Is the word Muslim new in the Quran only?

[جوري]

Luke 6:40

"Ein talmeed na'leh 'al rabbo; shekken kal adam she'MUSHLAM yihyeh k'rabbo."

Also see this
http://dialogtube.com/being_like_the_teacher.pdf

some contend that the word Muslim is a new and can't be applied prior to the adevtn of Islam but, in fact found in Aramaic and Hebrew.. see original texts above..

:w:

[AvarAllahNoor]

What does it mean?

[جوري]

"No student can be above his teacher, but everyone that is a MUSLIM, can be as his teacher."

[Pk_#2]

What does it mean?

She answered your question, so are you gonna convert into Islamism?

Bye.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[AvarAllahNoor]

She answered your question, so are you gonna convert into Islamism?

Bye.

Yup, I'm preparing myself this very moment....

Sister PA knows me better than that.

[Woodrow]

Now you got me looking through some old Aramaic stuff. But I do know that at the time of the Prophet(PBUH) Aramaic and Arabic were virtually identical. I do not see how a "new" word could have been coined without the Christian Coptic's of the time raising a fuss about a new word.

[Omari]

Muslim means somone who submits to god and the will of god...anyone who does that is by far and technically a muslim...or am i wrong

[snakelegs]

שלם
can have a bunch of meanings - probably the same as in arabic.
whole, perfect, complete, safe, healthy, peaceful, total
btw, do you know which language is older - arabic or hebrew? arabic is more complex, if that means anything.
interestingly, "submit" comes from an entirely different root.
but yet, when a person submits or surrenders completely to God - this is peace and wholeness, isn't it?

[جوري]

The Hebrew word "Mushlam" comes from the root "Sh L M". "Shalom" which comes from the same root means "peace". The Arabic word "Muslim" comes from the root "S L M". "Salam" means "peace". "Salem" means "safe". Also taken from the Aramaic bible society, http://home.comcast.net/~rzuberi/ind...s/page0005.htm, and http://home.comcast.net/~rzuberi/art...he_Teacher.pdf.



hebrew is older than Arabic, aramaic is in the middle, they have very similar words when I read this

Ein talmeed na'leh 'al rabbo; shekken kal adam she'MUSHLAM yihyeh k'rabbo

I can actually understand what it means.. for instance, the word student/pupil in Arabic is tilmeez, in the above it is talmeed, so you can see how it is very very similar :smile:
but yes Arabic is the most evolved, the richest of the three, and I am not just saying that..

peace

[AvarAllahNoor]

Spoken language of Jesus Christ wasn't it.

[جوري]

yes he spoke Aramaic, even if others will contend otherwise...

peace

[Woodrow]

שלם
can have a bunch of meanings - probably the same as in arabic.
whole, perfect, complete, safe, healthy, peaceful, total
btw, do you know which language is older - arabic or hebrew? arabic is more complex, if that means anything.
interestingly, "submit" comes from an entirely different root.
but yet, when a person submits or surrenders completely to God - this is peace and wholeness, isn't it?

:sl:

Lexicologists generally agree that all three are a dialect of ancient Phoenician. Now it gets to be a big argument as to if Phoenician should be called Hebrew Aramaic or Arabic. Both Hebrew and Arabic script appear to have come from Aramaic script. However, it seems all 3 oral languages are dialects of one language.

For the written language it can be shown that Aramaic is the oldest, than Hebrew and finally Arabic. But as far as the spoken language I believe ancient Aramaic and ancient Arabic would have to be considered to be the same language

[snakelegs]

i can understand some aramaic, and to a lesser extent, some arabic.
you're right about mushlam being from that root, though the common meaning of mushlam is perfect, accomplished.

[snakelegs]

some of the jewish prayers are in aramaic as are some books in the tanach (OT), but i forget which ones at the moment.

[Yerpon]

:sl:
Lexicologists generally agree that all three are a dialect of ancient Phoenician. Now it gets to be a big argument as to if Phoenician should be called Hebrew Aramaic or Arabic. Both Hebrew and Arabic script appear to have come from Aramaic script. However, it seems all 3 oral languages are dialects of one language.

Salom Woodrow,

Arabic is not a dialect of ancient Phoenician. Phoenician was a Canaanite language but Arabic is not a Canaanite language. Both are Central Semitic languages.

For the written language it can be shown that Aramaic is the oldest, than Hebrew and finally Arabic. But as far as the spoken language I believe ancient Aramaic and ancient Arabic would have to be considered to be the same language

Many linguists think Classical Arabic is very similar to Proto-Semitic.

[snakelegs]

according to that diagram, aramaic is closer to hebrew than arabic.

[Yerpon]

In Aramaic, Islam was shlama and Muslim was Mushlam.

[Whatsthepoint]

"No student can be above his teacher, but everyone that is a MUSLIM, can be as his teacher."

A student is no better than his teacher. But everyone who is well-trained will be like his teacher.

The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.

No sound of peace or submission to the will of God..

[Woodrow]

according to that diagram, aramaic is closer to hebrew than arabic.

the relationship is very intertangled. The 3 languages trace back to the West Semitic, and all three have the same original root.

Aramaic especially the Syriac dialect, Has been very much entwined in Arabic.

Arabic script
Origin

The Arabic script evolved from the Nabataean Aramaic script. It has been used since the 4th century AD, but the earliest document, an inscription in Arabic, Syriac and Greek, dates from 512 AD. The Aramaic language has fewer consonants than Arabic, so during the 7th century new Arabic letters were created by adding dots to existing letters in order to avoid ambiguities. Further diacritics indicating short vowels were introduced, but are only generally used to ensure the Qur'an was read aloud without mistakes.

There are two main types of written Arabic:

1. Classical Arabic - the language of the Qur'an and classical literature. It differs from Modern Standard Arabic mainly in style and vocabulary, some of which is archaic. All Muslims are expected to recite the Qur'an in the original language, however many rely on translations in order to understand the text.
2. Modern Standard Arabic - the universal language of the Arabic-speaking world which is understood by all Arabic speakers. It is the language of the vast majority of written material and of formal TV shows, lectures, etc.

Each Arabic speaking country or region also has its own variety of colloquial spoken Arabic. These colloquial varieties of Arabic appear in written form in some poetry, cartoons and comics, plays and personal letters. There are also translations of the bible into most varieties of colloquial Arabic.

Arabic has also been written with the Hebrew, Syriac and Latin scripts.

Source:http://www.omniglot.com/writing/arabic.htm

In Aramaic, Islam was shlama and Muslim was Mushlam.

That is correct.

Just for interest, and for the benefit of linguistic enthusiasts here are some very good links about the 3 languages.

http://www.ancientscripts.com/old_hebrew.html

This next one is a great intro to Syriac Aramaic from which written Arabic developed.

http://learnassyrian.com/aramaic/


Here is an excellent interactive Aramaic Bible. I am putting this here for linguistic interest only and not for religious debate. Although it may have use for religious debate in a separate thread. It is still used by the Aramaic Christians and is probably the oldest Christian Bible still in use and has been used since the very early days of Christianity. What is interesting is in reading through you see the shift from Hebrew characters to Syriac characters. The various folders give an excellent view of the Aramaic Alphabet development.

The auto censor does not like the way the name of the url link is spelled and changes it to something that won't work. Here is the link, You will have to copy it and remove the * for it to work. http://www.peshi*tta.org/


with that all said, with just a little research it can be found that the word Muslim predates the written Qur'an. although the pronunciation has differed, the basic letters were and are used to write it in the three languages. It is an ancient word and was not new in the Qur'an

[Whatsthepoint]

with that all said, with just a little research it can be found that the word Muslim predates the written Qur'an. although the pronunciation has differed, the basic letters were and are used to write it in the three languages. It is an ancient word and was not new in the Qur'an

I'm not sure what are you suggesting. Are you saying the word muslim has existed prior to the Quran along with its islamic meaning (the one who submits to god)?
Luke 6:40 shows that something that sounds like muslim does not always denote a muslim (in today's sense).

[Pk_#2]

Yup, I'm preparing myself this very moment....

Good lad. Clever you!

[Woodrow]

I'm not sure what are you suggesting. Are you saying the word muslim has existed prior to the Quran along with its islamic meaning (the one who submits to god)?
Luke 6:40 shows that something that sounds like muslim does not always mean a muslim (in today's sense).

In the current English translation of Luke 6:40, but take a look at what it says in the original Aramaic.

[IMG]

[/IMG]

Those are literal translations of each word. Mushlimah does translate into "who is perfect" But the connotation of the Verse is that to be called Muslimah you have to be as the Master. Which in Luke referred to Jesus(as) and the implication of Luke is he was obedient to God(swt).

the overall meaning is "That for a person to be called Mushlimah, he must be obedient to God(swt)"

Luke 6:40 is giving a very accurate explanation as to what it means to be a Mushlimah.

[Whatsthepoint]

In the current English translation of Luke 6:40, but take a look at what it says in the original Aramaic.

Those are literal translations of each word. Mushlimah does translate into "who is perfect" But the connotation of the Verse is that to be called Muslimah you have to be as the Master. Which in Luke referred to Jesus(as) and the implication of Luke is he was obedient to God(swt).

the overall meaning is "That for a person to be called Mushlimah, he must be obedient to God(swt)"

Luke 6:40 is giving a very accurate explanation as to what it means to be a Mushlimah.

Ok....
What does the usage of the word muslim in the Bible mean to you, as a muslim? A proof of something? A proof of the prequranic existence of the word or a proof of something greater...?

[truemuslim]

mushlam and muslim is like cambuter and computer...

[Whatsthepoint]

mushlam and muslim is like cambuter and computer...

Nope.

[Muezzin]

What a fascinating thread.

yes he spoke Aramaic, even if others will contend otherwise...

peace

Mel Gibson certainly doesn't.

[snakelegs]

woodrow,
thanks for the links!

[Woodrow]

Mel Gibson certainly doesn't.

That is an understatement. I do not know a single Aramaic speaking person that understood what was said in that move.

[*Hana*]

That is an understatement. I do not know a single Aramaic speaking person that understood what was said in that move.

Do you actually know someone who speaks fluent Aramaic?

I don't know what was said in the movie, but I sure give him a high five for attempting to make an entire movie in, not only a foreign language, but one that is not even used today. lol

Hana

[Woodrow]

Ok....
What does the usage of the word muslim in the Bible mean to you, as a muslim? A proof of something? A proof of the prequranic existence of the word or a proof of something greater...?

It simply shows the word existed prior to the Qur'an. Also it also shows that Aramaic, Hebrew and Arabic can not be defined simply by the root letters that are written. To understand the connotation of what is being written, you need to relate it to the entire passage it is contained in.

In Luke as mentioned above the word does mean perfection in a literal sense, but in the over all content of the verse, to be Muslimah you would have to be a person who submits to God(swt). so in that verse the meaning of the word is the same as todays understanding of the word Muslim.

[جوري]

A student is no better than his teacher. But everyone who is well-trained will be like his teacher.

The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.

No sound of peace or submission to the will of God..

That is the figurative meaning of the word, not the literal.
You can extract the meaning you desire when translating it into another language, but the word is what it is..
the same as tilmeez and talmeed are the same, whether you choose to render it an, educatee, pupil, seeker of knowledge, scholar, assimilator or something even more abstract!

peace

[truemuslim]

Nope.

...nevermind..:okay:

[Woodrow]

Whatsthepoint:

To try to understand the eccentricities of the semitic languages perhaps an example can show.

Now our English word read (using the meaning like in "going to read a book") can have several different usages depending on the suffixes etc. such as:

Read
reader
reads
reading


Now if it was written in the same manner the semitic languages use only the 3 letters of the root word would be written. so all 4 mentioned words would be written more like "red" for the above 4 words. You would not know the meaning of the word unless you knew the context in which it is used.

[Whatsthepoint]

I get that.

The word muslim in Arabic literally means "one who submits to god",, whereas in Luke one must read the entire chapter or even the entire gospel to understand its meaning, in this case the word muslim itself does not mean "one who submits to god".

That's what I'm trying to say...

I guess I'm wrong, so:
Does the word muslim in Luke 6:40 means perfected/trained? Can it be translated otherwise?
Does the word muslim in arabic have other meaning as well? The way Woodrow demonstrated?
what's today's aramaic word for the adhearents of Islam?

[Woodrow]

I get that.

The word muslim in Arabic literally means "one who submits to god",, whereas in Luke one must read the entire chapter or even the entire gospel to understand its meaning, in this case the word muslim itself does not mean "one who submits to god".

That's what I'm trying to say...

I guess I'm wrong, so:
Does the word muslim in Luke 6:40 means perfected/trained? Can it be translated otherwise?
Does the word muslim in arabic have other meaning as well? The way Woodrow demonstrated?
what's today's aramaic word for the adhearents of Islam?

Aramic is essentialy a dead language today and mostly just used in religious liturgy among the Coptic Christians and Syrian Christians. There are still some small groups in Syria, Egypt and Iraq that still use it as their daily language. there may be some other hold outs. But they will be in fairly small communities.

The few Aramaic speakers I have met are Muslim. They call themselves Mushlimah. The Coptic Christians in Egypt usually speak Arabic as their daily language, they don't seem to have any problem with calling us Muslims.

However, what I found interesting is that Aramaic speaking Christians contend that the Qur'an is actually Aramaic and not Arabic. This is from an Anti-Islamic Aramaic site so I wont post the link.

QUR'AN has been MISINTERPRETED, MISTRANSLATED, AND MISREAD

THE SYRIAC-ARAMAIC LANGUAGE OF THE QUR'AN

March 21, 06

For the first time in history, a book is written to reveal that the language of the Qur'an was Aramaic, not Arabic. The Aramaic language of the Qur'an renders interpretations that are different from what Muslim commentators rendered in the last fourteen centuries.

The Eastern Syriac dialect of Aramaic is dominant in the Qur'an, and many chapters are borrowed from Biblical Hebrew, but were misinterpreted by Muslim commentators.

Oddly they seem to view the Qur'an as being a Christian Book and that they are the true Muslims. They have no problem with using Mushlimah as meaning a person who is obedient to God(swt) It seems that in looking through the hate sites some Aramaic Christians believe they are the True Muslims. As they are the ones obedient to God(swt)

[YusufNoor]

Aramic is essentialy a dead language today and mostly just used in religious liturgy among the Coptic Christians and Syrian Christians. There are still some small groups in Syria, Egypt and Iraq that still use it as their daily language. there may be some other hold outs. But they will be in fairly small communities.

The few Aramaic speakers I have met are Muslim. They call themselves Mushlimah. The Coptic Christians in Egypt usually speak Arabic as their daily language, they don't seem to have any problem with calling us Muslims.

However, what I found interesting is that Aramaic speaking Christians contend that the Qur'an is actually Aramaic and not Arabic. This is from an Anti-Islamic Aramaic site so I wont post the link.





Oddly they seem to view the Qur'an as being a Christian Book and that they are the true Muslims. They have no problem with using Mushlimah as meaning a person who is obedient to God(swt) It seems that in looking through the hate sites some Aramaic Christians believe they are the True Muslims. As they are the ones obedient to God(swt)

^o)^o)^o)

:sl:

every time i read that it says the same thing...

:w:

[sur]

Luke 6:40

Also see this
http://dialogtube.com/being_like_the_teacher.pdf

some contend that the word Muslim is a new and can't be applied prior to the adevtn of Islam but, in fact found in Aramaic and Hebrew.. see original texts above..

:w:

Muslim means somone who submits to god and the will of god...anyone who does that is by far and technically a muslim...or am i wrong

"Muslim" is a "proper name",


[Q:22:78] And strive in His cause as ye ought to strive, (with sincerity and under discipline). He has chosen you, and has imposed no difficulties on you in religion; it is the cult of your father Abraham. It is He Who has named you Muslims, both before and in this (Revelation); that the Apostle may be a witness for you, and ye be witnesses for mankind! So establish regular Prayer, give regular Charity, and hold fast to God! He is your Protector - the Best to protect and the Best to help!


وَجَاهِدُوا فِي اللَّهِ حَقَّ جِهَادِهِ هُوَ اجْتَبَاكُمْ وَمَا جَعَلَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ مِنْ حَرَجٍ مِّلَّةَ أَبِيكُمْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ هُوَ سَمَّاكُمُ الْمُسْلِمينَ مِن قَبْلُ وَفِي هَذَا لِيَكُونَ الرَّسُولُ شَهِيدًا عَلَيْكُمْ وَتَكُونُوا شُهَدَاء عَلَى النَّاسِ فَأَقِيمُوا الصَّلَاةَ وَآتُوا الزَّكَاةَ وَاعْتَصِمُوا بِاللَّهِ هُوَ مَوْلَاكُمْ فَنِعْمَ الْمَوْلَى وَنِعْمَ النَّصِيرُ ﴿٧٨

[Grace Seeker]

In the current English translation of Luke 6:40, but take a look at what it says in the original Aramaic.

[/IMG]

Those are literal translations of each word. Mushlimah does translate into "who is perfect" But the connotation of the Verse is that to be called Muslimah you have to be as the Master. Which in Luke referred to Jesus(as) and the implication of Luke is he was obedient to God(swt).

the overall meaning is "That for a person to be called Mushlimah, he must be obedient to God(swt)"

Luke 6:40 is giving a very accurate explanation as to what it means to be a Mushlimah.

That is the figurative meaning of the word, not the literal.
You can extract the meaning you desire when translating it into another language, but the word is what it is..
the same as tilmeez and talmeed are the same, whether you choose to render it an, educatee, pupil, seeker of knowledge, scholar, assimilator or something even more abstract!

peace

So, let's be clear. All that is being said is that these characters in our present alphabet could be rendered as a word that appears similar to the English word Muslim. Which makes sense if "Mushlimah" does indeed translate into "who is perfect", though I would prefer "who is made complete". The original Greek that it was written in before being translated into Aramaic (yes, I can easily defend that -- Luke was not a Jew, he was a Greek and he wrote for a Greek-speaking audience) reads ουκ εστιν μαθητης υπερ τον διδασκαλον κατηρτισμενος δε πας εσται ως ο διδασκαλος αυτου the key word here being "κατηρτισμενος" (kateertismenos) which is the perfect passive participle of katartizo which means "to complete, to finish, to equip".

Thus the meaning of the verse in Luke is that when the disciple has received complete (or has finished, or is equipped by) preparation from his teacher, he will be equal to his teacher but not surpassing. It is not saying that when the student is a Muslim (at least not in the modern understanding of that word).

In the ancient Greek the connotations behind complete and finishing were that this was how something was perfected. (In fact we still talk of "perfecting" a motion this way in parliamentary language.) And if later Arabic understood this to word that was chosen in the Aramaic translation of Luke to carry the connotation of submission with it as part of the perfecting or finishing process, well this is just how languages evolve over time.

I can find the word "accord" in scriptures too -- "When the day of Pentecost came, they [the disciples] were all together in one accord." (Acts 2:1) -- but that doesn't mean they were driving around in a Honda Accord. Just as the use of the term "accord" is different today from how it was in the first century, so too is the use of the term "Mushlimah". We do damage to our understanding if we try to make the present meaning fit the old context.

[Ghira]

Islam comes from the root word SALAMA which means Submit, Surrender, Obey, Sincerity, Peace...

Islam is a religion that teaches how to submit, surrender, obey Your Creator Sincerely (not forced to do so), and from that you will be at Peace with the Creator.

Someone who practices Islam is called a Mu-Islam...Muslim. In Arabic MU is placed in front of the word to give possession.

[Grace Seeker]

Etymology is an interesting thing. The Spanish word Hola meaning Hello in English sort of looks similar, but the two words have very different roots. Rather it is related to the Spanish word ola meaning wave, like a wave in an ocean. The roots of both of these words hola and ola are actually found in the word ole a Spanish interjection that many people are familiar with from bullfights and in which persons rise as in a wave to cheer the exploits of the bullfighter. Ole however is itself a corruption of the Arabic word Allah. But I don't think that this means that when a Spaniard greets someone by saying Hola! Como estas? (meaning "Hi! How are you?) that they are calling that person God. Etymology is interesting and can informative, I refer to it regularly to better understand words in ancient documents. But I think we have to be careful not to make it say more than it really does. The word Islam or Muslim today has a particular meaning that is derived from the context of how it is now used. To work backwards simply because we can trace a words roots and impose today's meaning on a previous generation's usage is not fair to either today's word nor the meaning of it understood by yesterday's audience.

For instance, the etymology of "Hello" actually comes from Old English words that meant "cease" or "stop". Hardly consonance with the application of that word today.

[جوري]

So, let's be clear. All that is being said is that these characters in our present alphabet could be rendered as a word that appears similar to the English word Muslim.

It has nothing to do with English.. it is Aramaic.. you know the actual spoken language of Jesus!

Which makes sense if "Mushlimah" does indeed translate into "who is perfect", though I would prefer "who is made complete". The original Greek that it was written in before being translated into Aramaic (yes, I can easily defend that -- Luke was not a Jew, he was a Greek and he wrote for a Greek-speaking audience) reads ουκ εστιν μαθητης υπερ τον διδασκαλον κατηρτισμενος δε πας εσται ως ο διδασκαλος αυτου the key word here being "κατηρτισμενος" (kateertismenos) which is the perfect passive participle of katartizo which means "to complete, to finish, to equip".

why the tangents on Greek and/ or Hebrew? There is really no point for the circuitous route to render it your desired rendition!

Thus the meaning of the verse in Luke is that when the disciple has received complete (or has finished, or is equipped by) preparation from his teacher, he will be equal to his teacher but not surpassing. It is not saying that when the student is a Muslim (at least not in the modern understanding of that word).

What is your modern understanding of the word?

In the ancient Greek the connotations behind complete and finishing were that this was how something was perfected. (In fact we still talk of "perfecting" a motion this way in parliamentary language.) And if later Arabic understood this to word that was chosen in the Aramaic translation of Luke to carry the connotation of submission with it as part of the perfecting or finishing process, well this is just how languages evolve over time.

I think you have it all wrong? It is supposed to be Aramaic before Greek. Your 'God' wasn't a european he was a middle easterner!

I can find the word "accord" in scriptures too -- "When the day of Pentecost came, they [the disciples] were all together in one accord." (Acts 2:1) -- but that doesn't mean they were driving around in a Honda Accord. Just as the use of the term "accord" is different today from how it was in the first century, so too is the use of the term "Mushlimah". We do damage to our understanding if we try to make the present meaning fit the old context.

what an incredibly deficient analogy-- I don't understand from where you are drawing a comparison in order to show a similarity in some respect!

cheers

[Grace Seeker]

It has nothing to do with English.. it is Aramaic.. you know the actual spoken language of Jesus!




why the tangents on Greek and/ or Hebrew? There is really no point for the circuitous route to render it your desired rendition!

Because the Gospel was not written in the language of Jesus, it was written in Aramaic. To try to infer that this was referring to Muslim by back tracking an assumed Aramaic word is ludicrous. When the Gospel writers did not have a word in Greek to refer to what Jesus had said in Aramaic or Hebrew, then simply used the Aramaic or Hebrew words, examples include "maranatha" and "raca". But when there was a Greek word then they used that. Now where is anyting close to the term "Muslim" or "Islam" found in the Greek text. Hence it wasn't in the Aramaic either.

[جوري]

Because the Gospel was not written in the language of Jesus, it was written in Aramaic. To try to infer that this was referring to Muslim by back tracking an assumed Aramaic word is ludicrous.

we believe the injeel indeed was written in the language Jesus spoke 'Aramaic' and just as we are told there were pious Christians chapter 18 in the Quran, can I safely assume that some of the original words of Jesus were preserved to what Saul decided should go on or become omitted as he saw fit!

When the Gospel writers did not have a word in Greek to refer to what Jesus had said in Aramaic or Hebrew, then simply used the Aramaic or Hebrew words, examples include "maranatha" and "raca". But when there was a Greek word then they used that. Now where is anyting close to the term "Muslim" or "Islam" found in the Greek text. Hence it wasn't in the Aramaic either.

well surprisingly it is there for all to see, including the Arabic bible, I know you want it to be something else-- and I sympathize, every day Christianity seems to have the need to fill a new hole .. you can worship in the language of your choice, the God of your choice, but it is too late for the church to amend its history -- oh wait.. it is never too late, didn't the church just amend its beliefs about unbaptized children who die young?

Let me retract that, it can amend its understanding indeed, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, as most of the evangelizing Christians I have encountered haven't even opened a book to believe in words outside their scope of understanding .. unfortunately for them the rest of us aren't as lax with research!

cheers

[Grace Seeker]

First, I don't believe that there ever was a a written record of what you call the Injil. But that is academic because we are not talking about the Injil, we are talking about the book of Luke.

Luke was quite clearly written originally in Greek, not Aramaic. It would of course later be translated into Aramaic and other languages, but since we do have it in the original Greek language, I'm not going to depend on those secondary translations to determine the meaning of what Luke wrote.

[جوري]

First, I don't believe that there ever was a a written record of what you call the Injil. But that is academic because we are not talking about the Injil, we are talking about the book of Luke.

what your beliefs are, are of no concern to me. I have already concluded from their absurdity, that they relay more on emotion than logic. You have

this many versions

Protestant Old Testament (39) and New Testament (27), for a total of 66.
Protestant religions generally use the Hebrew Bible as the Old Testament, but the books are ordered differently (for example, reversing the order of Prophets-Writings), and some are divided, so the total number of books in the Protestant Old Testament is 39:
Historical (17)
Poetical (5)
Prophetical (17)
The New Testament consists of 27 books:
Gospels (4)
Acts
Letters (21)
Revelation 1st Commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Catholic 73 books in total:
In addition to those books of the Bible accepted by Protestants, includes (in response to the Protestant Reformation, adopted at the Council of Trent in 1546):
Tobit
Judith
Greek additions to Esther
Wisdom of Solomon
Sirach
Baruch
Letter of Jeremiah
3 Greek additions to Daniel:
Prayer of Azariah & the Song of the Three Jews
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
1 and 2 Maccabees 1st Commandment: I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
9th and 10th Commandments both relate to coveting, while others consider these to be just one Commandment, the 10th

Anglican Accepts only the Jewish canon and the New Testaments as authoritative, but also accepts segments of the apocryphal writings in the lectionary and liturgy. At one time all copies of the King James Version of 1611 included the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments
Greek Orthodox Accepts all the books of the Bible accepted by the Catholic Church, plus:
1 Esdras
Prayer of Manasseh
Psalm 151
3 Maccabees
Other Eastern religions accept other books, too, such as 4 Maccabees Treats worshiping other gods and making images of the Deity as the 1st and 2nd Commandments, while Jewish, Catholic, and Lutherans put these together in a single Commandment (2nd for Jewish, part of the 1st for Catholics)
Ethiopic church Largest Bible of all, with 81 books in its Bible.
Old Testament includes the books of the Hebrew Bible, plus all the deuterocanonical books listed above, plus:
Jubilees
1 Enoch
Joseph ben Gorion's (Josippon's) medieval history of the Jews and other nations.
New Testament ("broader") includes 35 books. In addition to the usual 27:
4 sections of church order from a compilation called Sinodos
2 sections from the Ethiopic Book of the Covenant
Ethiopic Clement
Ethiopic Didascalia
New Testament ("narrower") includes only the 27 books, but the Old Testament books are divided differently so they make up 54 books instead of the usual 46.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bible Translations

The information in the following chart comes from various sources that appear to me to be knowledgeable. It is presented here to show the very wide variety of Bibles that are considered "The Bible" for different people. A good website for comparisons of Bible versions is http://www.bibleversions.com/ and, of course, there are many good books on the subject of Bible translations and versions. The question of which Bible is "correct" or the "best translation" is a controversial subject for many people in different religions, and sometimes for people within the same religion.

ALT - Analytical-Literal Translation Translation Philosophy: Strictly Literal
Manuscripts Consulted: BHS • TR [MT]
Completeness: Old Testament not yet started, New Testament in progress.
Number/Background of Translators: 1, Reformed Baptist
Second Person Plural? Yes, indicated by an asterisk (*) e.g., "you*"
Capital Diety Pronouns? Yes
Tetragrammaton? Yes, Yahweh
Added words offset? Yes, with brackets e.g., "[added word]"
Update of: YLT (New Testament), Dby (Old Testament)
Web Site: http://www.dtl.org/alt.htm Latest edition available
First Published: not yet completed
Last Updated: 1999
Copyright Status: ©1999 Gary F. Zeolla. Published by Darkness to Light Ministry. Permission is granted to use up to 1,000 verses of this translation as long as those verses do not account for an entire book of the Bible, nor amount to more than 50% of the work they are used in.
Amp - Amplified Bible Excellent for detailed study of a passage. It seeks to reveal the full richness of the underlying Greek and Hebrew, and often reveals insights that you might miss in reading a more conventional translation. This isn't real good for reading aloud (because of its punctuation and wordiness), but recommended for study to set along side one of the other translations. The Amplified Old Testament is not available in any electronic form, because of copyright and greed issues between the copyright owners. The Amplified New Testament is available from Logos.
ASV - American Standard Version The American Standard Version (ASV) of the Holy Bible was first published in 1901. It has earned the reputation of being the Rock of Biblical Honesty. Although the English used in the ASV is somewhat archaic, it isn't nearly as hard to understand as some passages of the King James Version of nearly 3 centuries earlier. This translation of the Holy Bible is in the public domain, since its copyright has expired.
American Standard Version
Translation Philosophy: Literal-Idiomatic
Manuscripts Consulted: BHS • CT(WH)
Completeness: Old Testament, New Testament
Number/Background of Translators: 50+, interdenominational/ecumenical
Second Person Plural? Yes, indicated by using "ye," "you," or "your" ("thee," "thou," or "thine" are second person singulars.)
Capital Diety Pronouns? No
Tetragrammaton? Yes, Jehovah
Added words offset? Yes, with italics e.g., "added words"
Update of: ERV, KJV
Web Site: http://www.ebible.org/bible/asv/ Complete version, also downloadable
First Published: 1901
Last Updated: 1901
Copyright Status: Public Domain

The American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901 is a revision of the Revised Bible, a revision of the KJV for language and to take advantage of some new (then) manuscript discoveries to allow greater accuracy. The ASV uses "Jehovah" for God's name, instead of "LORD" (which the KJV and many others use). The language of the ASV is less archaic than the KJV, but still far from modern. The ASV is in the Public Domain.

American equivalent of RV, done shortly thereafter. Contained some additional advances in scholarship. Tended to be more literal than AV.

BBE - Bible in Basic English Translation Philosophy: Easy English/Literal
Manuscripts Consulted: BHS • CT
Completeness: Old Testament, New Testament
Number/Background of Translators: 1, unknown
Second Person Plural? Not indicated
Capital Diety Pronouns? No
Tetragrammaton? Not indicated
Added words offset? No
Update of:
Web Site: http://www.bf.org/bfetexts.htm Downloadable complete version
First Published: 1949
Last Updated: 1962
Copyright Status: Public Domain in the United States of America, due to its being originally published without a copyright notice. Else copyright by C. K. Ogden and Cambridge University Press/E. P. Dutton & Co.
Book of Mormon According to LDS (Mormon) belief, the Book of Mormon is a companion Scripture to the Bible, with which it shares equal status.
BWE
CET - Today's English Version See TEV
CEV - Contemporary English Version The American Bible Society's latest English entry. It is aimed at a 3rd grade reading level, but I think it is really more like 2nd grade level. If you don't mind calling Passover "The Feast of Thin Bread," it is OK. Copyrighted.
CEV (Contemporary English Version): The CEV is highly readable, for both adults and children, and exegetically faithful. It strives to preserve the meaning of the original in natural English expressions. The CEV is not a paraphrase; it is an accurate translation of the original languages.

The CEV Project was begun in 1984 by the American Bible Society. Both the adult version and illustrated children's version have many reading aids. Said to be 5th grade level.

Darby Translation Another somewhat archaic translation. It is freely available on line.
DKJV http://wayoflife.org/~dcloud/fbns/defined.htm
Douay
Easy to Read Version This version was especially prepared to meet the needs of the deaf, those learning English as a foreign language, and those facing special reading difficulties. It served as the basis for the New Century Version and the International Children's Bible. Said to be at 4th grade level.
Good News Bible See TEV
GW - God's Word God's Word is a fresh, new translation from the God's Word to the Nations Bible Society. It is easy to read and well done. Copyrighted.
GW (God's Word): highly lauded by its producers who say: it is the most readable translation available - it represents the best English grammar (syntax) ever put "on the page" of an English Bible - it is, quite possibly, the most accurate English translation of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts ever produced! These are the same claims made by the producers of the ISV, but the English of the GW is, on the whole, a little more natural, with better stylistic flow than that of the ISV. GW is more
dynamic and readable than the NIV.

This version is outstanding for its accurate and readable translation. The theory of translation is "closest natural equivalence," exceeding "dynamic/function equivalence" translation in accuracy. Said to be 4th -5th grade level.

HNV - Hebrew Names Version (HNV) of the World English Bible An edition of the World English Bible that uses traditional Hebrew names instead of the Greek/English forms common to most English translations of the Holy Bible. For example, "Jesus" is rendered "Yeshua" and "Moses" is rendered "Moshe." Like the WEB, the HNV is in the Public Domain. It is available on line at http://www.ebible.org/bible/hnv You can have daily readings from the HNV sent to you by email by sending email to majordomo@lists.sni.net with "subscribe hnv" in the body of the message.
ICV - International Children's Version See NCV
ISV - International Standard Version Highlights careful attention to Greek verb "tenses" (aspect) and translation of these to English. Some Biblical poetry is translated as English rhyming poetry. Promoted by its producers as "the most readable and accurate English translation of the Bible ever produced" (the same claim made for the GW). The New Testament has been printed and is available for purchase. The entire New Testament and books of the Old Testament completed in preview form are available for download.
JB - Jerusalem Bible See NJB
Jefferson Bible According to the webpage at ttp://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/
Thomas Jefferson believed that the ethical system of Jesus was the finest the world has ever seen. In compiling what has come to be called "The Jefferson Bible," he sought to separate these ethical teachings from the religious dogma and other supernatural elements that are intermixed in the account provided by the four Gospels. He presented these teachings, along with the essential events of the life of Jesus, in one continuous narrative. This presentation of The Jefferson Bible uses the King James Version of the texts, corrected in accordance with the findings of modern scholarship. The selection and arrangement are by Jefferson.
JNT - Jewish New Testament An interesting mix of Hebrew and English terminology that brings out the Jewish nature of the Rabbi called Yeshua (Jesus). Copyrighted.
JPS - Jewish Publication Society See NJV
JST - Joseph Smith Translation Published in 1867, but it is not clear if this is used by some, or all, LDS (Mormons), or if it is official or not.
Judaica Press version Edited by Rabbi A.J. Rosenberg. http://www.judaicapress.com/
KJV - King James Version, sometimes called the Authorized Version (AV) Was quite revolutionary when it came out in 1611 (and was revised a few times to correct its large collection of typos). It is still very popular, in spite of its archaic and difficult to understand language. Indeed, there is a cult-like following of this translation that claim that this is the only true Word of God, superior even to the original languages. The King James Version of the Holy Bible is in the Public Domain. You can publish, copy, distribute it for free, or sell it, all without having to ask anyone's permission.
The King James Version was an academic tour-de-force in 1611, at which time it was a hotly denounced modern translation. In some quarters today it is the only acceptable translation, even though the translators in 1611 explicitly stated that they looked forward to future scholarship to correct whatever errors they may have made.

The King James Version originated when a group of Puritans ambushed King James while he was on a journey and presented him with a petition requesting a new translation of the Bible. Since the petition had a thousand signatures, it was called the Millenary Petition. The Puritans wanted a new translation of the Bible, because most of the existing English Bibles were biased and polemic. To their surprise, the king readily agreed and assembled the brightest and best Bible scholars in England to undertake the project. They were dismayed at first when the king announced he would personally manage the project, but they were pleasantly surprised when it turned out that he had an excellent background in the subject. The resulting translation was made mandatory for the Church of England, over many protests from the clergy. Because books were extremely expensive in those days, well out of the reach of the common person, the law also required every church to keep a copy on display 24 hours a day, so that ordinary people could come in and read the Bible at any time. The Bibles were generally chained to the reading desks to prevent them from being stolen when no one was around. The cost of replacing a stolen Bible in those days could easily bankrupt a local parish.
Disadvantages
The King James Version is almost incomprehensible to anyone who has not been brought up on it. For example, the word comfort means strengthen, suffer means let, let means prevent, and prevent means precede. Some verses are completely incomprehensible or misleading; for example, Psalm 5:6, 1 Kings 11:1, and Ezekiel 27:25. The textual scholarship underlying the King James Version has been superseded in the last two centuries.
Advantages
For people who were brought up on it, this is an excellent translation. For newcomers to the Bible, it is a puzzle. It is suitable for study as long as you are familiar with the language. It is widely known and available, and very inexpensive. The copyright is still valid in the United Kingdom and possibly some other nations of the British Commonwealth, but in the United States and elsewhere it is in the public domain.

KJ21 - 21st Century King James Version of the Holy Bible http://www.kj21.com/
KJ2000 - King James 2000 Bible http://life-equals-jesus.org/Couric/
LB - Living Bible See NLT
The Living Bible is the work of Kenneth N. Taylor, who in 1954 began paraphrasing scripture for use in family devotions. The first complete Living Bible appeared in 1970. It has been revised many times and appears in many different versions.
Disadvantages
The Living Bible mixes the author’s interpretations with text, making objective study impossible unless you agree with Kenneth N. Taylor’s views. It is strongly tendentious, as the author often inserts wording that has no basis whatsoever in the original text in order to conform it to fundamentalist viewpoints on end-times, sexuality, politics, and social policy. (For example, compare Jude 7 in the Living Bible with Jude 7 in the King James Version and notice how much extra text they inserted.) Depending on your views, you may see the Living Bible as clarifying the meaning that is already present in the text or as imputing meaning into the text that is not there. Essentially, the Living Bible does the interpreting for you. Even some fundamentalists find it controversial.
Advantages
The Living Bible is easy to read and it makes a good story book. Many editions explain the nature and purpose of the paraphrase.

Leeser Bible A Jewish Bible produced by Isaac Leeser in the 1800s
LITV - Literal Translation of the Bible http://www.kconline.com/paul/litv/litv.htm
The Message A paraphrase that claims to be a translation. It is very earthy, and is a great commentary, but not very accurate. Copyrighted.
MKJV - Modern King James Version http://www.cet.com/~voice/mkjv/mkjv.htm
MLV - Modern Literal Version (ASV-3) Came about because of a desire to let the public have the ASV on computer disks; the King James Version was then available. The ASV has been for years the translation held by most scholars as being the most accurate version ever made and the standard by which others should be judged. It is also known as being the version with the least amount of doctrinal or denominational bias. After some consideration, it seemed better to make a literal modern English revision of the ASV and then place it in the Public Domain. See http://christianlibrary.org/bibles/MLV/preface.htm
Mormon see Book of Mormon
NAB - New American Bible A "Catholic" Bible (with the Apocrypha interspersed in the Old Testament). It is very readable and accurate. Copyrighted.
Translated by Catholic Biblical scholars.
The OT is uneven. It was done over decades. Gen was so far out of date that it had to be retranslated, so it ended up visibly newer, i.e. less literal and using more modern scholarship. Even the NT tended to be a bit uneven. The same expression would be translated differently in Mat. and Luke. The 2nd edition smooths this out, but makes it more literal. The newer parts of the OT still tend to have a less literal feeling. However this is still a competent translation. For detailed study of the NT, if you want something as close to the original words as possible but still want modern textual scholarship, the 2nd edition might be the best translation for you. In the OT they sometimes rearrange the order of passages. There's some theory that the originals got out of order.

The New American Bible is principally a lay-oriented Roman Catholic Bible translation, although some non-Catholic scholars were involved. It is primarily the outgrowth of an encyclical by Pope Pius XII (Divino afflante Spiritu) which encouraged Bible-reading among Roman Catholics.
Disadvantages
The New American Bible is not as good as the Jerusalem Bible for serious study. The notes have a distinct Roman Catholic flavor, which can be a disadvantage for people who are not Roman Catholics. Advantages
This is a very good Bible for the lay Catholic. The notes have a distinct Roman Catholic flavor, which can be an advantage for Roman Catholics or for people who are not Roman Catholics themselves, but wish to inform themselves about the position of the Roman Catholic church on specific passages.

NASB - New American Standard Bible Said to be almost as good as the NASB95, except that it reverts to archaic English in the Psalms and in the language of prayer, and is a little harder to read. It is not widely available on line, due to copyright restrictions, but you can find it at the Bible Gateway.
Favored by some conservatives who prefer a literal translation. The quality of English is not as good as in the NIV. An updated version was published in 1995.

New American Standard Bible - in some sense a conservative reaction to RSV. Tried to return to the supposed accuracy (i.e. literalness) of ASV, backed out of some of the more controversial positions of the RSV. However did still make use of early manuscripts (though not very aggressively).

The New American Standard Bible was the project of the Lockman Foundation, which sought to produce an accurate, readable translation. The translators came from a wide variety of evangelical backgrounds.
Disadvantages
The New American Standard Bible does not lend itself well to reading out loud to an audience. The drive for accuracy led to some peculiarities in the renderings. There is occasional emphasis on relatively minor grammatical points.
Advantages
Excellent for serious study, very accurate. The current edition that you find in bookstores has been updated for improved readability.

NASB95 - New American Standard Bible, 1995 Update An excellent translation, with wording that is more literal than the NIV, and which holds to the style of the original more closely. The NASB is well known for paying close attention to tenses of words, etc. It is based on the UBS4 Greek text. Available from Parsons Technology and Logos, as well as some printed Bibles.
NCV - New Century Version A fairly free translation that reads like a newspaper. It is targeted at the 3rd grade reading level. Copyrighted.
This version is also quite good. It is very readable. It was originally translated for children under the title International Children's Version. It has undergone some revision so that it can be enjoyed by adults, as well. Several formats are available for children and adults.

Adapted from a translation for the deaf, the NCV began as the International Children's Bible and later as the Everyday Bible (now out of print), both at 3rd grade level. The standard NCV is now written at 5th grade level.

NEB - New English Bible See REB, which is the 2nd edition of the NEB. (Actually there were a few minor changes made to the NEB after initial publication, but it was never called 2nd edition.)
NET - New English Translation A new translation being done by the Biblical Studies Foundation (which is run by some people of good reputation). The NET is copyrighted, but available on line. In fact, this study Bible was designed to be read with a web browser. Copyrighted, but online at http://www.bible.org/netbible/index.htm
Team of 20 translators. This version uses a relatively literal translation approach, generally avoiding dynamic phrasings. It is, however, more readable than more literal versions such as NASB. It will probably make a good study version for those already familiar with the Bible. Its website, like several other Bible version websites, lists its translation principles. There are myriads of informative footnotes explaining NET translation decisions and giving other background information. This version is Internet-friendly with footnotes clickable from the main text.

New Chain-Reference Bible, 4th improved edition Published by B.B. Kirkbride Bible, Inc., Indianapolis, 1964.
New Life Version The New Life Version is based on a vocabulary of about 850 words. It was translated by missionary Gleason H. Ledyard. Because of the limited number of words allowed, some verses can't be expressed quite as clearly. Said to be at 3rd grade level.
NIV - New International Version Evangelical Protestant
The best-selling English Bible. Its New Testament is based on the UBS Greek text. Its language is easy to read, and its accuracy is well respected. It is not widely available on line, due to copyright restrictions, but you can find it at the Bible Gateway.

The best-selling English version. Could benefit from another update, but hindered recently by opposition from conservatives to NIV hopes to increase accuracy of its gender inclusive language. Considered the version of first choice by many evangelicals.

It tries to go as far towards readability as one can go while still showing you the form of the original. Note that there's a tendency to make OT prophecies compatible with NT quotations, where a reading of the OT alone would come up with something different. Is 7:14 is an example.

The New International Version is the product of evangelical scholars from a wide variety of church backgrounds under the auspices of the New York Bible Society International.

Disadvantages
The New International Version has a slight premillennial tinge. For example, the Greek word thlipsis is only translated as tribulation in contexts that fit premillennialism. However, that is not much of an obstacle. A Lutheran publishing house even issued a study Bible based on the New International Version, even though for the last 400 years Lutherans have considered any form of millennialism to be a heresy. The New International Version has a number of innovative renderings here and there. For example, a single Hebrew word is rendered valley, gorge, river, ravine, or brook in different passages.
Advantages
The New International Version is an excellent translation into very good contemporary English, very suitable for study and reading out loud. The word international in the name means that the translators took pains to make sure that their work would be usable in any English-speaking country on the globe, although it appears in versions with American and British spelling. The Psalms are rendered poetically.

NIrV - New International Reader's Version A simplified (3rd grade level) Bible that is based on the NIV. It is the best limited vocabulary Bible I have seen. Copyrighted.
This version is an excellent simplification of the New International Version, the most widely used English Bible. The NIrV is a very readable version for both adults and children. It contains many special features and helps to aid in understanding. Said to be 2.9 grade level.

NJB - New Jerusalem Bible A "Catholic" Bible that is a bit more free in its translation, concentrating on readability and English style. Copyrighted.
Carefully translated with strong Biblical scholarship. There is a literary sophistication to its English. The NJB is a revision of the Jerusalem Bible.

The (New) Jerusalem Bible is the product of the best Bible scholarship in the Roman Catholic Church.

Advantages
The (New) Jerusalem Bible is an excellent scholarly work for serious students of the Bible, especially Roman Catholics. The notes have a distinct Roman Catholic flavor, which can be a disadvantage for people who are not Roman Catholics.
Disadvantages
The (New) Jerusalem Bible’s wording is often clumsy and opaque to non-scholars. This is a matter of English style rather than accuracy in translation. The notes have a distinct Roman Catholic flavor, which can be an advantage for Roman Catholics or for people who are not Roman Catholics themselves, but wish to inform themselves about the position of the Roman Catholic church on specific passages.

NJV (JPS) - New Jewish Verson The modern translation of the Torah was published by JPS in 1985. Rabbis and Jewish leaders consider the JPS translation to be one of the best, if not the best translation available today. Major translations and retranslations of all or parts of the Bible were done in 1917 and 1982.
NKJV - New King James Version Good for those who are used to the KJV, but want something in Modern English. The New Testament is based on the Textus Receptus, but has footnotes where the UBS and Majority Text differ. Copyrighted, but used in a public search engine.
Seems to be in opposition to the textual scholarship of the previous revisions: it adopts the "majority text". See below. Updates AV by removing "thee" and "thou", and other things that are blatantly inappropriate in the 20th Cent., but otherwise sticks very close to AV. Presumably this means it is not as literal as the AV or NASB. Seems to be a proprietary translation, done by Thomas Nelson.

There is no real connection between the King James Version and the New King James Bible except for the name, the textual basis of the New Testament, and some similarity in the language. It was the brainchild of Sam Moore, who saw a market for a King-James-sounding modern translation.

Disadvantages
The New King James Bible sounds like a modernized King James Version, but it is neither modern nor Jacobean English. The New Testament is based on the so-called Majority Text (also called the Received Text) rather than the current state of textual research. If you live outside the United States, please note that King James Version is the American name for the Authorised Version.
Advantages
Although the New King James Bible, like all other translations, is not perfect, it is a more accurate rendering of the Greek than the King James Version and is less likely to puzzle the reader. This is an especially good translation for people with a Wesleyan or Eastern Orthodox background. The New Testament of this version was chosen to serve as the basis for an Eastern Orthodox study Bible.

NLT - New Living Translation Thought-for-thought translation that seeks to retain the readability of The Living Bible, but with greater accuracy. Copyrighted.
Exegetically "tightened" by a team of 90 scholars to be more accurate than its predecessor, the Living Bible. Retains some of the good style of the Living Bible. Reads pretty well, better than most of the relatively literal recent versions. Better attention to good English composition and style than in most recent English versions.

The NLT is largely a replacement for the very popular Living Bible, although the Living Bible will continue to be published. Said to be at 6.4 grade level.

The New Living Translation is a revision of the Living Bible to transform it from a paraphrase to a true translation.

Disadvantages
The New Living Translation still interpolates text in places that address or seem to address modern issues, but is not as excessive as the Living Bible. It is still mildly tendentious in favor of distinctively fundamentalist teachings.
Advantages
The New Living Translation is easy to read and it makes a good story book. It is a huge improvement over the Living Bible and it can even be used for study.

NRSV - New Revised Standard Version Liberal Protestant
A decent Modern English Bible with some scholarly respect. It strives to avoid "sexist" terminology by translating, for example, "brother" as "brother or sister," and trying to avoid gender-specific language by compromising on number (i. e. "their" for "his"). Generally, these substitutions are usually justified by context. This is an ecumenical work, with editions available that contain the Apocrypha/Dueterocanonical books for not only the Roman Catholic tradition, but for several other denominations, as well. Copyrighted, hard to find on line.

Highly regarded in scholarly circles. Reads about as well as the NIV.

Still guided by the instruction to stick with AV wording where possible. It's not a bad compromise between literalness and readability. Its most visible feature is an avoidance of masculine gender where the original used masculine to mean everyone. "brothers" will be translated "brothers and sisters", and "he" as "they" (with the whole passage turned plural). This was not true of RSV and RSV 2nd edition. It does not attempt to hide the patriachal nature of the ancient cultures. It is claimed that generic language is used only where that is the genuine meaning of the original.

The (New) Revised Standard Version is the direct descendant of the King James Version.

Disadvantages
The initial editions were controversial and were too liberal for many evangelicals, but questionable renderings have been repaired in recent editions. It has clumsy English syntax in places. The Psalms are not poetically rendered and don’t lend themselves well to responsive or unison reading.
Advantages
The Revised Standard Version is excellent for study. The New Revised Standard Version attempts to remove spurious gender bias without going overboard. It has fewer controversial renderings than before and has excellent scholarship.

NWT - New World Translation Published in 1961 by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of new York, one of the corporate bodies of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
OBP - Original Bible Project Will be interesting because of its arrangement of the Biblical books. Extremely literal.
Philips (Phi) New Testament in Modern English, Revised A free translation/paraphrase that is easy to read, and has good impact.
Copyrighted.
This is one of the best translations ever produced, in terms of English style and impact upon readers. The translator was the British Biblical scholar J.B. Phillips.

J B Phillips, an Anglican clergyman, first began paraphrasing the epistles of the New Testament into modern English for his church’s youth group, which met in bomb shelters during air raids in World War II. He eventually completed the entire New Testament, and later revised it into a true translation.
Disadvantages
Many editions of the J B Phillips New Testament lack verse numbers. The wording is significantly different from other translations. Earlier editions are too British for Americans.
Advantages
The J B Phillips New Testament gives unique and accurate insights into the New Testament.

REB - Revised English Bible A very readable British English (as opposed to American English) Bible, a revision of the New English Bible (NEB). It is available both with and without the Apocrypha. It has a respectable list of churches that endorse it. Some bracketed sections of the UBS4 Greek text are omitted entirely, so don't look too hard for the story of the woman caught in adultery in this Bible. Copyrighted.
Updated and improved version of the New English Bible, translated by British scholars. Reads well. The target audience is probably moderately well educated adults. Pleasant literary language.

RSV - Revised Standard Version Liberal Protestant
Another hybrid Modern/Archaic English Bible. (Archaic in the Psalms and in prayer, as if God only spoke Elizabethan English.) It is pretty well trusted, though. The RSV is copyrighted, but it is available freely with The Online Bible.

Yet another American revision, done primarily because of yet more manuscripts, including Dead Sea Scrolls. Backed out of literalness of ASV, though still not a very free translation. Included scholarly views that were controversial at the time (like translating Is 7:14 as young woman instead of virgin). So it was considered flamingly liberal at the time. Most of these features are now present in evangelical translations, and in fact it is now considered a bit too conservative.

RV - Revised Version First major attempt to revise the AV, primarily because of the great number of earlier manuscripts. Great Britain.
Scofield Bible Published by Oxford University Press, New York, in 1967
Soncino Books Of The Bible - 14 Volume Tanach (Jewish Bible) Conservative Judaism
http://www.uscj.org/mall/bookservice.htm
Tanakh, the Holy Scriptures A good Modern English translation of the Jewish Bible (the same as the Christian Old Testament) from the traditional Hebrew text. "Tanakh" is an acronym for "Torah (Law), Nevi'im (Prophets), and Kethuvim (Writings)." This is the work of Jewish scholars and rabbis from the three largest branches of Judaism in America, done with reference to other Jewish and Christian translations. This work is copyrighted by the Jewish Publication Society. See NJV.
TEV - Today's English Version, also called the Good News Bible or Good News for Modern Man An older Modern English Bible from the American Bible Society. It has taken some flak for being too loose of a translation. Actually, I believe that they did fairly well with a limited vocabulary. Copyrighted.
From the American Bible Society (a conservative Protestant organization that has managed to produce a liberal translation)

The Good News Bible is a project of the American Bible Society to render the Bible in a form that unchurched people can understand.
Disadvantages
For people who attend church regularly and are familiar with the Bible, the fact that the Good News Bible does not use traditional religious vocabulary is a disadvantage. Since clarity is the overriding goal of this translation, it often seems to be inaccurate when compared to other translations, but it is in fact an accurate translation.
Advantages
The Good News Bible is written at a very low grade level and is consequently very easy to understand. It is excellent as story book. In fact, the Old Testament can be read from Genesis to 2 Kings as easily as a novel.

TLB - The Living Bible A paraphrase of the KJV that sacrifices accuracy for readability. Sometimes in makes a point pretty well. The flashlight in Psalms 119:105 seems a bit odd, though. Copyrighted.
TM - The Message Excellent style. A real pleasure to read. It grips me, the reader, and challenges and convicts me, as no other translation does. Occasionally gets carried away with strange idioms.
TMB - Third Millennium Bible http://www.tmbible.com/
WEB - World English Bible The World English Bible (WEB) is a Public Domain (no copyright) Modern English translation of the Holy Bible, based on the ASV of the Holy Bible first published in 1901, the Biblia Hebraica Stutgartensa Old Testament, and the Greek Majority Text New Testament. It is in draft form, and currently being edited for accuracy and readability. The New Testament, Psalms, and Proverbs are close to how they will read when they are finished, but most of the Old Testament still contains some archaic grammar that will be revised.
A revision of the ASV of 1901 into Modern English. The New Testament is revised to reflect the Majority Text. God's name in the Old Testament is rendered as "Yahweh" instead of "Jehovah" because that is widely regarded to be more correct. This is an all-volunteer project still in progress. The purpose of the WEB is to put an accurate, whole, Modern English Bible into the Public Domain. Note that there are no other English translations in this category. Please see http://www.ebible.org/bible/WEB for more information.

See http://worldenglishbible.org/bible/web/

Webster Bible (a revision of the KJV bible) Has updated spelling, but retains the same grammar and almost all of the wording of the KJV. The Webster Bible is in the Public Domain.
Weymouth New Testament in Modern Speech A decent translation of the New Testament only. It is freely available on line.
YLT - Young's Literal Translation A somewhat archaic, but it is fairly well done and is freely available on line

http://bessel.org/bibles.htm
but find it difficult that an original exists.. it is all good!

Luke was quite clearly written originally in Greek, not Aramaic. It would of course later be translated into Aramaic and other languages, but since we do have it in the original Greek language, I'm not going to depend on those secondary translations to determine the meaning of what Luke wrote.

You can depend on what you wish to depend on. My original post is plain for all to see and judge with a more discerning eye.

cheers

[Grace Seeker]

A list of English translations, be it 10 or 10,000 does not add to or subtract from the reality that Luke was originally written in Greek from which your Aramaic and Arabic Bibles were both also translated the same as the English was.

[جوري]

Who is Luke? a buddy of Jesus or a royal comrade of Paul? The majority of these 'bibles' aren't translations, their whims to fill the gaps.
What you think happened, and what has actually happened, are two different things. You don't have an accurate historical account of the God names Jesus to pretend that he spoke Greek in Lieu of Aramaic to a man named Luke. Again, what I have posted is there for all to see.

cheers

[Grace Seeker]

Who is Luke? a buddy of Jesus or a royal comrade of Paul? The majority of these 'bibles' aren't translations, their whims to fill the gaps.
What you think happened, and what has actually happened, are two different things. You don't have an accurate historical account of the God names Jesus to pretend that he spoke Greek in Lieu of Aramaic to a man named Luke. Again, what I have posted is there for all to see.

cheers

But this thread suggests that because the word "Mushlima" occurs in an Aramaic translation of the Gospel of Luke that Jesus must have spoken it. As you say, Luke was not a buddy of Jesus. If you don't trust him, then why trust a translation of what he originally wrote in Greek just because it appears in Aramaic?

[جوري]

But this thread suggests that because the word "Mushlima" occurs in an Aramaic translation of the Gospel of Luke that Jesus must have spoken it. As you say, Luke was not a buddy of Jesus. If you don't trust him, then why trust a translation of what he originally wrote in Greek just because it appears in Aramaic?

The term is taken from the Aramaic bible society. "Ein talmeed na'leh 'al rabbo; shekken kal adam she'MUSHLAM yihyeh k'rabbo." hebrew_2.gif (3.8 KB)
Important Note: The Hebrew word "Mushlam" comes from the root "Sh L M". "Shalom" which comes from the same root means "peace". The Arabic word "Muslim" comes from the root "S L M". "Salam" means "peace". "Salem" means "safe". Also taken from the Aramaic bible society, http://home.comcast.net/~rzuberi/in...es/page0005.htm, and http://home.comcast.net/~rzuberi/ar...The_Teacher.pdf.

translated in your luke english as
Luke 6:40 (KJV) The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.

Luke 6:40 (Darby)
The disciple is not above his teacher, but every one that is perfected shall be as his teacher.

Luke 6:40 (Young's Literal Translation)
A disciple is not above his teacher, but every one perfected shall be as his teacher.

Luke 6:40 (21st Century King James Version)
The disciple is not above his master, but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.

Luke 6:40 (American Standard Version)
The disciple is not above his teacher: but every one when he is perfected shall be as his teacher.


not the other way around

cheers

[Grace Seeker]

The term is taken from the Aramaic bible society. "Ein talmeed na'leh 'al rabbo; shekken kal adam she'MUSHLAM yihyeh k'rabbo." hebrew_2.gif (3.8 KB)
Important Note: The Hebrew word "Mushlam" comes from the root "Sh L M". "Shalom" which comes from the same root means "peace". The Arabic word "Muslim" comes from the root "S L M". "Salam" means "peace". "Salem" means "safe". Also taken from the Aramaic bible society, http://home.comcast.net/~rzuberi/in...es/page0005.htm, and http://home.comcast.net/~rzuberi/ar...The_Teacher.pdf.

translated in your luke english as
Luke 6:40 (KJV) The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.

Luke 6:40 (Darby)
The disciple is not above his teacher, but every one that is perfected shall be as his teacher.

Luke 6:40 (Young's Literal Translation)
A disciple is not above his teacher, but every one perfected shall be as his teacher.

Luke 6:40 (21st Century King James Version)
The disciple is not above his master, but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.

Luke 6:40 (American Standard Version)
The disciple is not above his teacher: but every one when he is perfected shall be as his teacher.


not the other way around

cheers

I'm still confused by what any of that has to do with answering the question which is the title of this thread?

[جوري]

I really can't help your confusion!

cheers

[Woodrow]

This thread seems to be taking a few terms. To return to topic I suggest the following.

1. Keep in mind this is not a debate over the accuracy of anybody's religious belief, it is a question of linguistics over the age of a specific word.

2. Accept the fact we each consdier the other's source as being inaccurate.

3. Before proceeding further let us try to agree upon a mutually acceptable source.

[Grace Seeker]

This thread seems to be taking a few terms. To return to topic I suggest the following.

1. Keep in mind this is not a debate over the accuracy of anybody's religious belief, it is a question of linguistics over the age of a specific word.

2. Accept the fact we each consdier the other's source as being inaccurate.

3. Before proceeding further let us try to agree upon a mutually acceptable source.

Thank-you.
Since you posted the quoted line (post #22), can you identify the source for us? What is the age of the Aramaic text for Luke 6:40?

The earliest Aramaic versions that I am aware of are 4th century. Which would still be 3 centuries before Muhammad and the Qur'an if that is all you are trying to establish.

[Thinker]

Wow - what an interesting and informative read; my thanks to all of you.

[wth1257]

Luke 6:40

Also see this
http://dialogtube.com/being_like_the_teacher.pdf

some contend that the word Muslim is a new and can't be applied prior to the adevtn of Islam but, in fact found in Aramaic and Hebrew.. see original texts above..

:w:

Luke 6:40 says
"A diciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully taught will be like his teacher"

[جوري]

Luke 6:40 says
"A diciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully taught will be like his teacher"

You should read the thread from the beginning..
Thanks

cheers

[wth1257]

You should read the thread from the beginning..
Thanks

cheers

I just skimmed the article, I'm a bit confused why he never went into the Greek, which was the language of Luke, not aramaic

[جوري]

I just skimmed the article, I'm a bit confused why he never went into the Greek, which was the language of Luke, not aramaic

skimming wastes folk's time especially your own?
Is luke the christian God or is Jesus? Jesus spoke aramaic, he was a middle easterner, not a European!

cheers

[Chuck]

skimming wastes folk's time especially your own?
Is luke the christian God or is Jesus? Jesus spoke aramaic, he was a middle easterner, not a European!

cheers

LULZ :D

That is daily show material, lulz.

[Grace Seeker]

Is luke the christian God or is Jesus? Jesus spoke aramaic, he was a middle easterner, not a European!

cheers

Which, while true, remains just as irrelevant to the question at hand as the last 10 times you said it.

[Chuck]

Which, while true, remains just as irrelevant to the question at hand as the last 10 times you said it.

How so? Explain.

[جوري]

Which, while true, remains just as irrelevant to the question at hand as the last 10 times you said it.

The only thing irrelevant here is the lengths your are willing to go through to interpolate your own exegesis to what is obviously written in original tongue of the man who brought the whole religion which supposedly you subscribe to for what saul/Luke and the dobey brothers have to say in foreign tongue.

I am sorry gene but you have no credibility whatsoever when it comes to religion.
I am not going to rouse interest in the way you falsify every passage to accommodate your faulty logic.

All the best

[wth1257]

skimming wastes folk's time especially your own?
Is luke the christian God or is Jesus? Jesus spoke aramaic, he was a middle easterner, not a European!

cheers

Jesus was a Palistinian Jew who spoke Aramaic and perhapse Hebrew. You are makeing a claim about the vocabularly of the Gospel of Luke.

Jesus did not write "The Gospel of Luke" but "luke" did. We don't know much about Luke. He is generally assumed to have been a doctor or artist or historian and pagan convert to Christianity. He was also a Greek and wrote his Gospel in Greek.

The fact the the individual he wrote about spoke aramaic is totally irrelivent in reguards to the vocabularly that "Luke" used unless he is quoting Jesus in his native language.

[wth1257]

The only thing irrelevant here is the lengths your are willing to go through to interpolate your own exegesis to what is obviously written in original tongue of the man who brought the whole religion which supposedly you subscribe to for what saul/Luke and the dobey brothers have to say in foreign tongue.

I am sorry gene but you have no credibility whatsoever when it comes to religion.
I am not going to rouse interest in the way you falsify every passage to accommodate your faulty logic.

All the best

I'm sorry but Luke was written in Greek. I think some New Testaent textual critics believe some NT documents may have been origionally written in Aramaic or Hebrew (key word in "think") but Luke is manifestly not one of them.

[جوري]

Jesus was a Palistinian Jew who spoke Aramaic and perhapse Hebrew. You are makeing a claim about the vocabularly of the Gospel of Luke.

I claimed and brought evidence that the word 'muslim' isn't new to Muslims only.

Jesus did not write "The Gospel of Luke" but "luke" did. We don't know much about Luke. He is generally assumed to have been a doctor or artist or historian and pagan convert to Christianity. He was also a Greek and wrote his Gospel in Greek.

Indeed however in the Aramaic bible enclosed on the previous page, the whole verse is quoted you in Aramiac with the word enclosed therein. It has nothing to do with Luke, John, Mark or Glenn miller, rather whether or not the word existed before adevent of Islam, which it does!

The fact the the individual he wrote about spoke aramaic

I don't understand what that means?

is totally irrelivent in reguards to the vocabularly that "Luke" used unless he is quoting Jesus in his native language.

It is actually quite relevant since this is supposed to be about what Jesus said in his native tongue in the book of so or so, otherwise you concede that the entire of christianity is built upon conjectures of men who have never seen, spoke, or heard from Jesus, in which case you can make up words as you go along in French, German or English to render the translation of your choosing, but by same token an admission that it has nothing to do with what Jesus actually said!
cheers

[جوري]

I'm sorry but Luke was written in Greek. I think some New Testaent textual critics believe some NT documents may have been origionally written in Aramaic or Hebrew (key word in "think") but Luke is manifestly not one of them.

Where did Luke get his knowledge of what Jesus said?

[wth1257]

Where did Luke get his knowledge of what Jesus said?

It seems the main sources come from Mark and the "Q Gospel"

[جوري]

It seems the main sources come from Mark and the "Q Gospel"

interesting-- where did Mark and the 'Q gospel' get their info on Jesus from?

cheers

[wth1257]

I claimed and brought evidence that the word 'muslim' isn't new to Muslims only.

I would assume that a term in Arbic existed to refer to an individual in the act of submitting existed before Muhammad's revelation.

Indeed however in the Aramaic bible enclosed on the previous page, the whole verse is quoted you in Aramiac with the word enclosed therein. It has nothing to do with Luke, John, Mark or Glenn miller, rather whether or not the word existed before adevent of Islam, which it does!

Then why point to Luke?

I guess I really don't understand your point.
(no offense)

It is actually quite relevant since this is supposed to be about what Jesus said in his native tongue in the book of so or so, otherwise you concede that the entire of christianity is built upon conjectures of men who have never seen, spoke, or heard from Jesus, in which case you can make up words as you go along in French, German or English to render the translation of your choosing, but by same token an admission that it has nothing to do with what Jesus actually said!
cheers

I'm not a practicing Christian, I have no problem whatsoever admitting that Luke never met Jesus, I don't know any Christian who would have a problem admitting that either. I also have no problem admitting that Christianity is built upon, in part, the understanding of the Gospel writters on the life and words of Jesus and how they recounted those reports to the people of their time in their respective political, philosophical, and cultural context's.

[جوري]

Iwould assume that a term in Arbic existed to refer to an individual in the act of submitting existed before Muhammad's revelation.

Indeed that is the whole point!.. Arabic a semtic language ( as spoken by all messengers) like Hebrew and Aramaic describes those who submitted to God and those who submit to God are Muslim.. period..


again it has nothing to do with Luke, it is the passage translated to Luke as you have previousely quoted, my point was if you'd read the entire thread you'd see my point is what I described in my first paragraph of this post, not of Luke, Mark and Gary..

cheers

[wth1257]

Indeed that is the whole point!.. Arabic a semtic language ( as spoken by all messengers) [/B]like Hebrew and Aramaic describes those who submitted to God and those who submit to God are Muslim.. period..


again it has nothing to do with Luke, it is the passage translated to Luke as you have previousely quoted, my point was if you'd read the entire thread you'd see my point is what I described in my first paragraph of this post, not of Luke, Mark and Gary..

cheers

Alright, fair enough:D

[Grace Seeker]

Is luke the christian God or is Jesus? Jesus spoke aramaic, he was a middle easterner, not a European!

cheers

Which, while true, remains just as irrelevant to the question at hand as the last 10 times you said it.

How so? Explain.

The question at hand is regarding the word "Muslim". I'm quite aware that the word "Muslim" is derived from words that existed centuries before Arabic even existed. But while those words might be ancestors to the word "Muslim", they are in fact not the same word, they are related words, but they are also different words and not actually the word "Muslim" was derived latter. So it is irrelevant if one can find some ancestor word in use prior to the Qur'an, for that is not the question being asked.

So, let us take a second look at the actual question: "Is the word Muslim new in the Qur'an only?" To answer that question all one has to do is find it in some source, any source, prior to the receiving of the Qur'an. It is irrelevant whether the word is found in some other Arabic text, a letter between friends, a political treaty, an Arabic translation of the Bible, even a shopping list. If the word is there it is not new to the Qur'an. And I suspect taht since Muhammad did not have to explain the significance of the word to those who became followers of Islam, that the word was not something that he coined. In other words it probably was not new to the Qur'an. Thus the gymnastics by those who are trying to dig it out of a passage in Luke are irrelevant and completely unncessary to answering the question at hand.




But lastly, if one's wish is to interpret a passage of the Bible, then the key is not what it says in English or in Spanish or Arabic or Klingon. What is important, what is relevant is what it said in the language that particular passage of the Bible was originally written in.

If one was trying to interpret a passage of what is often called the Old Testament, we would recognize that what it originally was was the Hebrew Tanakah and to best understand it one would need to turn to Hebrew. This is true though Hebrew is closely related to other langauges, it is still best to interpret out of the original language in which it was written.

So too with the Luke passage -- it is best to interpret it out of the original language in which it was written. And the original langauge in which the Greek-speak Gentile Luke wrote to his Greek-speaking Gentile audience in is not surprisingly Greek. He might well have been translating stories that he himself first received by having heard them in Aramaic, but what he actually wrote them in is in Greek. One might try to recreate the Aramaic stories behind them, but one can never be sure whether that recreated version is accurate or not; it is like playing the game of telephone in reverse. The only thing that one can be sure of is what Luke himself wrote, and beyond that we are at best guessing.

So, turning to a 4th century or later Aramaic translation of what Luke wrote is not going to be as accurate in arriving at the words of Jesus as using a 2nd century Greek copy of what Luke wrote. The 4th century Aramaic translation would be valuable if we did not have a 2nd century copy in the original Greek language, but we do, for the 4th century Aramaic translation of a 4th century Greek copy or a 2nd century Greek copy of the Greek original is actually farther removed from the original than a 21st century English translation of the 2nd century Greek of the Greek original, and hence the Aramaic translation is irrelevant.

Skye suggests that I have no credibilty whatsoever when it comes to religion. What she means is that she has quit bothering to listen once she as formulated an opinion of her own, for we are not even discussing religion, we are simply discussing the origin of words. As for our respective credibility, I leave for each individual to read what we have posted and decide for themselves which makes better sense.

[جوري]

Mr. Gene's exegetical flourishes and commentaries straddle the line between absurd and otiose. Most of these paragraphs are but pointless, it is best in my humble opinion to contract your replies to actual facts than conjectures when asserting your point-- which I understand to be difficult when one is going for the very marrow of your beliefs.

I'll however agree with your very last statement of credibility left to other posters to decide....
I unlike you, if you'll forgive me, don't have all day to slave penning large hyperboles to fit in with my beliefs...

Nonetheless from my heart as always I wish you all the best...

cheers

[Grace Seeker]

It is actually quite relevant since this is supposed to be about what Jesus said in his native tongue in the book of so or so, otherwise you concede that the entire of christianity is built upon conjectures of men who have never seen, spoke, or heard from Jesus, in which case you can make up words as you go along in French, German or English to render the translation of your choosing, but by same token an admission that it has nothing to do with what Jesus actually said!
cheers

There is nothing new here. Christians have always said that Luke is a second-hand source. He never did meet Jesus. He received his information from the apostles who did know Jesus and from other existing oral tradition. That doesn't make his work conjecture, and I hesitate to say that this makes him unreliable. It is as least as close to the teachings of Jesus as most of the Hadith of the Prophet are, but you are correct that what you have in Luke's Greek Gospel account is not going to be the exact words of Jesus, and except for those few phrase where Luke did choose to incorporate Aramaic, we are not going to be able to get back to those precise words, nor has the church ever made that claim. The Bible is not dictation. It is not recitation. If you want that sort of accuracy, you are going to need a time machine and a tape recorder.

[جوري]

No, the sort of accuracy needs a strong oral tradition and high fidelity, and that is how societies thrived for centuries with works unadulterated in fact... It is a conundrum to me how something that is supposed to be so simple has been divided into a thousand and one sect and a thousand and one version all open to a million interpretation, None of them willing to concede the obvious lest it question the faulty logic of your predecessors. More idolatry to known enemies of Jesus than close examination of what Jesus actually said..

Anyhow, I really don't have any more time to devote to this thread than what I actually have. I have quoted and sourced my point and the rest if left to the reader to mull as s/he may!

[Grace Seeker]

Anyhow, I really don't have any more time to devote to this thread than what I actually have. I have quoted and sourced my point and the rest if left to the reader to mull as s/he may!

Really? I bet if I post again, you will as well.

[The Khan]

However, what I found interesting is that Aramaic speaking Christians contend that the Qur'an is actually Aramaic and not Arabic. This is from an Anti-Islamic Aramaic site so I wont post the link.

Aramaic was influenced heavily by Arabic and vice-versa. During the prohet's (SAW) time, Arabic was influenced heavily by Aramaic, due to Aramaic replacing Greek as the lingua franca of the East. Later, Arabic influenced Aramaic also to a large extent, after the conquest of Syria, especially after Arabic was imposed as the only official language of the Ummayad dynasty. Hence, while Arabic was influenced by Aramaic during pre-Islamic times, this was to a lesser extent, and only by a few words at most. Modern Aramaic, on the other hand, has been influenced by Arabic to such an extent that it is not at all intelligible with pre-Islamic Aramaic, while Qur'anic Arabic is intelligible with modern standard Arabic.