Semlang Udon

@MercifulMessage From where did you get that “the Dead Sea scrolls, which are still only released in parts while the majority is under lock and key…”? Please tell me you’re not relying on obsolete info and repeating long discredited conspiracy theories. Anyways, can you provide sources for this?

It’s still not the Torah. Plus the Dead Sea scrolls, which are still only released in parts while the majority is under lock and key, are 1500 years away from the actual giving of the Torah to Moses in which we have no chain connecting it. It’s unreliable - plus, the Quran spoke about certsin verses of the Torah and Injeel (not bible) that were in Madinah at that time. That torah and Injeel that was quoted from, we know thru Hadith tradition, is not referring to nor found in any Bible we have. Therefore, there was something else in Madinah that God Almighty was referring to that Today is lost and corrupted.

@luisdizon You forgot the wāw! Aramaicists will not be happy :-)

מְנֵ֥א מְנֵ֖א תְּקֵ֥ל וּפַרְסִֽין׃ Mene, mene, tekel, Pharsin

@luisdizon Congratulations!

Achievement unlocked: I now have a published contribution in a Brill book. In case anyone is wondering, my contributions are the sectionson Chiragh Ali and James Monro.

@JordanAcademia0 @doofgeek4011 If that is Davis’ main point, then I think he should have avoided the problematic statements as I pointed out above.

Well, his main point is that the servant shouldn't be seen as a future Messianic figure (more or less Jesus), as the wording is in past-tense. OP is claiming that it is talking about a future Messiah, that is not true. That isn't scholarship. Nevertheless, the New Testament actually identifies the servant in Isaiah 40-49 as Jesus either way.

@JordanAcademia0 @doofgeek4011 That still doesn’t explain Davis’ way of framing it though.

But little to no scholars view Isaiah 53 as referring to a future Messianic servant. From what I've seen such as Blenkinsopp, the servant is Deutero-Isaiah written by his followers after his death. The citation "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus" is apologetics, not scholarship. It's the equivalent to a Jew citing Rashi as an authority on Isaiah 53 instead.

@doofgeek4011 @JordanAcademia0 Also, scholars have warned about making a too simplistic distinction between a collective and individual for quite some time now, a point I also note in the above paper (p. 30).

@doofgeek4011 @JordanAcademia0 Within, the songs, a division whose validity is disputed, there is to my knowledge, no consensus concerning the identity(ies) of the servant. I talk about this in the second half of the paper. academia.edu/112016941/Thou…

@SapirAnalytics @JamesBejon FWIW the NJPS (=RJPS) does render it that way. Apart from the verbal sequentiality, another reason might be that the formulation could be perceived as less elegant, viz. that the "expanse" itself separates waters below and above the expanse.

1) That is how sequential verbs in Biblical Hebrew work 2) it is clear from comparison to other days in Genesis 1 that there is a "God says" and "God does" components and consistently the agency is in God in the "God does" part, including the two other cases of הבדל. The only exception is grass growing probably because there is little external action in growth

Genesis 1.6 seems clear: God says that there should be an expanse (raqia) in the midst of the waters, and that *it* (the raqia) should separate the waters. But I can’t find any translations of 1.7 that read ‘God made the raqia, and *it* separated the waters…’. Any reason?

Hello everyone! r/AcademicQuran is happy to announce a NEW AMA ("Ask Me Anything") event coming on March 14th, with none other than Daniel Beck ( @DanielABeck9 ) himself. Start preparing your questions for him!

@GabrielSaidR @YouTube Thank you for a thoughtful and interesting discussion. I’m not sure though Arabic حب and Hebrew אהבה are cognates. I think the cognate would be the root חבב in Hebrew, no?

Is there a pun with Hebrew in the Arabic Qur'an? youtu.be/MyW-7bqhQ7c?si… via @YouTube

@Deenresponds @TheMuslimTheist @AlmahdiWesam @PierreBalinski Do you have a source, I can take a look at, for the claim that in recent scholarship “There’s almost unanimous agreement” that the tripartite baptismal formula “the didache and within matthew are later redactions”?

There’s almost unanimous agreement the “trinity” (i use this loosely) baptismal formula in the didache and within matthew are later redactions due to the internal evidence of no one baptising this way in the NT they always baptise in the name of jesus. Also even if granted the 3 named formula that still doesn’t contradict islam yet as he would be doing the word concept fallacy to assume this means the co equal co eternal god head. he has a heavy burden to prove there’s a specific idea of the Father, Son and Holy spirit existing in the didaches mileu where mentioning each authority would be incompatible with islam. We already have Scholars in the past like Ibn taymiya who reconciled it in an islamic fashion showing there’s nothing inherent about the text that contradicts islam at most he could prove that we would have to be agnostic on what it really means.

Yo this guy really is about as knowledgeable as the common Christian troll. What the hell is this simplistic garbage. If this is the amount of research he does into early Christian texts before speaking, then his works should be collectively discarded. Does he have no shame?

@Alfredovich65 @futz80 @InspiringPhilos @AbuZakariyaMPOM @MrAdnanRashid @ZakirHussainMDI @hypatiusbrontes For Bultmann see here x.com/SemlangU/statu…

@Alfredovich65 @futz80 @InspiringPhilos @AbuZakariyaMPOM @MrAdnanRashid @ZakirHussainMDI @hypatiusbrontes I actually pointed this out in a 4 thread series, back in 2022. I. e., long time before “Abraham Fulfilled” was published in 2024, as another Muslim apologist, IMHO misused these sources. For Windisch see here. x.com/SemlangU/statu…

1/35 More plagiarism, misuse of sources and flawed argumentation in “Abraham Fulfilled: A Biblical Study of God’s Plan for Ishmael and Arabia”? (Sapience Publishing 2024). By @AbuZakariyaMPOM, @MrAdnanRashid and @ZakirHussainMDI. Read on and judge for yourself.

@futz80 @InspiringPhilos @AbuZakariyaMPOM @MrAdnanRashid @ZakirHussainMDI @IbnAdam_000 wished to clarify his position and so I append this clarification on his behalf. No assumption of bad faith is entertained by @IbnAdam_000, but he simply wished to make his position clear.

@futz80 @InspiringPhilos @AbuZakariyaMPOM @MrAdnanRashid @ZakirHussainMDI A small correction. In tweet 2 the correct reference to “Western Saudi Arabia” should have been p. 87 and not on p. 86. I apologize.

@IjazTheTrini @Ahraz__ I’ll give you a hint :-) It’s a source that Mr. Hussain IMHO sadly misused on a DawahWise stream. See pp. 14-15 (fn 49 for the reference). academia.edu/112016941/Thou…

@Ahraz__ Book?

Whenever you see a page marked up like this you know exactly whose screenshot it is

@futz80 @InspiringPhilos @AbuZakariyaMPOM @MrAdnanRashid @ZakirHussainMDI As an academic you might also be interested in my more technical paper, published even before the book came out. academia.edu/112016941/Thou…

@SemlangU @InspiringPhilos @AbuZakariyaMPOM @MrAdnanRashid @ZakirHussainMDI Thanks.

@futz80 @InspiringPhilos @AbuZakariyaMPOM @MrAdnanRashid @ZakirHussainMDI And here academia.edu/125643575/The_…

@futz80 @InspiringPhilos @AbuZakariyaMPOM @MrAdnanRashid @ZakirHussainMDI Yes, that’s the one. I tagged the publisher and CEO and founder of the institute Hamza Tzortzis more than a year ago, but so far no response. You can see more examples of wording in the book that seems close to what is found in other sources here academia.edu/144889147/Did_…