Reasons for differences between the Quran & the Old Testament

[pro_universal]

Thanks for showing the readers you have nothing to add to the discussion and as always engage in your favorite tactic of ad hominem.

Take your character assasination slime elsewhere, pro. You’re not adding to this discussion at all.

What you’re doing is showing everyone what a twisted hateful character you are. Go ahead and believe in your Muhammad who copied the words of rabbis into his Quran as the word of God. Now, that’s plagiarism for you.

Rodrigo, direct question:

Have you or have you not been caught cutting and pasting material from websites verbatim, without citing the website?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

So what if I forgot to add a couple of references? You know I do reference my posts - there are just so many and I may have forgotten a couple.

But does that invalidate my arguments? No. Does that prove my arguments false? No.

All you’re doing is sliming. You are a person who can only engage in character assasination because you have no retort to logic or evidence. Read up on argumentum ad hominem, bud. You do that a lot but don’t you even realize you’re employing the worst logical fallacy?

Just go ahead and show the readers what a hateful person you are - always sliming other people whom you cannot argue with logic and evidence.

 

[pro_universal]

So what if I forgot to add a couple of references? You know I do reference my posts - there are just so many and I may have forgotten a couple.

But does that invalidate my arguments? No. Does that prove my arguments false? No.

It proves that you are willing to pass other people’s work off as your own, and you’ve done so repeatedly (not just lack of citation for a fact-direct copying of complete blocks of text is what you did) from websites that have clear and biased agendas.

What it does is indicate that taking your arguments seriously is a waste of time.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

BS pro. You are just sliming me because you don’t like the fact that I proved Muhammad unknowingly plagiarised some rabbis and passed it off as the words of Allah.

Now, did he reference the rabbis too? No. So stop your hypocrisy. Anyone reading my posts know I always tell the truth and if I did mistakenly forgot to reference a couple of texts I apologized and corrected. After all, I do try to reference everything I write.

 

[janryboy]

Qur’an 5:51 “Believers, take not Jews and Christians for your friends. They are but friends and protectors to each other.”

^^^i see…why such cruelty…

 

[pro_universal]

BS pro. You are just sliming me because you don’t like the fact that I proved Muhammad unknowingly plagiarised some rabbis and passed it off as the words of Allah.

Now, did he reference the rabbis too? No. So stop your hypocrisy. Anyone reading my posts know I always tell the truth and if I did mistakenly forgot to reference a couple of texts I apologized and corrected. After all, I do try to reference everything I write.

Wait, you’re claiming that you cut and pasted whole blocks of text, and then didn’t put in even a mention that it wasn’t your writing, by accident?

Haha, boy…have you got a bridge for sale?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

To answer Valke2’s question about Egyptian coinage.

During most of ancient Egypt’s pharaonic history, there was no money as such, at least in the form of coinage (and paper bills were far in the future). Not until the middle of the first millennium BC were any coins used in Egypt, and at first, they were usually of foreign mint.
touregypt.net/featurestories/prices.htm

Major changes to the early barter system began to occur only with the influx of foreigners and the introduction of coined money in the Late Period.
nefertiti.iwebland.com/economy/index.html

Late Period = 712 to 332BC

wsu.edu/~dee/EGYPT/LATE.HTM

Minted coins were invented by the Greeks (i.e. Lydians) in the 7the century and spread through the Middle East in the following few centuries. Thus, any reference to the minting of coins in the Mishnah proves Muhammad plagiarised the words of rabbis and passed it off as the words of Allah.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Thanks for showing your scholarly contribution to the forum, pro. Just slime away will you?

 

[Angelos]

Joseph said:
Sorry, I did not mean to be rude.

Angelos said:
No problem bro. (I like your zeal to defend your Scripture)

Joseph said:
Look down a little and you will find the Written Law mentioned in verses 6:154 and implicitely 6:156. The context of the verse you quoted is in these two verses.

Angelos said:
Your argument interestingly proves mine! In order to see that 05:32 refers to the Written Law, look down a little.You will find the Written Law mentioned in verses 05:43-45.The context of the verse 05:32 is in both 05:45 and 05:30. As I said before, 05:32 associates the precept in question with the narrative of Adam’s two sons, which you can find only in Torah!

Joseph said:
This above verse you quoted says that the Torah was a guidance, Yahkumu beeha, meaning judge with it, and not Yahkumu minha, meaning judge from it. It did not detail everything bit of rule or regulation, it did not address every real life situation which the Jewish people would face during its life, it had the outlines in it. The Prophets, the Doctors of Law, The Rabbis used the Torah as a reference; in Other words, it was a source for setting another Law, the Oral Law.

Angelos said:

The Quran obviously wants Jews of Mohammed’s time to make judgments solely by the help of the Written Law:

05:43 But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) Law before them? Therein is the (plain) command of Allah; yet even after that, they would turn away. For they are not (really) People of Faith.

Joseph said:
Also, the great Prophet Moses (PBUH) was a Doctor of Law to the Jews: " And Moses said unto his father in law, Because the people come unto me to inquire of God:
When they have a matter, they come unto me; and I judge between one and another, and I do make them know the statutes of God, and his laws".[EX 18:15-16]. All was oral until it was decided to write it down, giving what is commonly known as the Mishnah.

Angelos said:
You are again tyring to defend the Quran by the help of the Judaic faith & tradition. The Quran seems to be unaware of the classical Rabbinical interpretations as well as of the Oral Law. There is another verse in the Quran that refutes your assertion:

07: 145 And We ordained laws for him in the Tablets in all matters, both commanding and explaining all things, (and said): “Take and hold these with firmness, and enjoin thy people to hold fast by the best in the precepts: soon shall I show you the homes of the wicked, (how they lie desolate).”

So the Quran does not know what you claim it to mention.

Joseph said:

The claim that Muhammad used a Mishnah commentary and put it in the Noble Qur’an does not stand study. God truly ordained that ruling on the Children of Israel which the Mishnah captured, no mysteries.

Angelos said:
No comment! Let the verses defend themselves.

Salaam ve rahmetullah;

Angelos

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Salaam janyboy;

janryboy:

Qur’an 5:51 “Believers, take not Jews and Christians for your friends. They are but friends and protectors to each other.”
^^^i see…why such cruelty…

JanryBoy;
You are not getting the whole story. Please look at the following verses:

"Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just. [060.008]

“Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong” [060.009]

Ok then. Allah (SWT) forbids us to befriend those who:

1. fight us for our Faith
2. drive us out of our homes and
3. support (others) in driving us out.

The verse you quoted seems contradictory with the verse you quoted, right? It says do not take Christians and Jews as friends (in reality it is not friend, but protectors, but this is not the issue). Let’s us see if the Christians and Jews talked about in that verse fall or not in one of the above categories.
Obviously they are not of the category 2 and 3. Remains category 1. Are they in that category? How to know? We should find out the context of the verse you quoted.

A hint about the context is given in verse 5:54
"O ye who believe! If any from among you turn back from his Faith…” Why should someone who believe turn back from his faith? What is the context here? The context is the verse 5:52, one verse after the one you quoted: “Those in whose hearts is a disease – you sees how eagerly they run about amongst them (Christians and Jews), saying: "We do fear lest a change of fortune bring us disaster…”. They feared if they separated from the Jews and the Christians it would bring on them misfortune and poverty, meaning that the Jews and Christians were using their money to fight the Muslims and turn back from their Faith, therefore the Jews and Christians talked about in the verse fall in category 1. They still do by the way.

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[inJESUS]

Great discussion Rodrigo and Valke2 :clapping: thank you .

Pro, Rodrigo is correct about you :yup:

 

[Joseph_Alison]

inJESUS:

Great discussion Rodrigo and Valke2 :clapping: thank you .
Pro, Rodrigo is correct about you :yup:

What did you take away from the discussions, or are you trying to give yourself some countenance after the absurd claim of your friends at answering.islam has been debunked? Do you still believe Muhammad inserted a Mishnah commentary in the Noble Qur’an?

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Joseph,
Did you not understand the discussion between Valke2 and me? The ‘save a life’ passage in the Mishnah cannot be the word of God through Moses because it mentions the minting of coins - so it could only have been a rabbinical commentary on Gen 4:10.

Muhammad put this rabbinical commentary into the Quran thinking that this was the word of God through Moses. That was his mistake and proves Muhammad was a false prophet, Allah was Muhammad’s imagination and Islam is a false religion.

If you want to discuss it with me, please feel free to do so.

 

[Valke2]

Apparently, even the mishna had some rabbinic revisions made to it, in the sense that the sages who had received the oral tradition, put the words on paper with an eye to explaining the oral law. This was done, probably, because the oral law was most likely transmitted in the form of various “memory devices” i.e., acronyms etc. in order to help those learning it to remember. The way one was taught by oral repetition differs somewhat from the way one learns by writing. Prior to writing it down, the oral law would have been memorized by verbal repetition. Much of it would be a kind of “code” or shorthand, the meaning of which would also have been given orally, from sage to sage. When they finally wrote the mishna down, they also wrote down the explanation of the code.

So, something like the minting of coins, would have been used to explain a specific part of the oral law.

I hope that this has sufficiently confused everybody.

Any sacred text that I’m aware of faces a lot of problems if one takes the position that every word of it is literal. There are Jews who believe (many of them) that ever word written in Torah was literally spoken from God to Moses. It is a hard position to defend, rationally (Moses wrote about his own death?), but one that we continue to defend (“ok, he wrote everything but the last 16 lines or so”).

When Islam insists that the Koran is the literal word of God, it’s runs into similar problems, as I think this thread has highlighted.

 

[inJESUS]

What did you take away from the discussions, or are you trying to give yourself some countenance after the absurd claim of your friends at answering.islam has been debunked? Do you still believe Muhammad inserted a Mishnah commentary in the Noble Qur’an?

Salaam.
Joseph.

The discussion showed that what Muhammad quoted was indeed a commentary by a rabbi and not the literal word of God through Moses. So yes Muhammad did insert a Mishna commentary in the noble Quran and attributed it to God.

 

[Valke2]

Joseph,
Did you not understand the discussion between Valke2 and me? The ‘save a life’ passage in the Mishnah cannot be the word of God through Moses because it mentions the minting of coins - so it could only have been a rabbinical commentary on Gen 4:10.

Muhammad put this rabbinical commentary into the Quran thinking that this was the word of God through Moses. That was his mistake and proves Muhammad was a false prophet, Allah was Muhammad’s imagination and Islam is a false religion.

If you want to discuss it with me, please feel free to do so.

Just to muddy the waters even further, the wirtten Torah does have Moses accepting a half-shekel from the peopel of Israel.

Exodus 30:13 This they shall give, everyone who goes through the counting: half a shekel according to the holy shekel. Twenty gerahs equal one shekel; half of [such] a shekel shall be an offering to the Lord.

How do we explain that?: He [God] showed him [Moses] a sort of coin of fire weighing half a shekel, and He said to him, “Like this one they shall give.” -[from Tanchuma 9; Tanchuma Buber, Naso p. 35; Pesikta d’Rav Kahana 19a; Midrash Psalms 91:1; Yerushalmi, Shekalim 1:4]

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

We explain that very easily. Money was developed long before MINTED coins. The Shekel was a weight and was used to value money. This money, however, was not minted.

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/weightsandmeasures.html

Weights in the Bible

Seven weights related to metal (thus creating “coins”) are mentioned in the Bible: talent, mina, shekel, beka, gerah, pim, and kesitah. A scale of the relationships between the first five weights mentioned can be established on the basis of the Bible and other sources; the absolute and relative value of the pim can be determined from archaeological finds. The seventh weight, the kesitah (Genesis 33:19; Joshua 24:32; Job 42:11), seems to be an archaic weight and the origin of its name and its metrological value are not known.

We can figure out the interrelationships of the three most important weights, the talent, shekel, and gerah.

The talent (kikkar), was the largest unit of weight in the Bible, and was already known by the same name in Ugaritic. In Ugaritic it was pronounced kakaru, as has been shown from Akkadian documents from Ugarit and Alalakh. The relation between the talent and the shekel is defined in Exodus 38:25–26. The half shekel brought by 603,550 men amounted to 100 talents and 1,775 shekels. Thus a talent was 3,000 shekels. This system of dividing the talent into 3,000 shekels differed from the Mesopotamian system which divides the talent into 3,600 parts, and was the same as the Ugaritic system where the talent was also divided into 3,000 shekels. From this it follows that the biblical division is based upon an ancient Canaanite tradition.

The major weight of metal mentioned in the Bible is the shekel, as its name, which means simply “weight,” testifies. Since the shekel was the definite weight, an expression such as “1,000 silver” (Genesis 20:16) can be explained as 1,000 shekels of silver, and the name of the weight is omitted since it is self-explanatory. Abbreviations like these are also found in other Semitic languages. The fundamental nature of the shekel can also be seen in the fact that all weights which the Bible explains are explained only in terms of the shekel.

The shekel was used as a bartering material, not a minted coin. Jeremiah bought a plot of land and weighed his payment (silver) on scales (Jeremiah 32:9).

…

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Apparently, even the mishna had some rabbinic revisions made to it, in the sense that the sages who had received the oral tradition, put the words on paper with an eye to explaining the oral law. This was done, probably, because the oral law was most likely transmitted in the form of various “memory devices” i.e., acronyms etc. in order to help those learning it to remember. The way one was taught by oral repetition differs somewhat from the way one learns by writing. Prior to writing it down, the oral law would have been memorized by verbal repetition. Much of it would be a kind of “code” or shorthand, the meaning of which would also have been given orally, from sage to sage. When they finally wrote the mishna down, they also wrote down the explanation of the code.

So, something like the minting of coins, would have been used to explain a specific part of the oral law.

I hope that this has sufficiently confused everybody.

Any sacred text that I’m aware of faces a lot of problems if one takes the position that every word of it is literal. There are Jews who believe (many of them) that ever word written in Torah was literally spoken from God to Moses. It is a hard position to defend, rationally (Moses wrote about his own death?), but one that we continue to defend (“ok, he wrote everything but the last 16 lines or so”).

When Islam insists that the Koran is the literal word of God, it’s runs into similar problems, as I think this thread has highlighted.

It is difficult to argue that one sentence was from Moses and then the next sentence, apparently without reason, is from the rabbis. Note the minting of coins sentence is the very next sentence in the Mishnah from the ‘save a life’ sentence.

It is also hard to reconcile the ‘save a life’ sentence in and by itself since it uses the phrase, ‘scripture imputes…’, or ‘scripture ascribes…’ That kind of phraseology would be more like what a rabbi would say rather than Moses himself since he was the originator of those scriptures.

There is the added complication of the mention of the MINIM which the Gemara says is possibly referring to the Gnostics - see the footnote 41 come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_37.html

 

[Valke2]

It is difficult to argue that one sentence was from Moses and then the next sentence, apparently without reason, is from the rabbis. Note the minting of coins sentence is the very next sentence in the Mishnah from the ‘save a life’ sentence.

It is also hard to reconcile the ‘save a life’ sentence in and by itself since it uses the phrase, ‘scripture imputes…’, or ‘scripture ascribes…’ That kind of phraseology would be more like what a rabbi would say rather than Moses himself since he was the originator of those scriptures.

There is the added complication of the mention of the MINIM which the Gemara says is possibly referring to the Gnostics - see the footnote 41 come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_37.html

I think we are on the same page at this point. I was saying that the Mishna itself was commentary to the oral torah, as well as the oral torah itself. Because to simply write down what was originally described to Moses would not make any sense. I think that the reason the oral torah was oral was to encourage discussion/fluidity in the halacha.

 

[JohnWilliams]

one was inspired by God the other was inspired by man…there is the difference

I don’t believe the Koran was inspired by man since it is so specifically antichrist. But then I have a world view that there is good and evil without much in between.

“The Jews call 'Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the Son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (In this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old used to say. God’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!” Surah 9.30

Founding verses from the Dome of the Rock:

“O you People of the Book, overstep not bounds in your religion, and of God speak only the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, is only an apostle of God, and his Word which he conveyed unto Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from him. Believe therefore in God and his apostles, and say not Three. It will be better for you. God is only one God. Far be it from his glory that he should have a son.”