Where does "allah" say...

[elwill]

ما رأيك اذا بدأنا فى نقاش ما بدأته فيما يخص المشاركة رقم 35؟
هل أنت مستعد؟

 

[ApplePie7]

ما رأيك اذا بدأنا فى نقاش ما بدأته فيما يخص المشاركة رقم 35؟

You have our rendering of the sura.

If you disagreed then you would have already shown why it is that you disagree.

It was wise of you to ignore sura 86, however...

هل أنت مستعد؟

We've been ready.

Show us your understanding of the text and quit stalling...

 

[elwill]

for the first sentence
يأهل الكتب لا تغلوا في دينكم
يا أهل الكتاب
Ya ahla alkitabi la taghloo fee deenikum

your distorted translation for the first sentence in this verse was

You The Book's family, certainly do not go beyond the limits in your faith

the correct translation is
O' book's family commit no excesses in your religion

you changed vocative word "o" to the word "you",then added the word "certainly" which not exist in origianl language

this verse is a directly command from God to christians to not commit excesses in thier relegion , you distorted what is really written , why?

 

[elwill]

second sentence
ولا تقولوا على الله الا الحق
wala taqooloo AAala Allahi illa alhaqqa


your distorted translation for the second sentence

and they do not say on “allah” except The Truth

the correct one is

nor say of God aught but the truth

again its driectly command from God to family's book
you distorted it completely as the first sentence and added the "they" which not exist in arabic verse


can you see beamishboy how he change the all meaning by just adding word as they ? are you realize the situation here ?

 

[anatolian]

I think that is what Muslims would like it to say,

No man ,it's what it says.And it's you who puts "Gods" after the "three".It's not that Allah "misunderstood" your Trinity but it is that you misunderstand Quran.As I've said before Quran doesn't detail all blesphemous teachings on the earth, and it doesn't have to I think.There are generalizations about that.And your type of Trinity was not the only one.There have been several types of Trinities whithin the christians through out the history.And all of thme can be refuted by reading and interprating Quran.

 

[ApplePie7]

for the first sentence
يأهل الكتب لا تغلوا في دينكم
يا أهل الكتاب
Ya ahla alkitabi la taghloo fee deenikum

your distorted translation for the first sentence in this verse was

You The Book's family, certainly do not go beyond the limits in your faith

the correct translation is
O' book's family commit no excesses in your religion

you changed vocative word "o" to the word "you",then added the word "certainly" which not exist in origianl language

this verse is a directly command from God to christians to not commit excesses in thier relegion , you distorted what is really written , why?

Classic Arabic was a continuous stream of characters; hence your decision to slice this ayah into “sentences” of your liking is totally unfounded, especially when the very next word begins with the copulative conjunction “wa”.

Further, when “The Book” is referenced in the Koran, it refers to the Holy Bible, and is highly prized for its source material, per the authors of the Koran.

second sentence
ولا تقولوا على الله الا الحق
wala taqooloo AAala Allahi illa alhaqqa


your distorted translation for the second sentence

and they do not say on “allah” except The Truth

the correct one is

nor say of God aught but the truth

again its driectly command from God to family's book

Again, you make the same mistake by claiming a second sentence, as if the original Arabic contained any punctuation in it. It didn’t.

It is readily apparent why you decided to truncate and end your “sentence” where you did, as the very next word destroys your whole argument.

Observe…

يأهل الكتب لا تغلوا في دينكم ولا تقولوا على الله


إلا الحق إنما المسيح عيسى ابن مريم ​

Ya ahla alkitabi la taghloo fee deenikum wala taqooloo AAala Allahi illa alhaqqa innama almaseehu AAeesa ibnu maryama

4.171 You The Book's family, certainly do not go beyond the limits in your faith, and they do not say on “allah” except The Truth (is) only the Messiah Jesus, Mary's son,


Here is the classic definition for “innama”…

إنما= “innama”

“innama” definition:

According to the grammarians, it is a compound of “inna” and “ma”, which latter prevents the former’s having any government: it imports restriction: it imports the restriction of that which it precedes to that which follows it. In other words, it is used to particularize, or specify, or distinguish a thing from other things: it affirms a thing in relation to that which is mentioned after it, and denies it in relation to other things. Some say that it does not import restriction, but only corroboration of an affirmation, because it is a compound of the corroborative “inna” and the redundant “ma” which restrains the former from exercising government, and that it has no application to denote negation implied in restriction. It therefore seems that it is susceptible of both these meanings, bearing one or the other according as this or that suits the place. Rendered as “only”, verily.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, pp. 103 – 111; 118
A Grammar of the Arabic Language, W. Wright, Third edition, volume 1, p. 285
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 35
A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, John Penrice, p. 11


The classic definition quite clearly states that “innama” affirms a thing in relation to that which is mentioned after it.

But you deceitfully forgot to mention this word itself and what comes after it…why?

Thus, “alhaqqi” (i.e. The truth), is the “thing” that is being related to Jesus – which is mentioned after it.

Hence, “The Truth is only Jesus Christ”…

Not “allah”…but Jesus Christ.

you distorted it completely as the first sentence and added the "they" which not exist in arabic verse


can you see beamishboy how he change the all meaning by just adding word as they ? are you realize the situation here ?

Wrong again…

Observe…


تقولوا= “taqooloo”

“taqooloo” definition:

Imperfect tense, 3rd person, masculine, dual, accusative. They say.

Reference:
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar pp. 469 - 471




Please step-up your understanding of your book of faith…

 

[anatolian]

applepie, doesn't it reveal something that anyone other than beamishboy,a 13 years old boy, takes not you seriously?

 

[ApplePie7]

applepie, doesn't it reveal something that anyone other than beamishboy,a 13 years old boy, takes not you seriously?

Why not put your energy into helping-out your brother Elwill...?

 

[anatolian]

Absolutely this would be the most bootless thing I have ever done in my life.

 

[beamishboy]

I have read every post before this carefully and I can see that elwill rebutted what applepie7 wrote. After that, applepie7 gave a very detailed explanation that rebutted what elwill wrote and applepie7 strengthened his position, giving a linguistic study of the relevant Arabic words.

Anatolian's reply consists of nothing except something about my age but it is irrelevant to the argument. He also talks about what a bootless exercise this is.

Why is this a bootless exercise? When RCs tried to say that transubstantiation was correct, I went into the Bible and the original Greek word. I didn't think it was a bootless exercise. If someone tells me the Bible is wrong, I'll go into the Hebrew if it's the OT and the Greek if it's the NT. At no point will I ever say it's a useless exercise. Why? Because since to me, the Bible is the basis of my belief, I will defend it in the original languages that it was written in. I'm not going to leave arguments by another person unrebutted. Unless of course if a book I'm seeking to defend does not actually say what I have all along thought it said and that other person is right. Then I had better listen to that person and see if I have been wrong all this while. If I have been wrong, I should change.

It does not matter if I am 13 or 30. Facts are facts and if someone has presented the position complete with a linguistic study of the Arabic and nobody else can counter him, then any reasonable man will conclude that he is right.

Unless there is a reasonable counter to applepie7's posts, any reasonable person will have to conclude that he is right.

This is really strange to me because if anyone tries to say that the Bible says Jesus is not the Saviour, all of us (13 year olds included) will prove to you that the Bible in fact says Jesus is the Saviour. We'll go into the Hebrew of the OT to show you that Jesus was prophesied and we'll go into the Greek of the NT to prove that Jesus is indeed the Saviour. We will take you on in the original languages of the Bible. We'll never call it a bootless exercise or leave statements unrebutted. If you fail to come up with a valid counter against what applepie7 has written, you must forgive me if I have no alternative but to come to the only reasonable conclusion that you are wrong and applepie7 is 100% right.

 

[ApplePie7]

Thanks for telling it like it is....Beamishboy...!

 

[elwill]

Classic Arabic was a continuous stream of characters; hence your decision to slice this ayah into “sentences” of your liking is totally unfounded, especially when the very next word begins with the copulative conjunction “wa”.

when i say to you
commit no excesses in your religion nor say of God aught but the truth

this sentence consist of two directly cammands , i separate each command of them in separated post , to make it easier for whom not understand arabic

Further, when “The Book” is referenced in the Koran, it refers to the Holy Bible, and is highly prized for its source material, per the authors of the Koran.

wrong " the book" in quran not always refered to bible , it depends on the context
"people of the book" refer to christians and jews

Again, you make the same mistake by claiming a second sentence, as if the original Arabic contained any punctuation in it. It didn’t.

It is readily apparent why you decided to truncate and end your “sentence” where you did, as the very next word destroys your whole argument.

i didn't ignored anything , i go through verses step by step
and you didn't reply to me why you change the translations and add additional words


Ya ahla alkitabi la taghloo fee deenikum
Ya----------- ??????
ahla ----------family , people , nation
alkitabi-------book
ahla alkitabi ----------- people of the book

what is the meaning of "Ya" ? do you know ?

 

[elwill]

Wrong again…

Observe…


تقولوا= “taqooloo”

“taqooloo” definition:

Imperfect tense, 3rd person, masculine, dual, accusative. They say.

Reference:
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar pp. 469 - 471

you are the one whom wrong

تقولوا Taqooloo--------------you say
يقولوا Yaqooloo -------------they say

لا تقولوا La taqooloo ------------ not to say
لا يقولوا La yaqooloo------------ they don't say

which one of them in the arabic verse ? it's the first one
so you are the one who change and distort the letters

 

[ApplePie7]

when i say to you
commit no excesses in your religion nor say of God aught but the truth

this sentence consist of two directly cammands , i separate each command of them in separated post , to make it easier for whom not understand arabic

Wrong.

You just ignored the very next word “innama” again.

And, per the classic definition innama” “affirms a thing in relation to that which is mentioned after it,”

Grammatically, ‘The Truth’ can only refer to Jesus Christ.
Not “allah”.
You have already been shown this complete with full grammar references.
You offer no references whatsoever.

wrong " the book" in quran not always refered to bible , it depends on the context
"people of the book" refer to christians and jews

Whenever the authors of the Koran use the term “alkitabi, it always refers to the Holy Bible.
Observe…
الكتب = “alkitabi”

“alkitabi” definition:

Lane references sura 2.2 in his definition:

ذلك الكتب لا ريب فيه هدى للمتقين
Thalika alkitabu la rayba feehi hudan lilmuttaqeena

That The Book no doubt/suspicion in it, (it is) guidance to the fearing and obeying. (2.2)

“That is the book, or scripture”; as though combining in itself the excellences of all other books or scriptures; or meaning that is preeminently the book, or scripture. The Pentateuch or Mosaic Law; and the Gospel, or Book of the Gospels; the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians. Divine prescript, appointment, or ordinance; judgment, or sentence; fatal decree or predestination.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, p. 74; volume seven, p. 2590

i didn't ignored anything , i go through verses step by step
and you didn't reply to me why you change the translations and add additional words

You completely ignore the classic definitions, the original grammar, and then you decide to divide an ayah into “sentences” of your liking, ignoring full context….all the time offering absolutely no verifiable references for your position.

You have nothing.

Ya ahla alkitabi la taghloo fee deenikum
Ya----------- ??????
ahla ----------family , people , nation
alkitabi-------book
ahla alkitabi ----------- people of the book

what is the meaning of "Ya" ? do you know ?

Observe…



يأ= “ya”

The most common of the vocative particles, used in calling him who is near; like “O!”; and to him who is distant ; like “Ho there!” “Holloa!”; and to him who is between near and distant; like “ho!” what “ho!”. A vocative particle governing the nominative and accusative cases.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume eight, p. 2973
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 624
A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, John Penrice, p. 164
Concordance of the Koran, Gustav Flugel, p. 26

you are the one whom wrong

تقولوا Taqooloo--------------you say
يقولوا Yaqooloo -------------they say

لا تقولوا La taqooloo ------------ not to say
لا يقولوا La yaqooloo------------ they don't say

which one of them in the arabic verse ? it's the first one
so you are the one who change and distort the letters

Observe again…



تقولوا= “taqooloo”

“taqooloo” definition:

Imperfect tense, 3rd person, masculine, dual, accusative. They say.

References:
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar pp. 469 - 471



Bring forth your references….if you have anything,that is…

 

[elwill]

Wrong.

You just ignored the very next word “innama” again.

And, per the classic definition innama” “affirms a thing in relation to that which is mentioned after it,”

innama is a releation word for sentence before it and semtence after it
what is the wrong with starting with the one before it first
anywayinnama” “affirms a thing in relation to that which is mentioned after it,”
well what is mentioned after it ?
innama almaseehu Aeesa ibnu maryama rasoolu Allahi wakalimatuhu alqaha ila maryama waroohun minhu

Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and his word, which he bestowed on Mary and a spirit proceeding from him:

Grammatically, ‘The Truth’ can only refer to Jesus Christ.
Not “allah”.

really are you mean this verse

O people of the book commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of God aught but the truth.

i don't how is that , whatever

Whenever the authors of the Koran use the term “alkitabi, it always refers to the Holy Bible.
Observe…
الكتب = “alkitabi”

“alkitabi” definition:

Lane references sura 2.2 in his definition:

ذلك الكتب لا ريب فيه هدى للمتقين
Thalika alkitabu la rayba feehi hudan lilmuttaqeena

That The Book no doubt/suspicion in it, (it is) guidance to the fearing and obeying. (2.2)

“That is the book, or scripture”; as though combining in itself the excellences of all other books or scriptures; or meaning that is preeminently the book, or scripture. The Pentateuch or Mosaic Law; and the Gospel, or Book of the Gospels; the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians. Divine prescript, appointment, or ordinance; judgment, or sentence; fatal decree or predestination.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, p. 74; volume seven, p. 2590

this definition of the quran itself not the bible
quran combining in itself the excellences of all other books or scriptures

24 - Or have they taken for worship (other) gods Besides him? Say, bring your convincing proof: this Is the Message of those with me and the message of those before me. but most of them know not the truth, and so turn away.​

يأ= “ya”

The most common of the vocative particles, used in calling him who is near; like “O!”; and to him who is distant ; like “Ho there!” “Holloa!”; and to him who is between near and distant; like “ho!” what “ho!”. A vocative particle governing the nominative and accusative cases.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume eight, p. 2973
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 624
A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, John Penrice, p. 164
Concordance of the Koran, Gustav Flugel, p. 26

yes off cource , but you translated it by
you family of the book , not o' family of the book

Observe again…

تقولوا= “taqooloo”

“taqooloo” definition:

Imperfect tense, 3rd person, masculine, dual, accusative. They say.

References:
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar pp. 469 - 471
Bring forth your references….if you have anything,that is…

i'm sorry , you are completely ignorant about grammer of arabic in its simple sentence
i think beamishboy will need to ask arabs what is the difference between
Yaqooloo & Taqooloo

after all , beamishboy , just wanna to tell you that from arab's point of view applepie distort the translation , it's not about the understanding of verses , it's about distortion of the translation

so you have here 4 different correct translation for quran
http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php
beside , you have applepie7

choose whatever you want to trust , and you are wellcome if you wanna to ask me any questions

just wanna to give you muslims interpretation VS applepie

correct

4-171 - O people of the book commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and his word, which he bestowed on Mary and a spirit proceeding from him: so believe in God and his apostles. say not trinity: desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: glory be to him: (far exalted is he) above having a son. to him belong all things in the heavens and on earth, and enough is God as a disposer of affairs.

false​

4.171 You The Book's family, certainly do not go beyond the limits in your faith, and they do not say on “allah” except The Truth (is) only the Messiah Jesus, Mary's son, “allah’s” messenger, and his Word, cast forth to her, Mary, and Spirit from him; so believe on account of “allah”, and His messengers, and certainly they say: "Three." Refrain (it is) agreeable certainly your only “allah” one god glory be to him, that He has certainly been his Son,truly his what is in the heavens and what is in the earth and He sufficed on account of “allah”, a witness.


good luck , beamishboy , i encourage you for having this interests about relegions in this early age

hope for you the best
salam

 

[beamishboy]

Hi elwill,

Thanks for your encouragement but I have to be honest here. I don't even understand 90% of what applepie7 posts. It's too technical for me. I usually don't read everything. I'm just very impressed that he can get into the classical Arabic. I'm assuming applepie7 is an American or European.

I normally just look at the broad principles. Applepie7 is very knowledgeable and he tells us that there is a hint that the Quran talks of a trinitarian God. It would be very interesting if he is correct. His arguments are very sound but a bit too scholarly for me to follow. But even if he is wrong, it does not affect me one bit. I do not expect the holy books of other religions to contain biblical truths.

I'm just very impressed with applepie7 and I want to encourage him because he's not Arab and yet he is so knowledgeable in the Quran and classical Arabic. But I really can't read his long posts which go deep into the language. I don't believe any 13 year old can read them. They're too technical and too scholastic. I'll save them and when I'm doing my PhD in Classical Arabic, I'll look at them again. Hehe.

 

[ApplePie7]

innama is a releation word for sentence before it and semtence after it
what is the wrong with starting with the one before it first
anywayinnama” “affirms a thing in relation to that which is mentioned after it,”
well what is mentioned after it ?

First of all, thanks for deciding to use our references…and not your own…of which you never supplied…

Secondly, the classic definition that you want to now use never once states a division into “sentences”. There were no “sentences” in the original Arabic at all. No punctuation – nothing. There were not even ayahs.

Separating an ayah into “sentences” of your liking is entirely unsupported by the classic grammar.

Let’s review once again…


إنما= “innama”

“innama” definition:

According to the grammarians, it is a compound of “inna” and “ma”, which latter prevents the former’s having any government:

· it imports restriction:
· it imports the restriction of that which it precedes to that which follows it.
· In other words, it is used to particularize, or specify, or distinguish a thing from other things:
· It affirms a thing in relation to that which is mentioned after it,
· and denies it in relation to other things.
· Some say that it does not import restriction, but only corroboration of an affirmation, because it is a compound of the corroborative “inna” and the redundant “ma” which restrains the former from exercising government, and that it has no application to denote negation implied in restriction. It therefore seems that it is susceptible of both these meanings, bearing one or the other according as this or that suits the place. Rendered as “only”, verily.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, pp. 103 – 111; 118
A Grammar of the Arabic Language, W. Wright, Third edition, volume 1, p. 285
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 35
A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, John Penrice, p. 11


Thus, look at the word structure closely…

إلا الحق إنما المسيح عيسى

The Truth (red) is only (blue) Jesus Christ (green)

“allah” is not even in the picture.

Jesus is in a class all by Himself, as evidenced by this word, which precedes The Truth…
إلا الحق إنما المسيح عيسى

إلا= “illa”

“illa” definition:

Regarded as a simple word. If not; unless; except; some; otherwise; less; but; and; also. This word is used to signify the sense of exception.

This exception is of two kinds: 1) Exception in which the thing excepted belongs to the same class or species to which the things from which an exception is sought to be made, belongs.
2) Exception in which the excepted thing belongs to a different class or species. It commonly governs the accusative. It also means not even.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, pp. 76 - 78
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar p. 27


Now…this causes quite a conundrum for you, as either your god “allah” is being raised to the same deity status as Jesus Christ…or…Jesus Christ is in a class all by Himself.
Either way you read it, this glorifies Jesus Christ, and reduces the god “allah”.

innama almaseehu Aeesa ibnu maryama rasoolu Allahi wakalimatuhu alqaha ila maryama waroohun minhu

Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and his word, which he bestowed on Mary and a spirit proceeding from him:

The words “no more than” never appear in the Arabic.
Be honest with yourself.

this definition of the quran itself not the bible
quran combining in itself the excellences of all other books or scriptures

24 - Or have they taken for worship (other) gods Besides him? Say, bring your convincing proof: this Is the Message of those with me and the message of those before me. but most of them know not the truth, and so turn away.​

The god “allah” even proclaims that the Biblical Book of Revelation is free from doubt…

تنزيل الكتبلا ريب فيه من رب العلمين

Tanzeelu alkitabi la rayba feehi min rabbi alAAalameena

32.2 The Book of Revelation, no doubt in it, from the Lord of the jinn and of mankind.

[/font][/size]


[/size][/font]
yes off cource , but you translated it by
you family of the book , not o' family of the book

[/color]​

Of course you must agree with our references…what other choice do you have…?
And…no…our rendering variance has absolutely no impact on the message…

i'm sorry , you are completely ignorant about grammer of arabic in its simple sentence
i think beamishboy will need to ask arabs what is the difference between
Yaqooloo & Taqooloo

after all , beamishboy , just wanna to tell you that from arab's point of view applepie distort the translation , it's not about the understanding of verses , it's about distortion of the translation

so you have here 4 different correct translation for quran
http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php
beside , you have applepie7

choose whatever you want to trust , and you are wellcome if you wanna to ask me any questions

just wanna to give you muslims interpretation VS applepie

correct

4-171 - O people of the book commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and his word, which he bestowed on Mary and a spirit proceeding from him: so believe in God and his apostles. say not trinity: desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: glory be to him: (far exalted is he) above having a son. to him belong all things in the heavens and on earth, and enough is God as a disposer of affairs.​

false​

4.171 You The Book's family, certainly do not go beyond the limits in your faith, and they do not say on “allah” except The Truth (is) only the Messiah Jesus, Mary's son, “allah’s” messenger, and his Word, cast forth to her, Mary, and Spirit from him; so believe on account of “allah”, and His messengers, and certainly they say: "Three." Refrain (it is) agreeable certainly your only “allah” one god glory be to him, that He has certainly been his Son,truly his what is in the heavens and what is in the earth and He sufficed on account of “allah”, a witness.


good luck , beamishboy , i encourage you for having this interests about relegions in this early age

hope for you the best
salam

You are giving up already…?
Is Arabic still no more than yesterday’s trash for you…?

 

[beamishboy]

First of all, thanks for deciding to use our references…and not your own…of which you never supplied…

Secondly, the classic definition that you want to now use never once states a division into “sentences”. There were no “sentences” in the original Arabic at all. No punctuation – nothing. There were not even ayahs.

Separating an ayah into “sentences” of your liking is entirely unsupported by the classic grammar.

Let’s review once again…


إنما= “innama”

“innama” definition:

According to the grammarians, it is a compound of “inna” and “ma”, which latter prevents the former’s having any government:

· it imports restriction:
· it imports the restriction of that which it precedes to that which follows it.
· In other words, it is used to particularize, or specify, or distinguish a thing from other things:
· It affirms a thing in relation to that which is mentioned after it,
· and denies it in relation to other things.
· Some say that it does not import restriction, but only corroboration of an affirmation, because it is a compound of the corroborative “inna” and the redundant “ma” which restrains the former from exercising government, and that it has no application to denote negation implied in restriction. It therefore seems that it is susceptible of both these meanings, bearing one or the other according as this or that suits the place. Rendered as “only”, verily.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, pp. 103 – 111; 118
A Grammar of the Arabic Language, W. Wright, Third edition, volume 1, p. 285
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 35
A Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, John Penrice, p. 11


Thus, look at the word structure closely…

إلا الحق إنما المسيح عيسى

The Truth (red) is only (blue) Jesus Christ (green)

“allah” is not even in the picture.

Jesus is in a class all by Himself, as evidenced by this word, which precedes The Truth…
إلا الحق إنما المسيح عيسى

إلا= “illa”

“illa” definition:

Regarded as a simple word. If not; unless; except; some; otherwise; less; but; and; also. This word is used to signify the sense of exception.

This exception is of two kinds: 1) Exception in which the thing excepted belongs to the same class or species to which the things from which an exception is sought to be made, belongs.
2) Exception in which the excepted thing belongs to a different class or species. It commonly governs the accusative. It also means not even.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume one, pp. 76 - 78
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar p. 27


Now…this causes quite a conundrum for you, as either your god “allah” is being raised to the same deity status as Jesus Christ…or…Jesus Christ is in a class all by Himself.
Either way you read it, this glorifies Jesus Christ, and reduces the god “allah”.






The words “no more than” never appear in the Arabic.
Be honest with yourself.













The god “allah” even proclaims that the Biblical Book of Revelation is free from doubt…

تنزيل الكتبلا ريب فيه من رب العلمين

Tanzeelu alkitabi la rayba feehi min rabbi alAAalameena

32.2 The Book of Revelation, no doubt in it, from the Lord of the jinn and of mankind.

[/color]​

Of course you must agree with our references…what other choice do you have…?
And…no…our rendering variance has absolutely no impact on the message…





You are giving up already…?
Is Arabic still no more than yesterday’s trash for you…?

As a boy, I naturally have difficulty following scholastic arguments. But what I know is this: applepie7 is going strong. He's gone deep into Classical Arabic and has carefully examined all the words in the verses. And he is still going strong.

The Muslims in this thread seem to be reluctant to engage applepie7 in this debate.

In my simple mind (and I'm sure all in CF will agree with me), the party who can go on strong with scholastic and academic research must be right. Those who drop out of the debate can only be wrong. As in previous threads, it's always the rest who drop out of the debate leaving applepie7 to continue going strong.

That's why I'm impressed. Applepie7 stands strong while every one of his opponents drops away from the debate. I believe truth always prevails.

 

[beckysoup61]

As a boy, I naturally have difficulty following scholastic arguments. But what I know is this: applepie7 is going strong. He's gone deep into Classical Arabic and has carefully examined all the words in the verses. And he is still going strong.

The Muslims in this thread seem to be reluctant to engage applepie7 in this debate.

In my simple mind (and I'm sure all in CF will agree with me), the party who can go on strong with scholastic and academic research must be right. Those who drop out of the debate can only be wrong. As in previous threads, it's always the rest who drop out of the debate leaving applepie7 to continue going strong.

That's why I'm impressed. Applepie7 stands strong while every one of his opponents drops away from the debate. I believe truth always prevails.

*Gag me*

According to my friends who actually speak Arabic, Applepie7 is so far off the truth that isn't even funny.

Who would you trust on this, someone who has spent their whole life speaking and studying Arabic or someone who is picking and choosing to prove their point?

 

[elwill]

Thus, look at the word structure closely…

إلا الحق إنما المسيح عيسى

The Truth (red) is only (blue) Jesus Christ (green)

4-171 - O people of the book commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary not more than an apostle of God, and his word, which he bestowed on Mary and a spirit proceeding from him: so believe in God and his apostles. say not trinity: desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: glory be to him: (far exalted is he) above having a son. to him belong all things in the heavens and on earth, and enough is God as a disposer of affairs.

just for make it clear , how you pick the sentences from quran out of context
i will let the members judge on that . i will not comment more​

The words “no more than” never appear in the Arabic.
Be honest with yourself.

you already translated "Innama" to "is only" by yourself , the word in blue .

The god “allah” even proclaims that the Biblical Book of Revelation is free from doubt…

تنزيل الكتبلا ريب فيه من رب العلمين

Tanzeelu alkitabi la rayba feehi min rabbi alAAalameena

32.2 The Book of Revelation, no doubt in it, from the Lord of the jinn and of mankind.

you read this verse in quran , quran is a book of revelation
sorry , we believe that quran talking about itself not about the bible

You are giving up already…?
Is Arabic still no more than yesterday’s trash for you…?

you are right , i just went with you in this discussion for beamishboy not for you nor for other memebers here whom i think will not take your false translation under thier cnsideration