OT God

Originally posted by ahosyney
I will be more happy that you point out where exactly the parts in Quran that you think are taken from ancient Greeks rather saying something like that. What you say doesn't mean anything. I replayed to you before but you didn't bother response. You are just happy of your finding, "Ancient Greeks were older".

All I'm pointing out is that, so far, your Qu'ran hasn't actually revealed anything which wasn't already known.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
All I'm pointing out is that, so far, your Qu'ran hasn't actually revealed anything which wasn't already known.

Did you read the posts in this thread?

Was it known that every creature is created from water.

Was it known that the earth and heavens were one unit and spreaded apart by force.

Was it known that the sky work as a Gaurd for the earth.

That what I claimed Quran say so far?

Is that all included all under:

so far, your Qu'ran hasn't actually revealed anything which wasn't already known.

Originally posted by ahosyney
So it clearly state that every living is created from water.

But compare Genesis 1:20, 1:24, you will find that in Bible not every living from water, some from water others from earth. I will leave it to to compare.

About GOD's day: In Gen 2:4 -I don't know what generations refers to here, the Arabic Bible give a totaly different meaning. So I cann't sa ...[text shortened]... s GOD day is 1000 years.

I hope you explain it to me and link it to the one in Genesis.[/b]

It states in Genesis that life began in the sea and progressed from there. The rest of the details are left to ones imagination, no?

Also the bit about Psalms not saying that a day to God is like a 1000 years to us, may not be interpreted by you as it is by me, however, how do you explain Genesis 2:4? I am still waiting.

Originally posted by ahosyney
[b]Yes he is right, but who say that the OT is the word of GOD? Does it really describe GOD? Or it is written by human to deviate from GOD?

It has always amazed me how a religion can so blantantly leach onto another religion and adopt the God and the forefathers of such a religion as their own while at the same time divorcing themselves from the theology of the religion of those forefathers. Abraham, yes he was the friend of Yahweh....er....um.....Allah. Christ, yes he was one of our prophets as well. He was just misunderstood.

Originally posted by whodey
It states in Genesis that life began in the sea and progressed from there. The rest of the details are left to ones imagination, no?

Also the bit about Psalms not saying that a day to God is like a 1000 years to us, may not be interpreted by you as it is by me, however, how do you explain Genesis 2:4? I am still waiting.

In Genesis 1:20,21:
20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
waters Psa 104:25

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

So here some living are created from water.

In Genesis 1:24:
24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
kind Gen 6:20, Gen 7:14, Gen 8:19

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Here some other creatures from earth. So there are some from water and some from earth. Am I right?


For Genesis 2:4, I told you the arabic translation is different. So I will tell what I understand from the Arabic Translation.

In Arabic it say " Wa Hazeh Mabade Smawat wa al Ard...."

Wa = And
Hazeh = These
Mabade = for me it means starting, or origins, but in English translation it is written generations.
Smawat = Heavens
Al Ard = Earth

So I will understand it as "And these are the origins of heavens and earth"

It could have a different meaning but I would like to hear your explaination.

Originally posted by whodey
It has always amazed me how a religion can so blantantly leach onto another religion and adopt the God and the forefathers of such a religion as their own while at the same time divorcing themselves from the theology of the religion of those forefathers. Abraham, yes he was the friend of Yahweh....er....um.....Allah. Christ, yes he was one of our prophets as well. He was just misunderstood.

We discussed these points before, and you already know what I belive. So what is the point here?

Originally posted by ahosyney
In Genesis 1:20,21:
[b]20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
waters Psa 104:25

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winge and earth"

It could have a different meaning but I would like to hear your explaination.

It says that the waters brought forth the moving creatures that has life. Then there could have been an evolutionary process via the earth involving those creatures in the sea in which the other land animals came about. Who is to say? You can interpret such passages a myriad of ways. The bottom line is that first there was water and then there was life. This means that Genesis is the first religious text to make this claim and not the Quran. As far as the Arabic translation of Genesis, how am I to know Arabic or by what authority you make the claim that the Arabic translation is different. What I do know is that the Hebrew version of Genesis was translated "generations" into English by more than one translation that I possess.

Originally posted by whodey
It says that the waters brought forth the moving creatures that has life. Then there could have been an evolutionary process via the earth involving those creatures in the sea in which the other land animals came about. Who is to say? You can interpret such passages a myriad of ways. The bottom line is that first there was water and then there was life. ...[text shortened]... Genesis was translated "generations" into English by more than one translation that I possess.

I cann't help you here, may be your are right and may be you are wrong. But I told you what I understand from the text.

For Genesis 2:4: I told you I don't understand what it means. I told you the arabic meaning. My be I'm not correct. And I don't know hebrew and I don't have the original so I cann't tell. I'm not making any claims here. I asked you before about your explaination because I was not able to figure it out, but insested to hear my explaination.

Originally posted by ahosyney
We discussed these points before, and you already know what I belive. So what is the point here?

The point is, is that the Genesis account is no different. The Quran is simply leaching on to the story as it does in regards to many other theogical teachings. It has no originality other than disputing some of the teachings of the Bible. However, even in this regard the Quran is not original. As I have pointed out other religions do the same such as the Mormons and JW's.

Originally posted by whodey
The point is, is that the Genesis account is no different. The Quran is simply leaching on to the story as it does in regards to many other theogical teachings. It has no originality other than disputing some of the teachings of the Bible. However, even in this regard the Quran is not original. As I have pointed out other religions do the same such as the Mormons and JW's.

Just like the Genesis account borrows and adapted its story from Babylonian creation stories.

Gee whiz.

Originally posted by ahosyney
I cann't help you here, may be your are right and may be you are wrong. But I told you what I understand from the text.

For Genesis 2:4: I told you I don't understand what it means. I told you the arabic meaning. My be I'm not correct. And I don't know hebrew and I don't have the original so I cann't tell. I'm not making any claims here. I asked you bef ...[text shortened]... plaination because I was not able to figure it out, but insested to hear my explaination.

That's just it. To get an understanding of Genesis it would behoove you to learn Hebrew because it was written in Hebrew just as it would behoove me to understand Arabic to get a better understanding of the Quran. It would be like me telling you that my Hebrew translation of the Quran says something different than what the Arabic Quran says. Who cares what the Hebrew translation says. I should learn the original language of Arabic if I want the original meaning of the Quran. I am sure you would agree with that statement, however, I am not as sure that you would afford the Bible the same amount of respect by reading it via the original language of the Hebrew language.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Just like the Genesis account borrows and adapted its story from Babylonian creation stories.

Gee whiz.

This is pure speculation. Granted, the written text can be dated, however, oral tradition is another story. If the Bible is correct, all ancient cultures should share a common history and common oral tradition of some kind.

Originally posted by whodey
The point is, is that the Genesis account is no different. The Quran is simply leaching on to the story as it does in regards to many other theogical teachings. It has no originality other than disputing some of the teachings of the Bible. However, even in this regard the Quran is not original. As I have pointed out other religions do the same such as the Mormons and JW's.

What you say is correct is some point and incorrect in many others!

You are correct in the point that Quran didn't come with a different Message in General. Because it is also a message of GOD (At least that is what I belive). So if the sender is the same so the concepts should be the same.

So the main target is to call for the worship of the one GOD, the only creater of the universe.

But if you took a deeper look in Both, you will find Major differences in different aspects. Specially if you take the faith of Christianity into account.

One important different I can show you now and I don't think you have any problem of it, is that you use the Bible to belive that Jesus is GOD or at least part of the trinity.

But Quran belive he is a prophet and normal man.

There are many other differences in one of them the subject of this thread. The picture of GOD to man. The GOD in Quran is totally different from the GOD in the Bible.

So the question is why they are different if they should be both from GOD?

I say because the Bible is a modified version written by human.

And you will say that Quran is not the word of GOD.

So either we leave like this, or one of us manage to convince the other of his point, if we really care to find the truth.

Important Questions: How many times did you read the Quran? And how many times did you do for the Bible?

Regards

Originally posted by whodey
That's just it. To get an understanding of Genesis it would behoove you to learn Hebrew because it was written in Hebrew just as it would behoove me to understand Arabic to get a better understanding of the Quran. It would be like me telling you that my Hebrew translation of the Quran says something different than what the Arabic Quran says. Who cares what ...[text shortened]... ible the same amount of respect by reading it via the original language of the Hebrew language.

I agree with you but there is one point here. I pointed it before and I will do it again.

Translations of Quran are not considered to be Quran and Muslims use the Arabic Quran to get their faith and laws.

But that is not the case of the Bible. The Arabic translation of the Bible is used in Egypt (My country) as the Bible, and if you talk to Christians in Egypt they will use the Arabic version as the Bible. So I use it too.

But if I can refere to the original I will be happy. But I don't think I will be able to do that, because I have to learn a new language then.

Originally posted by whodey
This is pure speculation. Granted, the written text can be dated, however, oral tradition is another story. If the Bible is correct, all ancient cultures should share a common history and common oral tradition of some kind.

It comes as no surprise to me that you would assert that your tradition is the right and true
one, even though the only Biblical scholars who think that the Genesis account is earlier are those
with your a priori assumption about the Bible's correctness.

Yes, I'm sure that both the Babylonian myth was preceded by an even earlier version that was
transmitted orally, and I am certainly opened to the possibility of the Genesis myth being a younger
cousin (not directly derived from the Babylonian one, but both from a common ancestor). But,
the idea that the Islamic version inferior to the Christian version simply because it is dependent
on a preceding tradition is the pot calling the kettle 'black.'

Nemesio