Announcement

**The Old Man** · Feb 3, 2002, 06:22 PM

x. The Bible done in my mother tongue TRANSLATED from the Masoretic and Septuagint

Because it's in my mother tongue and being a word-perfect type of Bible

42. NIV New International Version

Because it's non-denominational and being a word-perfect type of Bible

I will sometimes use some of the others, including some on above list.

**Ibrahim** · Feb 3, 2002, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by The Old Man:
x. The Bible done in my mother tongue TRANSLATED from the Masoretic and Septuagint

Because it's in my mother tongue and being a word-perfect type of Bible

Ibrahim says: Thanks old man, what do you call this book? And when was it published and by whom?

42. NIV New International Version Because it's non-denominational and being a word-perfect type of Bible
I will sometimes use some of the others, including some on above list.

Ibrahim says: well, according to the bible soceity, you need to use at least 4 bibles to get some accuracy.

regards
Ibrahim

**The Old Man** · Feb 4, 2002, 12:14 PM

Ibrahim:

It's called "Die Bybel" translated in 1933 and revised in 1953.

Which bible society said that? It's nonsense to say it as you might be using 4 completely incorrect translations/versions. one good one is enough and then obviously it sometimes is nice comparing with other translations/versions.

My wife for example likes "The Amplified Bible", "The Living Bible", above home language Bible, a home language version of "The Living Bible" called "Die Lewende Bybel", and the KJV. Definitely does not make her a better Bible exponent than myself.

**Ibrahim** · Feb 4, 2002, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by The Old Man:
It's called "Die Bybel" translated in 1933 and revised in 1953.

Ibrahim says: interesting! and this is according to you the only bible that is TRANSLATED from the Masoretic and Septuagint and being a word-perfect type of Bible ?

I am also wondering why a word perfect Bible need to be revised in 1953?

Since this is not in English, what is its closest equivalent in English or is this translated by the translators own understanding direct from Hebrew and Greek texts for OT and what did they use for NT?

Which bible society said that?

Ibrahim says This are published works ( In 1989 in the News Paper) by the Philippine Bible society which prints most of the bibles for all denominations in the Philippines according to their requests. In other words If you like certain verses to disappear they will get it done and certain verse to read in a certain manner they will do that too

It's nonsense to say it as you might be using 4 completely incorrect translations/versions. one good one is enough and then obviously it sometimes is nice comparing with other translations/versions.

Ibrahim says: You are not using your THINKING CAP old man!, you see translations are worded according to the translators understanding and choice of words and in order to get a firm understanding it is better to get a second opinion, this applies even in the medical field.

In religion , If one is only able to work on translations and cannot understand the original language, then it is advisable to have at least four translators works at your disposal . ( this is even applicable for the Qur�an ) to come to a better understanding of what is being conveyed by God for each verse, since each translator may use a different choice of words to come to what is being conveyed in the original .

That is why we can find many translations of the Qur�an or Bible and that is not a problem, the problem concerning the Bible has to do with versions

I myself use 14 Bibles which includes Greek and Hebrew texts to compare certain verses that are being mistranslated or misconceived by Christians.

BTW what in your opinion is the one Good one? NIV?

Regards
Ibrahim

Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.

**blackzero** · Feb 4, 2002, 06:28 PM

i would assume that translation is updated as the language evolves..

i dare not try to understand the version of bible which was used 400 years ago..

same way.. any translation into Urdu from last century would spin my head around...

The difference is that when we talk about Quran.. we say it is a translation of Quran - not english or urdu version of Quran - unlike when Bible is talked about.

Muslims make a point of not saying this version or that version.. as translations get updated when language evolves.. but as we have the original print.. we have the opportunity to do so.. for Bible.. no original blueprint exist... so they do their best..

**Qaasim** · Feb 4, 2002, 06:29 PM

Can I also ask one question to our christian fellows?
if yes, then
Can any one tell me, which one denomination of christians is right?

**OldLahori** · Feb 4, 2002, 07:18 PM

black zero: Till you brought it up, I had never even thought of this: where is the original print? I would like to go see it sometime. Is it in SaudiArabia, Iraq? Where is it housed?

**Ibrahim** · Feb 4, 2002, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by OldLahori:
where is the original print? I would like to go see it sometime. Is it in audiArabia, Iraq? Where is it housed?

Ibrahim says: Greetings of Peace to one and to all

Here download it "free" that has been the ONLY orginal for the Qur'an no matter what time frame .

http://www.islamasoft.co.uk/products...oblequran.html

**TOMASSO** · Feb 4, 2002, 09:28 PM

First there were Jews that followed Christ,
then there were Christians, then two Popes;
one in Rome, one in Constantinople. Before
that, there were heresies coming from the
city of Alexandria, Egypt. There was a dis-
pute between Avignon, France and Rome as to
leadership. Then came Martin Luther and the
schism of protestant sects. From there it
really eggshelled. The question of which is
"right" is a debate that would elicit the
defense of each denomination by each member.
Then some one like Ibrahim would come along
and throw his insight into the mix. He seems
capable of arguing correctness into Islam, no
easy feat, that. It seems each religion is
complex enough for their respective devotees
to sort through. Not all are capable of it.

**OldLahori** · Feb 4, 2002, 09:53 PM

Ibrahim: Thank you for that URL. What I was asking for was reference to the oldest copy of Quran Shrief that is in existence. I thought that was what Blackzero was referring to. What is the oldest copy in existence? I am sure you would know. Any references? I am sure somebody must have done carbon dating to obtain an exact date. I really would like to go see the first copy wherever it is.

[This message has been edited by OldLahori (edited February 04, 2002).]

**Ibrahim** · Feb 5, 2002, 03:45 AM

QUOTE]Originally posted by OldLahori: What I was asking for was reference to the oldest copy of Quran Shrief that is in existence. [/quote]

Ibrahim says; Greetings of peace to one and all

You must be kidding or you simply do not understand what the Qur�an is for. You see revelations were compiled into book form to be used and as you know when people use them they tend to wear out over a period of time and new ones are copied and they too will have the same fate and new one are copied etc etc.. As such when I asked you to download one that is the current copy from the original which came from caliph Uthman�s time

What Muslims will normally do is they will retire used ones to mosques, who will eventually destroy them or tuck them in some corner and one such mosque that had a hoard ( which NO one knew about since it was piled up to rot in between the roof and ceiling ) of such over used Qur�ans and lose parchments from ancient times , which have been written over or used again and again , was recently discovered in Yemen which has now been documented by United Nations and is actually sold on CD by UN. This discovery led the Christian missionaries to claim that the Qur�an had been altered at the beginning of year 2000 to start their crusade on Islam in the millennium . (try to check out Atlantic magazine on this attack on islam in Jan 2000)

As for Museum pieces which were kept by kings or dignitaries, which finally ended up in museums you can try Topkapi museum in Istanbul which keeps a copy from Caliph Uthman's time for show. Unfortunately Qur�an�s are not meant for show or to be kept like the Jews or Sikhs do, with their holy scriptures.

I believe all your questions are answered, I will try and get URL ( if possible) for you dating last find in Yemen, some of which was dated by them to Caliph Uthman�s time.

Most of all , you are forgetting the fact that the Qur'an is also transfered by MEMORY. which is the first and formost method for revealed texts.

Regards
Ibrahim

**Ibrahim** · Feb 5, 2002, 05:26 AM

Ibrahim says: Greetings of Peace to one and all

For those intrested in viewing the oldest copies of Qur'an

Click here for the photo: http://www.quran.org.uk/ieb_1st_quran.htm
http://www.quran.org.uk/ieb_quran_topkapi.htm
http://www.quran.org.uk/ieb_quran_manuscripts.htm

The whole copy of Quranic manuscripts unearthed at Sanaa' Yemen are available at UNESCO website http://www.unesco.org/webworld/mdm/v.../present1.html

See Also, Quran still available, carbon tested and all, written during the times of the Prophet, as early as 7th century. AD http://www.ee.bilkent.edu.tr/~history/Ext/Koran.html

And now, answering all the needs for the history of Holy Quran:
http://www.quran.org.uk/ieb_quran_history.htm http://www.quran.org.uk/index.html#menu

For Free Qur'an and Qur'an for the Blind
http://www.geocities.com/zcdeen/islam005.htm

**The Old Man** · Feb 5, 2002, 12:19 PM

OldLahori: What I was asking for was reference to the oldest copy of Quran Shrief that is in existence.

You mean to say the original is not available but only copies? The Qu'ran at use today can't be checked with the original original book?

Talk about hypocrisy by some when discussing the originality of old Hebrew and Greek texts used for translating the Bible from....

[This message has been edited by The Old Man (edited February 05, 2002).]

**The Old Man** · Feb 5, 2002, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by TOMASSO:
The question of which is "right" is a debate that would elicit the defense of each denomination by each member.

Correct, TOMASSO. Actually ALL denominations are in some way wrong, as the Body of Christ does not belong to any specific denomination.

ANY Christian denomination that claims to be the ONLY correct way to Jesus Christ, is definitely wrong. Normally the reason they give for being the only correct way, is the error in their doctrine.

Announcement

Question for Christians

Question for Christians

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment