Christian/Muslim ThreadsNo Proof Quran Copied from Bible, Gnostic or Jewish Sources
That is not all he said, again I asked for the whole paragraph you purposely omitted the very next line of the sentence in your quote: This is the concerning paragraph: Since you have so far tried to avoid quoting Tisdall in full and have relied mainly on the copy and paste argument of islamic-awareness who quoted Tisdall out of context and focused on that one sentence in his book just as you are doing, can you explain to me what Tisdall means when he says this is a matter of little or no consequence... This explains in what way Muhammad most probably became acquainted with the legend If you truly believe Tisdall does not believe it is not the source for the story in the koran what on earth does Tisdall mean when he says "this is explains in what way Muhammed most probaly became acquanited with the legend" what way? Pls read that paragraph again rather than rely on the copy and pasting of islamic awareness, if I was to say " I find it hard to believe you understand english" I take it you will actually believe what I mean is "I don't believe you understand english" do you not see that Tisdall is being sarcastic when he 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"which he further clarifies in the very next sentence " this is a matter of little or no consequence" Even if you were to eliminate all trace of sarcasm from his paragraph with the most objective of slants "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 As, however, Arabic has never been supposed to be the language in which the work was composed" Tisdall can clearly be shown to be focusing on the "source of the composition of the arabic infancy of Jesus" in this part of his statement "Arabic has never been supposed to be the language in which the work was composed you on the other hand are assuming what he is saying is "there was no arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus during Mohammed's time" which is not what he is saying at all, but rather he is focusing on when the source of the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus was composed even though it is called "the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus" the arabic is so bad it is obvious it is a translation Tisdall is focusing on the source of the story, the composition of the arabic infancy of the gospel of Jesus predates Mohammed this is why Tisdall says "This explains in what way Muhammad most probably became acquainted with the legend"such a statement makes no sense if he was not trying to show that this is the source from which Mohammed obtained this story, in other words the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus was not composed during the time of Mohammed because the arabic is so bad, it was composed much earlier than Mohammed because the arabic is so bad because it is a translation from the copt to the arabic, otherwise the remaining parts of his statements make no sense whatsoever. Once you have explained those two sentences above we can move on although I doubt you will be able to since islamic-awareness focused their entire argument on Tisdall with that one line taken out of context it is becoming blatantly obvious you are unwilling or unable to discuss the rest of Tisdall's statement because islamic-awareness did not touch it |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame