Is the word Muslim new in the Quran only?

[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

 

[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.