Quran VS Bible , a thoroughly comparative study,arranged by items

[Al-manar]

Item :7

Biblical Errancy vs Quranic Inerrancy P.5


2 Peter 1:20-21 says, "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

VS

Holy Quran[005:013] they change the words from their right times places.



both texts can't be true .... in one hand the writer of 2peter believes that prophecy of Scripture never had its origin in the will of man,but through God's inspiration ,on the other hand the Quran accuses those religious figures of a textual coruuption besides ,misusing,misapplying the text (which we will find out soon related to the realm of prophecies)....


though the issue of (textual changing )attracted me in the beginning ,but later after long time of reflection I found out the issue of (textual misapplication) is far greater of importance, and a golden key that opened for me the box that is full of answers to the most puzzling questions regarding christianity...

In order to get the whole story we will provide the following :


1- Historical reminder (great diversity in late Second Temple Judaism)

2- the high significance of the dead sea scrolls to our issue.

3- Quoting the New Testament directly, showing the huge amount of textual New Testament misapplication of the Old testament ...

4- Why the New Testament writers chose specifically such passages,what were their intentions?.

5- Were they pagan conspirators,seeking to destroy judaism or deviant Jews ,who(similar to the community of the dead sea scroll)imagined themselves living in the end of times and the imaginary Jewish dreams of the end of times is being fulfilled in them ,imposing the hearsays they got about Jesus on the old testament and vice versa, creating for him role and nature ,he wasn't supposed to have been?

6- How all that strengthen the case for the Quran?

7- Additional related information ,regarding the danger of esoteric interpretation (false t'awil),and example of its use in Islam...

to get satisfying answers to the previous question,was the most tiring intellectual thing I ever had in my life......

To be continued

 

[Hugo]

Holy Quran[005:013] they change the words from their right times places.

This is a rather shortened v13 and other translations give a different sense. For, example, Dawood implies that the words were taken out of context and applied and there is no sense of the text saying the words were changed. The whole section is in many ways odd as it starts out with the Israelites and abruptly begins talking to Muslims and with this very peculiar idea of giving God a loan. Just as abruptly it wanders back to the Jews and without warning Christians are added and even suggest that the Prophet of Islam can forgive Christians and Jews.

Well lets see what you have to offer

 

[جوري]

This is a rather shortened v13 and other translations give a different sense. For, example, Dawood implies that the words were taken out of context and applied and there is no sense of the text saying the words were changed. The whole section is in many ways odd as it starts out with the Israelites and abruptly begins talking to Muslims and with this very peculiar idea of giving God a loan. Just as abruptly it wanders back to the Jews and without warning Christians are added and even suggest that the Prophet of Islam can forgive Christians and Jews.

Well lets see what you have to offer

what the hell are you talking about a 'loan' and 'dawood's' out of context.. why don't you expound on your pearls, or are you afraid of something?

 

[r1h22s]

In the Quran Allah tells us that there was a trick to the supposed crucifixion of Isa and Allah never mentioned the name of Jesus in the Quran.
Allah also says that they do conjecture and we ought to know that all that come with the trick or the lie or the guesswork of the crucifixion are equally lies and conjecture and tricks and this includes Jesus and Bible and Gospels and Christianity.
Joshua or Jashua or Yeshua or Yashua translates "Jah is Salvation" and Jesus, from the King James Version/Translation of the BIble, was the name that Pontius Pilate gave to the two crucified thieves when he had this name inscribed above their heads on their crosses in his performance of the Hoax of the Crucifixion that Allah mentions in the Quran, and Allah Speaks The Truth.
The Gospels of Matthew and Luke were both written many years after the Trick of the Crucifixion that Allah speaks of in the Quran and they continue along with the trick and rename the trick of the crucifixion and clumsily pin tghe name on the child of the virgin and, in the process, they introduce a husband for the virgin and an Angel to "baptise" the child of Zeus, the Father of Gods, with the name of "Jesus". They add the confusion of the Holy Spirit as another candidate for fathering the child.
Jesus of the Gospels replaces Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14), which is referred to as Emmanuel (Matthew1: 23). This represents an annulment of the command of the Lord, by an angel of the Lord, after the child was conceived in the mother’s womb (Matthew 1:20-21).
Matthew attempts to justify this annulment of the command of the Lord as a fulfillment of the prophecy as “spoken” by the prophet (Matthew 1:22), but the prophecy is again altered, with the authority for naming the child being shifted from the virgin to “they,” whoever they may be.
The prophecy and command of the Lord, was one of conception without a father, “a virgin shall conceive” (Isaiah 7:14), which is repeated in Matthew’s reference, with what seems to be a slight twist to the original prophecy, becoming The prophecy and command of the Lord, was one of conception without a father, “a virgin shall conceive” (Isaiah 7:14), which is repeated in Matthew’s reference, with what seems to be a slight twist to the original prophecy, becoming, “a virgin shall be with child.” (Matthew 1: 23)
Luke reports that an Angel of God, Gabriel by name, appears to the virgin before conception (Luke 1:26-31), which would be before Matthew’s angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph “in a dream,” after conception. (Matthew1: 20)
Luke appears to be reading his command to the virgin from the prophecy of Isaiah (Isaiah 7:14) as he states, “And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.” (Luke 1:31) Here, Luke agrees with the earlier prophecy that the virgin shall name the son, with the exception and/or alteration of Immanuel, (Isaiah 7:14) and/or Emmanuel. (Matthew 1:23) with the insertion of JESUS.
Luke goes one step further and reports the naming of the child eight days after his birth, at his circumcision, at which time, “his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.” (Luke 2:21)
Luke comes after the duplicated crucifixion of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, by which time Matthew has already named the child, who has twice gone through the crucifixion of Jesus King of the Jews.

Luke introduces a different chronological order of events that does not help to remove uncertainty and confusion, so that the breach of the command of the Lord God of Israel comes from what can be said to be:

• One or two different angels (the angel is not named in Matthew while Gabriel is the angel of Luke),
• In two different locations, (to Joseph, after he became conscious of her pregnancy, while he slept, in Matthew, and to Mary, before conception in Luke),
• On two separate occasions, (which is quite obvious, being before and after conception).

We are informed by Luke that the mother was aware that “that which was conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 1: 20), before she conceived and after she “was espoused to a man named Joseph” (Luke 1: 27), and yet Joseph was not considered until after he contemplated putting her away for being unfaithful. This confusion and scandal must be viewed as no more than a sacrilegious distortion of Scripture.
We have Joseph being authorized to name the child Jesus in Matthew by the angel (Matthew 1:21) to which he complied (Matthew 1: 25). The mother is authorized to name the child Jesus in Luke (Luke 1:31), to which Luke offers no evidence that she did comply. Both Gospels therefore do agree that the virgin was in no way responsible for the alteration of the name of her child nor for the confusion in the naming of the child with an improper name.
Muslims and Christians conceal their misunderstanding in Yeshua and Joshua as Jesus when Yeshua or Joshua translates Yah or Jah is Salvation.
The four Gospels also carry the Hoax that far while it is left to the reader to bring the Hoax into the open by bringing the Gospels together into one story and bringing the jigs of the jig-saw puzzle in place to show the chronology of events and the truth of the beautiful planning and the execution of the plan and the two thieves named Jesus.

 

[Grace Seeker]

I just want to focus on one little bit of what you have posted:

Jesus, from the King James Version/Translation of the BIble, was the name that Pontius Pilate gave to the two crucified thieves when he had this name inscribed above their heads on their crosses

What is your source for this? I've never heard it before in any discussion -- not in a Christian, Muslim, nor secular context. Not even in dramatizations have I ever heard any names for the thieves that, according to the my underestanding of the Bible, were crucified alongside Jesus.

 

[Al-manar]

This is a rather shortened v13 and other translations give a different sense.

A sense other than the jews corrupted the word of God? for example?

For, example, Dawood implies that the words were taken out of context and applied and there is no sense of the text saying the words were changed.

let's read the context:

Holy Quran 5:12. Indeed Allâh took the covenant from the Children of Israel (Jews before Islam), and We appointed twelve leaders among them. And Allâh said: "I am with you if you perform prayer and give charity and believe in My Messengers; honour and assist them, and lend to Allâh a good loan. Verily, I will remit your sins and admit you to Gardens under which rivers flow (in Paradise). But if any of you after this, disbelieved, he has indeed gone astray from the Straight Path."
13. So because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard. They change the words from their (right) places and have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them. And you will not cease to discover deceit in them, except a few of them. But forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds). Verily, Allâh loves the good doers.

 

[Hugo]

A sense other than the jews corrupted the word of God? for example? let's read the context:

Holy Quran 5:12. Indeed Allâh took the covenant from the Children of Israel (Jews before Islam), and We appointed twelve leaders among them. And Allâh said: "I am with you if you perform prayer and give charity and believe in My Messengers; honour and assist them, and lend to Allâh a good loan. Verily, I will remit your sins and admit you to Gardens under which rivers flow (in Paradise). But if any of you after this, disbelieved, he has indeed gone astray from the Straight Path." 13. So because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard. They change the words from their (right) places and have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them. And you will not cease to discover deceit in them, except a few of them. But forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds). Verily, Allâh loves the good doers.

You miss the point and here you don't tell us who made this translation and I gave up after trying 6 different ones. Once I have that we can see what is the sense being conveyed or if this is a poor translation.

 

[جوري]

You miss the point and here you don't tell us who made this translation and I gave up after trying 6 different ones. Once I have that we can see what is the sense being conveyed or if this is a poor translation.

Do you speak Arabic? I am just wondering how you will decide on a good or bad translation? Oh I know.. a good translation is one that fits your agenda of course!

 

[Al-manar]

You miss the point and here you don't tell us who made this translation and I gave up after trying 6 different ones. Once I have that we can see what is the sense being conveyed or if this is a poor translation.

what is the sense being conveyed,according to your understanding? and why?

 

[Hiroshi]

If memory serves me correctly the spelling Jesus did not appear in the Bible until the mid 1700's it may have been later. While the letter J first appeared in the English language in the 14th Century, it was rarely used and was sort of a slang type letter.

It was not until the mid 1800s that the letter J was actually accepted as a letter.

I see. Interestingly, "Iesous" seems closer to the equivalent in the Qur'an: "Isa".

 

[Grace Seeker]

Some interesting discussion regarding how God is referred to in the Bible in this video: Hebrew Insights into "The Lord's Prayer", especially between the 9:00 and 15:00 minute marks of the video.

 

[Al-manar]

peace.....

some friend asked me(in PM) to elaborate the last point ,whether the Quran validates the Holy Bible fully,or partially...


In spite of the muslims belief in past and present of a biblical corruption, we are amazed by some christian input appeared recently,arguing that the Quran says that the bible is from cover to cover the truth,and never been tampered with, and that those verses that mention the corruption :

1- mention the jews living by the time of Islam.
2- don't mention christians.
3- attack the persons not the text itself.

let's investegate the verses :

the first time in the Quran ever mentions the issue was in

Sura 2:74 Then your hearts hardened after that, so that they were like rocks, rather worse in hardness; and surely there are some rocks from which streams burst forth, and surely there are some of them which split asunder so water issues out of them, and surely there are some of them which fall down for fear of Allah, and Allah is not at all heedless of what you do. 75 Do you then hope that they would believe in you, and a party from among them indeed used to hear the Word of Allah, then altered it after they had understood it, and they know (this).

the context before the verse is the story of the Jews and God's bless on them which they didn't appreciate ,continued to misbehave and their hearts hardened and were like rocks !!
immediately after such description of the nature of the Jews ,God would tell the believers don't get high expectations from the Jews you know who share the same nature of their forefathers who had hard hearts used to corrupt the word of God.....

another verse with the same idea .... their hearts are hard as rock ,corrupting the word of God

Holy Quran 005.012 : Allah did aforetime take a covenant from the Children of Israel, and we appointed twelve captains among them. And Allah said: "I am with you: if ye (but) establish regular prayers, practise regular charity, believe in my messengers, honour and assist them, and loan to Allah a beautiful loan, verily I will wipe out from you your evils, and admit you to gardens with rivers flowing beneath; but if any of you, after this, resisteth faith, he hath truly wandered from the path or rectitude."
But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind.

have you any doubt that the Quran views the Jews before Islam as corrupting the word of God?

still anyone after reading the previous verse,claims that the criticism is levelled specifically towards the jews living the time of Mohamed peace be upon him ?

Hear or read?

Sura 2:74 tells the readers that they heared the word of God ,not they read the word of God ,it doesn't suggest them reading a text then making a textual corruption,but it could denote those Jews had heard the torah (could be from the prophets' mouths) then though they understood it ,they corrupted it ,and penned that as a true scripture...


Why would the quran repeat again and again the JEWISH corruption ?

the torah was corrupted by the Jews and the New testament as I said before is a Jewish production,that is why the focus ,is on the Jews.....


to be continued

 

[Woodrow]

I see. Interestingly, "Iesous" seems closer to the equivalent in the Qur'an: "Isa".

It does seem to be slightly different pronunciations of the same name.

 

[Al-manar]

let's visit the second verse related :

Holy Quran [003:078] And there is a sect of them twist their tongues with the Book, that you may suppose it part of the Book, yet it is not part of the Book; and they say, 'It is from God,' yet it is not from God, and they speak falsehood against God, and that wittingly.

2 suggested meanings

1- some of the Jews used to utter some passages in a way that they twist their tongues in order to change the pronounciation to convey another meaning non intended by the text , decieving the listeners (who never read the scriptures) ,thinking that what they uttered is real scripture from God ...

2- another understanding by Imam Mohamed Metwally Al Shaarawy in his tafsir:

the word (laye) means (twist) when we make rope we braid the fibres together to improve strength....
the same way the jews twisted,braided their tongues with words they claim to be from God,in order to gain strength in their position with the listeners...

" اللي " هو الفتل، فنحن عندما نفتل حبلا، ونحاول أن نجدل بين فرعين اثنين من الخيوط، ثم نفتلهم معا لنصنع حبلا، والهدف من الفتل هو أن نضع قوة من شعيرات الخيوط، فهذه الشعيرات لها قوة محدودة، وعندما نفتل هذه الخيوط فإننا نزيد من قوة الخيوط بجدلها معا.
إذن فالفتل المراد به الوصول إلى قوة، وهكذا نرى أنهم يلوون ألسنتهم بكلام يدعون أنه من المنهج المنزل من عند الله، وهذا الكلام ليس من المنهج ولم ينزل من عند الله إنّهم يفعلون ذلك لتقوية مركزهم والتنقيص من مكانة الإسلام



to be concluded next post...

 

[Hiroshi]

let's visit the second verse related :

Holy Quran [003:078] And there is a sect of them twist their tongues with the Book, that you may suppose it part of the Book, yet it is not part of the Book; and they say, 'It is from God,' yet it is not from God, and they speak falsehood against God, and that wittingly.

2 suggested meanings

1- some of the Jews used to utter some passages in a way that they twist their tongues in order to change the pronounciation to convey another meaning non intended by the text , decieving the listeners (who never read the scriptures) ,thinking that what they uttered is real scripture from God ...

2- another understanding by Imam Mohamed Metwally Al Shaarawy in his tafsir:

the word (laye) means (twist) when we make rope we braid the fibres together to improve strength....
the same way the jews twisted,braided their tongues with words they claim to be from God,in order to gain strength in their position with the listeners...

" اللي " هو الفتل، فنحن عندما نفتل حبلا، ونحاول أن نجدل بين فرعين اثنين من الخيوط، ثم نفتلهم معا لنصنع حبلا، والهدف من الفتل هو أن نضع قوة من شعيرات الخيوط، فهذه الشعيرات لها قوة محدودة، وعندما نفتل هذه الخيوط فإننا نزيد من قوة الخيوط بجدلها معا.
إذن فالفتل المراد به الوصول إلى قوة، وهكذا نرى أنهم يلوون ألسنتهم بكلام يدعون أنه من المنهج المنزل من عند الله، وهذا الكلام ليس من المنهج ولم ينزل من عند الله إنّهم يفعلون ذلك لتقوية مركزهم والتنقيص من مكانة الإسلام



to be concluded next post...

In “The Book of Monotheism,” which is part of his Ṣaḥīḥ, Imām Al-Bukhārī explains the meaning of the word “taḥrīf” as follows: “Taḥrīf means alteration. However, no one can alter any written character in a book of God. Taḥrīf was done to the text in the sense of twisting its meaning [misinterpreting it].”

In his commentary on Al-Nisā’ [4]:46, Imām Al-Fakhr Al-Rāzī says: “The meaning of corruption (taḥrīf) is the introduction of vain doubt and wrong explanations and changing the word from its true meaning to a baseless sense by means of verbal tricks, as heretics do presently with the verses which contravene their own sect. This is the view that is more true.”

In his commentary on Al-Mā’idah [5]:13, he says: “This corruption (taḥrīf) could be [1] false interpretation, and it could be [2] altering the written text. However, we have already shown that the first explanation is most probable, because it is impossible to alter the written text of a book that was handed down in unbroken and widespread succession.”

 

[Al-manar]

Our next verse is:

Holy Quran 4: 46 Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: "We hear and we disobey"; and "Hear what is not Heard"; and "Ra'ina"; with a twist of their tongues and a slander to Faith. If only they had said: "What hear and we obey"; and "Do hear"; and "Do look at us"; it would have been better for them, and more proper; but Allah hath cursed them for their Unbelief; and but few of them will believe.


let's check the other translations and judge them:

Muhammad Asad : Among those of the Jewish faith there are some who distort the meaning of the [revealed] words, taking them out of their context.
M. M. Pickthall Some of those who are Jews change words from their context.
Shakir Of those who are Jews (there are those who) alter words from their places
[Al-Muntakhab] Among those who are imbued with Judaism are some who translocation the words of the Sacred Scriptures to alter the intended sense of Allah's words.
[Progressive Muslims] From amongst the Jews there are those who take the words out of context,
Abdel Haleem Some Jews distort the meaning of [revealed] words:
Edward Henry Palmer And those who are Jews, and those who pervert the words from their places


what is the literal translation of the verse?


I think it is the one by Yusuf Ali,which I picked ......

to explain for you what exactly the beginning of the verse means, I need to tell imaginary story:

The just,great veteran Arab leader Muammar al-Gaddafi (in fact ,he is the only Arab leader I admire) ,once became an obstacle to the imperial plans of USA & UK , they decided to deal with such obstacle to fulfill their wicked plans ...... they prepared a plan to abduct him from his position in the realm of leaders ,afterwards they will either

1- put instead of him to rule the country,another puppet,corrupted,backwarded ruler(may be one from the Arabian peninsula) who has no dignity .

or to

2- after abducting him they excute him ,letting no trace of him.

or to

3- force him to do some dirty work,he is not supposed to do ,as a spy etc


this exact example is the one we should apply to the verse to understand the exact meaning

the phrase mentioned in the verse يحرفون الكلم عن مواضعه

means literaly to displace,abduct a word(words) from its position in the verse(s) ,passage(s).....

that is the literal translation......

they abduct the words from their place in the chapter, why? it is the same reason the imperialists abducted the great leader,just cause they don't desire it ... it is an obstacle to their genda...

so they either abduct the word putting another word instead ...or to delete the word making it vanish, or to take the word out of context ,infusing it in another writing misapplying its original meaning intended.....




the final verse is :


Holy Quran 2:49 Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.


That verse refers to the Jews (just read the context from verse 47)

and is a direct,clear reference to the worst type of corruption (to write a text using your human ideas,yet claiming to be inspiration)......





in sum and substance


The Quran described The Jews as used to corrupt the word of God by all possible means

adding, deleting passages,misapplying passages by false interpretations, they even ,twist their tongues with falshoods trying to sell them as scripture,writing a text claiming it to be from God …..

In “The Book of Monotheism,” which is part of his Ṣaḥīḥ, Imām Al-Bukhārī explains the meaning of the word “taḥrīf” as follows: “Taḥrīf means alteration. However, no one can alter any written character in a book of God. Taḥrīf was done to the text in the sense of twisting its meaning [misinterpreting it].”* ”

In that quotation Albukhari first quoted Ibn Abbas as explaining the word (tahrif) as displacing....then immediately followed by( However, no one can alter any written character in a book of God. Taḥrīf was done to the text in the sense of twisting its meaning [misinterpreting it].”* )

that may give the impression that all that is the quotation of Ibn Abbas while the fact it can't be ,as Ibn Abbas said:
عن ابن عباس رضي الله عنهما قال يا معشر المسلمين كيف تسألون أهل الكتاب وكتابكم الذي انزل على نبيه صلى الله عليه وسلم أحدث الاخبار بالله تقرؤنه لم يشب وقد حدثكم الله ان أهل الكتاب بدلوا ما كتب الله وغيروا بأيديهم الكتاب فقالوا هو من عند الله ليشتروا به ثمنا قليلا أفلا ينهاكم ما جاءكم من العلم عن مسايلتهم ولا والله ما رأينا رجلا منهم قط يسألكم عن الذي انزل عليكم
*
“Ibn `Abbās (ra) said: ‘O company of Muslims! How can you ask the People of the Book when your book which was sent down on His Prophet (saws) is the most recent of the reports by Allāh. You recite and it has not been altered. Allah has reported to you that the People of the Book have altered what Allāh wrote and changed the Book in their possession. They said: ‘It is from Allāh’ in order to sell it for a small price. Does not the knowledge that has come to you spare you from asking them? No, by Allāh, we have not seen a man among them asking you about what was sent down on you!’”

In other words that was the understanding by Albukhari,which is by no means above criticism......


Imām Al-Fakhr Al-Rāzī says: “The meaning of corruption (taḥrīf) is the introduction of vain doubt and wrong explanations and changing the word from its true meaning to a baseless sense by means of verbal tricks, as heretics do presently with the verses which contravene their own sect. This is the view that is more true.”

and shows us the suggested reason:

because it is impossible to alter the written text of a book that was handed down in unbroken and widespread succession.”

but that note neglect that the problem is wider than that.....

it refers to the type of tahrif (modification)of an existing text, but what about the other tahrif (producing text from nothing) ..... that is affirmed in the Quran both directly and indirectly...

directly
Holy Quran 2:49 Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah,"
indirectly
"but*they killed him*not,*nor crucified him,

that type of tahrif (modyfing existing text),though should be less in material than the other types ,yet has been proven,besides the other kinds of tahrif too.....(details later)

 

[Hugo]

Our next verse is:
Holy Quran 4: 46 Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: "We hear and we disobey"; and "Hear what is not Heard"; and "Ra'ina"; with a twist of their tongues and a slander to Faith. If only they had said: "What hear and we obey"; and "Do hear"; and "Do look at us"; it would have been better for them, and more proper; but Allah hath cursed them for their Unbelief; and but few of them will believe.
let's check the other translations and judge them:

Muhammad Asad : Among those of the Jewish faith there are some who distort the meaning of the [revealed] words, taking them out of their context.
M. M. Pickthall Some of those who are Jews change words from their context.
ShakirOf those who are Jews (there are those who) alter words from their places
[Al-Muntakhab] Among those who are imbued with Judaism are some who translocation the words of the Sacred Scriptures to alter the intended sense of Allah's words.
[Progressive Muslims] From amongst the Jews there are those who take the words out of context,
Abdel Haleem Some Jews distort the meaning of [revealed] words:
Edward Henry Palmer And those who are Jews, and those who pervert the words from their places

I am a little puzzled by this as the verse quoted at the start has 82 words and all 7 alternative versions of one supposes the same verse only amount to 109 words? Are we to take it that these are therefore fair translations?

 

[Al-manar]

I'm not sure what you mean here !!

 

[جوري]

I'm not sure what you mean here !!

I'll have to second that, when I read his objections to this from his all too frequent protests, I was wondering what got him riled up this time around? Perhaps he is upset that there are no English translators that can quite capture the Arabic.. who knows..

 

[Hugo]

I'm not sure what you mean here !!

It is simple really, how can one verses be 82 words long and then you say you are showing what other translations say but on average the number of words in each of these is just 16? Does not seem as if the verses can possibly be the same one.