Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Talibilm.. Reasons why the Comforter cannot be Mohammed

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Re: Talibilm.. Reasons why the Comforter cannot be Mohammed

    Originally posted by daniel_agnostic View Post
    Apparently, Christians and Jews were awaiting a new prophet in the 6th century CE: http://www.islamreligion.com/article...hammad-part-1/
    Bump

    Jesus and the Apostles are believed to have spoken Aramaic. Aramaic continued in wide use until about AD 650, when it was supplanted by Arabic.[2] The present day Bible is not, however, based on the Aramaic manuscripts, but on Greek and Latin versions.
    My sect - No Sect

    My Aqeedah - http://legacy.quran.com/112 ( The Aqeedah of Sahabas)

    Just a Muslim

    Comment


      Re: Talibilm.. Reasons why the Comforter cannot be Mohammed

      Originally posted by talibilm09 View Post
      Bump

      Jesus and the Apostles are believed to have spoken Aramaic. Aramaic continued in wide use until about AD 650, when it was supplanted by Arabic.[2] The present day Bible is not, however, based on the Aramaic manuscripts, but on Greek and Latin versions.
      Have you heard of Khaboris Codex? Check it out.

      Comment


        Re: Talibilm.. Reasons why the Comforter cannot be Mohammed

        Originally posted by cloud9 View Post
        you have not answered my question that if jesus pbuh is god in the flesh and he died on the cross for three days who looked after the world for three days while he was dead and also jesus cried out to god eli eli why hast thou forsaken me, he did not cry out to himself. which proves that god and jesus pbuh are two seperate entities. they are not both the same.

        Well said.

        Brother, capitalize the firth letter of Allah (swt) and Jesus son of May (pbuh) when you're mentioning them.

        Comment


          Re: Talibilm.. Reasons why the Comforter cannot be Mohammed

          Originally posted by Pip1 View Post
          Have you heard of Khaboris Codex? Check it out.
          Hello.

          Your post is misleading.

          This is a quote from a paper entitled: ‘What English Translation of the Apostolic Scriptures Should I Use? - Assessing the Claims’ produced by Tim Hegg of TorahResource (2011):

          ‘What’s All the Excitement about the Khaboris Codex?

          ‘Some of those who hold that the Syriac Peshitta is the oldest and most trustworthy text of the Apostolic Scriptures have been advertising that the Khaboris Codex (also spelled Khabouris and alternately known as the Yonan Codex) is itself the oldest Peshitta manuscript. For example, in the Introduction to the ‘Aramaic English New Testament’, Roth gives these claims:

          ‘”Keyed and annotated with Tiberian-Masoretic vowel pointing system to restore the sound of Y’shua’s Eastern Aramaic dialect for the Modern Hebrew reader.” (p. i)

          ‘”The Aramaic in this publication is coming from “as close to original” autographs as there is current public access to at the time of printing.” (p. vii)

          ‘”While the age of the Khabouris Codex remains the subject of much debate, there can be no doubt that it ably represents a text group that has much older members. So, while some manuscripts may vary with minor spelling, synonym and syntax variants, this is inevitable over such a long span of time. However, the overall reliability of this text group is thoroughly amazing as it is superior to either Hebrew Tanakh or the Greek New Testament.” (p. xii)

          ‘However, when Bruce Metzger made his own personal examination of the codex, comparing it with Hatch’s ‘Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts’, he came to conclusion that it dated to “about the 7th Century at the earliest, and perhaps slightly later.” Metzger also gave his impressions of the content of the Khaboris Codex:

          ‘“I examined the manuscript with care, comparing various passages with a copy of the Bible Society’s printed Syriac New Testament that I had brought with me. In the passages that I collated, the text was identical with that of the standard Peshitta Syriac version.”

          ‘Thus, by all accounts, the Khaboris Codex is a 7th Century (or later) witness to the basic text of the Peshitta, and not a witness to an early Aramaic vorlage of the Apostolic Scriptures. It is, by no means, the oldest Syriac manuscript of the Apostolic Scriptures, and though perhaps giving important insight into the medieval Syriac Church, it surely does not offer us a superior witness of the ancient text of the Apostolic Scriptures.

          ‘The Khaboris Codex gained public notoriety in 1955 when Norman Yonan, a businessman from Iran who owned the manuscript, proposed to sell it to the Library of Congress for 1.5 million dollars. An elaborate tour through the Bible Belt of the South was planned in order to solicit contributions to raise three million dollars, half of which would be used to purchase the Codex from Yonan, and the other half to make facsimile copies of the Codex available to institutions of higher learning, as well as to stimulate study of Syriac and “to promote other projects relevant to the dissemination of the faith and knowledge of Christianity.” However, when the Library of Congress sought expert advice regarding the authenticity of the manuscript, a major battle ensued.

          ‘Eventually the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) became involved since experts in the Syriac language and Bible had openly disputed the fantastic claims being made about the Codex, primarily, that it was the oldest extant Aramaic witness to the New Testament, and that it therefore contained the very language spoken by Yeshua! The SBL drafted a public statement disavowing such claims which concluded with this statement:

          ‘“According to members of our Society who have examined the manuscript, the Yonan Codex is a copy of the Syriac Peshitta, a version which was made from the Greek New Testament at about the beginning of the fifth century and which contains twenty-two of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. Edessene Syriac, the language of this version, differs considerably from the Palestine Aramaic used by Jesus more than four centuries earlier. About three hundred manuscripts of the Peshitta version are known to exist in the libraries of this country and Europe. Several of these are older than the Yonan Codex, which some of our members who are expert in Syriac palaeography date to the seventh or eighth century. According to certain members of the Society who have frequently arranged for the purchase of biblical manuscripts, a
          fair estimate of the value of a manuscript like the Yonan Codex is about $5,000.”

          ‘As Metzger writes, “Now the fat was in the fire.” It may have been one thing to adjust the dating of the Codex to the 7th or 8th Century, but it was altogether a different matter when the $1,500,00 price tag was downsized to $5,000. The Aramaic Bible Foundation, who had partnered with Yonan to raise the money, immediately threatened a lawsuit agains the SBL if they did not retract their statement. Ultimately, no law suit was filed, and the grandiose tour of the Codex was cut short. How much money was collected on the tour was never disclosed.

          ‘One would have hoped that the unwarranted, fantastic claims surrounding the Yonan Codex would have finally been put to rest, but unfortunately, such is not the case. Kind and well meaning Messianics, who nonetheless are unaware of the historical facts by which a manuscript like this is identified and dated, continue to proclaim the Yonan Codex to be the oldest extant manuscript witness to the Apostolic Scriptures even though clear and conclusive evidence is to the contrary.’

          End of quote:

          Please note that Hegg references each of his sources, but I have not included these references here.

          The New Testament was written in Koine Greek. None of the autographs – the manuscripts written by the original authors (in Greek) – have survived. It is the work of Biblical scholars to surmise the original texts from the versions that do survive; particularly from the three main textual traditions: the Alexandrian text-type; the Byzantine text-type; and the Western-text type (this is the predominant form of NT text witnessed in the Old Latin and Peshitta translations from the Greek).

          Have a nice day.
          'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib‎)

          Comment


            Re: Talibilm.. Reasons why the Comforter cannot be Mohammed

            Originally posted by Grandad View Post
            Hello.

            Your post is misleading.

            This is a quote from a paper entitled: ‘What English Translation of the Apostolic Scriptures Should I Use? - Assessing the Claims’ produced by Tim Hegg of TorahResource (2011):

            ‘What’s All the Excitement about the Khaboris Codex?

            ‘Some of those who hold that the Syriac Peshitta is the oldest and most trustworthy text of the Apostolic Scriptures have been advertising that the Khaboris Codex (also spelled Khabouris and alternately known as the Yonan Codex) is itself the oldest Peshitta manuscript. For example, in the Introduction to the ‘Aramaic English New Testament’, Roth gives these claims:

            ‘”Keyed and annotated with Tiberian-Masoretic vowel pointing system to restore the sound of Y’shua’s Eastern Aramaic dialect for the Modern Hebrew reader.” (p. i)

            ‘”The Aramaic in this publication is coming from “as close to original” autographs as there is current public access to at the time of printing.” (p. vii)

            ‘”While the age of the Khabouris Codex remains the subject of much debate, there can be no doubt that it ably represents a text group that has much older members. So, while some manuscripts may vary with minor spelling, synonym and syntax variants, this is inevitable over such a long span of time. However, the overall reliability of this text group is thoroughly amazing as it is superior to either Hebrew Tanakh or the Greek New Testament.” (p. xii)

            ‘However, when Bruce Metzger made his own personal examination of the codex, comparing it with Hatch’s ‘Album of Dated Syriac Manuscripts’, he came to conclusion that it dated to “about the 7th Century at the earliest, and perhaps slightly later.” Metzger also gave his impressions of the content of the Khaboris Codex:

            ‘“I examined the manuscript with care, comparing various passages with a copy of the Bible Society’s printed Syriac New Testament that I had brought with me. In the passages that I collated, the text was identical with that of the standard Peshitta Syriac version.”

            ‘Thus, by all accounts, the Khaboris Codex is a 7th Century (or later) witness to the basic text of the Peshitta, and not a witness to an early Aramaic vorlage of the Apostolic Scriptures. It is, by no means, the oldest Syriac manuscript of the Apostolic Scriptures, and though perhaps giving important insight into the medieval Syriac Church, it surely does not offer us a superior witness of the ancient text of the Apostolic Scriptures.

            ‘The Khaboris Codex gained public notoriety in 1955 when Norman Yonan, a businessman from Iran who owned the manuscript, proposed to sell it to the Library of Congress for 1.5 million dollars. An elaborate tour through the Bible Belt of the South was planned in order to solicit contributions to raise three million dollars, half of which would be used to purchase the Codex from Yonan, and the other half to make facsimile copies of the Codex available to institutions of higher learning, as well as to stimulate study of Syriac and “to promote other projects relevant to the dissemination of the faith and knowledge of Christianity.” However, when the Library of Congress sought expert advice regarding the authenticity of the manuscript, a major battle ensued.

            ‘Eventually the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) became involved since experts in the Syriac language and Bible had openly disputed the fantastic claims being made about the Codex, primarily, that it was the oldest extant Aramaic witness to the New Testament, and that it therefore contained the very language spoken by Yeshua! The SBL drafted a public statement disavowing such claims which concluded with this statement:

            ‘“According to members of our Society who have examined the manuscript, the Yonan Codex is a copy of the Syriac Peshitta, a version which was made from the Greek New Testament at about the beginning of the fifth century and which contains twenty-two of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament. Edessene Syriac, the language of this version, differs considerably from the Palestine Aramaic used by Jesus more than four centuries earlier. About three hundred manuscripts of the Peshitta version are known to exist in the libraries of this country and Europe. Several of these are older than the Yonan Codex, which some of our members who are expert in Syriac palaeography date to the seventh or eighth century. According to certain members of the Society who have frequently arranged for the purchase of biblical manuscripts, a
            fair estimate of the value of a manuscript like the Yonan Codex is about $5,000.”

            ‘As Metzger writes, “Now the fat was in the fire.” It may have been one thing to adjust the dating of the Codex to the 7th or 8th Century, but it was altogether a different matter when the $1,500,00 price tag was downsized to $5,000. The Aramaic Bible Foundation, who had partnered with Yonan to raise the money, immediately threatened a lawsuit agains the SBL if they did not retract their statement. Ultimately, no law suit was filed, and the grandiose tour of the Codex was cut short. How much money was collected on the tour was never disclosed.

            ‘One would have hoped that the unwarranted, fantastic claims surrounding the Yonan Codex would have finally been put to rest, but unfortunately, such is not the case. Kind and well meaning Messianics, who nonetheless are unaware of the historical facts by which a manuscript like this is identified and dated, continue to proclaim the Yonan Codex to be the oldest extant manuscript witness to the Apostolic Scriptures even though clear and conclusive evidence is to the contrary.’

            End of quote:

            Please note that Hegg references each of his sources, but I have not included these references here.

            The New Testament was written in Koine Greek. None of the autographs – the manuscripts written by the original authors (in Greek) – have survived. It is the work of Biblical scholars to surmise the original texts from the versions that do survive; particularly from the three main textual traditions: the Alexandrian text-type; the Byzantine text-type; and the Western-text type (this is the predominant form of NT text witnessed in the Old Latin and Peshitta translations from the Greek).

            Have a nice day.
            Misleading how so? I simply suggested Talibilm 09 checked it out, bit of information regarding Aramaic translations (note translation) of the New Testament. I believe he's of the opinion that none exist. The earliest manuscripts in existence are in as you say Koine Greek, Hebrew OT with small sections in Aramaic . Talibilm09 is aware of that as he has been given the information on many previous occasions.

            Have a nice day yourself.

            Comment


              Re: Talibilm.. Reasons why the Comforter cannot be Mohammed

              Originally posted by Pip1 View Post
              Misleading how so? Have a nice day yourself.
              Hello Pip.

              Thank you for your regards.

              Talibilim wrote: ‘The present day Bible is not, however, based on the Aramaic manuscripts, but on Greek and Latin versions.’

              You replied: ‘Have you heard of Khaboris Codex? Check it out.’

              Your post might lead the unwary into believing that the Codex (a Syriac manuscript) is the forerunner of the Greek manuscripts, and therefore a more reliable account of New Testament events. We both know it is neither of these.

              Have a great week, and very best regards.
              'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib‎)

              Comment


                Re: Talibilm.. Reasons why the Comforter cannot be Mohammed

                Originally posted by Grandad View Post
                Hello Pip.

                Thank you for your regards.

                Talibilim wrote: ‘The present day Bible is not, however, based on the Aramaic manuscripts, but on Greek and Latin versions.’

                You replied: ‘Have you heard of Khaboris Codex? Check it out.’

                Your post might lead the unwary into believing that the Codex (a Syriac manuscript) is the forerunner of the Greek manuscripts, and therefore a more reliable account of New Testament events. We both know it is neither of these.

                Have a great week, and very best regards.
                Hello Grandad. To be honest they would have had to spent their lives on planet zog or somewhere equally remote not to know that. Talibilm to whom I was addressing, is well aware the original gospels were written in Greek and the Old Testament in Hebrew.

                Regardez

                Comment


                  Re: Talibilm.. Reasons why the Comforter cannot be Mohammed

                  Originally posted by Pip1 View Post
                  Hello Grandad. To be honest they would have had to spent their lives on planet zog or somewhere equally remote not to know that. Talibilm to whom I was addressing, is well aware the original gospels were written in Greek and the Old Testament in Hebrew.

                  Regardez
                  Hello Pip.

                  Jolly good!

                  You take care now, and very best regards.
                  'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib‎)

                  Comment


                    Re: Talibilm.. Reasons why the Comforter cannot be Mohammed

                    Originally posted by Pip1 View Post
                    Hello Grandad. To be honest they would have had to spent their lives on planet zog or somewhere equally remote not to know that. Talibilm to whom I was addressing, is well aware the original gospels were written in Greek and the Old Testament in Hebrew.

                    Regardez
                    [MENTION=123043]Grandad[/MENTION]

                    This Statement of Pip actually strengthens the claims of Bart that the Originals of NT is not available and Gospels were written by unknown Authors centuries later https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-cZncVmtIU that's why he keeps repeating If God has revealed his words he should have preseved it but The Noble Quran answers his misconception saying that all other scriptures and Apostles, Prophet came only for that particular nation and time and in their language http://legacy.quran.com/14/4

                    ( Unlike ANOTHER Comforter Muhammad for all the Nations and FOREVER-untill the last days as in John https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...16&version=CJB )

                    This stance of the Noble Quran is also reitterated by some verses of NT which we think are in tact as that Jesus was only for the lost sheep of Israel so If it was ONLY for Israelites as majority of them spoke Hebrew or Aramaic (mixture of Hebrew & arabic as Jesus ) THUS THE NEW TESTAMENT ITSELF PROVES that there should have been an Aramaic NT, The langauage of the Israelites as seen in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRbuafzWy24

                    Thats Why Bart Asks Are the New testaments Reliable ???
                    Last edited by talibilm09; 07-10-16, 07:45 AM.
                    My sect - No Sect

                    My Aqeedah - http://legacy.quran.com/112 ( The Aqeedah of Sahabas)

                    Just a Muslim

                    Comment


                      Re: Talibilm.. Reasons why the Comforter cannot be Mohammed

                      All most All Major religions of the world PROPHESIED about the coming of the last Prophet . But they use different names to call him as found in this ( link below # 2) the old guard or so called the oldest religion though Islam was the oldest that Adam & Eve followed.

                      http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthrea...uhammad-(pbuh)
                      Last edited by talibilm09; 11-02-17, 02:48 AM.
                      My sect - No Sect

                      My Aqeedah - http://legacy.quran.com/112 ( The Aqeedah of Sahabas)

                      Just a Muslim

                      Comment


                        Re: Talibilm.. Reasons why the Comforter cannot be Mohammed

                        Originally posted by talibilm09 View Post
                        [MENTION=123043]Grandad[/MENTION]

                        This Statement of Pip actually strengthens the claims of Bart that the Originals of NT is not available and Gospels were written by unknown Authors centuries later https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-cZncVmtIU that's why he keeps repeating If God has revealed his words he should have preseved it but The Noble Quran answers his misconception saying that all other scriptures and Apostles, Prophet came only for that particular nation and time and in their language http://legacy.quran.com/14/4

                        ( Unlike ANOTHER Comforter Muhammad for all the Nations and FOREVER-untill the last days as in John https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...16&version=CJB )

                        This stance of the Noble Quran is also reitterated by some verses of NT which we think are in tact as that Jesus was only for the lost sheep of Israel so If it was ONLY for Israelites as majority of them spoke Hebrew or Aramaic (mixture of Hebrew & arabic as Jesus ) THUS THE NEW TESTAMENT ITSELF PROVES that there should have been an Aramaic NT, The langauage of the Israelites as seen in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRbuafzWy24

                        Thats Why Bart Asks Are the New testaments Reliable ???
                        Who is that ''ANOTHER '' COMFORTER prophesied by Jesus which the NT readers claim about but has not arrived for the past 2000 years ?
                        My sect - No Sect

                        My Aqeedah - http://legacy.quran.com/112 ( The Aqeedah of Sahabas)

                        Just a Muslim

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X