Stop targeting the person, but discuss the subject.
These words are considered in an insult in my cultur
And I am not a Muslim, so everything you write is an insult to my Christian culture. Why should your culture win over mine on
Christian Forums? Besides, in English, the language in which we are both writing right now, "silly billy" is so mild as to not even be a real insult. It is just silliness.
A way of conveying how I feel about your argument
without insulting anyone.
Arabic language can accommodate foreign languages words.
I already addressed that with the example of Egypt/Egyptos. Of course it
can do that, just they could have written "Evangelion", though it would have come out very strangely relative to the Greek original (اوانكيليون = ewangeeleeyoun or ewankeeleeyon or something), but the point is what
actually happened with both my example word and this word is that it took the non-Arabic word and put it in a form that is more in keeping with Arabic phonology. That's what I mean when I say the word was "nativized", just like the Greeks themselves took the original Aramaic name of Jesus and made a Greek name out of it, and the Arabs made an Arabic name out of it, and so on.
I don't care about what's possible in another alternate reality had things gone some other way; when it comes to questions of language and other things that are provable by scientific evidence and hypotheses, I care about what we can see by looking at what
actually happened.
As far as I know Never translate names of lands, languages, books, persons.
What are you talking about? They absolutely do. I just gave an example with the name of Jesus Himself. And in place names and people names, too. The Assyrians are mentioned in the Bible, for instances, but they're not called in there "Atouraye", and neither are the Arameans called "Oromoye", unless you're reading Syriac-language Bibles. They're called Assyrians and Arameans. There are lots of examples we could give like that. The names are absolutely translated, when there is an alternative that is already known to the people who speak the language of that Bible.
Till date Copts uses Coptic language in churches
Yes, we do, in addition to Arabic and/or whatever the native language of the people is in a particular country. (Not sure what you think this proves?)
Egypt, syria, Lebanon were not using Arabic before Islam.
Of course, though there were smaller populations of Arabs in many places before Islam (only in Mesopotamia did they establish their own independent kingdom before Islam, among the Lakhmids with their kingdom at Al-Hira, from c. 300 to 602 AD). The Arabs were certainly in Syria and Egypt before Islam ever existed (the earliest example of Garshuni script -- that is, Arabic language written in Syriac characters -- has been found in the Monastery of the Syrians in Egypt, dated to the 6th century). I'm not as sure about Lebanon, because I don't know as much about it.
Do you really have any evidence about using the work Injeel in Arabic before Islam.
What we have evidence of is where the word came from, into Arabic from other Semitic languages which already had forms like that. I already gave my citation from Jeffery's excellent book all about foreign words in the Qur'an, which anyone can look up if they have time. I do not have time right now to type it all out, and anyway the entries in that book involve Syriac, Ethiopic, Hebrew, and other foreign scripts, and I can't type in all of them anyway (only Ethiopic, Arabic, Greek, and Russian keyboard settings are configured for my computer), so it wouldn't come out right.
Your words convince no single non-christian.
I don't really care about that, because I'm not writing as a Christian apologist right now. I'm writing as a linguist who has multiple degrees in the field and so can understand the literature that is already out there, and has decided on this subject (apparently against the Islamic narrative, but that's of no concern to me). The academic field of linguistics does not care what you or I believe, nor should it, though of course what you personally are willing to accept may be another matter entirely, and that is between you and your brain. Personally, I cannot imagine living with such cognitive dissonance.
textual criticism scholars have already proved it.
No they haven't.
You've said they have. Find me even one
disinterested (i.e., scientific) Biblical scholar or epigrapher or whatever who states, unambiguously, that such a thing as is assumed by the Islamic belief in an Islamic gospel given to Jesus ever actually existed.
You will not be able to find one. Such people don't exist because Q and other earlier hypothesized sources are certainly not such a gospel, and neither do they exist.