Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
LifeInChrist

Surah 5:46

Recommended Posts

“And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteousâ€.

 

“Came before him†is an incorrect translation Èóíúäó íóÃóíúåö means between his hands. This means he had the Torah in his hands during his lifetime.

 

We have the dead sea scrolls which dates prior to the birth of Jesus. Any person with common sense can see the flaw. Before someone starts copying and pasting minor grammar or translational discrepancies they cannot prove these discrepancies take away the essential therein.

 

{Moderator note}

This post has violated forum rule #35. Action taken.

For more details, please read our (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?act=boardrules"]Forum Rules[/url].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
“And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous”.

 

“Came before him” is an incorrect translation بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ means between his hands. This means he had the Torah in his hands during his lifetime.

 

We have the dead sea scrolls which dates prior to the birth of Jesus. Any person with common sense can see the flaw. Before someone starts copying and pasting minor grammar or translational discrepancies they cannot prove these discrepancies take away the essential therein.

 

 

Well most of the time translator select words based on the meaning they take from reading it in Arabic.

 

The message is still the same, Jesus pbuh confirmed the Torah whether He had it in his hand or not. Most likely he would have had a copy of Torah in his hand.

 

I don't quite really understand the reason behind this post, please clarify your questions.

Edited by Mercyonmankind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are dead sea scrolls the originals??

 

I think I had read that Jesus was not mentioned in the scrolls. The Qumran dead sea scrolls speak about not one but 2 messiahs and also of a prophetic figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does "in his hand" have to be taken literally, or couldn't it just be a figure of speech meaning something like available or in one's possession? I don't really see what the problem is since the arabic translator could have recognized this and simple translated it's meaning instead of translating it word for word. Is there a rule that says translators can make idioms and figures of speech clearer?

 

Edit: Ah, I see, you are using this to argue against the Muslim claim that the Torah was corrupted. Your argument is that if Jesus had the Torah, and the Torah is recorded in the Dead Sea Scrolls which preceded Jesus, then we have the Torah as Jesus did, in a presumably uncorrupted form. Am I correct in my assessment? If so, what would you say if someone argued that while the uncorrupted Torah was available to Jesus, that the Dead Sea Scrolls represent the tradition that corrupted the Torah? Presumably the process of corrupting the Torah would not happen all at once, but would be a process over years, decades, and perhaps even centuries of time as the authentic Torah was slowly weeded out and lost as the corrupted Torah took its place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
“And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous”.

 

“Came before him” is an incorrect translation بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ means between his hands. This means he had the Torah in his hands during his lifetime.

 

We have the dead sea scrolls which dates prior to the birth of Jesus. Any person with common sense can see the flaw. Before someone starts copying and pasting minor grammar or translational discrepancies they cannot prove these discrepancies take away the essential therein.

 

You don't know Arabic at all so stop trying to give correct translations. Don't try your hand at something you have no background in. It's quite embarrasing. The expression bayna yadayhi refers to what was before it.

 

In the same chapter, from which you quoted the above, just a few verses after it says: ﴿وَأَنزَلْنَآ إِلَيْكَ الْكِتَـبَ بِالْحَقِّ مُصَدِّقاً لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ الْكِتَـبِ

 

That's verse 5:48. It says we sent down the Book to you (Muhammad) with truth, a confirmation what was (bayna yadayihi) of the Book. Anybody with any sense will realise that the sentence doesn't mean anything if you insert (in his hands) as a translation because "it" refers to the Qur'an. This expression is used throughout the Qur'an.

 

With that being said, Jesus (pbuh) definately knew the Torah. There is no question about it because God says explicitly in the Qur'an that He taught it to him. The question is, did the Christians transmit it from him. What Christians have preserved is the Greek Septuagint. They didn't preserve the original in Hebrew. Not even Paul who claims to be a Pharisee, if I remember correctly, taught the Torah in Hebrew. You have no "Apostolic chain of Succession" for the Torah in Hebrew. That's a fact. That automatically disqualifies Christian efforts. Can you show us that the "Dead Sea Scrolls" is what Jesus (pbuh) taught. I believe you are a Catholic, right? Catholics always say that Prostentism is not authentic because it doesn't have a chain of transmission, or a chain of "Apostolic Succession" as you would call it, therefore, they can't teach the Bible. The same applies in the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls. You don't have a chain for the Dead Sea Scrolls. My question is, "If the Torah has been soundly preserved through the centuries, why don't the Christians have it in Hebrew?". Why did the Christians discard the original? Why do the Christians (Protestants) have to depend on the Jewish (Masoretic) text if the Torah had been preserved by Christians?

 

The dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls is problematic. They can be dated after Jesus (pbuh), too. The Dead Sea Scrolls present more problems than they solve. For example, it says that the reason why David (pbuh) wasn't stoned for his adulterous relatioship is because the Torah had been sealed for centuries. Plus they contain a lot of heretic ideas. Are you willing to accept them, too? Are we dependent on the "testimony" of a heretic Jewish sect to prove the validity of the Torah? Why don't the Christians have the Torah preserved in Hebrew?

 

What the Dead Sea Scrolls prove is that the Bible written by the Qumran sect is very similar to the Bible of today. Heck, the Samaritan Torah also is very similar to the present Bible. In 1900 instances it agrees with the Greek Septuagint against the Masoretic text. These are proofs of a common origin, yes. But they don't tell us the identiy of that origin. They also show that the Torah existed in a variety of different textual traditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do understand that Paul was a Jew by birth and faith before Christianity and as such was required to know the Torah in Hebrew right? In fact they are required to recite it as part of their manhood.

 

Why do you think Jesus knew the Torah? Jews are required to know it as part of their faith and when I say know it I don't mean just know of it I mean they had to know it intimately. Look at the temptation of Jesus, he was quoting from the Torah ( more specifically the book of Deuteronomy)

 

The only people at the time of Jesus that was allowed to have the Torah was the scribes ( at this time that would be the Pharisees as they were the primary sect of Judaism excepted at that time )

 

It is fool hearted to think that the original fathers of Christianity would have used greek for the Torah when in fact many of them were Jewish before coming to the faith including every single one of the disciples

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assalam alaikum bro Yunus

 

This is commonly sent by christians who commonly visit anti-islamists sites

 

And [remember] when Jesus, son of Mary, said: ‘O Children of israel, I am the messenger of Allaah sent to you, confirming the Torah [which came] before me.”

 

It refers to the torah which was revealed to Moses not the corrupted torah by jews

It's better if They see 3:48

God teached Jesus - peace and blessings be upon him and our beloved prophet- The Torah and Injeel.

He didn't ask him to learn it from jews !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Assalam alaikum bro Yunus

 

This is commonly sent by christians who commonly visit anti-islamists sites

 

And [remember] when Jesus, son of Mary, said: ‘O Children of israel, I am the messenger of Allaah sent to you, confirming the Torah [which came] before me.”

 

It refers to the torah which was revealed to Moses not the corrupted torah by jews

It's better if They see 3:48

God teached Jesus - peace and blessings be upon him and our beloved prophet- The Torah and Injeel.

He didn't ask him to learn it from jews !

 

Wa alaikumu as-salam

 

Yes, I definately agree. Jesus (pbuh) was taught the Torah directly by God as it is explicitly stated elsewhere in the Qur'an. He didn't learn it from a teacher.

 

It isn't all that far-fetched to think that the Torah which Jesus (pbuh) had differed from that which the Rabbis/Pharisees had. I mean, after all, even the NT is quoted saying that the Jews accused Jesus (pbuh) of being Samaritan. By the way, the Torah doesn't even differ that much from the Qur'an compared to the NT, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't know Arabic at all so stop trying to give correct translations. Don't try your hand at something you have no background in. It's quite embarrasing. The expression bayna yadayhi refers to what was before it.

Don’t presume you know me; I come from a Middle Eastern background. I know perfectly well what it means. You and I both know it literally means “in between his handsâ€. You can try to water down the meaning to avoid embarrassment; to me it’s clear as crystal.

 

Its obvious Mohammed wasn’t exposed to the Torah in its entirety or the Gospel for that matter. You and the rest of his followers are stuck with it and are trying to clean up the mess by watering down translations or giving some ridiculous explanation.

 

Where’s the original Torah you guys keep on talking about? Not a fragment, nothing can be found. You guys invent lies about us to suit yourselves. All the alleged fabricated manuscripts can be found but not the original. That’s very weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don’t presume you know me; I come from a Middle Eastern background. I know perfectly well what it means. You and I both know it literally means “in between his hands”. You can try to water down the meaning to avoid embarrassment; to me it’s clear as crystal.

 

Whether you are from a Middle Eastern background or not, it still doesn't mean you know its meaning in context. Knowing what something means literally by itself is not enough, context determines what it means. In all languages, you have expressions that aren't taken literally in a specific context, nothing unsual. This expression is used throughout the whole Qur'an and it doesn't refer to what is between the hands as you can clearly see from verse 5:48, if you do know Arabic. But like I said, it doesn't even mater really in this discussion because Jesus (pbuh) definately knew the Torah being taught by God Himself so I don't seen what's the hang-up.

 

Its obvious Mohammed wasn’t exposed to the Torah in its entirety or the Gospel for that matter. You and the rest of his followers are stuck with it and are trying to clean up the mess by watering down translations or giving some ridiculous explanation.

 

Translations haven't been watered-down. Bayna yadaihi doesn't mean in between his hands in this context as evidenced by verse 5:48 and there are plenty of others like verse 3:3. You can check the Arabic if you want.

 

Where’s the original Torah you guys keep on talking about? Not a fragment, nothing can be found. You guys invent lies about us to suit yourselves. All the alleged fabricated manuscripts can be found but not the original. That’s very weak.

 

Where's the original Torah? Certainly not with the Christians who didn't preserve it in its original language, that's for sure. The funny thing is even if the original was hypothetically found, it oouldn't be confirmed to be the original anymore. The chain of transmission back to Moses (pbuh) and the Prophets (pbut) has been severed. You should understand this as a Catholic. The "Apostolic Succession" of the Torah has been cut off; it has none. The Torah always had a difficult history due to the israelites falling into idolatry and the kings killing the Prophets (pbut) and scholars. In Josiah's time, it was found in the Temple ruins, according to the Bible. Or if you want to go by the Dead Sea Scrolls that you have touted in this thread, the Torah had been sealed for centuries thus even David (pbuh) lay oblivious to what was in its contents. Listen, if a text's transmission has been suffered like that, such as in Josiah's time or for five centuries (shouldn't be a problem to you since you used the Dead Sea Scrolls as evidence), then its transmission has totally failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The "Apostolic Succession" of the Torah has been cut off; it has none. The Torah always had a difficult history due to the israelites falling into idolatry and the kings killing the Prophets (pbut) and scholars. In Josiah's time, it was found in the Temple ruins, according to the Bible. Or if you want to go by the Dead Sea Scrolls that you have touted in this thread, the Torah had been sealed for centuries thus even David (pbuh) lay oblivious to what was in its contents. Listen, if a text's transmission has been suffered like that, such as in Josiah's time or for five centuries (shouldn't be a problem to you since you used the Dead Sea Scrolls as evidence), then its transmission has totally failed.

So what your saying implies that man's corrupting power is greater that God's strength to preserve His word as He promised. It is written that thy word is established in the heavens forever. Forever would include today too. Was there a divine mandate that the Quran should have be written?

Doesn't Quran mean recitation?

Wasn't it designed to confirm the Scripture that came before?

Edited by aj4u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what your saying implies that man's corrupting power is greater that God's strength to preserve His word as He promised. It is written that thy word is established in the heavens forever. Forever would include today too.

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Lost_books_of_the_Old_Testament"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Lost_books_of_the_Old_Testament[/url]

 

By the way, that story about the Torah being found in Temple ruins by Josiah's men during the Temple's renovation is in the Bible.

 

Was there a divine mandate that the Quran should have be written?

Doesn't Quran mean recitation?

 

Yes, it has. The Prophet (pbuh) had over 50 scribes. When he received revelation, he would immediately ask for a scribe to come. He would recite it to the scribe and then the scribe would read it back to the Prophet (pbuh). The Qur'an calls itself the Book plenty of times and it is also a Recitation.

 

Wasn't it designed to confirm the Scripture that came before?

 

Yes. And the Qur'an confirms that the Torah and other previous Books were Revelations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. And the Qur'an confirms that the Torah and other previous Books were Revelations.

So, if it confirms the Torah and other books; we still have the first five Books of the Bible and they are the same today as they were during the time of Muhammad right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, if it confirms the Torah and other books; we still have the first five Books of the Bible and they are the same today as they were during the time of Muhammad right?

 

I don't know. Most likely not since the Masoretes used to actively destroy manuscripts of the Torah.

 

As a reminder, here is the link once again: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Lost_books_of_the_Old_Testament"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Lost_books_of_the_Old_Testament[/url]

 

How do you feel about those books? What is the Bible implying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a reminder, here is the link once again: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Lost_books_of_the_Old_Testament"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Lost_books_of_the_Old_Testament[/url]

 

How do you feel about those books? What is the Bible implying?

I thought the Torah was the first five books of the Old Testament. None of those lost books are referenced by the first five books. Perhaps I am mistaken here though, so I will await your correction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought the Torah was the first five books of the Old Testament. None of those lost books are referenced by the first five books. Perhaps I am mistaken here though, so I will await your correction.

 

The book of Numbers does reference one of the lost books mentioned in that link called the book of the Wars of the Lord. It is second in that list/link. Since aj4u here is claiming that when Muslims say the Torah/Injil/previous books are corrupt/lost this means we are implying that God doesn't have the strength to protect His Books, then he obviously has a problem when the Bible references lost books, sometimes even quoting these lost books. In a previous thread, he asked rhetorically something to this effect, "If God couldn't protect His Books before Muhammad, then how could He protect the Book given to Muhammad?". We might as well ask, "If God couldn't preserve the lost books mentioned in the OT, then how can we be sure He would protect the Book given to Jesus?".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where's the original Torah? Certainly not with the Christians who didn't preserve it in its original language, that's for sure. The funny thing is even if the original was hypothetically found, it oouldn't be confirmed to be the original anymore. The chain of transmission back to Moses (pbuh) and the Prophets (pbut) has been severed. You should understand this as a Catholic. The "Apostolic Succession" of the Torah has been cut off; it has none. The Torah always had a difficult history due to the israelites falling into idolatry and the kings killing the Prophets (pbut) and scholars. In Josiah's time, it was found in the Temple ruins, according to the Bible. Or if you want to go by the Dead Sea Scrolls that you have touted in this thread, the Torah had been sealed for centuries thus even David (pbuh) lay oblivious to what was in its contents. Listen, if a text's transmission has been suffered like that, such as in Josiah's time or for five centuries (shouldn't be a problem to you since you used the Dead Sea Scrolls as evidence), then its transmission has totally failed.

 

Man your obsessed with proof of transmission it’s not funny. You must consider the following before trying to convince everyone that is the strength of your argument.

 

1. As mentioned previously, writings attributed to Homer, Shakespeare, Julius Caesar do not have any records of transmission yet they are not challenged by any serious historian or scholar. You’re argument was they are not divine revelations. Same answer as before so what? We want truths on all levels.

 

2. Jesus confirmed the Torah before him. He did not say the Torah in His day was corrupt. You admit you don’t know where the original is and you have no proof there ever was one, only an empty claim.

Edited by CarlosTheJackal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how guys withdrew my thread because I violated the rule “giving the wrong meaning to a verse†yet you Muslims are allowed to give your own wrong interpretation of Bible quotes.

 

Gee that’s fair....

Edited by CarlosTheJackal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know what man? We could argue all day about the authenticity of the Torah., there’s one thing that will never change by the grace of God.

 

The messages of Jesus and the Old Testament in light of the New attracts my heart to God more than the Quran ever did. The Quran has beautiful expressions and so forth but it doesn’t draw my heart close to God (with all respect).

 

My apologies if I came on too harshly or if I’ve disrespected any Muslim in this forum...as you can see it’s a very sensitive subject for me.

 

God bless all Muslims that seek the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×