|
Trinity |
Post Reply 
|
Page 123 14> |
| Author | ||||||
AhmadJoyia 
Senior Member 
Joined: 20 March 2005 Status: Offline Points: 1647 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Topic: TrinityPosted: 26 July 2005 at 8:54am |
|||||
|
Well my brother don't you think, St. Paul has a direct relationship with the concept of "Trinity" same way as St. Apple Pie has it with the concept of "Uniplurity"? Think about it if I have diverted from the topic?
|
||||||
 |
||||||
|
Apple Pie
Guest Group 
Joined: 21 July 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 138 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 July 2005 at 8:51pm |
|||||
|
The Theme of this thread is The Trinity... Please stick to this theme... We really are not interested in what you think of us...
Thanks... |
||||||
|
||||||
|
AhmadJoyia
Senior Member
Joined: 20 March 2005 Status: Offline Points: 1647 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 July 2005 at 8:41pm |
|||||
|
Well my dear brother, I have simply equated you with your own St. Paul. Didn't you like this saint to saint (sts) relationship? Rather, should have been thankful to me than complaining about "We are pleased to see that you have let your replies become debased to name calling. However, I do see you using typical "abu Gharib" tactics when it comes real hard on you to respond. But, honestly I am not at all surprised to read "Sister AhmadJoyia" since we are not in "abu gharib". Aren't we? |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Apple Pie
Guest Group
Joined: 21 July 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 138 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 July 2005 at 6:43pm |
|||||
|
Greetings AhmadJoyia, Thanks for your reply� I saw this on another thread�.we think that it also applies here�only the names have been changed�oh, and of course, some spelling and grammar corrections as well� �Sister AhmadJoyia, I understand it�s difficult to leave the topic unanswered, but this is what the discipline of the forum requires. Kindly stop replying on this thread, if your reply doesn't conform to the topic of this thread. I hope, you as well as others, would listen to my request. There is ample space elsewhere in the forum to discuss such points under appropriate threads, than littering it everywhere. Thanks.� We are pleased to see that you have let your replies become debased to name calling. Please tell us just how this has any relevance to the Theme of this thread�.? This is your second warning to comply with the rules of this forum� Thanks� |
||||||
|
||||||
|
AhmadJoyia
Senior Member
Joined: 20 March 2005 Status: Offline Points: 1647 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 July 2005 at 8:07am |
|||||
|
My dear bro Apple Pie (oops!! Saint Apple Pie), your deception is so obvious as a day light that anyone can now easily comprehend your tactics. Simply compare yours with mine (from the word-to-word translation reference) and you would find answer to all your lame excuses. Of course, what else can you do now?? You indeed, are no different crafty and cunning Saint than St. Paul. No difference! Not at all. BTW, please do let me know if you feel this is too offensive for you to digest and then I shall provide you the Biblical reference where St. Paul admitted himself to be "crafty" and thus using deceitful tactics. But I think its better for me to show you the evidence before you start accusing me. So here it is what he said about himself. Reference NASB:
Edited by AhmadJoyia |
||||||
|
||||||
|
copenhagen
Groupie 
Joined: 21 July 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 54 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 July 2005 at 4:58am |
|||||
|
Background: In my mind, I picture Jesus and Muhammad (peace be upon them) as sort of "Rock-n-Roll Celebrities" of their days. They rebelled against common teachings of the elders and those in power. I see Jesus as more a laid back dude, speaking in little parables that a kid could understand, the hippie type if you will. Muhammad was more of what my grandparents would call a "rabble rouser", as he talked of fire in hell and flowing wine in heaven, Motley Crue through and through. (Sorry, that's honestly how my minds eye sees these things) As such, I give lots of leeway when Muslims get all fired up. But when a person, as best I can tell, is trying to spread Christianity by saying things like:
I just can't picture Jesus talking like this. Man, read that Bible, and get an idea of how Jesus spread the message. Even when he was insulting, he was cleverly poetic with quick little gottchas like "pearls before swine". He didn't split hairs over gramatical constructs of ancient manuscripts. If anyone could explain the trinity so the world could understand, it would have been Jesus. He didn't. |
||||||
|
Some people before you asked questions, and on that account lost their faith.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Apple Pie
Guest Group
Joined: 21 July 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 138 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 July 2005 at 8:46pm |
|||||
|
Greetings AhmadJoyia, Thanks for your reply� What a typical reply that can I expect from you? Laughing it away!! Keep laughing my brother, keep laughing it way. But keep this in mind that your inner concious would not be able to swallow it up so easily (if its still alive?). Apparently�you are unaware of whom sbwus is� Remind me to tell you someday�. Now coming to your translation, here is the tranliteration of actual arabic text 171. Ya ahla alkitabi la taghloo fee deenikum wala taqooloo AAala Allahi illa alhaqqa innama almaseehu AAeesa ibnu maryama rasoolu Allahi wakalimatuhu alqaha ila maryama waroohun minhu faaminoo biAllahi warusulihi wala taqooloo thalathatun intahoo khayran lakum innama Allahu ilahun wahidun subhanahu an yakoona lahu waladun lahu ma fee alssamawati wama fee al-ardi wakafa biAllahi wakeelan and shall see what have you presented in your translation and what have been omitted. So if we compare this with your translation it becomes obvious that your translation is full of intentional/unintentional mistakes. For concentrating on major mistakes and neglecting numerous mistakes of ifs and buts, here is the full comparison with your translation. Finally� At least you are attempting the Latin transliteration� subhanahu MISSING If it is missing�then you should be able to tell us what is should be from your �googled� source�.right..? lahu ma fee alssamawati wama fee al-ardi what (is) in the skies/space (Missing the translation of wama fee) Again, if it is missing�then you should be able to tell us what is should be from your �googled� source�.right..? The presence of such mistakes, both additions and omissions, that too, within the paragraph of few lines, I don't know what can be said about your intentions, if not deception? Instead of comparing it with the standard word to word translation provided as a source of normative translation, you simply buffed it away and rather relied on asking for the reference, though they are duly available on the links from the main webpage of the referenced site. A simple matter of few clicks away, only if someone is interested in the truth, probably you are not the one in those. Ofcourse now your only tool to negate such falsification of the translation is through making such acts as "minor". But are they really "minor", though I have already taken away such "minor" errors such as word "only" translated as "but" etc, simply not to let you take the straw of "minor" errors. People on the forum shall judge themselves as how you changed the last but one sentence by omitting the translation of word of exclamation "Subahana" and wrote a simple sentence without it to appear to suit your deception. My dear is this the way you want to make people believe in you. I don't think so. Hence you have proved yourself as totally unworthy and unreliable. May Allah help all of us in recognizing and thus avoiding the temptations and deception of satan. Amin Should we laugh now�.or later�.? The most amazing part of your �exegesis��is that you in no way, shape, or form, even once negated my position�.! In fact, you confirmed it! You cannot even �clarify� the so-called �errors� that you supposedly found. Try again. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
AhmadJoyia
Senior Member
Joined: 20 March 2005 Status: Offline Points: 1647 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 July 2005 at 8:08pm |
|||||
|
Why would like to set aside my questions? Where is your reference authenticating your translation? Without providing such a reference, how would you support your translation to be better than the normatives. On the more, not to let you go away, I have also provided you the word-to-word translation of the same verse. How can you ask me the reference without you providing the same, though I do have it as obviously its not my own work. But for you, you have no footing to hold on. On the more, this is just a one aspect to bluntly refute your assumptions, there are yet more to come, for which you would not find any refuge.
So, if you are proposing any thing new, then don't waste our time here as we are not the linguistic scholars to evaluate and judge it here nor this forum is appropriate for this kind of job. Kindly refer your invention to appropriate journal for authenticating and only then referencing it to public. So�yet another admission that you don�t comprehend the mother tongue that you are entrusting your eternal soul towards�
My dear brother, there is nothing that I have to hide it from anyone. However, is this really hard on you to provide your authentication of your translation?
Your hypothesis "Your posts and links are riddled with the usage of Yusuf Ali, Pickthal, & Shakir" is totally wrong as I have shown it, repeatedly, from your own translation. Here is my initial post " My dear bro Apple Pie, without arguing into your distorted translation of the verse, let us concentrate on the message in the verse, if we are sincere in considering it the truth from Allah. First of all, even with your own distorted meaning, the message in this verse of Quran is clearly addressing the people of the book and more specifically to my Christian brothers i.e. you (I think). Hence, the opening sentence says "do not exceed the limits" and you very well know what limits you have exceeded; if not, the rest of the verse clarifies it to you. Then, according to your translation "and do not say on Allah except the truth" . So what is it that you (the Christians) say about Allah (God) other than the truth? Of course about His entity in Trinity. Isn't it? Let us proceed as what Allah (God) tell you about this concept in this verse. Here Allah (God) says from your own distorted translation "�wa� and do not say: "Three." Stop (it is) best for you, but Allah (is) one Allah". " So, my dear, one can't close the eyes to avoid the cat as truth can't be hidden. Interesting how you just took your post out of context�.just before your �popular� English translations appeared. Ah, my dear brother, I had not yet gone into chapter 112 before I explained away through your own translation. Later on mentioning of chapter 112 was to hammer it down right on it and yet you didn't provide your own translation of chapter 112 to logical refute it. This all sums up a big heap of pile awaiting your due responses, though you also have deliberately decided not to comment upon the my biblical comparision with Quran. Was that too tough on you? Never mind! Perhaps, you may never bring this topic again in the discussion.
Now coming to another wonderful reference from another source discussing the same verse which supports the normative translations: Interesting�.you have moved onto yet �another� �googled� source�as your first �googled� ones obviously did not pan-out� Well first of all, is this "googled" kind of action not accepted by you? Kindly do let me know what alternate do you have for your search other than internet search engines like these. This is second time that I have noticed your trying to redicule it through. On the more, brother, do you think, there are only these sources that can refute your translation? Certainly not. There are tens of other references that clearly negate your translation. Hence, absence of your authentication has proven to be major impediment in your argument which clearly mask any of your assertions. Isn't it?
��� ������ �������� 76;� ��� �������� ��� �������� 18; ����� �������� 75; ����� ������� ������ �������� �������� �������� 81;� ������ ����� �������� ������� ������� �������� 78;��� �������� 14;� ����� �������� ������� ������ �������� 75; �������� 16; �������� 07;� ����� �������� 75; �������� 12; �������� 75; ������� ������ �������� ������� ������ ������� �������� 14;�� ���� ������� ���� ������ ���� ��� ��� �������� 08;���� ����� ��� �������� 16; ������� �������� 16; �������� (171) What is this? From where you got it? This is not what I pasted? Hope you would not alter my posts while quoting it?
O people of the Scripture (Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of All�h aught but the truth. The Messiah ��s�, son of Maryam, was (no more than) a Messenger of All�h and His Word, ("Be!" - and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam and a spirit (R�h) {1} created by Him; so believe in All�h and His Messengers. Say not: "Three (trinity)!" Cease! (it is) better for you. For All�h is (the only) One Il�h (God), glory be to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And All�h is All-Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs. {2} {1} (V.4: 171) R�h-ull�h: According to the early religious scholars from among the Companions of the Prophet ��� ���� ���� ���� and their students and the Mujtahid�n, there is a rule to distinguish between the two nouns in the genitive construction: a) When one of the two nouns is All�h, and the other is a person or a thing, e.g. All�h�s House (Bait-ull�h); All�h�s Messenger (Rasul-ull�h): All�h�s slave (�Abdull�h): All�h�s spirit (R�h-ull�h), the rule for the above words is that the second noun, e.g., house, messenger, slave, spirit is created by All�h and is honorable in His Sight, and similarly, All�h�s spirit may be understood as the spirit of All�h, in fact it is a soul created by All�h, i.e. ��s�. And it was His Word: "Be!" -and he was. (i.e. ��s� was created like Adam). b) But when one of the two is All�h and the second is neither a person nor a thing, then it is not a created thing but is a quality of All�h e.g. All�h�s Knowledge (�Ilm-ull�h); All�h�s Life (Hay�t-ull�h); All�h�s Statement (Kal�m-ull�h); All�h�s Self (Dhat-ull�h). Source http://www.islam-is-the-only-solution.com/word.htm for complete discussion on the word "word" mentioned in this verse and elsewhere in Quran. I hope this shall be sufficient for now. You have just referenced sbwus� website�.lol�..! I have to ask: did you actually read the articles on his site before using them as a reference? I doubt it� Please�.put some effort into your replies�.
What a typical reply that can I expect from you? Laughing it away!! Keep laughing my brother, keep laughing it way. But keep this in mind that your inner concious would not be able to swallow it up so easily (if its still alive?). 171. Ya ahla alkitabi la taghloo fee deenikum wala taqooloo AAala Allahi illa alhaqqa innama almaseehu AAeesa ibnu maryama rasoolu Allahi wakalimatuhu alqaha ila maryama waroohun minhu faaminoo biAllahi warusulihi wala taqooloo thalathatun intahoo khayran lakum innama Allahu ilahun wahidun subhanahu an yakoona lahu waladun lahu ma fee alssamawati wama fee al-ardi wakafa biAllahi wakeelan and shall see what have you presented in your translation and what have been omitted. So if we compare this with your translation it becomes obvious that your translation is full of intentional/unintentional mistakes. For concentrating on major mistakes and neglecting numerous mistakes of ifs and buts, here is the full comparison with your translation. 171. Ya ahla alkitabi la taghloo fee deenikum You The Book's people, do not exaggerate/exceed the limit in your religion, wala taqooloo AAala Allahi illa alhaqqa �wa� and do not say on Allah except the truth, innama almaseehu Aaeesa but the Messiah, Jesus, ibnu maryama Mary's son rasoolu Allahi Allah's messenger Wakalimatuhu �wa� and His Word alqaha ila maryama He threw it away to Mary, waroohun minhu �wa� a Soul/Spirit from Him; faaminoo biAllahi �fa� so believe with Allah, warusulihi �wa� and His messengers, wala taqooloo thalathatun intahoo khayran lakum �wa� and do not say: "Three." Stop (it is) best for you, innama Allahu ilahun wahidun but Allah (is) one Allah, subhanahu MISSING an yakoona lahu waladun �yakoona� verily he shall be a child for Him lahu ma fee alssamawati wama fee al-ardi what (is) in the skies/space (Missing the translation of wama fee) wakafa biAllahi wakeelan �wa� and what (is) in the earth/Planet Earth (extrapolation without the original Arabic) , enough/sufficient with Allah (as a) guardian/protector.
The presence of such mistakes, both additions and omissions, that too, within the paragraph of few lines, I don't know what can be said about your intentions, if not deception? Instead of comparing it with the standard word to word translation provided as a source of normative translation, you simply buffed it away and rather relied on asking for the reference, though they are duly available on the links from the main webpage of the referenced site. A simple matter of few clicks away, only if someone is interested in the truth, probably you are not the one in those. Ofcourse now your only tool to negate such falsification of the translation is through making such acts as "minor". But are they really "minor", though I have already taken away such "minor" errors such as word "only" translated as "but" etc, simply not to let you take the straw of "minor" errors. People on the forum shall judge themselves as how you changed the last but one sentence by omitting the translation of word of exclamation "Subahana" and wrote a simple sentence without it to appear to suit your deception. My dear is this the way you want to make people believe in you. I don't think so. Hence you have proved yourself as totally unworthy and unreliable. May Allah help all of us in recognizing and thus avoiding the temptations and deception of satan. Amin
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page 123 14> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
Apple Pie wrote: