Christian/Muslim ThreadsNo Proof Quran Copied from Bible, Gnostic or Jewish SourcesI find it a little hard to believe you are honest in this assumption if you were you would have quoted Tisdall in context, the fact that you omitted the rest of that paragraph makes it probable that you are fully aware of the implications of the bit you omitted it looks like you are trying to stall this discussion by focusing on a moot point. This is the quote in it's proper context once again:
When Tisdall says "The style of the Arabic of this apocryphal Gospel, however, is so bad that it is hardly possible to believe that it dates from Muhammad's time." what Tisdall meant was not that it dated after the koran but way before it and way earlier than Mohammed, notice he doesn't state that the ORIGINAL apocryphal arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus was composed in arabic what he is saying is the SOURCE of the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus was not originally arabic This is like having a NIV of the bible and saying the source of this NIV is not english, it simply is a translation, but even in this arabic gospel's case the translation is older than Mohammed. Syriac was the official languages in the middle east for centuries before Mohammed, the gospels started to appear in syriac around the 2nd century, then translated into coptic in the 3rd century, what Tisdall is saying is that the source of the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus probably went through a few translations before it became known as the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus, syriac --> coptic --> arabic, this is further emphasized when he says the style of the arabic is so bad simply because arabic had not been fully developed at the time of it's arabic translation, if it had the arabic wouldn't have been so bad but it was so bad because arabic was still a developing language in it's inception.
I suggest you read about arabic calligraphy and it's history, diacritical marks to distinugish vowels did not exist in the arabic script until 50 yrs after Mohammed's death, you forget your prophet and the arabs in general were illiterate? What Tisdall implied was the legends, fables, stories were well known, the example of Mary the coptic slave girl of Mohammed (btw she was given to Mohammed by the ruler of Egypt to sleep with to appease him so he wouldn't attack his people, imagine having to set your morals aside that you are the messenger of allah so you can have sex; I suggest you read the tafsir on surah 66, the first few verses were because Hafsah and Aishah came against the prophet when they realised he was sleeping with Mary the coptic, in other words comitting adultery) might have told it to him is incosequential as Loki said the books where the koran got the story from is well known and it predates the koran by centuries, the fact that the koran copies these stories verbatim is damning, is the best revelation for mankind for all eternity plagiarism? is this the best allah can do? Seems you are in denial, do you honestly believe this? Why are the stories derived from the apocrypha gospels and the quran similar?, when we know christianity and judaism existed in the arabian peninsula, apocrypha was being translated into syriac, coptic and arabic. The evidence damns the koran. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame