur'an is saying: 'and what they slew, and what they crucified'. In other words, the Qur'an confirms the death and crucifixion of Jesus, but the Aramaic language of the verse was misinterpreted by Muslim commentators.

For more on this and other subjects, please refer to: The Qur'an: Misinterpreted, Mistranslated, and Misread. The Aramaic Language of the Qur'an.

By Gabriel Sawma

Copyright 2006, Gabriel Sawma. ALLRIGHTS RESERVED

See:

http://www.syriacaramaicquran.com/gpage6.html

More about Aramaic:

Aramaic is a Semitic language belonging to the Afroasiatic language family. Within this family, Aramaic belongs to the Semitic subfamily, and more specifically, is a part of the Northwest Semitic group of languages, which also includes Canaanite languages such as Hebrew and Phoenician. Aramaic script was widely adopted for other languages and is ancestral to both the Arabic and Hebrew alphabets.

During its 3,000-year history, Aramaic has served variously as a language of administration of empires and as a language of divine worship. It was the day-to-day language of Israel in the Second Temple period (539 BCE – 70 CE), was the original language of large sections of the biblical books of Daniel and Ezra, was the language spoken by Jesus, and is the main language of the Talmud.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language

So you're telling me this guy is comparing a word in one language to a word in another language, and because it benefits his argument in the language he favors, the Quran must be written in error? *sigh*

So by you're argument, I can take the New Testament which was written in greek, and compare the wording into a different dialect of greek to completely transform its meaning? Wow you're a pro at providing the best arguments against the quran (insert sarcasm)

Now as far as the crucifixion goes, my question is, did other texts BEFORE the quran say that Jesus was not crucified? Absolutely:

When he had said those things, I saw him seemingly being seized by them. And I said "What do I see, O Lord? That it is you yourself whom they take, and that you are grasping me? Or who is this one, glad and laughing on the tree? And is it another one whose feet and hands they are striking?"

The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."

But I, when I had looked, said "Lord, no one is looking at you. Let us flee this place."

But he said to me, "I have told you, 'Leave the blind alone!'. And you, see how they do not know what they are saying. For the son of their glory instead of my servant, they have put to shame."

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apopet.html

Heck Psalms 34 would be proven false if the crucifixion were true:

19 The righteous person may have many troubles,
but the LORD delivers him from them all;
20 he protects all his bones,
not one of them will be broken.

21 Evil will slay the wicked;
the foes of the righteous will be condemned.
22 The LORD will rescue his servants;
no one who takes refuge in him will be condemned.

Funny how psalm 34 confirms what the Quran teaches that Jesus was saved from the cross and his body preserved. Yet the NT contradicts the OT and teaches that Jesus' bones were not protected, evil will not slay the wicked, and the Lord will not rescue his servants (even the sinless ones)

[Bowman]

Funny how psalm 34 confirms what the Quran teaches that Jesus was saved from the cross and his body preserved.

The Koran teaches no such thing, brother.

Perhaps you have not undertaken a careful study of the Arabic, as it plainly tells the reader that Jesus was indeed crucified until death upon the cross, in several locations, not in just the one location that islam has taught you.

It would be ludicrous and just plain poor theology to base your understanding of Jesus' crucifixion upon one misinterpreted ayah out of your book of faith.

However.....this is what you are doing is it not?

[moose7237]

The Koran teaches no such thing, brother.

Perhaps you have not undertaken a careful study of the Arabic, as it plainly tells the reader that Jesus was indeed crucified until death upon the cross, in several locations, not in just the one location that islam has taught you.

It would be ludicrous and just plain poor theology to base your understanding of Jesus' crucifixion upon one misinterpreted ayah out of your book of faith.

However.....this is what you are doing is it not?

Why is a person of the christian faith trying to teach me about my religion? First of all, EVERY translation says that Jesus was not crucified based on 4:157. Secondly, it just wasn't one verse. I quoted the Apocalypse of Peter which was dated BEFORE the Quran that also stated Jesus was not crucified but it appeared to them he was. Thirdly, I even quoted the OT where Jesus could not have been crucified. In fact, the Psalms I quoted directly contradicts the NT claim that Jesus was crucified.

[Bowman]

Why is a person of the christian faith trying to teach me about my religion?

Because you would rather follow islam over that of your book of faith.

First of all, EVERY translation says that Jesus was not crucified based on 4:157.

The Arabic does not.

However, you don't know any Arabic.

You would rather follow a translation.

Secondly, it just wasn't one verse.

One ayah is all that islam has given you, brother.

I quoted the Apocalypse of Peter which was dated BEFORE the Quran that also stated Jesus was not crucified but it appeared to them he was.

When was this ever considered part of the canon?

Thirdly, I even quoted the OT where Jesus could not have been crucified. In fact, the Psalms I quoted directly contradicts the NT claim that Jesus was crucified.

The OT does not contradict the NT.

Even the authors of the Koran understood this much.

[moose7237]

Because you would rather follow islam over that of your book of faith.

Yes how can I have been so Ignorant, I've been following Islam over the Quran, thats been my mistake all along *sigh*



[/quote]The Arabic does not.

However, you don't know any Arabic.
[/quote]

So let me get this straight, a Christian comes and tells me that over 15 translations, so many lectures have been wrong this whole time...because he said so. Ok I'll trust the guy that doesn't know arabic over the translations of the Quran. I think thats as good as a case as the original guy who is trying to interpret arabic through aramaic.

You would rather follow a translation.

Gee I hope you don't follow the english translations of the NT, you never know what non-christian might come along with no knowledge of the greek language will come and tell you that your book has been wrong this whole time. Who knows maybe you'll even convert ;)

One ayah is all that islam has given you, brother.

All I need

When was this ever considered part of the canon?

That wasn't my point. My point was to show that there were texts before the Quran that agreed that Jesus was not crucified.

The OT does not contradict the NT.

Even the authors of the Koran understood this much.

I actually have proven that it does, you have done nothing to try to prove me wrong, therefore I stand by my point that the OT does contradict the NT, take me on if u can.

Show me the Ayah that states that the OT does not contradict the NT

[Bowman]

Yes how can I have been so Ignorant, I've been following Islam over the Quran, thats been my mistake all along *sigh*

Exactly.

So let me get this straight, a Christian comes and tells me that over 15 translations, so many lectures have been wrong this whole time...because he said so.

There you go again taking a translation over the original Arabic.

What's the matter with the Arabic of your Koran, brother?

Ok I'll trust the guy that doesn't know arabic over the translations of the Quran. I think thats as good as a case as the original guy who is trying to interpret arabic through aramaic.

What part of the Arabic scares you away, brother?

Gee I hope you don't follow the english translations of the NT, you never know what non-christian might come along with no knowledge of the greek language will come and tell you that your book has been wrong this whole time. Who knows maybe you'll even convert ;)

We follow Biblical Greek when referencing the NT, brother.

Since you are completely ignorant of Arabic, it is highly likely that you are likewise ignorance of Greek.

All I need

Not when this one ayah directly contradicts other ayat within your book of faith.

That wasn't my point. My point was to show that there were texts before the Quran that agreed that Jesus was not crucified.

So...the authors of the Koran copied this portion from previous writings?

Did they also copy from that writing that people wear clothing made of light?

I actually have proven that it does, you have done nothing to try to prove me wrong, therefore I stand by my point that the OT does contradict the NT, take me on if u can.

You don't even know the original languages of any scripture that you reference, brother.

How then are you going to 'prove' anything?

Show me the Ayah that states that the OT does not contradict the NT

Let's make it simple for you, brother.

Present any portion from the Koran which you feel is completely free from any Jewish or Christian influence.

Good luck.

[moose7237]

Exactly.

Wow, I don't even know where to begin here...

There you go again taking a translation over the original Arabic.

What's the matter with the Arabic of your Koran, brother?

The arabic and the translation of 4:157-158 are very accurate. Over 10 translations are not wrong. The word "ma" that's used in 4:157 means "not" and the word "wa" means "and" so really its "and not" they killed him(the jews)

By the way, I do speak arabic: Ma Areed (I don't want) The word "ma" as I used it here means not or don't.

What part of the Arabic scares you away, brother?

None of it. Which part of the arabic do you actually understand?

We follow Biblical Greek when referencing the NT, brother.

Since you are completely ignorant of Arabic, it is highly likely that you are likewise ignorance of Greek.

I know you follow greek when referencing the NT, do you know greek? Or do you follow the english translations? How do you know I'm completely ignorant of arabic?

Not when this one ayah directly contradicts other ayat within your book of faith.

What verses does 4:157 contradict?

So...the authors of the Koran copied this portion from previous writings?

Did they also copy from that writing that people wear clothing made of light?

Nope didn't copy anything. CONFIRM perhaps. I don't see anything wrong with agreeing with some parts of previous writings. The quran says it wrong to steal, lie, etc. Does that mean we copied that from the bible Umm...no

You don't even know the original languages of any scripture that you reference, brother.

How then are you going to 'prove' anything?

Neither do a majority of american priests or christian followers, I guess that means they can't reference any of their own scripture by your standards. And I suspect that applies to you as well. No I proved that the crucifixion contradicts psalms 34, you haven't made one attempt to use scripture to dispute my arguments, you are just saying my argument is faulty because you said so.

Let's make it simple for you, brother.

Present any portion from the Koran which you feel is completely free from any Jewish or Christian influence.

Good luck.

[/quote]

Free From ANY Jewish or Christian influence...Ok: [039:006] He created you (all) from a single person: then created, of like nature, his mate; and he sent down for you eight head of cattle in pairs: He makes you, in the wombs of your mothers, in stages, one after another, in three veils of darkness. such is God, your Lord and Cherisher: to Him belongs (all) dominion. There is no god but He: then how are ye turned away (from your true Centre)?

I emphasize the bold writing :)

[Bowman]

Wow, I don't even know where to begin here...

Just jump right in, brother…

The arabic and the translation of 4:157-158 are very accurate. Over 10 translations are not wrong.

Since you prefer translations over the original, then feel free to pick one and run with it.

Abandon the Arabic.

Be sure to defend your rendering of choice.

The word "ma" that's used in 4:157 means "not" and the word "wa" means "and" so really its "and not" they killed him(the jews)

By the way, I do speak arabic: Ma Areed (I don't want) The word "ma" as I used it here means not or don't.

Consider the ‘beyond belief’ theology of Islam. Muslims, like yourself, throw out all logic and go for broke in a last-ditch attempt to deny Jesus’ crucifixion until death upon the cross.

Here is a theology that plucks one single solitary word (out of 77,701 words), in one single solitary verse (out of 6,666 verses), in one single solitary chapter (out of its 114 chapters), as ‘evidence’ that Jesus was not crucified until death upon the cross.

One word, in one verse…that’s it!

Sci-fi movies have a better plot than Islam does with its so-called theology.

Here, we will demonstrate just how flimsy Islamic theology is, and how Islam stands or falls based upon the mis-interpretation of ONE WORD…

وقولهم إنا قتلنا المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول


الله وما قتلوه وما صلبوه ولكن شبه لهم وإن


الذين اختلفوا فيه لفي شك منه ما لهم به من علم


إلا اتباع الظن وما قتلوه يقينا

Waqawlihim inna qatalna almaseeha AAeesa ibna maryama rasoola Allahi wama qataloohu wama salaboohu walakin shubbiha lahum wa-inna allatheena ikhtalafoo feehi lafee shakkin minhu ma lahum bihi min AAilmin illa ittibaAAa alththanni wama qataloohu yaqeenan

4.157 And their saying: "Truly we killed The Messiah, Jesus, Mary's son, “allah's” messenger”, and that they killed him, and that they crucified him, and certainly they alike, and truly whom they differed in Him, certainly they (are) not in doubt from Him, on account of Him, from knowledge, except to follow the belief, and that they surely killed him.





To overcome the Muslim mindset, we need to first define the Arabic word that has been misinterpreted by Islam.


Here is the classic Arabic definition for "ma"...

ما= “ma”

“ma” definition:

Conjunctive pronoun.That; which; that which; whatsoever; what; as; as much; in such amanner as; as much as; as for as; any kind; when; how. Does not, as a rule, refer to reasonable things, but instances to the contrary sometimes occur. It is one of those particles, which, in conditional propositions, govern the verb in the conditional mood; it is frequently a mere expletive. It is also a negative adverb, Not; in general it denies a circumstance either present, or of past, but little remote from the present; it governs the attribute in the accusative, thus it is a negative particle when placed before the perfect as in 53.2; or before a pronoun as in 68.2; or before an demonstrative noun as in 12.31. The particle, when joined to the perfect, denies the past; when joined to the imperfect, the present.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume eight, p. 3016
A Grammar of the Arabic Language, W. Wright, Third edition, volume 2, p. 300
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, pp. 523 - 524
A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, John Penrice, pp. 135 - 136




As we can see below..."ma", when joined to "wa", is simply a filler-word in this ayah...

وقولهم إنا قتلنا المسيح عيسى ابن مريم رسول


الله وما قتلوه وما صلبوه ولكن شبه لهم وإن


الذين اختلفوا فيه لفي شك منه ما لهم به من علم


إلا اتباع الظن وما قتلوه يقينا

Waqawlihim inna qatalna almaseeha AAeesa ibna maryama rasoola Allahi wama qataloohu wama salaboohu walakin shubbiha lahum wa-inna allatheena ikhtalafoo feehi lafee shakkin minhu ma lahum bihi min AAilmin illa ittibaAAa alththanni wama qataloohu yaqeenan

4.157 And their saying: "Certainly we killed The Messiah, Jesus, Mary's son, “allah's” messenger”, and that they killed him, and that they crucified him, and certainly they alike, and certainly whom they followed in Him, certainly they (are) not in doubt from Him, on account of Him, from knowledge, except to follow the belief, and that they surely killed him.


Couple this, to the very next ayah, as thus…



بل رفعه الله إليه وكان الله عزيزا حكيما

Bal rafaAAahu Allahu ilayhi wakana Allahu AAazeezan hakeeman

4.158 But “allah”, he raised Him to him, and “allah” mighty, wise.




4.157 & 4.158 tell us of its most likely Biblical source...

This One given to you by the before-determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you having taken by lawless hands, having crucified Him, you killed Him. But God raised Him up, loosing the throes of death, because it was not possible for Him to be held by it. (Act 2.23 - 24)


As we can see, 4.157 & 4.158 are simply parroting NT material...


Thus, context is clear that in 4.157 “wama” is simply governing the verb in the conditional mood – which is positive….NOT negative.


Further, rendering this Islamic one-hit-wonder ayah as a negative would force other Koranic ayahs into contradiction.



As further evidence that 4.157 confirms Jesus’ death upon the cross, all the Koranic crucifixion instances are shown here, which confirm that the Koran always describes a crucifixion event with complete certainty of death…



• 5.33…they will be crucified till death
• 7.124…I will surely crucify you till death
• 12.41…so will be crucified till death
• 20.71…and I will surely crucify you till death
• 26.49…and I will surely crucify you till death


Death through crucifixion is always mandated in the Koran.

Thus, there is no reason at all to believe that 4.157 would break this trend…

[moose7237]

Just jump right in, brother…

Don't worry about it, I already made my point

Since you prefer translations over the original, then feel free to pick one and run with it.

Abandon the Arabic.

Be sure to defend your rendering of choice.

The translations do not contradict the arabic. And like I mentioned in my last post which you did not acknowledge, millions of christians read the english translations of the bible instead of the greek, they must be in error by doing so by your definition.

Consider the ‘beyond belief’ theology of Islam. Muslims, like yourself, throw out all logic and go for broke in a last-ditch attempt to deny Jesus’ crucifixion until death upon the cross.

Here is a theology that plucks one single solitary word (out of 77,701 words), in one single solitary verse (out of 6,666 verses), in one single solitary chapter (out of its 114 chapters), as ‘evidence’ that Jesus was not crucified until death upon the cross.

One word, in one verse…that’s it!

Sci-fi movies have a better plot than Islam does with its so-called theology.

Why does the Quran need to go beyond one verse about Jesus not being crucified. In fact, one verse is enough! Beyond that, there were plenty of texts BEFORE the Quran that DENIED the crucifixion as well as the pslams which I demonstrated earlier.

Here, we will demonstrate just how flimsy Islamic theology is, and how Islam stands or falls based upon the mis-interpretation of ONE WORD…

Gee this should be fun

To overcome the Muslim mindset, we need to first define the Arabic word that has been misinterpreted by Islam.


Here is the classic Arabic definition for "ma"...

ما= “ma”

“ma” definition:

Conjunctive pronoun.That; which; that which; whatsoever; what; as; as much; in such amanner as; as much as; as for as; any kind; when; how. Does not, as a rule, refer to reasonable things, but instances to the contrary sometimes occur. It is one of those particles, which, in conditional propositions, govern the verb in the conditional mood; it is frequently a mere expletive. It is also a negative adverb, Not; in general it denies a circumstance either present, or of past, but little remote from the present; it governs the attribute in the accusative, thus it is a negative particle when placed before the perfect as in 53.2; or before a pronoun as in 68.2; or before an demonstrative noun as in 12.31. The particle, when joined to the perfect, denies the past; when joined to the imperfect, the present.

Its incredibly sad how the very definitions you bring up prove me right. Look at what I bolded. Lets see other places in the Quran where "ma" was used:

93:3 3. Your Lord has neither forsaken you nor has He become displeased.

[093:003] Ma waddaAAaka rabbuka wama qala

As further evidence that 4.157 confirms Jesus’ death upon the cross, all the Koranic crucifixion instances are shown here, which confirm that the Koran always describes a crucifixion event with complete certainty of death…

Yes and 4:157 was also meant to describe that the Jews had boasted about killing Jesus, yet God saved him from that.

• 5.33…they will be crucified till death
• 7.124…I will surely crucify you till death
• 12.41…so will be crucified till death
• 20.71…and I will surely crucify you till death
• 26.49…and I will surely crucify you till death


Death through crucifixion is always mandated in the Koran.

Wow you are truly a deceiver! Why don't you quote any of these verses in whole? Look at what Bowman is trying to do! I will only quote 5:33 to show his deception:

[005:033] The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

You said in 5:33 its death BY crucifixion which is wrong because in this verse its death OR crucifixion. Your copy and paste arguments from anti Islamic websites are pathetic.

Psalms 34, the apocalypse of Peter, and the Acts of John all before the Quran confirm that Jesus was not crucified.

[Bowman]

Don't worry about it, I already made my point

You don’t have a point.

Nor do you know any Arabic whatsoever.

The translations do not contradict the arabic.

Yes, they do.

Nor can you prove otherwise.

And like I mentioned in my last post which you did not acknowledge, millions of christians read the english translations of the bible instead of the greek, they must be in error by doing so by your definition.

Biblical exegesis of the original languages supports modern translations.

Koranic exegesis of the Arabic does not support the flimsy Islamic theology which you believe in.

Why does the Quran need to go beyond one verse about Jesus not being crucified. In fact, one verse is enough!

You already admitted that your theology revolves around not one verse, but one word!

Further, islam has told you that you only have one verse.

The Koran has numerous verses which speak directly of Jesus’ crucifixion.

However, you follow islam over the Koran.

Beyond that, there were plenty of texts BEFORE the Quran that DENIED the crucifixion as well as the pslams which I demonstrated earlier.

What you did was to show that you think the authors of the Koran plagiarized previous material.

And no…you don’t even know the Biblical languages, so how is it that you demonstrated anything at all in Psalms?

Its incredibly sad how the very definitions you bring up prove me right. Look at what I bolded. Lets see other places in the Quran where "ma" was used:

93:3 3. Your Lord has neither forsaken you nor has He become displeased.

[093:003] Ma waddaAAaka rabbuka wama qala

Not quite…

Let’s look at this simple example from the ‘popular’ translator that you no doubt follow in 4.157.

Pay close attention to this ayah, which has not one, not two, not three, but four instances of “wama”…


Qooloo amanna biAllahi wama onzila ilayna wama onzila ila ibraheema wa-ismaAAeela wa-ishaqa wayaAAqooba waal-asbati wama ootiya moosa waAAeesa wama ootiya alnnabiyyoona min rabbihim la nufarriqu bayna ahadin minhum wanahnu lahu muslimoona

2.136 Yusuf Ali

Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."


Observe that Yusuf Ali chose NOT to render “wama” as a negative in four out of four instances.


Thus, according your flawed Islamic reasoning, then this ayah should read…


Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and NOT the revelation given to us, and NOT Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and NOT given to Moses and Jesus, and NOT given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."



Want to try again….?

Yes and 4:157 was also meant to describe that the Jews had boasted about killing Jesus, yet God saved him from that.

No.

The Arabic never says this.

Only weak islamic theology.

Wow you are truly a deceiver! Why don't you quote any of these verses in whole? Look at what Bowman is trying to do! I will only quote 5:33 to show his deception:

[005:033] The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

You said in 5:33 its death BY crucifixion which is wrong because in this verse its death OR crucifixion. Your copy and paste arguments from anti Islamic websites are pathetic.

Let’s look…

إنما جزؤا الذين يحاربون الله ورسوله ويسعون في الأرض فسادا أن يقتلوا أو يصلبوا أو تقطع أيديهم وأرجلهم من خلف أو ينفوا من الأرض ذلك لهم خزي في الدنيا ولهم في الاءخرة عذاب عظيم

Innama jazao allatheena yuhariboona Allaha warasoolahu wayasAAawna fee al-ardi fasadan an yuqattaloo aw yusallaboo aw tuqattaAAa aydeehim waarjuluhum min khilafin aw yunfaw mina al-ardi thalika lahum khizyun fee alddunya walahum fee al-akhirati AAathabun AAatheemun

5.33 Only reward those whom fight “allah” and his messenger, and they strive hard in the earth corruption, that they be killed or they will be crucified till death, or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposites, or they be exiled from the earth, that for them shame in the present world, and for them in the end a great torture.

Psalms 34, the apocalypse of Peter, and the Acts of John all before the Quran confirm that Jesus was not crucified.

Learn your scripture…

ηλθον ουν οι στρατιωται και του μεν πρωτου κατεαξαν τα σκελη και του αλλου του συσταυρωθεντος αυτω επι δε τον ιησουν ελθοντες ως ειδον ηδη αυτον τεθνηκοτα ου κατεαξαν αυτου τα σκελη αλλ εις των στρατιωτων λογχη αυτου την πλευραν ενυξεν και εξηλθεν ευθυς αιμα και υδωρ

erchomai oun ho stratiotes kai ho men protos katagnumi ho skelos kai ho allos ho sustauroo autos epi de ho Iesous erchomai hos eido ede autos thnesko ou katagnumi autos ho skelos alla heis ho stratiotes logche autos ho pleura nusso kai exerchomai eutheos haima kai hudor

Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other crucified with Him. But on coming to Jesus, when they saw He was dead already, they did not break His legs. But one of the soldiers spear pierced His side, and at once blood and water came out. (John 19.32 – 34)

[moose7237]

You don’t have a point.

Nor do you know any Arabic whatsoever.

Laysh hichee ga3ad tih'chee? Ani Habab :)
Don't ever assume, because you know what happens when you do

Yes, they do.

Nor can you prove otherwise.

Lol I already did prove otherwise, USING YOUR OWN SOURCES!

“ma” definition:

Conjunctive pronoun.That; which; that which; whatsoever; what; as; as much; in such amanner as; as much as; as for as; any kind; when; how. Does not, as a rule, refer to reasonable things, but instances to the contrary sometimes occur. It is one of those particles, which, in conditional propositions, govern the verb in the conditional mood; it is frequently a mere expletive. It is also a negative adverb, Not; in general it denies a circumstance either present, or of past, but little remote from the present; it governs the attribute in the accusative, thus it is a negative particle when placed before the perfect as in 53.2; or before a pronoun as in 68.2; or before an demonstrative noun as in 12.31. The particle, when joined to the perfect, denies the past; when joined to the imperfect, the present.

The fact is the word "ma" in this context means "not" and EVERY single translation agrees to this!

Biblical exegesis of the original languages supports modern translations.

Koranic exegesis of the Arabic does not support the flimsy Islamic theology which you believe in.

HAHAHA typical strawman. The quran translations are inaccurate, but the bible's are. And the support of your argument on this one is where? Can you be any less professional when trying to debate?

You already admitted that your theology revolves around not one verse, but one word!

No my theology revolves around the Quran and the Sunnah of the holy prophet (pbuh) YOUR theology revolves around a few verses (the crucifixion, or you would be responsible for your own sins instead of Jesus)

[quoteFurther, islam has told you that you only have one verse.

The Koran has numerous verses which speak directly of Jesus’ crucifixion.[/quote]

Yes the Quran only needs one verse to deny the crucifixion. You tell me why there needs to be more than one verse to deny the crucifixion. And can you please reference these verses that speak directly of Jesus' crucifixion? Or are you trying to be a deceiver yet again?

However, you follow islam over the Koran.

Heaven forbid you follow Christianity over the bible!!!

What you did was to show that you think the authors of the Koran plagiarized previous material.

I already explained this 2 posts ago, I'm not going to repeat myself.

And no…you don’t even know the Biblical languages, so how is it that you demonstrated anything at all in Psalms?

You just told us that the biblical exegesis is accurate with the biblical translations, and I used a biblical translation, thus by your very definition what I was doing was absolutely fine since the translations are accurate...brother

Funny how I bring up verses from Psalms 34, specifically 19-22 and you don't even dare to go near them. I wonder why? Oh thats right because it contradicts the crucifixion.

Not quite…

Let’s look at this simple example from the ‘popular’ translator that you no doubt follow in 4.157.

Pay close attention to this ayah, which has not one, not two, not three, but four instances of “wama”…


Qooloo amanna biAllahi wama onzila ilayna wama onzila ila ibraheema wa-ismaAAeela wa-ishaqa wayaAAqooba waal-asbati wama ootiya moosa waAAeesa wama ootiya alnnabiyyoona min rabbihim la nufarriqu bayna ahadin minhum wanahnu lahu muslimoona

2.136 Yusuf Ali

Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."


Observe that Yusuf Ali chose NOT to render “wama” as a negative in four out of four instances.


Thus, according your flawed Islamic reasoning, then this ayah should read…


Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and NOT the revelation given to us, and NOT Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and NOT given to Moses and Jesus, and NOT given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."



Want to try again….?

Where in any of my posts did I ever say the words "wa" and "ma" could not mean different things? I used an EXAMPLE in sura 93 to show that the word "ma" means "Not" in this case. Does it mean other definitions? it does, BUT the context of verse must be noticed. 2:136 it does not mean the negative.

No.

The Arabic never says this.

Only weak islamic theology.

Your very own sources prove that the word ma can also mean "no". Your argument is very weak, its like me going to the greek sources, picking one word, using a different definition of that word to contradict every single translation of the bible and trying to make a case out of it. Odds are not in my favor. Why don't you try to prove that the word "ma" doesn't mean "not" or a negative.

Let’s look…

إنما جزؤا الذين يحاربون الله ورسوله ويسعون في الأرض فسادا أن يقتلوا أو يصلبوا أو تقطع أيديهم وأرجلهم من خلف أو ينفوا من الأرض ذلك لهم خزي في الدنيا ولهم في الاءخرة عذاب عظيم

Innama jazao allatheena yuhariboona Allaha warasoolahu wayasAAawna fee al-ardi fasadan an yuqattaloo aw yusallaboo aw tuqattaAAa aydeehim waarjuluhum min khilafin aw yunfaw mina al-ardi thalika lahum khizyun fee alddunya walahum fee al-akhirati AAathabun AAatheemun

5.33 Only reward those whom fight “allah” and his messenger, and they strive hard in the earth corruption, that they be killed or they will be crucified till death, or their hands and their feet be cut off from opposites, or they be exiled from the earth, that for them shame in the present world, and for them in the end a great torture.

You haven't proven anything! I stand by my statement that you're a deceiver! Your whole argument is based on using the arabic over a translation, yet the arabic in this verse NEVER says "crucifixion till death" The word "yuqatalloo" means execution, the word "yusallaboo" means crucifixion, where did you get the "till death" part? Because its NOWHERE in the arabic. Wow you're not only a deceiver, you're a hypocrite. Whats the matter? Are you afraid of the arabic...brother? Lets look at various translations of 5:33

Yusuf Ali:

[005:033] The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

Sher Ali:

[005:033] The only reward of those, who wage war against ALLAH and HIS Messenger and strive to create disorder in the land, is that they be slain or crucified or their hands and feet be cut off on account of their enmity, or they be expelled from the land. That shall be a disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter they shall have a great punishment;
Shakir:

[005:033] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
Pickthall:

[005:033] The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;
Sale:

[005:033] But the recompense of those who fight against God and his Apostle, and study to act corruptly in the earth, shall be, that they shall be slain, or crucified, or have their hands and their feet cut off on the opposite sides, or be banished the land. This shall be their disgrace in this world, and in the next world they shall suffer a grievous punishment;
Muhammad Al-Hilali & Muhsin Khan:

[005:033] The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.
Palmer:

[005:033] The reward of those who make war against God and His Apostle, and strive after violence in the earth, is only that they shall be slaughtered or crucified, or their hands cut off and their feet on alternate sides, or that they shall be banished from the land; - that is a disgrace for them in this world, and for them in the next is mighty woe;
Arberry:

[005:033] This is the recompense of those who fight against God and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement,

Funny, I think you should learn your scripture:

psalms 34:

19 The righteous person may have many troubles,
but the LORD delivers him from them all;
20 he protects all his bones,
not one of them will be broken.

21 Evil will slay the wicked;
the foes of the righteous will be condemned.
22 The LORD will rescue his servants;
no one who takes refuge in him will be condemned.

[Bowman]

Laysh hichee ga3ad tih'chee? Ani Habab :)
Don't ever assume, because you know what happens when you do

هذه هي اللغة العربية

Lol I already did prove otherwise, USING YOUR OWN SOURCES!

“ma” definition:

Conjunctive pronoun.That; which; that which; whatsoever; what; as; as much; in such amanner as; as much as; as for as; any kind; when; how. Does not, as a rule, refer to reasonable things, but instances to the contrary sometimes occur. It is one of those particles, which, in conditional propositions, govern the verb in the conditional mood; it is frequently a mere expletive. It is also a negative adverb, Not; in general it denies a circumstance either present, or of past, but little remote from the present; it governs the attribute in the accusative, thus it is a negative particle when placed before the perfect as in 53.2; or before a pronoun as in 68.2; or before an demonstrative noun as in 12.31. The particle, when joined to the perfect, denies the past; when joined to the imperfect, the present.

The fact is the word "ma" in this context means "not" and EVERY single translation agrees to this!


Your very own sources prove that the word ma can also mean "no". Your argument is very weak, its like me going to the greek sources, picking one word, using a different definition of that word to contradict every single translation of the bible and trying to make a case out of it. Odds are not in my favor. Why don't you try to prove that the word "ma" doesn't mean "not" or a negative.

Firstly, thanks for approving of our posited classic definition for “ma”, as you are now attempting to use it for your very own position, proving its superiority and correctness – since you were completely unsuccessful at being able to produce a classic definition yourself.

Secondly, you are ignoring context, again.

What is the mood of 4.157?

Why are there so many positives within the ayah?

Why does the ayah begin with the completely true statement… “Truly we killed The Messiah, Jesus….”

If the authors of this piece wanted to set the tone for negativity, then they would not have initiated the ayah in a positive way.

Further there is no indication that this positive mood has changed – such as the insertion of the term “bal”, etc….or a truly negative term such as “lam”, etc.

Only positives are used.

Thus, the logical basis clearly points to “wama” continuing this same positive mood.

HAHAHA typical strawman. The quran translations are inaccurate, but the bible's are

.


Correct.

And the support of your argument on this one is where? Can you be any less professional when trying to debate?

Simple exegesis.

No my theology revolves around the Quran and the Sunnah of the holy prophet (pbuh)

Your so-called ‘prophet’ had nothing to do with the Koran, according to the Koran itself.

You are merely parroting yet another islamic myth.

YOUR theology revolves around a few verses (the crucifixion, or you would be responsible for your own sins instead of Jesus)

The Holy Bible has legions of verses related to Jesus’ crucifixion, subsequent singular resurrection, and that He is God Almighty.

Even the authors of the Koran understood all this when they copied it…

Yes the Quran only needs one verse to deny the crucifixion. You tell me why there needs to be more than one verse to deny the crucifixion.

By your very own admission islam’s denial of Jesus’ crucifixion until death upon the cross teeters upon one single solitary word.

This is just plain rock-bottom poor theology.

Christians don’t base entire theologies upon one word, in one verse.

Only followers of islam do this…

And can you please reference these verses that speak directly of Jesus' crucifixion? Or are you trying to be a deceiver yet again?

فلينظر الإنسن مم خلق خلق من ماء دافق يخرج من بين الصلب والترائب إنه على رجعه لقادر

I already explained this 2 posts ago, I'm not going to repeat myself.

All you have to do is define the very term of your book of faith, brother.

Observe…

القرءان= “alqur-ana”

“alqur-ana” definition:

Proper noun. Originally meaning the Collection; “I collected together the thing” or “I read, or recited, the book or scripture”; and then conventionally applied to signify the Book of God that was revealed to Muhammad; it also signifies the Revelation, meaning that which is termed the mighty, or imitable which is read, or recited, and written in books or volumes. A name for the Book of God, like the book of the Law revealed to Moses and the Gospel.

قرءانis so called because it has collected the histories of the prophets, and commands and prohibitions, and promises and threats, and the verses or signs, and the chapters.

It comes from the root “qara’a”, which has the primary signification he collected together the thing; put it, or drew it, together; part to part, or portion to portion. He read, or recited, the scripture chanting; he read or recited anything in any manner, without, or from, or in a book.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume seven, pp. 2502 - 2504
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, pp. 448 - 449



The classic Arabic definition is really quite revealing.

We have the following proclaimed regarding the original meaning applied to the Koran:

• It’s a collection
• A collection of books or scriptures

Whether this collection is read or recited, it still suggests that it emanates from a collected repository of things already written down.

It was only later that the meaning changed to signify the Book of God that was revealed to “Muhammad”…and we already understand that the “Muhammad” spoken of in the Koran is actually the Biblical Jesus Christ.

Thus, the Koran is Jesus’ book!

This would account for the scores of suras that are titled after Him, and revolve around Him.

“Alqur-ana” also means Revelation – which is most appropriate, as >50% of the Koran is directly copied from the Book of Revelation.

The root “qara’a” takes us one step deeper with the primary definition “he collected together the thing; put it, or drew it, together; part to part, or portion to portion.

This gives us great insight as to why the Koran was written in the fashion that it was – as the authors who pieced it together and performed the translation, actually did so piecemeal. These pieces, taken in large part from the Book of Revelation, are actually the paraphrased Arabic counterparts to the Holy Bible, known as suras.

You just told us that the biblical exegesis is accurate with the biblical translations, and I used a biblical translation, thus by your very definition what I was doing was absolutely fine since the translations are accurate...brother

Funny how I bring up verses from Psalms 34, specifically 19-22 and you don't even dare to go near them. I wonder why? Oh thats right because it contradicts the crucifixion.

For you to refer to Psalm 34 for your position means that you trust the Holy Bible as truth.

This being the case, the psalm prophesize regarding Jesus’ crucifixion in numerous places.

As already shown to you in the NT, and you promptly ignored, the OT predicted events that came true in the NT.

Where in any of my posts did I ever say the words "wa" and "ma" could not mean different things? I used an EXAMPLE in sura 93 to show that the word "ma" means "Not" in this case. Does it mean other definitions? it does, BUT the context of verse must be noticed. 2:136 it does not mean the negative.

You keep getting yourself in deeper and deeper, brother.

Again… ‘ma’ is determined by contextual mood. It’s positive in 2.136 just the same as it is positive in 4.157.

Just deal with it…

You haven't proven anything! I stand by my statement that you're a deceiver! Your whole argument is based on using the arabic over a translation, yet the arabic in this verse NEVER says "crucifixion till death" The word "yuqatalloo" means execution, the word "yusallaboo" means crucifixion, where did you get the "till death" part? Because its NOWHERE in the arabic. Wow you're not only a deceiver, you're a hypocrite. Whats the matter? Are you afraid of the arabic...brother? Lets look at various translations of 5:33

Yusuf Ali:

[005:033] The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

Sher Ali:

[005:033] The only reward of those, who wage war against ALLAH and HIS Messenger and strive to create disorder in the land, is that they be slain or crucified or their hands and feet be cut off on account of their enmity, or they be expelled from the land. That shall be a disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter they shall have a great punishment;
Shakir:

[005:033] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,
Pickthall:

[005:033] The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;
Sale:

[005:033] But the recompense of those who fight against God and his Apostle, and study to act corruptly in the earth, shall be, that they shall be slain, or crucified, or have their hands and their feet cut off on the opposite sides, or be banished the land. This shall be their disgrace in this world, and in the next world they shall suffer a grievous punishment;
Muhammad Al-Hilali & Muhsin Khan:

[005:033] The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter.
Palmer:

[005:033] The reward of those who make war against God and His Apostle, and strive after violence in the earth, is only that they shall be slaughtered or crucified, or their hands cut off and their feet on alternate sides, or that they shall be banished from the land; - that is a disgrace for them in this world, and for them in the next is mighty woe;
Arberry:

[005:033] This is the recompense of those who fight against God and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement,

More examples of why you are lost, brother.

You shun the Arabic in favor of a popular English translation.

Why are you so afraid to look to the original mean ofيصلبوا?

Funny, I think you should learn your scripture:

psalms 34:

19 The righteous person may have many troubles,
but the LORD delivers him from them all;
20 he protects all his bones,
not one of them will be broken.

21 Evil will slay the wicked;
the foes of the righteous will be condemned.
22 The LORD will rescue his servants;
no one who takes refuge in him will be condemned.

You turned the other way the first time that we posted this verse, let’s see if you turn and run again…

ηλθον ουν οι στρατιωται και του μεν πρωτου κατεαξαν τα σκελη και του αλλου του συσταυρωθεντος αυτω επι δε τον ιησουν ελθοντες ως ειδον ηδη αυτον τεθνηκοτα ου κατεαξαν αυτου τα σκελη αλλ εις των στρατιωτων λογχη αυτου την πλευραν ενυξεν και εξηλθεν ευθυς αιμα και υδωρ

erchomai oun ho stratiotes kai ho men protos katagnumi ho skelos kai ho allos ho sustauroo autos epi de ho Iesous erchomai hos eido ede autos thnesko ou katagnumi autos ho skelos alla heis ho stratiotes logche autos ho pleura nusso kai exerchomai eutheos haima kai hudor

Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other crucified with Him. But on coming to Jesus, when they saw He was dead already, they did not break His legs. But one of the soldiers spear pierced His side, and at once blood and water came out. (John 19.32 – 34)

[barnasha]

It was only later that the meaning changed to signify the Book of God that was revealed to “Muhammad”…and we already understand that the “Muhammad” spoken of in the Koran is actually the Biblical Jesus Christ.

Thus, the Koran is Jesus’ book!

we have literally thousands and thousands of individual accounts, traceable by chains of narrators, about the life of Muhammad. I would make an argument against your reasoning but it is so incredibly clear it's not worth it....

[Bowman]

we have literally thousands and thousands of individual accounts, traceable by chains of narrators, about the life of Muhammad. I would make an argument against your reasoning but it is so incredibly clear it's not worth it....

Not according to the Koran.

[moose7237]

Firstly, thanks for approving of our posited classic definition for “ma”, as you are now attempting to use it for your very own position, proving its superiority and correctness – since you were completely unsuccessful at being able to produce a classic definition yourself.

Funny, the very definition you post proves that the translations are all accurate.

Secondly, you are ignoring context, again.

What is the mood of 4.157?

There is no mood to 4:157. Seriously how much more worthless can this argument get?! Every single translation of the Quran disagrees with you. The word "ma" based on your very own sources says it means "not," other texts before the quran have denied the crucifixion, and now you are trying to base your argument on positive mood? just wow is all I can say. Get over it buddy, the quran denies the crucifixion, and say for the sake of argument, that it did, IT STILL DENIES THE DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT!!!

Why are there so many positives within the ayah?

What the heck are you talking about?!

Why does the ayah begin with the completely true statement… “Truly we killed The Messiah, Jesus….”

The ayah begins with Allah stating the Jews' claim that they killed Jesus, Allah then goes on to say that Jesus was not killed but it appeared to them he did. This is where you try to lie AGAIN, because the Ayah begins with "AND THEY SAID" then it goes on to say "truly we killed..."

If the authors of this piece wanted to set the tone for negativity, then they would not have initiated the ayah in a positive way.

Again the ayah starts with what the Jews thought they did which was kill Jesus but they were wrong.

Further there is no indication that this positive mood has changed – such as the insertion of the term “bal”, etc….or a truly negative term such as “lam”, etc.

Lol, this is the most useless argument I've ever been involved in. This positive mood theory has absolutely nothing to do with this or any other ayah. Like I said in my last post, you have not proven the word "ma" absolutely does not mean "not" You cannot either.

[053:002] Your Companion is neither astray nor being misled.

As you can see above, this verse starts in the positive mood by stating "your companion"

Thus, the logical basis clearly points to “wama” continuing this same positive mood.

and it does, the verse is positive that Jesus did not get crucified

Your so-called ‘prophet’ had nothing to do with the Koran, according to the Koran itself.

Funny, because Jesus had nothing to do with the bible. Therefore you shouldn't believe it. And Muhammad revealed every verse in the Quran. Yet another strawman.

The Holy Bible has legions of verses related to Jesus’ crucifixion, subsequent singular resurrection, and that He is God Almighty.

It also has legions of verses that contradict eachother. Heck Jesus himself is a contradiction. If he is God then that means he's not a man and if he's a man it means he's not God. By the way how does your God not know when the day of judgement is?

Even the authors of the Koran understood all this when they copied it…

Tell me which verse in the bible, the Quran copied this from:

[005:072] They do blaspheme who say: "God is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship God, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with God,- God will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.

By your very own admission islam’s denial of Jesus’ crucifixion until death upon the cross teeters upon one single solitary word.

the word "not." yes its quite a powerful word when denying an event. More than enough for me

This is just plain rock-bottom poor theology.

Since you started by saying the word "this" it means that you the context of your quote is in the positive mood and therefore you are actually praising Islam's theology

Christians don’t base entire theologies upon one word, in one verse.

John 1:1 anybody?

فلينظر الإنسن مم خلق خلق من ماء دافق يخرج من بين الصلب والترائب إنه على رجعه لقادر

Why are you afraid to quote the verse? You had no problem quoting verses before and providing translations for them. By the way tell us where jesus' name is quoted in that verse anywhere? This should be fun mr. deceiver :)

The classic Arabic definition is really quite revealing.

We have the following proclaimed regarding the original meaning applied to the Koran:

• It’s a collection
• A collection of books or scriptures

Whether this collection is read or recited, it still suggests that it emanates from a collected repository of things already written down.

It was only later that the meaning changed to signify the Book of God that was revealed to “Muhammad”…and we already understand that the “Muhammad” spoken of in the Koran is actually the Biblical Jesus Christ.

Thus, the Koran is Jesus’ book!

This would account for the scores of suras that are titled after Him, and revolve around Him.

“Alqur-ana” also means Revelation – which is most appropriate, as >50% of the Koran is directly copied from the Book of Revelation.

The root “qara’a” takes us one step deeper with the primary definition “he collected together the thing; put it, or drew it, together; part to part, or portion to portion.

This gives us great insight as to why the Koran was written in the fashion that it was – as the authors who pieced it together and performed the translation, actually did so piecemeal. These pieces, taken in large part from the Book of Revelation, are actually the paraphrased Arabic counterparts to the Holy Bible, known as suras.

If the Quran is Jesus' book than you believe the Quran to be true. I love verses like this:

5:116-120
And remember when Allah will say (on the Day of Resurrection): "O Isa, son of Maryam! Did you say unto men: 'Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah?'" He will say: "Glory be to You! It was not for me to say what I had no right to say. Had I said such a thing, You would surely have known it. You know what is in my inner self though I do not know what is in Yours, truly, You, only You, are the All Knower of all that is hidden and unseen. Never did I say to them aught except what You (Allah) did command me to say: 'Worship Allah, my Lord

For you to refer to Psalm 34 for your position means that you trust the Holy Bible as truth.

no it just means that I trust the bible to be a big contradiction

This being the case, the psalm prophesize regarding Jesus’ crucifixion in numerous places.

and denies it in pslams 34 as well

As already shown to you in the NT, and you promptly ignored, the OT predicted events that came true in the NT.

yes and it also has contradicted prophecies in the NT as well.

Again… ‘ma’ is determined by contextual mood. It’s positive in 2.136 just the same as it is positive in 4.157.

There is no contextual mood, and you can't assume any mood either. Unless the verse literally says THIS IS THE POSITIIVE MOOD, then maybe you may have a point.

More examples of why you are lost, brother.

You shun the Arabic in favor of a popular English translation.

Why are you so afraid to look to the original mean ofيصلبوا?

Not it just shows how big of a hypocrite and a deceiver you really are. You don't have the guts to even try and argue this one. the word [/SIZE]يصلبوا?[/FONT] means crucifixion, yet you would try to sneak in "till death" in 5:33 which nowhere does it say that. You are nothing but a deceiver.

You turned the other way the first time that we posted this verse, let’s see if you turn and run again…

ηλθον ουν οι στρατιωται και του μεν πρωτου κατεαξαν τα σκελη και του αλλου του συσταυρωθεντος αυτω επι δε τον ιησουν ελθοντες ως ειδον ηδη αυτον τεθνηκοτα ου κατεαξαν αυτου τα σκελη αλλ εις των στρατιωτων λογχη αυτου την πλευραν ενυξεν και εξηλθεν ευθυς αιμα και υδωρ

erchomai oun ho stratiotes kai ho men protos katagnumi ho skelos kai ho allos ho sustauroo autos epi de ho Iesous erchomai hos eido ede autos thnesko ou katagnumi autos ho skelos alla heis ho stratiotes logche autos ho pleura nusso kai exerchomai eutheos haima kai hudor

Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other crucified with Him. But on coming to Jesus, when they saw He was dead already, they did not break His legs. But one of the soldiers spear pierced His side, and at once blood and water came out. (John 19.32 – 34)

[/quote]


This verse proves nothing but how it contradicts psalms 34. Psalms 34 says that God delivers you from all your troubles and that EVIL SHALL SLAY THE WICKED. When Jesus was in trouble and he prayed in the Garden of Getsetamene for God to save him, it never happened. Did God protect his bones? Gee driving nails through hands and feet seems like he didn't. Contradiction after Contradiction.