Greetings H2O,
Let’s look at what else you could muster as a reply…
Apple wrote:
However, the lexicons are arranged Arabic-alphabetical from the ROOT! This is NOT done for ease of locating the word in question – but because the ROOT is the ORIGIN of the words that are listed afterwards.
We did not disagree that Lexicon words are arranged in Arabic-alphabetical root. We commented "Arabicized words would follow under roots that it has a linguistical relation to. This does not mean it is derived from such a root word. This is done my means of properly finding the word."
Great….still having a tough time swallowing that your “allah” has a root from which it is derived?
Not to worry….you also had a tough time swallowing “sulbi” and the implications that it also has to a Crucifixion event.
Furthermore…..now you want to go the route of “allah” being Arabicized…?
Great….as this would mean that the word itself was not even pure Arabic to begin with in the first place!
Is this where your pathetic and vacillating argument has now gone to..?
How would you find Arabicized words like Hood, Bakkah, Ibraheem, Moosaa, Elyas, Yahyaa, Yasu'a, Room etc ? These word are Arabicized words just like the name Allah. In order to find them you have to find an Arabic root that is lingusitically related, or having the same radical consonants, that it will fall under inorder to find the word. It does not mean that it is derived from such Arabic root. Also if the name Allah was originally an Arabic word i.e nouns it would take nunation. All Arabicized words in the Quran do not take nunation and all Arabic origin words take nunation.
Well…reference your assertions.
Show me where the name of your “god” was Arabicized from.
This will give
US further evidence that the god of the Koran is
NOT ORIGINAL but a hand-me-down from another place and another time…
I’ll be anxiously awaiting your reply…