The essential characteristics of the Biblical Jesus

[Dan_473]

The Koranic material is >75% Book of Revelation material, all by itself.....and we know that Revelation is entirely about Jesus.

I agree that the koran is influenced by the bible, maybe especially the book of Revelation. when you say it's Book of Revelation material, do you mean influenced by? or copied from?

the bom is heavily influenced by the bible... it talks about a different Jesus, I think.

They were Orthodox Trinitarian Christians.

is this a common view among historians?

Popularity has never been a good indicator of correctness.

Further, anyone can edit a wiki...

true on both counts. at the same time, popularity can lend weight to deciding whether to pay attention to something or not... since I don't know arabic, what other options do I have?

Ignorance is the more appropriate term, I believe...

Same for the Jews and their Tanak....is it a conspiracy that Jews deny Jesus?

No....its sheer ignorance.

ignorance on the part of arabic scholars? none of them are sincere in wanting to deal with the arabic?

I think jews mostly don't accept Jesus because a veil is over their hearts. most muslims don't for the same reasons as most hindus don't... culture, upbringing, etc...imo...

All renderings are mine.

Feel free to challenge them, directly.

I can't do that, I don't know arabic.

I think it would be great if you were to debate some recognized arabic scholars... then lay people like myself could have at least some idea of how your assertions are answered.

(maybe you have already?)

 

[Dan_473]

You two will do anything to get out of doing a little work.

Like I've always stated.....if you go to the effort of positing someone else's rendering(s) for your position; then you should be able to defend that other person's rendering.....otherwise, what good is it?

Pretty simple...

I think becoming an expert at arabic would be a lot of work, not a little.

I quote from the kjv sometimes... I usually don't know their particular reasons in each case.

 

[Dan_473]

Referencing the original written Koranic Arabic is absolutely essential because the language has been thoroughly corrupted since the time that it was first penned.

Thus...the colloquial aspects of Arabic have no merit...

so, you're saying that yes, a person needs to be fluent in classical arabic.

is this correct?

 

[Dan_473]

Not invalid....but not accurate, either.

See the difference?

The KJV, while still very popular, is based upon antiquated manuscripts like the Textus Receptus.





80% of Muslims don't know a lick of Arabic.

English is the universal language.

English, with its millions of words, is also infinitely more fine-tuned than Arabic, and is actually the preferred language to articulate the meaning of the original Arabic. Numerous Islamic scholars have admitted this to me over the years.

how does one evaluate the accuracy of a translation from a language one doesn't know?

true, the kjv has inaccuracies... but its popularity over the years lends weight when deciding how accurate it is overall.

also, I think the kjv was translated by scholars from oxford, cambridge, and another school? so, knowing the credentials of the translating team also lends weight.


the islamic scholars that want to talk about the koran in english... have they commented on your conclusions? posted their comments on the internet or in journals?

 

[Dan_473]

There are numerous other scholars out there drawing the same conclusions.

I already referenced a recent book on another thread.

that sounds great! please post the names of those scholars. I have access to many academic journals through the local library and university... maybe I can find articles they published...

 

[Dan_473]

Not when words have more than one meaning.

exactly! which is why I don't think the analogy

...your math teacher needs to know more than just the equation that he is presenting to the students....he needs to know how the equation was derived...

works well.

words have multiple meanings, mathematical symbols are usually regarded as having only one.
hence, the role of popularity and credentials is greater for the translator than the mathematician, since the math can be checked in "black and white".

 

[Dan_473]

Of course!

Further, you should ALWAYS consult the original languages.

I disagree. some people just don't have the aptitude to consult the originals. for many, the english of modern bible translations is difficult.

No.

You consult the experts.

Do you first become a dentist before going to the dentist?

exactly! and how does one decide if someone is an expert? producing a widely used translation is one way, imo.

 

[Bowman]

do any of them have an online presence where they talk about it?

Not sure....I've never followed up...

for me, since I don't speak arabic, the credibility is affected by how many arabic experts endorse it... if they become christians too, that's great!

The credibility in any rendering is in the verifiable exegesis behind it.

 

[Bowman]

I agree that the koran is influenced by the bible, maybe especially the book of Revelation. when you say it's Book of Revelation material, do you mean influenced by? or copied from?

Paraphrased from, actually...

the bom is heavily influenced by the bible... it talks about a different Jesus, I think.

Show us.

is this a common view among historians?

It is amongst lexicologists.

true on both counts. at the same time, popularity can lend weight to deciding whether to pay attention to something or not... since I don't know arabic, what other options do I have?

Consult experts.

ignorance on the part of arabic scholars? none of them are sincere in wanting to deal with the arabic?

I think jews mostly don't accept Jesus because a veil is over their hearts. most muslims don't for the same reasons as most hindus don't... culture, upbringing, etc...imo...

Ignorance is ignorance, no matter what the reasons...

I can't do that, I don't know arabic.

I think it would be great if you were to debate some recognized arabic scholars... then lay people like myself could have at least some idea of how your assertions are answered.

(maybe you have already?)

Don't count yourself out....be positive...

 

[Bowman]

so, you're saying that yes, a person needs to be fluent in classical arabic.

is this correct?

No.

You need to be able to reference the experts in the field.

 

[Bowman]

how does one evaluate the accuracy of a translation from a language one doesn't know?

You use grammars and lexicons in your exegesis.

true, the kjv has inaccuracies... but its popularity over the years lends weight when deciding how accurate it is overall.

also, I think the kjv was translated by scholars from oxford, cambridge, and another school? so, knowing the credentials of the translating team also lends weight.

The KJV is inaccurate because it was rendered a long time ago using inferior manuscripts.

the islamic scholars that want to talk about the koran in english... have they commented on your conclusions? posted their comments on the internet or in journals?

They have drawn some of the same conclusions on their own, as we already discussed, and have been published.

 

[Bowman]

that sounds great! please post the names of those scholars. I have access to many academic journals through the local library and university... maybe I can find articles they published...

This one book contains numerous essays from a wide range of scholars...

The Hidden Origins of Islam: New Research into Its Early History

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1591026342/internetinfidels

 

[Bowman]

exactly! which is why I don't think the analogy

works well.

words have multiple meanings, mathematical symbols are usually regarded as having only one.
hence, the role of popularity and credentials is greater for the translator than the mathematician, since the math can be checked in "black and white".

Both require derivation to arrive at a conclusion, and that was the point.

Keep straining that gnat, brother...

 

[Bowman]

I disagree. some people just don't have the aptitude to consult the originals. for many, the english of modern bible translations is difficult.




exactly! and how does one decide if someone is an expert? producing a widely used translation is one way, imo.

Of course you are going to disagree, Dan!

You don't even do it for the very Bible that you believe in....so why should you for another book of faith?

Rotflol...!

 

[BrotherJustin]

You don't even do it for the very Bible that you believe in....

While I think this misses Dan's point (that some folks don't have the natural ability to understand the English well enough--let alone digging in to Hebrew, Greek, etc--so those folks are left to trust experts) Bowman raises a great challenge!

...what an enormous challenge.

 

[Dan_473]

Not sure....I've never followed up...





The credibility in any rendering is in the verifiable exegesis behind it.

why have you never followed up? I think that would be important... start building a community of people who've reached the same conclusions you have... like ecclesiastes says, two are better than one, three is even better.

if one can verify the exegesis, then yes, credibility can come from that. what would you advise someone who can't?

 

[Dan_473]

Paraphrased from, actually...







Show us.





It is amongst lexicologists.








Consult experts.










Ignorance is ignorance, no matter what the reasons...






Don't count yourself out....be positive...

are there other scholars who feel that more than 75% of the koran is a paraphrase of the bible? I'd be interested in ways to follow-up on that on the internet.

before I talk about the bom, are you disagreeing that it's heavily influenced by the bible? or that it's a different Jesus?

so, are you saying that most lexicologists say that Orthodox Trinitarian Christians authored the koran? if so, sources that can be checked on the internet would be great!

yes, consult experts... that's why I'm interested in other people who say what you're saying.


do you believe there's a conspiracy among arabic experts to suppress what you've found?

I'm positive I can do all things through Christ... but I need some reasons why spending time learning arabic is the best use of that time for me.

 

[Dan_473]

No.

You need to be able to reference the experts in the field.

exactly! so, I'm asking for names of experts who say what you're saying.

 

[Dan_473]

You use grammars and lexicons in your exegesis.





The KJV is inaccurate because it was rendered a long time ago using inferior manuscripts.








They have drawn some of the same conclusions on their own, as we already discussed, and have been published.

I think in order to use those grammers and lexicons, one need some familiarity with the language... especially if one is going to apply the things one has learned in them to a text.

I don't think the kjv is totally inaccurate... do you? I think most passages in it are fairly accurate.

that's great, that some islamic scholars that say what you're saying have been published in english. what are their names, and articles they've published?

 

[Bowman]

why have you never followed up? I think that would be important... start building a community of people who've reached the same conclusions you have... like ecclesiastes says, two are better than one, three is even better.

if one can verify the exegesis, then yes, credibility can come from that. what would you advise someone who can't?

The very fact that I am hated from both sides is evidence enough for me that I am on the right path...