Post Reply
Page 3 of 11  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11 Next
Switch to Forum Live View The Koranic View of the Torah
2 years ago  ::  Apr 21, 2012 - 9:54PM #21
visio
Posts: 3,287

Apr 20, 2012 -- 8:04PM, Miraj wrote:


Islam requires us to believe in all the sacred books, the Torah, the Injeel, the Quran.  Allah (swt) instructed the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to confer with the learned men that received the Message before him, namely the Jews and the Christians.  The first person he asked for advice about his revelations was a Christian.  He consulted the Torah, with assistance of the rabbis, for answers to community problems.



No Islam, or rather to be more precise, Muslim and the Prophet Muhammadsaw were also required to believe in what were revealed to Musasaw (Moses), Isasaw (Jesus) to be found in their Scriptures.   Yes, that exactly what Prophet Muhammadsaw did during the initial phase of his 23 year revelations.   Muhammadsaw couldn't read, nor could understand Hebrew.   In a hadith, the Hebrews did recite the Taurat and Injil in Hebrew and explain them in Quraish Arabic.  And thus Muhammadsaw used a lot of those explanation to evaluate and above all request a verification and judgement for the One Above, God/ALLAHswt, from one issue to another.   Towards the end of the 23 year revelation when it was said that the Al-Quran was perfected and completed it ended up with comments/remarks on the Written Taurat and Injil with such  statements that says there were distortions of different kinds in their messages - exoterically and esoterically. IOW there are matters to believe and there are matters to disbelieve.   For that reason, Prophet Muhammadsaw came out with the hadith of "do not believe, nor, disbelieve".  This is a general instruction for Muslims not to trouble themselves to read the written Taurat and Injil.   But there is no stopping of those Muslims to repeat the difficult process undertaken by Muhammadsaw or SIFY (See it for yourself).  And the process was LISTEN for their explanation.


Yes, for community problems such as order and security, there is no doubt about it, consultation had been prescribed as the way to go.


Yes, there are differences between what we read in our book and what our spiritual siblings read in theirs.  We don't have original sin, for example, or Jesus as the son of God, or as divine.  Yet, what we are instructed to strive for as our life's goal, our ideal, is to respect our differences and to find our common ground so that we can focus on what brings us all closer to God.




Actually we do have a concept of original sin but their dispensation is very closely tied up to the Quranic CREATION story and the triune doctrine of each of our individual SELF, the constitution of which is made up of SOUL + inherited SPIRIT/MIND + material BODY/RECEPTACLE.   And the whole matter evolve about what one interprets ADAM is.  Just to give aone big clue, which you may or may not know, in the original text of the Arabic Al-Quran, there is no such name EVE specifically associated with Adam (the Prophet) wife.   And Adam, the Prophet is generic.   This is the idea behind the labelling of the 1st. Heaven of Muhammasaw's Mi'raj (Ascension) as Adamic.   This is the core of theology and human relation with God/ALLAHswt.   And I heard a Jew explained it in Christianity Board, that when we die, everything - the soul, the spirit and body go kaput.  And we, Muslims, know it very well that the soul is the eternal element of our SELF that is going to meet with God/ALLAHswt, everytime when we (the soul) "die" i.e. separated from the inherited spirit/mind and body.   The body rot to become worm and soil, the spirit/mind that you hated/loved so much, another soul is going to inherit it.  For those spirits/mind of bani-Israel (children of Israel) the evil among them would be sent further down as inherited spirits in the animal kingdom (hence the ape/monkey verse of the Al-Quran. And that is a form of hell.   The same, however, does not apply  to the spirits/mind of bani-Adam (Children of Adam) because they have already thru that existence as implied by the Quranic verse Az-Zumar 39 : 6.  It is also for this reason that Isasaw (Jesus) teachings prescribed for his sheep, bani-Israel, a monastic life i.e. to be monks, rabbii or sufis. 


In general Muslims are characterised  by the following attributes:


1.   Faith (Iman).   This is strictly Al-Quran/Muhammadsaw (hadith)


2. Islam.   This all the works prescribed in the Al-Quran/Hadith which are an extension/revision/modification of what were revealed to Musasaw (Moses)


3.   Ihsan (perfection).   This is perform it better than expected.   An eye for an eye, life for life is replaced by forgiveness.   Isasaw (Jesus) had a full load of it. Isasaw did not know much about sacrifices until after he was subjected to the phenomenal cross event.   It was a conjecture on the part of the Jews authority of the day that they assumed Isasaw had a inherited satanic/devil spirit in him.  And for that, the prescription is a human sacrifice.   Unless of course, someone in the Jewish authority of the day had a satanic spirit in him and he could use Isasaw (Jesus) spirit  to strengthen his thru his knowledge of astral manipulation.   This is the little knowledge that is mentioned in the respective verse of Al-Quran.


Sorry for the lengthy sermon but this is a complex subject which needs certain level of esotericism to explain and hopefully it resonates with everyone's inner spirituality.    




Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 22, 2012 - 5:14PM #22
Ibn
Posts: 4,816

 

Apr 20, 2012 -- 8:19PM, Ibn wrote:

We do not know that the Torah (the 5 books) you have today was written by Moses. The Qur'an does not say that Torah was written by Moses.


My understanding is that it was written again after the Babylonian captivity from someone's memory. Is my understanding correct or not?



Apr 21, 2012 -- 9:29PM, ffb wrote:

It is not. Ezra the scribe fixed the text based on extant scrolls and study with the experts of his time. Check here www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_text.html for the section which explains the process.


“Ezra the scribe fixed the text” means the text had been unfixed by then. It also means the original whole text was not available by then even the copy given to the priests in the temple was not available. It also means that variations existed in different texts that they could find. Therefore, even if the whole Torah was not re-written, at least some text was re-written, corrected or fixed or could have been even added.   


Apr 21, 2012 -- 9:29PM, ffb wrote:

Note that none fo the potential textual variants has to do with Isaac and the sacrifice.


If we did not have the original Moses-written Torah then it is possible that there was no other “original” to compare this story and, therefore, the Isaac story stayed unfixed. It is also possible that it is the true story. Without the Qur’an actually naming Ishmael, I can’t say whether the story is accurate or not. The doubt is mainly due to the text of Genesis. It does not seem to add up particularly in terms of which son was “the only son” at any time.


It is good that you are on this board where you can pass on to us knowledge about Judaism and the sequence of events concerning Abraham and promise(s) to him from G-d. This will help me to understand the near-sacrifice event better. For example, are the events in Genesis in chronological order or not? How old was Abraham’s when he was given the news of his own son in Genesis 15 and whether the two promises (of him having his own son and the land to his descendants) were given at the same age and in same order that these are in the text of Genesis 15?


Apr 20, 2012 -- 8:19PM, Ibn wrote:

Yes, just that question, the books could have been written by Moses or written later, which is true? Was everything destroyed by the Babylonians or did these 5 books remained intact? I am not sure.



Apr 21, 2012 -- 9:29PM, ffb wrote:

Written by Moses and transmitted faithfully.


From the Link you have given, it does not seem as if complete books written by Moses remained intact during the captivity and destruction by the Babylonians. Therefore, I can only assume that by “transmitted faithfully” you are referring to peoples’ memory (i.e. transmitted orally because of their memory). Further, I have just read Deuteronomy 34 and there is no way that it could have been written by Moses himself after his death. Therefore, even if Moses did write the 5 books, text has been added that Moses did not write.


Apr 20, 2012 -- 8:19PM, Ibn wrote:

"There is a hint of words being changed from their places but it is not explicitly stated as to wherefrom. In general, as for as the Divine Word and the Commands are concerned for spiritual enlightenment of man, and judging by whatever I have read so far (and I have not read all of it), present Torah (the 5 books) is pretty good and I can't claim that it is corrupted even if it is not the word by word account of pre-Babylonian captivity Torah."



Apr 21, 2012 -- 9:29PM, ffb wrote:

if it isn't word for word (ignoring for a moment the variants explained in the above link) then the claim is that it has been changed or has changed. "Pretty good" isn't good enough.


It depends on what we are looking in it; every single word or only the Divine Words. We, Muslims, tend to be interested in the Divine Words only. In your case it is slightly different. You are interested in the whole text. For example:


Genesis18:13-15


God said to Abraham, 'Why did   Sarah laugh and say, 'Can I really have a child when I am so old?'


Is anything too difficult for God? At the   designated time, I will return, and Sarah will have a son.'


Sarah was afraid and she denied it. 'I did not   laugh,' she said.


There are Words of God and words of human scribe and words of Sarah in this passage. Changing the Words of God would be real corruption of the Torah text. The rest will make very little or no difference from our point of view.


Apr 20, 2012 -- 8:19PM, Ibn wrote:

Yes, as for as the Divine Word (Commands/Laws) is concerned.



Apr 21, 2012 -- 9:29PM, ffb wrote:

But Judaism derives laws and codes from sections which are not what seems explicitly a "law" so any changes would indicate that Jewish law is thus an invalid code. This page has a discussion of some relatively major differences of text.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_narrative...


How would your “law” change if it was “Ishmael” instead of “Isaac” the subject of the sacrifice event? It would make no difference to the Islamic law, the reason it is not necessary for us to identify Ishmael or Isaac. We look at both with great respect. Both are equally important figures in Islam.  


Apr 20, 2012 -- 8:19PM, Ibn wrote:

"We do not know whether this is accurate or not. There is doubt in Islamic circles that "your son Isaac, the only son" is accurate as it is not expressed for Ishmael the same way in the Qur'an. At no time was Isaac "the only son" of Abraham whereas Ishmael was for for several years "the only son" of Abraham."



Apr 21, 2012 -- 9:29PM, ffb wrote:

so no matter that the text names Isaac, because the logic of the reference points otherwise, the naming must be inaccurate?


No. It could be inaccurate rather than it must be inaccurate. It may point otherwise but I can be wrong. I cannot be sure without it being explicitly stated otherwise in the Qur’an.


Once again, what we are concerned with is moral lessons we can learn from the Revelations. We can learn moral lesson from the narrative in Genesis as we learn from the narrative in the Qur’an regarding the sacrifice event.


Apr 20, 2012 -- 8:19PM, Ibn wrote:

It can go either way.



Apr 21, 2012 -- 9:29PM, ffb wrote:

thus the claim that it is corrupt is a valid claim as the claim that it is NOT corrupt? That seems strange.


From your point of view it is not corrupt because it is clearly stated in the text. From my point of view naming of Isaac does not add up with the rest but I can’t make claim of it being invalid because the Qur’an does not explicitly back up such a claim. For this reason, I have to have an open mind and not call it corruption at this stage of my learning.


Apr 20, 2012 -- 8:19PM, Ibn wrote:

The doubt arises from the text "the only son" when Ishmael is accepted as son of Abraham in the same book. In other words, the doubt arises from the text of Torah itself rather than it being explicitly stated in the Qur'an.



Apr 21, 2012 -- 9:29PM, ffb wrote:

so the conclusion which is drawn from that question is that the Torah is inaccurate -- how can you say that there is a reasonable position that the text was NOT corrupted?


The moral lessons we learn from reading the Divine Words in the Torah. In that sense, there is reasonable position that it is accurate. Reading the first Link you have provided, there is some difference in the text of certain stories. In those cases, only one text could be accurate. I regard the narrative in the Qur’an to be accurate and you would regard the narrative in the Torah to be accurate. There is no point in arguing on the difference if one can’t prove one way or the other. It comes down to the matter of faith. The direction for Muslims in the Qur’an is that G-d will decide on the Day of Judgment as to where we differ.

I know one thing: There are a billion Islamic people in the world today, and there will be about 2 billion by the time we're dead. They're not going to give up their religion.
(Chris Matthews)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 22, 2012 - 10:54PM #23
ffb
Posts: 2,183

"“Ezra the scribe fixed the text” means the text had been unfixed by then. It also means the original whole text was not available by then even the copy given to the priests in the temple was not available. It also means that variations existed in different texts that they could find. Therefore, even if the whole Torah was not re-written, at least some text was re-written, corrected or fixed or could have been even added.   "


then you did not read the link. There were three scrolls and he worked with scholars to divine the correct version from the 3 scrolls. To say that the text was "unfixed" is therefore erroneous, as is the statement that a version was unavailavble. The variations which existed  between the three extant scrolls and which were decided upon were on the level of individual letterts, not words and therefore nothing was added. Please do not claim otherwise, and do not imply that I said otherwise.


"If we did not have the original Moses-written Torah then it is possible that there was no other “original” to compare this story and, therefore, the Isaac story stayed unfixed. It is also possible that it is the true story. Without the Qur’an actually naming Ishmael, I can’t say whether the story is accurate or not. The doubt is mainly due to the text of Genesis. It does not seem to add up particularly in terms of which son was “the only son” at any time."


We did, as stated. And any concern over the precision of the text Ezra had had nothing to do with the inclusion of Isaac's name. Thus ANY belief that Ishmael was the person offered is either an attack on the accuracy on a heretofore unheard of level or a complete fabrication. The text in the torah has no vagueness. Isaac is named explicitly and repeatedly.


"From the Link you have given, it does not seem as if complete books written by Moses remained intact during the captivity and destruction by the Babylonians. Therefore, I can only assume that by “transmitted faithfully” you are referring to peoples’ memory (i.e. transmitted orally because of their memory). Further, I have just read Deuteronomy 34 and there is no way that it could have been written by Moses himself after his death. Therefore, even if Moses did write the 5 books, text has been added that Moses did not write."


actually, the link says that the text was transmitted from Moses to Ezra faithfully. And as to the issue of the final 8 verses of the Torah there is a tradition that Moses wrote them as told by god even though they had not happened. Why assume that those 8 were not written by him because he would have been dead, while the first book WAS written by him even though he was not yet alive? Another tradition has Joshua as the author fo the final 8 verses. Why would this change anything -- it was transcribed by god to Joshua and passed down from there in that same complete and accurate form.


"There are Words of God and words of human scribe and words of Sarah in this passage. Changing the Words of God would be real corruption of the Torah text. The rest will make very little or no difference from our point of view."


the text of the Torah is the word of god and when it reports the words of Sarah it does so as the accurate retelling by god. Changing even these retold words would be corrupting what god transmitted. Trying to split hairs and say that it is OK to corrupt some and not others is strange as it undermines the overall accuracy by saying that some parts are not held to the same divine standard. Would that be an accpetable position to take in regards to the Koran?.


"How would your “law” change if it was “Ishmael” instead of “Isaac” the subject of the sacrifice event?"


Because an understanding of Isaac's character and his actions later in life (especially in his relationship with Jacob), would be undermined. So the laws which we see through his life would not be valid.


"From my point of view naming of Isaac does not add up with the rest but I can’t make claim of it being invalid because the Qur’an does not explicitly back up such a claim. For this reason, I have to have an open mind and not call it corruption at this stage of my learning."


So you are comfortable with the cognitive dissonance of having to accept that it may or may not be accurate yet it is in either case authoritative simply because the precision of a supposedly divine text does not matter as it relates to that section? I find that fascinating.


"Reading the first Link you have provided, there is some difference in the text of certain stories. In those cases, only one text could be accurate. I regard the narrative in the Qur’an to be accurate and you would regard the narrative in the Torah to be accurate. "


So if Suar 11:44 says that the Ark of Noah rested on Judiyy and Genesis 8:4 says Ararat (as a quick example) and you calim that the Koran is accurate then musn't you be claiming that the Torah is inaccurate? Why claim that you don't know if it is accurate or not?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 23, 2012 - 9:59PM #24
IDBC
Posts: 4,500

Howdy


The Quran confirms the REVELATION of the Jewish scriptures, but nowhere does it confirm the authenticity of the translations of the translations that existed at the time the Quran was revealed because at Prophet Muhammad(Peace Be Upon Him )time the Jewish scripture was already been corrupted by its own followers ,the prove is it changed many times..so it is not anymore accepted by Allah s.w.t . Thats why Allah send Prophet Muhammad as The final Messenger to the humanity and to guide them in the true path of Islam.


It is clear to me that the Taurat and the Quran disagree about certain facts.  


What is also clear to me is that there is no way to prove which one is is telling the truth.   


What is also clear to me is that both Muslims and Jews have been very naughty and nice.  Despite the disagreements over "facts".  


It is not clear that Muhammad was mentioned in the Taurat.  It is not clear that the Jews considered Ezra to be the son of god.     



HAVE A THINKING DAY MAY REASON GUIDE YOU
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 24, 2012 - 6:13AM #25
Ibn
Posts: 4,816

"“Ezra the scribe fixed the text” means the text had been unfixed by then. It also means the original whole text was not available by then even the copy given to the priests in the temple was not available. It also means that variations existed in different texts that they could find. Therefore, even if the whole Torah was not re-written, at least some text was re-written, corrected or fixed or could have been even added. "


Apr 22, 2012 -- 10:54PM, ffb wrote:

then you did not read the link.


I did read most of it but not all of it. Not the last part.


Apr 22, 2012 -- 10:54PM, ffb wrote:

There were three scrolls and he worked with scholars to divine the correct version from the 3 scrolls.


I did read that part. There were by now 3 scrolls. Is “the correct version” one of the scrolls or combination of the three scrolls?  


Apr 22, 2012 -- 10:54PM, ffb wrote:

To say that the text was "unfixed" is therefore erroneous, as is the statement that a version was unavailavble. The variations which existed between the three extant scrolls and which were decided upon were on the level of individual letterts, not words and therefore nothing was added. Please do not claim otherwise, and do not imply that I said otherwise.


Well, if you say that something was “fixed” then it must have been unfixed before it was fixed.


"If we did not have the original Moses-written Torah then it is possible that there was no other “original” to compare this story and, therefore, the Isaac story stayed unfixed. It is also possible that it is the true story. Without the Qur’an actually naming Ishmael, I can’t say whether the story is accurate or not. The doubt is mainly due to the text of Genesis. It does not seem to add up particularly in terms of which son was “the only son” at any time."


Apr 22, 2012 -- 10:54PM, ffb wrote:

We did, as stated. And any concern over the precision of the text Ezra had had nothing to do with the inclusion of Isaac's name. Thus ANY belief that Ishmael was the person offered is either an attack on the accuracy on a heretofore unheard of level or a complete fabrication. The text in the torah has no vagueness. Isaac is named explicitly and repeatedly.


Of course Isaac is named explicitly and repeatedly. I have no problem with it being stated explicitly but why repeat it again and again? Not only repeat it but repeat it with the “only son” when Isaac was never the only son of Abraham at any time. There must be some explanation. I have asked you some relevant questions in the last post but you have ignored them.


"From the Link you have given, it does not seem as if complete books written by Moses remained intact during the captivity and destruction by the Babylonians. Therefore, I can only assume that by “transmitted faithfully” you are referring to peoples’ memory (i.e. transmitted orally because of their memory). Further, I have just read Deuteronomy 34 and there is no way that it could have been written by Moses himself after his death. Therefore, even if Moses did write the 5 books, text has been added that Moses did not write."


Apr 22, 2012 -- 10:54PM, ffb wrote:

actually, the link says that the text was transmitted from Moses to Ezra faithfully. And as to the issue of the final 8 verses of the Torah there is a tradition that Moses wrote them as told by god even though they had not happened. Why assume that those 8 were not written by him because he would have been dead, while the first book WAS written by him even though he was not yet alive?


Well, the fact that we are discussing inclusion of “Isaac” and the “only son” in Genesis, why should I assume that this was written by Moses? The the more I study and discuss the more I am learning that not everything in these 5 books that we have today was written by Moses. If the final 8 verses were not written by Moses but are added in the “5 books of Moses” then the question “what else was added” would be a valid question even for the first book.   


Apr 22, 2012 -- 10:54PM, ffb wrote:

Another tradition has Joshua as the author fo the final 8 verses. Why would this change anything -- it was transcribed by god to Joshua and passed down from there in that same complete and accurate form.


Which is true, Moses wrote those verses as told by god or Joshua wrote them as told by god? If it was Joshua then you are effectively agreeing that something was added later in what Moses had written. It does not seem that even Joshua was the author of the last 8 verses. The author of whole of the Deuteronomy 34 seems to be the same person, other than Joshua, as he is talking “about Joshua” as “another” person and not himself. The author is looking back at the history “to this day”. He is talking about both Moses and Joshua, and after them “to this day”. Therefore, I am beginning to learn that not everything in these 5 books was written by Moses but at least some of it was added later on. There may be even more such instances that I have not come across yet.


"There are Words of God and words of human scribe and words of Sarah in this passage. Changing the Words of God would be real corruption of the Torah text. The rest will make very little or no difference from our point of view."


Apr 22, 2012 -- 10:54PM, ffb wrote:

the text of the Torah is the word of god and when it reports the words of Sarah it does so as the accurate retelling by god. Changing even these retold words would be corrupting what god transmitted. Trying to split hairs and say that it is OK to corrupt some and not others is strange as it undermines the overall accuracy by saying that some parts are not held to the same divine standard. Would that be an accpetable position to take in regards to the Koran?


The Qur’an is not written like that. The Qur’an has its own standard that is different from the way Torah is written. The two cannot be compared the same way. For example, where you claim that God said to Moses (God’s words), “Moses said to Israelites”, in the Qur’an would not be, God said to Muhammad “say to the believers”. In the Torah, author is telling us like a story is told but in the Qur’an God is simply addressing either Muhammad or the believers through Muhammad.


"How would your “law” change if it was “Ishmael” instead of “Isaac” the subject of the sacrifice event?"


Apr 22, 2012 -- 10:54PM, ffb wrote:

Because an understanding of Isaac's character and his actions later in life (especially in his relationship with Jacob), would be undermined. So the laws which we see through his life would not be valid.


So you “see” some laws that you base on Isaac’s character. Where does it say in the Torah that you are to do that on top of the commandments from G-d?


"From my point of view naming of Isaac does not add up with the rest but I can’t make claim of it being invalid because the Qur’an does not explicitly back up such a claim. For this reason, I have to have an open mind and not call it corruption at this stage of my learning."


Apr 22, 2012 -- 10:54PM, ffb wrote:

So you are comfortable with the cognitive dissonance of having to accept that it may or may not be accurate yet it is in either case authoritative simply because the precision of a supposedly divine text does not matter as it relates to that section? I find that fascinating.


There is doubt arising from the text of Genesis itself but in our belief we are to believe that there was revelation to Moses. I am trying to reconcile my belief and the text of Genesis before I can say whether the text is corrupted or not. That is my position at the moment.


"Reading the first Link you have provided, there is some difference in the text of certain stories. In those cases, only one text could be accurate. I regard the narrative in the Qur’an to be accurate and you would regard the narrative in the Torah to be accurate. "


Apr 22, 2012 -- 10:54PM, ffb wrote:

So if Suar 11:44 says that the Ark of Noah rested on Judiyy and Genesis 8:4 says Ararat (as a quick example) and you calim that the Koran is accurate then musn't you be claiming that the Torah is inaccurate? Why claim that you don't know if it is accurate or not?


Because it makes sense in each case. Suppose the Qur’an had said that it rested on Mt. Everest and the Torah had said that it rested on mountains of Himalayas, both would be correct.   

I know one thing: There are a billion Islamic people in the world today, and there will be about 2 billion by the time we're dead. They're not going to give up their religion.
(Chris Matthews)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 24, 2012 - 7:11AM #26
visio
Posts: 3,287

So far the arguments centre around stories that are allegorical in their nature that neither differentiate nor correlate the core theology that God/ALLAHswt would like us to discover in both revelation.   Since the Al-Quran is much of a later revelations, some of the core fundamentals in it's message had been revealed to earlier revelations, perhaps in a different forms or style and depth.   And I am pretty sure there are more imporatnt narratives in the Torah than those little stories, cited so far.   Take for example the following verse from Genesis:


Genesis 2:7  "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."


Can any one who have mastered the Taurat (Torah) explain what is the thological meanings in the above verse - exotericall or esoterically, which ever one fancies.   Meanwhile, I'll try and look a similar verse of the Al-Quran.  I could twist the above verse and the theology would move into a different course.  e.g.. "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils His soul;  and the (dead) man became alive and breathing."







Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 24, 2012 - 3:47PM #27
ffb
Posts: 2,183

"There were by now 3 scrolls. Is “the correct version” one of the scrolls or combination of the three scrolls?  "


the correct version was, as stated in the article, divined through a combination of the three, though that combination was not a matter of picking one from column A and one from column B, but comparing the written texts to the oral tradition, so if one text had a Vav and another didn't have a Vav, and the oral tradition stated that there was a Vav, the written text with the Vav was considered accurate. And this wzs the level of concern, the inclusion of that letter. If you are willing to say that the "corruption" of the text is proven on the level of a single letter by this Ezraic decision, then say so.


"Well, if you say that something was “fixed” then it must have been unfixed before it was fixed."


maybe we are using the word "fixed" differently. The word means here to codify and establish firmly because, as was seen, there were slight variations. It does not mean that a text, from scratch was established or "fixes" had to be applied.


" I have no problem with it being stated explicitly but why repeat it again and again? Not only repeat it but repeat it with the “only son” when Isaac was never the only son of Abraham at any time. There must be some explanation."


So now, saying the name more often than makes sense to you is proof of something. There is an explanation as to why Isaac is called "your singular son" and that is part of Jewish tradition and has been for more than 2000 years. This conspiracy of exclusion therefore existed before here was any reason to exclude. So is the corruption on the level of the letter or were entire words and ideas inserted? Now you seem to be saying that the "repeated" inclusion of Isaac's name is a problem which reflects changes later on.


" If the final 8 verses were not written by Moses but are added in the “5 books of Moses” then the question “what else was added” would be a valid question even for the first book."


You clearly misunderstand. The 5 books were not written by Moses or Joshua but by god. You are question who transcribed particular verses. The tradition about the last 8 verses has an opinion that Joshua transcribed the revelation in those 8 verses in the same way that Moses transcribed the rest. Why would that have any bearing on anything? Because the books are called "5 Books OF Moses"? That isn't their actual name nor does that indicate a particular authority. That they are of god does.


" The author of whole of the Deuteronomy 34 seems to be the same person, other than Joshua, as he is talking “about Joshua” as “another” person and not himself. The author is looking back at the history “to this day”."


So something "seems" to mean something to you. That's nice. Is it a reflection of a position of Islam or simply your personal response to the text which you read on a superficial level?


"In the Torah, author is telling us like a story "


That's your read based on how you view the text. I view the Koran to be told like a patchwork set of stories and phrases with no sense of continuity or cohesiveness reflecting a variety of voices and authors and editors and is full of unnecessary repetition. But that isn't the question here.


"Where does it say in the Torah that you are to do that on top of the commandments from G-d."


Where did I say that the laws in question are "on top" of the commandments and not part of them?


"There is doubt arising from the text of Genesis itself "


No, you have doubt based on your reading of the text and trying to have it conform to your notion owhat the text should be. You cannot say that there is some objective "doubt" unless you are saying that Islam claims that there are textual changes that have been made.


The number of potential textual emendations in the Koran seem to speak of inaccuracies -- that the text as held by Judaism is inaccurate and the revelation, as corrected through Mohammed is accurate. It seems to me that you are saying therefore that the torah text has errors in it on levels beyond the singular letter.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 24, 2012 - 3:50PM #28
Ibn
Posts: 4,816

Apr 24, 2012 -- 7:11AM, visio wrote:


So far the arguments centre around stories that are allegorical in their nature that neither differentiate nor correlate the core theology that God/ALLAHswt would like us to discover in both revelation.   Since the Al-Quran is much of a later revelations, some of the core fundamentals in it's message had been revealed to earlier revelations, perhaps in a different forms or style and depth.   And I am pretty sure there are more imporatnt narratives in the Torah than those little stories, cited so far.   Take for example the following verse from Genesis:


Genesis 2:7  "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."


Can any one who have mastered the Taurat (Torah) explain what is the thological meanings in the above verse - exotericall or esoterically, which ever one fancies.   Meanwhile, I'll try and look a similar verse of the Al-Quran.  I could twist the above verse and the theology would move into a different course.  e.g.. "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils His soul;  and the (dead) man became alive and breathing."



[38.71] When your Lord said to the angels; Surely I am going to create a mortal from dust:


[38.72] So when I made him complete and breathed into him of My spirit, then fall down making obeisance to him.




I know one thing: There are a billion Islamic people in the world today, and there will be about 2 billion by the time we're dead. They're not going to give up their religion.
(Chris Matthews)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 24, 2012 - 4:49PM #29
Ibn
Posts: 4,816

Apr 24, 2012 -- 3:47PM, ffb wrote:


"There were by now 3 scrolls. Is “the correct version” one of the scrolls or combination of the three scrolls?  "


the correct version was, as stated in the article, divined through a combination of the three, though that combination was not a matter of picking one from column A and one from column B, but comparing the written texts to the oral tradition, so if one text had a Vav and another didn't have a Vav, and the oral tradition stated that there was a Vav, the written text with the Vav was considered accurate. And this wzs the level of concern, the inclusion of that letter. If you are willing to say that the "corruption" of the text is proven on the level of a single letter by this Ezraic decision, then say so.


"Well, if you say that something was “fixed” then it must have been unfixed before it was fixed."


maybe we are using the word "fixed" differently. The word means here to codify and establish firmly because, as was seen, there were slight variations. It does not mean that a text, from scratch was established or "fixes" had to be applied.


" I have no problem with it being stated explicitly but why repeat it again and again? Not only repeat it but repeat it with the “only son” when Isaac was never the only son of Abraham at any time. There must be some explanation."


So now, saying the name more often than makes sense to you is proof of something. There is an explanation as to why Isaac is called "your singular son" and that is part of Jewish tradition and has been for more than 2000 years. This conspiracy of exclusion therefore existed before here was any reason to exclude. So is the corruption on the level of the letter or were entire words and ideas inserted? Now you seem to be saying that the "repeated" inclusion of Isaac's name is a problem which reflects changes later on.


" If the final 8 verses were not written by Moses but are added in the “5 books of Moses” then the question “what else was added” would be a valid question even for the first book."


You clearly misunderstand. The 5 books were not written by Moses or Joshua but by god. You are question who transcribed particular verses. The tradition about the last 8 verses has an opinion that Joshua transcribed the revelation in those 8 verses in the same way that Moses transcribed the rest. Why would that have any bearing on anything? Because the books are called "5 Books OF Moses"? That isn't their actual name nor does that indicate a particular authority. That they are of god does.


" The author of whole of the Deuteronomy 34 seems to be the same person, other than Joshua, as he is talking “about Joshua” as “another” person and not himself. The author is looking back at the history “to this day”."


So something "seems" to mean something to you. That's nice. Is it a reflection of a position of Islam or simply your personal response to the text which you read on a superficial level?


"In the Torah, author is telling us like a story "


That's your read based on how you view the text. I view the Koran to be told like a patchwork set of stories and phrases with no sense of continuity or cohesiveness reflecting a variety of voices and authors and editors and is full of unnecessary repetition. But that isn't the question here.


"Where does it say in the Torah that you are to do that on top of the commandments from G-d."


Where did I say that the laws in question are "on top" of the commandments and not part of them?


"There is doubt arising from the text of Genesis itself "


No, you have doubt based on your reading of the text and trying to have it conform to your notion owhat the text should be. You cannot say that there is some objective "doubt" unless you are saying that Islam claims that there are textual changes that have been made.


The number of potential textual emendations in the Koran seem to speak of inaccuracies -- that the text as held by Judaism is inaccurate and the revelation, as corrected through Mohammed is accurate. It seems to me that you are saying therefore that the torah text has errors in it on levels beyond the singular letter.



Dear ffb,


Thank you for your responses to my posts. I do respect you for having good knowledge of Judaism and I can still remember your first post on DJ board as you had responded quite honestly and politely.


In this thread, I have tried to discuss the issue raised but I don't think we are making any progress. Therefore, for the time being, I am still unclear about certain text in Genesis. The only explanation about the "only son" Isaac you have given is that it is because of Isaac being singular son. I could go on further on to the "sacrifice" and the "promise" but I don't think we are going to get anywhere without creating some ill feelings between us, I have no intention to get to that stage with you. For this reason, I will be stopping this discussion about Torah at this stage. If I have any other questions about Torah, I would like to ask then on a Judaism board.


As for your comments about the Qur'an, I can understand the comments quite well as to why you think that it is a "patchwork set of stories" that makes no sense to you. I agree with you that most people will find the Qur'an as you find it. Therefore, I have a good news for you; you are in the majority.Smile


I am happy to be in the minority.


Shalom


Ibn 

I know one thing: There are a billion Islamic people in the world today, and there will be about 2 billion by the time we're dead. They're not going to give up their religion.
(Chris Matthews)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Apr 24, 2012 - 6:04PM #30
visio
Posts: 3,287

Apr 24, 2012 -- 3:50PM, Ibn wrote:



[38.71] When your Lord said to the angels; Surely I am going to create a mortal from dust:


[38.72] So when I made him complete and breathed into him of My spirit, then fall down making obeisance to him.





Thank you, Ibn.   That's quite the speediest od response.  38 : 72 is the verse I had in mind.  And like anything else translated into English, we have to think carefully whether the word/terminolgy applied give justice to the original idea in the Arabic test of the Al-Quran.  I have to leave now.  I'll come back later to have a closer look at 38 : 72, go thru the Arabic transliteration of the verse and what would be the most likeliest idea and theological meanings of the whole verse in English.




Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 11  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook