What language did Jesus speak?

Bowman wrote: For the very plain fact that the Koran points the reader back to the previous scriptures.

And what does that have to do with the language used? 

Bowman wrote: The language of the Biblical prophets is recorded in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

 

And that automatically means that the prophets spoke those languages?  That's pretty specious reasoning.  Do you realize that the Septuagint was compiled centuries after Moses and the other prophets?  What proof do you have, besides circular reasoning, that Moses (pbuh) spoke Greek?

Bowman wrote: The closest that the authors of the Koran could do was to Arabicize words from these languages � proving, once again, that Arabic was not the original revealed language.

  

You have yet to prove any of this.  All you done is provide your own personal opinions with no historical or archaeological evidence.  Until you do that, your claims are nothing but non-sequiturs.

Bowman wrote: No mention of Arabic in this ayah.

You missed the point.  The verse states that God (Allah) sent prophets to various nations and that these prophets spoke the language of the people.  How else could they communicate God's message? 

But with this statement, you have actually shown that you have never read the Quran.  The reason is that if you had, you would know that the Quran does indeed mention that it was revealed in Arabic in several places:

"A.L.R. These are the symbols (or Verses) of the perspicuous Book. We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an, in order that ye may learn wisdom" (12:1-2).

"Thus have We revealed it to be a judgment of authority in Arabic. Wert thou to follow their (vain) desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither protector nor defender against Allah" (13:37).

"We know indeed that they say, "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear" (16:103).

"Thus have We sent this down - an arabic Qur'an - and explained therein in detail some of the warnings, in order that they may fear Allah, or that it may cause their remembrance (of Him)" (20:113). 

So there you go.

Bowman wrote: Further, the language used is spelled-out in the very next ayah which tells us about Moses from the Holy Bible.  Most certainly not Arabic � but Hebrew!  Moses did not speak Arabic, brother.

You are running around in circles and making unsubstantiated claims.  Obviously, when verse 5 is read in the context of verse 4, all it is saying is that God sent Moses (pbuh), who obviously spoke the language of the Jews, to bring His message to them.

I never said that Moses spoke Arabic.  That was you. 

Bowman wrote: The best you can do is just admit that the authors of the Koran translated the Biblical languages into Arabic.   You really have no other choice in the matter.

     

If you say so. 

Actually, I think you are trying hard to convince yourself of your own unproven claims.

In order for the so-called "authors" of the Quran to "translate" the Biblical languages, they would obviously had to have known how to read and write those languages.  But, most of them were illiterate even of their own language (Arabic), so how likely is it that they would be learned in ancient Hebrew or Greek?  Not bloody likely!

In any case, what hard evidence do you have (besides your own opinions) that these phantom "authors" had "translated" the Bible?  Can you actually provide evidence for once?

Bowman wrote: This example is an open admission that previous revelation (i.e. the Holy Bible) contained this information...         خلق الله السموت والأرض بالحق إن في ذلك لءاية للمؤمنين   Khalaqa Allahu alssamawati waal-arda bialhaqqi inna fee thalika laayatan lilmu-mineena   29.44   �allah� he created the heavens and the earth through �The Truth�, truly in that previous Revelation to believers.

Yeah...perhaps you should actually correctly quote the ayat.  Here is what it actually says:

YUSUFALI: Allah created the heavens and the earth in true (proportions): verily in that is a Sign for those who believe.
PICKTHAL: Allah created the heavens and the earth with truth. Lo! therein is indeed a portent for believers.
SHAKIR: Allah created the heavens and the earth with truth; most surely there is a sign in this for the believers.

This is not even referring to the scriptures.  All the verse is saying is that Allah (swt) created the universe and that should be sign to believers of His Might and Majesty. 

Bowman wrote: وإذ قال عيسى ابن مريم يبني إسرءيل إني رسول الله إليكم مصدقا لما بين يدي من التورية ومبشرا برسول يأتي من بعدي اسمه أحمد فلما جاءهم بالبينت قالوا هذا سحر مبين

 

So now you speak Arabic?  The verse states:

"And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is evident sorcery!" (61:6).

So, where does it say that Jesus spoke Arabic?  "Ahmad" is another name for Muhammad (pbuh) and simply means "the praise worthy".  Why do you find it so difficult to understand that Jesus simply said this to his followers in Aramaic but that since the Quran was brought through an Arab prophet, Jesus' prophecy is therefore written in.........Arabic?

Bowman wrote: Jesus was familiar with many languages as evidenced by His repeated quoting from the Septuagint � which was written 100% in Greek.

Another circular argument.  Jesus wasn't the author of the NT, was he?  Just because the authors of the NT spoke Greek and quoted from the Septuagint does not mean that Jesus too spoke Greek.  You need to provide actual historical evidence.  As I and others have already pointed out, the language of the Palestinian Jews was predominately Aramaic.  Greek would have been the language of the Romans and other Gentile groups but not the Jews.    

Bowman wrote: Further, the sign above His cross was in three languages, including Greek.

According to the NT, which was not authored by Jesus (pbuh)...what's your point?  How does that imply that he spoke all three languages?  If the Romans had crucified a man who spoke 50 languages, do you think they would have put a sign above his cross in those 50 languages? 

Bowman wrote: Keep yourself in denial, brother�

  

Oh that's rich! 

What you call "denial", I call "reason".  I have repeatedly asked you for evidence for your claims, yet you provided not one iota of evidence.  And you accuse me of being in denial?  Come on...

By the way, you can stop calling me "brother".  I know we are brothers in humanity, but we certainly are not brothers in faith and since we are largely having discussions regarding our respective faiths (and not our humanity), it makes no sense to use words which have no meaning here.

 

islamispeace wrote: There simply is no proof that "Jesus was a polyglot". The historical evidence suggests that he would have spoken Aramaic only. Therefore, he was not a "polyglot".

�Aramaic only� you must be kidding! Why would the Apostle Matthew first write his Gospel account in Hebrew if everyone including Jesus spoke only Aramaic, simply because they knew and understood Hebrew. Later on it was written in Greek.

Historical evidence � Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Hebrew reaches as far back as Papias of Hierapolis, of the second century C.E.
Eusebius (of the third and fourth centuries C.E.) said that �the evangelist Matthew delivered his Gospel in the Hebrew tongue.� (Patrologia Graeca, Vol. XXII, col. 941)
In his Historia Ecclesiastica (Ecclesiastical History), the fourth-century historian Eusebius quotes Papias and Irenaeus of the second century and Origen of the third, all of whom ascribe this Gospel to Matthew and say that he wrote it in Hebrew. Are you saying this was Aramaic? Not according to documents mentioned by George Howard, professor of religion at the University of Georgia. He wrote: �This supposition was due primarily to the belief that Hebrew in the days of Jesus was no longer in use in Palestine but had been replaced by Aramaic. The subsequent discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, many of which are Hebrew compositions, as well as of other Hebrew documents from Palestine from the general time period of Jesus, now show Hebrew to have been alive and well in the first century.� It is obvious that Matthew wrote his Gospel to benefit Hebrew Christians but may also have translated it into common Greek.

Early in the third century, Origen made reference to Matthew�s account and, in discussing the four Gospels, is quoted by Eusebius as saying that the �first was written . . . according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, . . . in the Hebrew language.� (The Ecclesiastical History, VI, XXV, 3-6)

Jerome (of the fourth and fifth centuries C.E.) stated in his work De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III: �Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. . . . Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected.�

Papias provides external evidence that Matthew originally penned his Gospel in the Hebrew language. Papias says: �He wrote the sayings in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.�
Also, when Jesus came to Nazareth in Galilee and entered the synagogue there, he read from the prophecy of Isaiah, written in Hebrew. How could he and why would he if no one understood Hebrew? Besides, nothing is said about Jesus� translating this passage into Aramaic.�Luke 4:16-21.
Not only do they confirm the book of Matthew originally written in Hebrew and much later into Greek but they also confirm the Gospel of Jesus in the New Testament by providing proof of its early acceptance by the people and its authenticity as part of the Bible canon, how is that for historical evidence?

truthnowcome wrote: The Earliest Aramaic 0ur first glimpse of Aramaic comes from a small number of ancient royal inscriptions from almost three thousand years ago (900-700 B.C.E.). Dedications to the gods, international treaties, and memorial stelae reveal to us the history of the first small Aramean kingdoms, in the territories of modern Syria and Southeast Turkey, living under the shadow of the rising Assyrian empire.

History lesson - By the time of Assyrian King Sennacherib�s attack on Judah, Aramaic (ancient Syrian) was not understood by the majority of Jews, though some Judean officials understood it.
Here it is again and I quote . . .

kish wrote: 2 Kings 18:26, 28 At this E�li′a�kim the son of Hil�ki′ah and Sheb′nah and Jo′ah said to Rab′sha�keh: �Speak with your servants, please, in the Syrian language, for we can listen; and do not speak with us in the Jews� language (Hebrew) in the ears of the people that are on the wall.� And Rab′sha�keh continued to stand and call out in a loud voice in the Jews� language; and he went on to speak and say: �HEAR the word of the great king, the king of As�syr′i�a

The Bible is the only historical source giving reliable evidence of the origin of the language that we know as Hebrew. It was, of course, spoken by the Israelite descendants of �Abram the Hebrew� way before the dates truthnowcomes provides for Aramaic (900-700 B.C.E.)
Genesis 14:13 After that a man who had escaped came and told A′bram the Hebrew. He was then tabernacling among the big trees of Mam′re the Am′or�ite, the brother of Esh′col and brother of A′ner; and they were confederates of A′bram.

Did you read that!? it says the �Hebrew� A�bram descended from Noah�s son Shem, who we can trace back to Adam.
Genesis 11:1 Now all the earth continued to be of one language (Hebrew) and of one set of words.

It is what it is!

Peace,
Kish


Edited by Kish - 11 January 2012 at 10:16pm

Bowman wrote: This is simply more evidence that the Koran is not original. The authors of the Koran are forever referring the reader back to the Holy Bible. It is never the other way around.

So how does that prove that the Quran says that Jesus spoke Arabic (which was the thesis of this thread)?  You're going in circles here. 

Bowman wrote: None of the prophets spoke Arabic.  Zero.Even you cannot argue this.

This is irrelevant but you are wrong.  Ishmael (pbuh) is considered a prophet in Islam.  So are Hud and Salih (pbut).  They were all Arab prophets.  This brings me back to what I said before.  In Islam, God is not so narrow-minded as to send only Hebrew prophets.  Your understanding of God makes Him appear to be a discriminating God, astagfirAllah.  My understanding makes Him much more universal. 

Bowman wrote: The Biblical languages are the divinely inspired languages of the prophets.  Arabic was never a divinely inspired language of the prophets.

  

You still haven't answered my question.  How does the fact that the Bible was written in three languages automatically indicate that the prophets spoke those languages?  You brought up the Septuagint, yet you are now stuck in corner since you know that you cannot prove that Moses (pbuh) spoke Greek.  So I ask again: What proof do you have that Moses spoke Greek?  For that matter, what proof do you have that any of the Biblical prophets before John the Baptist and Jesus spoke Greek?

Bowman wrote: Here is one very simply example�       فِرْدَوْسِ = �firdawsi�   �firdawsi� definition:   A garden; so in the Greek language παραδεισου  (Rev 2:7); or a garden comprising everything that is in gardens; such is the proper signification; and so with the people of every language; and containing grapevines; or a garden in which are grapevines; or a place in which are grapevines; or an ample, beautiful garden; or a garden comprising grapevines and palm trees; or with the Arabs it signifies a valley abounding with herbage, like a garden; or a valley, or valleys, producing various sorts of plants or herbage.  It is Greek transferred to the Arabic language, i.e. Arabicised.  Width; amplitude.  Fertile land; the garden which contains everything that should be in a garden; orchard; fruitful valley; the best place of paradise.  Increase that is in wheat.   الْفِرْدَوْسِ Paradise; or a garden of trees, or walled garden, in Paradise; or in the highest of the stages of Paradise; or the middle and highest part of Paradise.   It comes from the root �fardasa�, which means to feel anyone, fashion, prostrate before ones� adversaries, throw down violently, spread on the ground.  He threw him down, prostrate, on the ground, in an evil, or abominable manner; and flung him upon the ground; smote with him the ground.   References: An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume six, p. 298 The Dictionary of the Holy Qur�an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, p. 421

And this proves what exactly?  You do realize that every language borrows to some extent from other languages?   Let's consider Hebrew, one of the so-called "revealed languages" as you claimed.  Hebrew is a Semitic language and according to David Steinberg:

"The Semitic family consists of a group of about 70 distinct language forms closely related to each other and more distantly related to the rest of the AfroAsiatic group which includes Ancient Egyptian, Berber and the Cushitic languages.  The Semitic languages, as far back as can be traced (2nd and, in some cases, 3rd millennium BCE), have occupied part of present day Iraq and all of present day Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel and the Arabian peninsula.  Since the Semitic languages are clearly closely related[3], it is a reasonable and long-held assumption that they are all derived from an original undifferentiated, though rather variable language called Proto-Semitic.  Although no records of Proto-Semitic exist, through the comparative study of the various languages it is possible to deduce, in outline, Proto-Semitic�s phonology, much of its vocabulary and its grammar including some of its probable syntax.  In general, it can be said that each Semitic language preserved some Proto-Semitic features whereas while diverging from Proto-Semitic in other features" [1].

Furthermore, E.Y. Kutscher noted regarding Hebrew:

"Hebrew words have undergone three kinds of transformation:

�        words which remained in Hebrew;

�        words which passed from foreign languages into Hebrew; and,

      �        words which passed from Hebrew into foreign languages" [2]. 

Kutchher also points out that the Hebrew borrowed words from Greek, Akkadian, Aramaic and Persian!  He observed:

"There are also genuine Aramaic words which have passed into Hebrew, sometimes in several forms.  The Hebrew makhatz (�crush�) is found in the Bible (Judges 5:26), while its ancient Aramaic form is מחק (makhak). [...] Aramaic was important in another respect: it served as a medium for the introduction into Hebrew of words from Akkadian, the language of the Babylonians and Assyrians, though it is true that many Akkadian terms found their way into Hebrew in a period preceding the influences of Aramaic.  Akkadian bequeathed not only words of its own, such as מחיר (mekhir � �price) but also words of Sumerian origin (the Sumerians were a non-Semitic (speaking) people living in what is today southern Iraq, before the coming of the Akkadians).  The most obvious of these is היכל (heikhal � �palace� or �temple�), which is e-gal (�a large house�) in Sumerian.  From the same language comes מלח  (malakh � �sailor�), though it may have entered Hebrew via Aramaic. [...] Persian rule in Eretz Israel (from the sixth to the fourth century BCE) led to the introduction of Iranian words into Biblical and Rabbinic[6] Hebrew, and Persian rule in Babylonia (until it conquest by the Arabs in the seventh century CE) brought them into the Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud, from which they entered Israeli Hebrew.  Among the most striking are: ורד (vered � �rose,� actually the same word etymologically!)  The name of the island, Rhodes, comes from the same root; the most ancient form is Vrodos, �island of roses�;  פרדס (pardess) is also from Persia, and since this is the term, also taken over by the Greek, by which the Septuagint[7] translates gan eden (�the Garden of Eden�), it has passed into various European languages as �paradise� in English, �Paradies� in German and so on.  The word kegon (�for example�) is based on the Persian gon (�color�)" [Ibid.]

So, once again you have proven nothing except that you are quick to jump to conclusions without considering the facts.

Bowman wrote: So�languages other than Arabic contained God�s true message.

Yes!  Why would that come as a shock to you?  It makes perfect sense to me because I believe in a universal God who wanted all mankind to know Him. 

Bowman wrote: As we already know, �alkitab� always refers to the Holy Bible.

Wrong!  Where are you getting your facts from? 

The Arabic word "al-Kitab" simply means "the Book".  It can refer to any book!  In this case, it is referring to the Quran which was revealed to Muhammad (pbuh).  In fact, verse 2 actually uses the word "qur-anan"!  Even the transliterated form you showed has that:

Bowman wrote: عربيا لعلكم تعقلون نحن نقص عليك أحسن القصص بما أوحينا إليك هذا القرءان وإن كنت من قبله لمن الغفلين   Alif-lam-ra tilka ayatu alkitabi almubeenu inna anzalnahu qur-anan AAarabiyyan laAAallakum taAAqiloona nahnu naqussu AAalayka ahsana alqasasi bima awhayna ilayka hatha alqur-ana wa-in kunta min qablihi lamina alghafileena

  

How then can you claim that it is referring to the Bible? 

Bowman wrote: Here, we have the bold proclamation that the letters �ALR� are actually verses from the Holy Bible.  Clear verses at that!

Wrong, as I showed!  So not only can you not read Arabic, your comprehension of the meaning of the Quran is hopelessly wrong.  You need to educate yourself, free of all misconceptions and false assumptions.

Bowman wrote: The context then wants to know if the reader can comprehend what has just occurred as this Biblical revelation has been transmitted as an Arabic collection (Koran).   According to the context, it shows that one individual narrated the Koran, a person who came before the Koran was put together, someone who was already very intimate with Biblical scripture.

What?!  This is just another non-sequitur and a wild theory which no scholar on earth, Muslim or non-Muslim, would accept.

You are simply making up assumptions as you go along using your own ignorance of the subject to do so.  As I have shown, the text makes it clear that it is referring to the Quran and not to the Bible.      

Bowman wrote: The Book is the Holy Bible.It was translated into an Arabic Koran.  Thus�how is that Muslims can claim anything against the Holy Bible when their book of faith is merely a second-hand paraphrased copy of the original�?

Because your personal opinions regarding the meaning are just that...personal opinions devoid of any facts. 

How can you childishly insist that the Bible was "translated" into Arabic when there is no similarity whatsoever between the Bible, which contains books like Genesis, Isaiah etc. and the Quran which does not contain those books?  Also, the narratives are not similar and often differ completely.

Bowman wrote: If you admit that Moses never spoke Arabic, then the text is once again referring the reader back to the Holy Bible.

Only in your mind, perhaps. 

By relating the story of Moses (pbuh), the Quran is reminding the disbelieving Jews of Medina that the message that Muhammad (pbuh) is the same as the one brought by Moses (pbuh) to the Jews, which is the Oneness of God and strict adherence to His Laws.

Bowman wrote: No one ever claimed that an ignorant Arab wrote the Koran � except for islam. Jews and Christians were the only literate ones in ancient Arabia.

More unproven claims.  I dare also say that I detect a little Judeo-Christian supremacist attitude in such a statement.  Even so, you have made just another blanket statement with no proof whatsoever. 

Bowman wrote: Clearly, early Arab Christians penned the text.

Well, if it's so "clear" then you should not be having so much difficulty proving it.  Yet, when pressed for proof, you disappoint. 

"Clearly", Christians had nothing to do with the Quran.  Your personal opinions do not matter.

Bowman wrote: No, brother. This scripture shows that the world was created through �The Truth��which is an epithet for only the Biblical Jesus Christ. How is it that your god required the help of Jesus in order to create?

 

Um, no.  The verse says that the universe was created with or in truth, not "through" the truth.  You clearly cannot read Arabic so you can stop pretending like you do.  Interjecting your own personal commentary into the text will not fool anyone. 

Furthemore, one of the 99 names of Allah ?(swt) is "Al-Haqq" which means "The Truth".  So even if your personal translation was correct (which it isn't), there would be nothing to indicate that it was referring to Jesus (pbuh).  In  fact, the Quran makes it abundantly clear that Jesus (pbuh) was a creation of Allah (swt).  This is just one more nail in the coffin for your personal theories about the Quran.  The Quran states that Jesus is nothing more than a man. 

Bowman wrote: 61.6 paraphrases Jesus� quote from Malachi, which pertains to John the Baptist preparing the way for Him, as recorded in the Biblical Gospels.

How do you know this?  Where does it indicate in that verse that it is a paraphrase "from Malachi"?  For once, can you actually provide evidence instead of silly assumptions? 

Even if it was a paraphrase from Malachi, how can it be referring to John the Baptist referring to Jesus when in the ayat, Jesus is the one referring to the coming messenger? 

You are going around in circles and not proving anything.

Bowman wrote: Jesus quotes from the Old Testament (alttawrati).

Wrong.  "At-Taurat" does not refer to the entire Old Testament but to the Torah specifically. 

The rest of the chain is pure nonsense so I will not waste time on it.  However, you then stated:

Bowman wrote: This �messenger�s� name (ismuhu) is worthy of praise (ahmadu).  Thus, just like the participle �Muhammad�, �ahmadu� refers to a man that is praised as deity.

You simply made this up.  As I stated, "Ahmad" means "the praise worthy".  The fact that the verse mentions that "Ahmad" will be a messenger refutes the claim that it "refers to a man that is praised as deity".  This is complete nonsense not to mention blasphemy.  A messenger is sent.  Therefore, he cannot be God Himself, who the One who does the sending. 

Bowman wrote: The implication of Jesus� statement in the Koran is profound, as He is proclaiming that He is the Lord that John the Baptist has prepared the way for.  Jesus is claiming to be God Almighty in this ayah!

Only in your mind!   

This verse proves conclusively that Jesus is:

1.  An apostle of Allah and hence a man.

2.  That he prophesied the coming of another apostle.

Your personal interpretations mean nothing and will not fool anyone.  

Bowman wrote: The sequence marker �fa� (signifying cause & effect), then connects what we were just told regarding Jesus� fulfillment of the scriptures, to His reception by some of the people � who though that He allied Himself to the devil.

No, it refers to the unbelievers rejecting Muhammad (pbuh).

Bowman wrote: The only problem is that this Koranic direct quote never occurred in Arabic�so the reader must refer back to the Holy Bible from where it was copied!

 

And where was it "copied" from?  You still haven't shown the alleged "Biblical" verse which was "copied".  You need to get your act together dude!

Bowman wrote: Simply more evidence that the Koran is not original nor divinely inspired.   The Koran is simply a translated re-hashment of the original.

Or its actually simply more evidence that you like to make things up and make wild claims but shy away from actually proving your wild claims when pressed to show the evidence. 

The Quran is the final revelation sent to correct the many lies and fabrications that have entered into your Bible.  Anyone who studies the Bible will see the many errors, contradictions and flat-out lies which litter this book.  Some of them are so obvious, one has to wonder if Jews and Christians are simply choosing to shut their eyes to the many embarrassing problems that can be found in their respective books. 

Edited by islamispeace - 14 January 2012 at 4:30pm

islamispeace wrote:   Originally posted by Bowman So�languages other than Arabic contained God�s true message.   Yes!  Why would that come as a shock to you?  It makes perfect sense to me because I believe in a universal God who wanted all mankind to know Him.

 

 

Then you should have no issue with the Greek NT.

 

 

 

islamispeace wrote:   Originally posted by Bowman As we already know, �alkitab� always refers to the Holy Bible.   Wrong!  Where are you getting your facts from?    The Arabic word "al-Kitab" simply means "the Book".  It can refer to any book!  In this case, it is referring to the Quran which was revealed to Muhammad (pbuh).  In fact, verse 2 actually uses the word "qur-anan"!  Even the transliterated form you showed has that:

 

 

 

We can gain a significant understanding of what the Koran really is by simply defining the term itself.

 

 

 

Let's review the premise...

 

 

القرءان = �alqur-ana�

 

�alqur-ana� definition:

 

Proper noun.  Originally meaning the Collection; �I collected together the thing� or �I read, or recited, the book or scripture�; and then conventionally applied to signify the Book of God that was revealed to Muhammad; it also signifies the Revelation, meaning that which is termed the mighty, or imitable which is read, or recited, and written in books or volumes.  A name for the Book of God, like the book of the Law revealed to Moses and the Gospel.  

 

قرءان is so called because it has collected the histories of the prophets, and commands and prohibitions, and promises and threats, and the verses or signs, and the chapters.

 

It comes from the root �qara�a�, which has the primary signification he collected together the thing; put it, or drew it, together; part to part, or portion to portion.  He read, or recited, the scripture chanting; he read or recited anything in any manner, without, or from, or in a book.

 

References:

An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume seven, pp. 2502 - 2504

The Dictionary of the Holy Qur�an, 1^st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, pp. 448 - 449

 

 

 

The classic Arabic definition is really quite revealing.

 

We have the following proclaimed regarding the original meaning applied to the Koran:

 

• It�s a collection
• A collection of books or scriptures

 

 

Whether this collection is read or recited, it still suggests that it emanates from a collected repository of things already written down.

 

It was only later that the meaning changed to signify the Book of God that was revealed to �Muhammad��and we already understand that the �Muhammad� spoken of in the Koran is  actually the Biblical Jesus Christ.

 

Thus, the Koran is Jesus� book!

 

This would account for the scores of suras that are titled after Him, and revolve around Him.

 

�Alqur-ana� also means Revelation � which is most appropriate, as >50% of the Koran is directly copied from the Book of Revelation.

 

The root �qara�a� takes us one step deeper with the primary definition �he collected together the thing; put it, or drew it, together; part to part, or portion to portion. 

 

This gives us great insight as to why the Koran was written in the fashion that it was � as the authors who pieced it together and performed the translation, actually did so piecemeal.  These pieces, taken in large part from the Book of Revelation, are actually the paraphrased Arabic counterparts to the Holy Bible, known as suras.