الرد على منصر غربي اراد اثبات ان القران اقتبس من الترجوم الثاني لاستير

آخـــر الـــمـــشـــاركــــات


مـواقـع شـقــيـقـة
شبكة الفرقان الإسلامية شبكة سبيل الإسلام شبكة كلمة سواء الدعوية منتديات حراس العقيدة
البشارة الإسلامية منتديات طريق الإيمان منتدى التوحيد مكتبة المهتدون
موقع الشيخ احمد ديدات تليفزيون الحقيقة شبكة برسوميات شبكة المسيح كلمة الله
غرفة الحوار الإسلامي المسيحي مكافح الشبهات شبكة الحقيقة الإسلامية موقع بشارة المسيح
شبكة البهائية فى الميزان شبكة الأحمدية فى الميزان مركز براهين شبكة ضد الإلحاد

يرجى عدم تناول موضوعات سياسية حتى لا تتعرض العضوية للحظر

 

       

         

 

    

 

 

    

 

الرد على منصر غربي اراد اثبات ان القران اقتبس من الترجوم الثاني لاستير

النتائج 1 إلى 3 من 3

الموضوع: الرد على منصر غربي اراد اثبات ان القران اقتبس من الترجوم الثاني لاستير

مشاهدة المواضيع

  1. #1
    تاريخ التسجيل
    Feb 2014
    المشاركات
    2,536
    آخر نشاط
    16-08-2022
    على الساعة
    03:54 AM

    افتراضي الرد على منصر غربي اراد اثبات ان القران اقتبس من الترجوم الثاني لاستير

    بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

    خرج احد المنصرين الغربيين في مقال ملاه و مشاه تدليسا و كذبا و خداعا - و ليت شعري اصف كمية التدليس فيه - ليحاول ان يرد على احد الاخوة في مقاله ذكر فيه استحالة اقتباس القران من الترجوم الثاني لاستير .

    الحقيقة قبل ان نبدا بالرد وجب علينا التنبيه ان انكارنا لوجود القصة في مصدر مكتوب قبل الاسلام لا يعني ابدا ان بعض اليهود لم يعلموا بتلك القصة و انها كانت متداولة شفهيا بينهم و هذا لا يضرنا بشيء حيث سبق ان قلنا ان التراث الشفهي اليهودي له جذوره التي تعود الى زمن الانبياء عليهم الصلاة و السلام و هذا اعتقاد اليهود ايضا في كثير من تلك القصص الهاجادية المذكورة في مصادر خارج التوراة كالمدراشات و التلمود فوجودها او عدم وجودها في مصادر يهودية ذات جذور شفهية قديمة قبل الاسلام ليست هي القضية و لا هو مشكل عندنا و لكننا نرد لنبين الكذب و عدم الامانة التي مارسها المنصر في لي الحقائق .

    نقرا من من موسوعة. Encyclopedia of Religion Goldenberg, Robert
    (( As a vast collection of various sayings of numerous rabbis (Jewish teachers) over a period of at least six centuries, the Talmud is basically a recording in writing of traditional oral law.
    From the orthodox Jewish viewpoint, the "oral law" recorded in the Talmud is second only to the "written law," the Sacred Scriptures; in theory it is considered almost on a par with the Scriptures, but in practice it is, in a certain sense, regarded as superior to it.
    Since the Jewish concept of oral law as found in the Talmud is so important, this article will first treat oral law before describing the origin and nature of the Talmud itself.
    …..
    In the last pre-Christian centuries, oral tradition was of special importance because the Pharisees were of the opinion that after the death of the last three of the Minor Prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the Holy Spirit, i.e., the gift of prophecy, had departed from Israel (Tos. Soṭtah 13.2; Yoma 9b; Soṭtah 48b; Sanh. 11a).
    According to the opinion of the rabbis, oral tradition was part of the heritage of prophecy as well. Thus, in the Mishnah (Avoth 1.1) it is stated: "Moses received the Law on Sinai and handed it on to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, the elders to the prophets, and the prophets handed it on to men of the great Sanhedrin." The concept of oral tradition enabled the rabbinical scholars to establish a continuous link between Moses and themselves. For them, even their own interpretations and additions to the Law had already been given orally to Moses on Sinai (Berakhot 5a). According to a haggadic (see haggadah) tradition, the only reason why the Mishnah had not been given to Moses in writing was so that it might not be translated into Greek and thus fall into the hands of the Gentiles. After the latter appropriated the written Law of Moses, God could recognize His chosen people only by their possession of the Mishnah, that is, the oral tradition incorporated in the Mishnah [Pesikta rabbati 14b, ed. M. Friedmann (Vienna 1880)]
    https://www.encyclopedia.com/philoso...ja5c4vCkEwiCro

    نقرا من تلمود بيراخوت 5a
    ((If he subdues his evil inclination, excellent; if not, he should remind himself of the day of death, whose silence is alluded to in the continuation of the verse: “And be still, Selah.” 3And Rabbi Levi bar Ḥama said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: God said to Moses, “Ascend to me on the mountain and be there, and I will give you the stone tablets and the Torah and the mitzva that I have written that you may teach them” (Exodus 24:12), meaning that God revealed to Moses not only the Written Torah, but all of Torah, as it would be transmitted through the generations.The “tablets” are the ten commandments that were written on the tablets of the Covenant, the “Torah” is the five books of Moses. The “mitzva” is the Mishna, which includes explanations for the mitzvot and how they are to be performed. “That I have written” refers to the Prophets and Writings, written with divine inspiration. “That you may teach them” refers to the Talmud, which explains the Mishna. These explanations are the foundation for the rulings of practical halakha. This verse teaches that all aspects of Torah were given to Moses from Sinai. 4The Gemara continues its treatment of the recitation of Shema upon one’s bed. Rabbi Yitzḥak said: Anyone who recites Shema on his bed, it is as if he holds a double-edged sword, guarding him from all evil, as it is stated: “High praises of God in their mouths, and a double-edged sword in their hands” (Psalms 149:6).
    https://www.sefaria.org/Berakhot.5a.2?lang=en

    نبدا بالرد
    اولا : تدليس المنصر بخلطه بين الترجوم الثاني لاستير المتاخر وبين ترجمة ارامية كانت متداولة في القرن الثاني بل سبقت الفترة المسيحية

    اقتباس
    The Targum of Esther (Second) (Targum Sheni) Translated by Bernard Crossfeld - Professor of Hebrew and Aramaic at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee, and founding member of the Association for Targumic Studies. Published in 1991 by T & T CLARK LTD, Edinburgh, in co-operation with The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota 56321 USA. ISBN 0-567-09495-8
    In his work Professor Crossfeld states in his introduction in regard to the origin of the Targum in its earliest identifiable form that:
    The Targum of Esther is mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud and cited in the Tractrate Sopherim (Xlll:6). Thus its existence is in at least Amoraic times. { i.e. 4th Century }
    In another place in his introduction Professor Crossfeld states in connection with the origin of the Targum that it:
    Must have begun before the Christian era.
    اقول :كذب المنصر و قام بتدليس وقح و دنيء اما مبني على جهل او على كذب
    فالمؤلف لم يكن يتكلم عن الترجمة الثاني لاستير و لا انه صرح ابدا ان الترجوم الثاني لاستير الف قبل الفترة المسيحية بل على العكس فانه في مؤلفه ادناه ذكر ان الترجوم الثاني الف في القرن الثامن
    The Two Targums of Esther
    Translated, with Apparatus and Notes
    by
    Bernard Grossfeld
    The Aramaic Bible
    • THE TARGUMS •
    PROJECT DIRECTOR
    Martin McNamara, M.S.C.
    EDITORS
    Kevin Cathcart • Michael Maher, M.S.C.
    Martin McNamara, M.S.C.
    editorial consultants
    Daniel J. Harrington, S.J. • Bernard Grossfeld
    The situation as to the time of their composition is less clear-cut for both Targums. Earlier scholars have dated Tg. Sheni anywhere from the early fourth century c.e. (Gelbhaus) to the eleventh century c.e. (Munk). Somewhere between these two dates is Zunz’s date of the seventh century c.e., also adopted by P. Churgin, who dates the composition of Tg. Sheni after the Tg. Rishon, the latter of which, he says, did not exist before the close of the Babylonian Talmud.
    In a similar vein, S. Posner (pp. 36, 50f.) concludes that Tg. I was written after the last redaction of the Babylonian Talmud. This would place its date to late sixth or early seventh century c.e. (ca. 700). (Strack, p. 71, dates the end of the Babylonian Talmud to the middle of the sixth century c.e.) By this approach, Posner also dates Tg. II (ibid., p. 48). He points to the frequent agreement of the Aggadic passages in that Targum with those in the Midrash Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer (seventeen according to our analysis, for which see Chart A, p. 13). In dating PRE to the eighth century after Zunz, Posner reasons that Tg. II must have been conceived after that time, as opposed to Tg. I, which he thinks predates the eighth century, since it served as a source for PRE. Accordingly, a date of ca. 800 c.e. would be the earliest one possible for Tg. II.
    https://biblia.com/api/plugins/embed...ebutton=false#

    و التدليس الذي قام به المنصر هو انه خلط بين تاريخ التاليف للترجوم الثاني و بين ترجمة ارامية اخرى هي اقدم حتى من الترجوم الاول لاستير ترجع للقرن الثالث و الرابع تم اقتباسها في التلمود الاورشليمي و لذا لا تمثل تلك الاقتباسات في التلمود الاورشليمي ابا من الترجومين سواءا الترجوم الاول او الثاني لاستير
    The Targums to Esther
    Alinda Damsma*
    Interestingly, mention is actually made of a Targum to Esther in early rabbinic sources,6 and we may infer from these references that an Aramaic version of Esther was already in circulation as early as the third or fourth centuries C.E. Over the next centuries, the Esther scroll seems to have given rise to several distinct Aramaic renderings. Rav Hai Gaon, the head of the academy of Pumbeditha (998–1038), attested the wide variety of Esther Targums in Babylonia when he was confronted with a seemingly corrupt version….
    This division may already hint at the existence of two distinct targumic traditions of the Esther scroll: Targum Rishon and Targum Sheni, names that stand for the ‘First Targum’ and the ‘Second Targum’, respectively. Targum Rishon is the targum with less aggadic additions than Targum Sheni. The wide variety of targumic traditions is further testified by the many citations of Targum Esther in rabbinic literature and medieval commentaries that neither represent Targum Rishon nor Targum Sheni. Therefore, it seems that Targum Esther never underwent a rigid process of standardization that resulted in one official, authoritative version……

    ونرى ان نفس المصدر اعلاه يتكلم عن تاريخ الترجوم الاول لاستير حيث يجعل تاريخ تاليفه من سنة 500 الى سنة 700 Rishon
    Targum Rishon is approximately dated between 500 and 700 C.E. and probably has a Palestinian provenance. This tradition alternates between faithful, word-for-word renderings of the Hebrew and complete ‘rewritings’ of the biblical tale.

    بينما يجعل تاريخ تاليف الترجوم الثاني لاستير من نهاية القرن السابع او بداية القرن الثامن
    Now we turn our attention to the second major targumic tradition of Esther, which is known as Targum Sheni. This work is tentatively dated to the end of the 7th or beginning of the 8th centuries C.E. and, like Targum Rishon, probably has a Palestinian provenance. However, the surviving manuscripts are dated much later, ranging from the late 12th to the 15th centuries, and are from Central Europe, Italy and Yemen.
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/42751220?read-now=1...
    https://biblia.com/api/plugins/embed...ebutton=false#

    ومع ذلك اقول ان افترضنا صحة كلام المنصر انها راجعة قبل الفترة المسيحية فهذا يدل ان لها تراث شفهي قديم بشهادة المنصر كما سنبين لاحقا

    و نؤكد ان الموسوعة اليهودية Jewish Encyclopedia ايضا تذكر ان تاريخ تاليف هذا الترجوم يرجع الى نهاية القرن الثامن و بداية التاسع
    The following post-Biblical writings have to be considered:
    (1) The first Targum. The Antwerp and Paris polyglots give a different and longer text than the London. The best edition is by De Lagarde (reprinted from the first Venice Bible) in "Hagiographa Chaldaice," Leipsic, 1873. The date of the first Targum is about 700 (see S. Posner, "Das Targum Rishon," Breslau, 1896).
    (2) Targum Sheni (the second; date about 800), containing material not germane to the Esther story. This may be characterized as a genuine and exuberant midrash. Edited by De Lagarde (in "Hagiographa Chaldaice," Berlin, 1873) and by P. Cassel ("Aus Literatur und Geschichte," Berlin and Leipsic, 1885, and "Das Buch Esther," Berlin, 1891, Ger. transl.)https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/a...WYIx7E#anchor3

    ثانيا تدليس المنصر على الموسوعة اليهودية
    دلس هنا المنصر على الموسوعة اليهودية encyclopedia judaica حيث ذكر ان كلام الموسوعة انما تتكلم عن المخطوطات !!

    اقتباس
    It is obvious that this says nothing about the origins of the Targum of Esther or the story of the story of the Queen of Sheba. In fact the dating evidence presented by the MSH writers is nearly exclusively to do with the most ancient manuscript of the Targum rather than the dating of the original, as we shall see.
    وهذا كذب و سذاجة وهنا نص كلام الموسوعة
    The date of the work cannot be determined exactly. The view of S. Gelbhaus (see bibl.) that it belongs to the amoraic period, in the fourth century, is disproved by the fact that it contains later material. P. Cassel (see bibl.) dates it in the sixth century and explains its mention of Edom to be the rule of Justinian (527–565). However, this view of Edom can also apply to other periods. A basis for dating was also found among the accusations made by Haman: "They come to the synagogue … and curse our king and our ministers." This statement is regarded as an allusion to the suspicion that Jews combine a curse with the prayer said in the synagogue for the welfare of the kingdom. Since this prayer is thought to have been composed in the eighth century it is conjectured that the Targum Sheni postdates that century. L. Munk (see bibl.) puts its date still later, in the 11th century, but he gives no proof. It seems that the most acceptable view is that which places its composition at the end of the seventh or the beginning of the eighth century, a view that is strengthened by its relationship to the Pirkei de-R. Eliezer

    اين تجدون كلمة مخطوطات Manuscripts ؟؟؟
    وطبعا المنصر احس بالمشكلة فقال ما نصه ان اليهود لهم تاريخ طويل في النقل الشفهي
    اقتباس
    It is well known that Jewish Rabbinic literature went through long stages of development beginning with the transmission of oral commentary which was added to until a point was reached when it was written down and then further developed to a point at which the final text was established.
    وهذا يلزمه ان كان يؤمن بان الترجوم الثاني يرجع تاريخ تاليفه لما قبل الفترة المسيحية فهذا يلزمه ان القصة لها اصل شفهي وهذا مما لا خلاف عليه عند المسلمين و هو ان القصة لها اصل ترجع اليه .
    كما هو الحال مع معتقد اليهود تجاه القصص هاجادية المنقولة في التلمود
    نقرا من الموسوعة اليهودية JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA:
    As early as the third century Joshua ben Levi interpreted Deut. ix. 10 to mean that the entire Law, including Miḳra, Mishnah, Talmud, and Haggadah, had been revealed to Moses on Sinai (Yer. Pes. 17a, line 59; Meg. 74d, 25), while in Gen. R. lxvi. 3 the blessings invoked in Gen. xxvii. 28 are explained as "Miḳra, Mishnah, Talmud, and Haggadah." The Palestinian haggadist Isaac divided these four branches into two groups: (1) the Miḳra and the Haggadah, dealing with subjects of general interest; and (2) the Mishnah and the Talmud, "which can not hold the attention of those who hear them" (Pesiḳ. 101b; see Bacher, "Ag. Pal. Amor." ii. 211)....
    The history of the origin of the Talmud is the same as that of the Mishnah—a tradition, transmitted orally for centuries
    , was finally cast into definite literary form, although from the moment in which the Talmud became the chief subject of study in the academies it had a double existence, and was accordingly, in its final stage, redacted in two different forms.
    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/14213-talmud

    ثالثا :الرد على تعليقه السخيف على الموسوعة اليهودية Jewish Encyclopedia

    استشهد المنصر بان هذا الكلام موجود في نسخة 1906 من الموسوعة و ليس نسخة 1925حيث قال التالي :
    اقتباس
    This statement in the 1905 edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia, if it indeed refers to the origins of the Targums rather than the oldest existing manuscripts, is not substantiated by the wider body of scholarly opinions, some of which will be presented later. It is also interesting to note that the claim presented above by the MSH writers does not appear in the 1925 edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia as evidence for dating the origins of the Targums for reasons which will become clear as we examine later scholarship which links the legend of the Queen of Sheba to comments by Josephus (38 AD to 100 AD) and even earlier Middle Eastern traditions and legends.
    وهذه كذبات صاروخية حيث ان جمهور النقاد كما راينا يميلون للقول بان الترجوم الثاني لاستير يرجع للقرن الثامن كما وضحنا و بينا و ثاني هذه الكذبات انه قال انكم سترون في موسوعة 1925 ان الامر عكس ما هو موضح في نسخة 1906 و هذا هراء لاننا:
    1. سبق ان اقتبسنا من موسوعة Encyclopedia Judaica وهي احدث من نسخة 1925 لموسعة Jewush Encyclopedia
    2. عندما ذهب الى نسخة 1925 ليبين قدم الترجوم الثاني لاستير قال التالي :
    اقتباس
    (( On the same subject the Jewish Encyclopedia 1925 edition by Funk & Wagnalls Company, Vol 12, p 63 states:
    In the Masseket Soferim (lc) a quotation from the Targum Sheni to Esther lll is introduced by the words 'Tirgem Tab Yosef' (Rabbi Joseph has translated)
    So the Targum, having been quoted in the Jerusalem Talmud, must have had existence at least before the time the Jerusalem Talmud was finally concluded.
    وهذا جهل فظيع حيث اراد ان يوهم القارئ بان التلمود الاورشليمي اقتبس مباشرة من الترجوم الثاني لاستير في نص
    Masseket Soferim 13 paragraph 6
    و هذا كذب لان الموسوعة اليهودية لا تقول ذلك و لكنها تقول ان هناك مقولة او نصا في الترجوم الثاني لاستير ذكر بداية مع الراباي يوسف و لم يقل ابدا ان التلمود ذكر اسم الترجوم الثاني او التلمود الاورشليمي اعتمد على الترجوم الثاني في نقل هذا النص بل هو نص ذكر بداية في التلمود الاورشليمي ثم انتقل الى الترجوم الثاني لاستير
    و هذا هو النص من التلمود الاورشليمي
    The phrase ’aḥar haddebarim … Hammedatha29 was translated by R. Joseph as follows:30 ‘After these things did king Ahasuerus promote Haman the son of Hammedatha the Aggagite, son of Seraḥ,31 son of Buza, son of Aflutos,32 son of Deosis,33 son of Padom,34 son of Ma‘adi,35 son of Be‘alkon,36 son of Antamarus,37 son of Ḥarum,38 son of Hadoram,39 son of Shazar,40 son of Nagar,41 son of Parshandatha,42 son of Wayezatha, son of ‘Amaleḳ,43 son of the concubine of Eliphaz the firstborn of Esau; he advanced him and set his seat above all his princes and his servants, because pride goeth before destruction’.44
    https://www.sefaria.org/Tractate_Sof...83_ed.&lang=bi

    فالحق ان الترجوم الثاني هو من اقتبس هذا النص من التلمود الاورشليمي و يدل على هذا ان موسوعة Encyclopedia Judaica فسرت هذا الامر حيث ذكرت ان الترجوم الثاني لاستير قام الاقتباس من عدد من المصادر الهاجادية كمدراش فرقي العازر و التلمود الاوشليمي و ترجوم اونوكليس و ترجوم يوناثان لكتب الانبياء
    نقرا من موسوعة Encyclopedia Judaica
    TARGUM SHENI (Heb. תַּרְגּוּם שֵׁנִי; lit. "Second Translation"), a collection of homilies in Aramaic on the Book of Esther (*Scroll of Esther). It is so extensive that despite its name it can hardly be regarded as a translation. Only about 75 of the verses have been translated literally, the remainder being an extensive midrashic paraphrase. The author makes free use of the aggadot, adapting them and embellishing them with his own additions. Hai Gaon writes: "Here in Babylon there are several Targums of Esther which differ from one another. One has many additions and Midrashim, and the other none" (L. Ginzberg (ed.), Ginzei Schechter (1929), 86). The former refers to the Targum Sheni, while the latter to the Targum Rishon. Rashi (to Deut. 3:4) and the Arukh of Asher b. Jehiel both quote it......
    The author of the Targum Sheni knew the Targum of Onkelos, the Targum of Jonathan to the prophets, and the aggadot of the Talmud and the Midrash, which he quotes. Targum Sheni has a number of points in common with the Midrash Panim Aḥerim, version 2 (Buber's ed. 1886), and with the Midrash Abba Guryon (ibid.). The author of the Targum Sheni was fond of long speeches and also integrated into the Targum extensive prayers with biblical verses and with examples from the past. A poetic tone is also noticeable in his words (cf. 3:2; 4:1, 17; 5:1; 6:11; 7:9; 8:18), and the work's poetic character is also testified to by the alphabetic acrostic (1:2; 5:1, 7, 10).
    https://www.encyclopedia.com/religio...s/targum-sheni

    رابعا : الرد على كلام المنصر بخصوص المصادر العربية " القديمة" و يوسيفيوس لقصة ملكة سبا .
    حاول المنصر التدليس حيث حاول ان نفي تاثر الترجوم الثاني بالقران حينما صرحت بذلك موسوعة Encyclopedia Judaica
    حيث قال :
    اقتباس
    What the MSH writers do not disclose is that these 'Arabic sources' (plural!) is not in reference to the Qur'an but to much earlier legends current in Arabia, Egypt and Ethiopia in pre-Islamic times. We shall examine, later, how historians, scholars and other sources present and comment on these 'Arabic sources' referred to in the above extract.
    وهل هناك مصادر عربية قبل الاسلام ترجع الى مصر و اثيوبيا !!!؟؟؟؟ هل سكن العرب هناك قبل الاسلام ؟؟؟ ما هذا الجهل المطبق !!

    ثم ياتي ليقول بعد ذلك
    اقتباس
    In a note on the legend of the Queen of Sheba in the translation to the Targum referred to above on page 117 we read:
    1d . 'The incident with the Queen of Sheba has its Biblical basis in 1 Kgs. 10:1-10 and 2 Chr. 9:1-12 In the Targum many parts of the story, such as the riddles, are expanded into detail, while others such as Benayahu's meeting with the queen, are newly created (* meaning created after the OT records) as is the incident involving the hair on the queen's legs and Solomon's comment about it. Post Biblical parallels for the story exist in the following
    a) Josephus (antiq viii, vi 5-6 pp 661-665), who refers to her as the queen of Egypt and Ethiopia. R Marcus in his note on this passage (Antiquitates Judaicae 1926 * ref abbreviated) theorizes that Josephus probably knew of some native Egyptian or Ethiopia tradition that connected the queen of the Arabian kingdom (since Sheba was a kingdom in southwestern Arabia according to Gen 10:28; Job 6:19 and Matt 12:42) with Egypt and Ethiopia as in Isa 43:3. He ascribes Josephus' opinion as originating with Herodotus or some Greek source, and BEING PART OF ETHIOPIC LITERATURE (*my emphasis), where Menelik, the first monarch of Abyssinia was considered to be the son of Solomon and one, Makkeda, is identified with the Queen of Sheba.
    وهذا تدليس فاشل حيث ان الاقتباس الذي نقله المنصر لا يتكلم عن اي من القصص التي نجدها في القران كالهدهد و نقل العرش و الصرح الممرد من قوارير
    بل ان صاحب الاقتباس و هو الدكتور بيرنارد جروسفيلد يذكر ان كثيرا من المعلومات الموجودة في الترجوم هي جديدة الاختراع (و ان كنا لا نوافقه بل نقول ان ما هو في القران موجود قبل ذلك وواقعة تاريخية و يمكن ان تكون معروفة كتراث شفهي يرجع الى فترة سليمان عليه الصلاة و السلام )
    و لكن الانكل من هذا تدليسين قام بهما المنصر :
    1. انه فسر عبارة الدكتور بيرنارد "جديدة الاختراع" " Newly Created" بمعنى انها بعد العهد القديم (* meaning created after the OT records) وهذا كذب و تدليس وقح و اضافة على النص ما لا تحتمله اذ يضع معيار ان كل ما هو خارج العهد القديم الذي عند اليهود و النصارى اليوم يعتبر مخترع و جديد و هذا ما لا يوافق عليه اليهود كما بينا في الاعلى و كذلك يرده تلك الاقتباسات من كتب الابوكريفا و التراث الشفهي اليهودي في العهد الجديد ( كما سنرى لا حقا ) بل و يكذب التحقيق التاريخي الذي يذكر ان بعض القصص الواردة في اعمال يهودية خارج العهد القديم ترجع الى عصور قديمة كما هو الحال في بعض القصص المذكورة في مدراش التكوين رباه
    نقرا ما يقوله الدكتور Teppi Kato في بحثه Ancient Chronography on Abraham’s Departure from Haran:
    Qumran, Josephus, Rabbinic Literature, and Jerome الصفحة 3:
    ((The interpretation of Genesis Rabbah on the chronological discrepancy in Abraham’s departure is later accepted by Rashi as a standard interpretation on this topic. 5 The formation of Genesis Rabbah as an edition took place in the talmudic period or later, but some traditions contained in this collection are considered to date back to more ancient times. Genesis Rabbah (39.7) solves the chronological problem in the story of Abraham, by maintaining the original timeline of Abraham but moving the “death” of Terah forward ))

    2.عدد بعد ذلك الدكتور بيرنارد مصادر التفاصيل التي لا وجود لها في العهد القديم في قصة ملك سبا و ذكر يوسيفيوس ثم ذكر ان كثيرا من القصة الخاصة بملكة سبا عند يوسيفوس قد يكون تاثر بقصة اثيوبية او عربية موجودة حينها و لكن المشكلة ان هذا المنصر لم يكلف نفسه ان يبحث عند يوسيفيوس و ماذا قال يوسيفيوس
    و الحقيقة ان يوسيفيوس لم يذكر ايا من تلك التفاصيل الموجودة في القران (مع ان ذكر يوسيفيوس لها يعتبر وثيقة تاكيد حيث تدل على ان القصة كانت معروفة لدى عوام اليهود حينها )
    هذا هو نص كلام يوسيفيوس من كتابه
    Jewish antiques book 8 chapter 6 paragraph 5 and 6
    5. There was then a woman queen of Egypt and Ethiopia; she was inquisitive into philosophy, and one that on other accounts also was to be admired. When this queen heard of the virtue and prudence of Solomon, she had a great mind to see him; and the reports that went every day abroad induced her to come to him, she being desirous to be satisfied by her own experience, and not by a bare hearing; (for reports thus heard are likely enough to comply with a false opinion, while they wholly depend on the credit of the relators;) so she resolved to come to him, and that especially in order to have a trial of his wisdom, while she proposed questions of very great difficulty, and entreated that he would solve their hidden meaning. Accordingly she came to Jerusalem with great splendor and rich furniture; for she brought with her camels laden with gold, with several sorts of sweet spices, and with precious stones. Now, upon the king's kind reception of her, he both showed a great desire to please her, and easily comprehending in his mind the meaning of the curious questions she propounded to him, he resolved them sooner than any body could have expected. So she was amazed at the wisdom of Solomon, and discovered that it was more excellent upon trial than what she had heard by report beforehand; and especially she was surprised at the fineness and largeness of his royal palace, and not less so at the good order of the apartments, for she observed that the king had therein shown great wisdom; but she was beyond measure astonished at the house which was called the Forest of Lebanon, as also at the magnificence of his daily table, and the circumstances of its preparation and ministration, with the apparel of his servants that waited, and the skillful and decent management of their attendance: nor was she less affected with those daily sacrifices which were offered to God, and the careful management which the priests and Levites used about them. When she saw this
    done every day, she was in the greatest admiration imaginable, insomuch that she was not able to contain the surprise she was in, but openly confessed how wonderfully she was affected; for she proceeded to discourse with the king, and thereby owned that she was overcome with admiration at the things before related; and said, "All things indeed, O king, that came to our knowledge by report, came with uncertainty as to our belief of them; but as to those good things that to thee appertain, both such as thou thyself possessest, I mean wisdom and prudence, and the happiness thou hast from thy kingdom, certainly the same that came to us was no falsity; it was not only a true report, but it related thy happiness after a much lower manner than I now see it to be before my eyes. For as for the report, it only attempted to persuade our hearing, but did not so make known the dignity of the things themselves as does the sight of them, and being present among them. I indeed, who did not believe what was reported, by reason of the multitude and grandeur of the things I inquired about, do see them to be much more numerous than they were reported to be. Accordingly I esteem the Hebrew people, as well as thy servants and friends, to be happy, who enjoy thy presence and hear thy wisdom every day continually. One would therefore bless God, who hath so loved this country, and those that inhabit therein, as to make thee king over them."
    6. Now when the queen had thus demonstrated in words how deeply the king had affected her, her disposition was known by certain presents, for she gave him twenty talents of gold, and an immense quantity of spices and precious stones. (They say also that we possess the root of that balsam which our country still bears by this woman's gift.) Solomon also repaid her with many good things, and principally by bestowing upon her what she chose of her own inclination, for there was nothing that she desired which he denied her; and as he was very generous and liberal in his own temper, so did he show the greatness of his soul in bestowing on her what she herself desired of him. So when this queen of Ethiopia had obtained what we have already given an account of, and had again communicated to the king what she brought with her, she returned to her own kingdom
    http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.e...Arehko#page488

    فلا علاقة للترجوم الثاني بما ذكره يوسفيوس و الدكتور بيرنارد لم يذكر اي صلة بينهما كما حاول هذا المدلس ايهام القراء .

    ملاحظة جانبية : لم يثبت هناك اي دليل من كتاب او سنة صحيحة ان بلقيس ملكة سبا كان لديها شعر في ساقيها و ان امها كانت من الجن و ان الجن صنعوا النورة لها بل هي من الاسرائيليات
    نقرا من تفسير بن كثير رحمه الله لسورة النمل :
    (( وقد روى الإمام أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة في هذا أثرا غريبا عن ابن عباس ، قال : حدثنا الحسين بن علي ، عن زائدة ، حدثني عطاء بن السائب ، حدثنا مجاهد ، ونحن في الأزد - قال : حدثنا ابن عباس قال : كان سليمان ، عليه السلام ، يجلس على سريره ، ثم توضع كراسي حوله ، فيجلس عليها الإنس ، ثم يجلس الجن ، ثم الشياطين ، ثم تأتي الريح فترفعهم ، ثم تظلهم الطير ، ثم يغدون قدر ما يشتهي الراكب أن ينزل شهرا ورواحها شهرا ، قال : فبينما هو ذات يوم في مسير له ،..... قال : فجعلوا صرحا ممردا من قوارير ، فيه السمك . قال : فقيل لها : ادخلي الصرح فلما رأته حسبته لجة ، وكشفت عن ساقيها ، فإذا هي شعراء . فقال سليمان : هذا قبيح ، ما يذهبه ؟ فقالوا : تذهبه المواسي . فقال : أثر الموسى قبيح ! قال : فجعلت الشياطين النورة . قال : فهو أول من جعلت له النورة .
    ثم قال أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة : ما أحسنه من حديث .
    قلت : بل هو منكر غريب جدا ، ولعله من أوهام عطاء بن السائب على ابن عباس ، والله أعلم . والأقرب في مثل هذه السياقات أنها متلقاة عن أهل الكتاب ، مما يوجد في صحفهم ، كروايات كعب ووهب - سامحهما الله تعالى - فيما نقلاه إلى هذه الأمة من أخبار بني إسرائيل ، من الأوابد والغرائب والعجائب ، مما كان وما لم يكن ، ومما حرف وبدل ونسخ . وقد أغنانا الله ، سبحانه ، عن ذلك بما هو أصح منه وأنفع وأوضح وأبلغ ، ولله الحمد والمنة .))

    نقرا من المدخل الى سنن البيهقي باب الحديث الذي يروى خلافه عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم :
    (( 30 - أَخْبَرَنَا أَبُو بَكْرِ بْنُ الْحَارِثِ، أبنا أَبُو مُحَمَّدِ بْنُ حَيَّانَ، ثنا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْحَسَنِ، ثنا عَبْدُ الْجَبَّارِ، ثنا سَفَرٌ، عَنْ عَبْدِ الْكَرِيمِ، عَنْ مُجَاهِدٍ قَالَ: «لَيْسَ أَحَدٌ إِلَّا يُؤْخَذُ مِنْ قَوْلِهِ وَيُتْرَكُ مِنْ قَوْلِهِ إِلَّا النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ»31 - وَرُوِّينَا مَعْنَاهُ عَنْ عَامِرٍ الشَّعْبِيِّ ))

    ثم يقول المنصر :
    اقتباس
    ((However this extract which the MSH writers present is edited and selective. This is what the 1996 edition, Vol 13, p 1424, also says:
    .... a most elaborate account, however given in the Targum Sheni to Esther which can be supplemented by details found in the Alphabet of Ben Sira and JOSEPHUS (Ant 8:165 - 73) - A Hoopoe { Hudhud } informed Solomon that the kingdom of Sheba was the only kingdom on earth not subject to him and its queen was a sun worshipper.
    In later Arabic literature under the influence of her name given by Josephus as Nikaulis the name of the Queen of Sheba (Saba) is given as Bilquis.
    It seems that the MSH writers are not too keen on their readers knowing about the parallels in Josephus or the claimed influence his writings may have had on Jewish tradition which appears to have found its way into the Qur'an.
    اقول : قد نقلنا كلام يوسيفيوس و تبين كذب كلام المنصر حيث لا نجد ان قصة الهدهد و الصرح من القوارير و غيرها لها وجود في كلام يوسفيوس و الحقيقة ان المنصر حاول التدليس على الموسوعة اليهودية مرة اخرى حيث ان الموسوعة ذكرت ان القصة الموجودة في الترجوم الثاني لاستير تؤيدها تلك التفاصيل الموجودة عند يوسيفيوس و Alphabet ben Sira ثم ذكر القصة المتعلقة بترجوم استير الثاني فالموسوعة لم تذكر ابدا ان تلك القصة في الترجوم الثاني موجودة في يوسفيوس انما قالت انه ربما تكون التفاصيل الموجودة عند يوسفيوس شكلت المادة الاساسية حتى يبني عليها كات الترجوم الثاني قصته
    فهل هذا يؤيد وجود القصة اصلا قبل القرن السابع ؟؟!!! ما هذا الهراء و التدليس !!!
    اما عن Alphabet ben Sira فهو مؤلف متاخر عن الاسلام بلا شك
    نقرا من موسوعة Encyclopedia Judaica
    BEN SIRA, ALPHABET OF , a narrative, satirical work, written probably in the geonic period in the East. The Alphabet of Ben Sira is one of the earliest, most complicated, and most sophisticated Hebrew stories written in the Middle Ages. Four versions of the work have been printed: (a) the usual text found in most editions and manuscripts, edited with notes by Steinschneider and published in Berlin in 1858; (b) a fuller version of part of the work that was discovered by Steinschneider in a manuscript in Leiden (parts of it were added as notes to his edition); (c) a totally different version printed by Loewinger and Friedman from a Kaufmann manuscript in Budapest, published in Vienna in 1926; and (d) part of a fourth version discovered by Habermann in a manuscript in Jerusalem and published in 1958......
    It is impossible to fix even the approximate date of this work. It has been suggested that a quotation from the work is included in the tenth-century Arukh, but this now seems very doubtful. The Alphabet, however, seems to have been written in the East after the rise of Islam.
    Maimonides and other authorities attacked the work vigorously, but it was generally accepted as part of the midrashic tradition, to the extent that a circle of Ashkenazi ḥasidic mystics in the 12th and 13th centuries attributed some of their mystical compilations to works and theories received from Joseph b. Uzziel, who inherited the wisdom of Ben Sira and Jeremiah
    https://www.encyclopedia.com/religio..._l_jBqYzgs8atM

    يقول بعد ذلك انه سيترك الكلام عن الادعاءات الاثيوبية بخصوص نسب ملوكهم الذي يتصل ببان سليمان عليه الصلاة و السلام من ملكة سبا
    اقتباس
    For the sake of space I leave out an examination of the ancient Ethiopic claims concerning the origins of their royal line of kings which have their origin in the legends of the Queen of Sheba - however I believe we have sufficient information already presented to draw some conclusions concerning the claims of the MSH writers.
    اقول : طبعا لانها ادعاءات متاخرة و لا قيمة لها و لم يتطرق اليها حتى القران

    يتبع
    التعديل الأخير تم بواسطة محمد سني 1989 ; 28-05-2022 الساعة 07:36 PM
    نقره لتكبير أو تصغير الصورة ونقرتين لعرض الصورة في صفحة مستقلة بحجمها الطبيعي

الرد على منصر غربي اراد اثبات ان القران اقتبس من الترجوم الثاني لاستير

معلومات الموضوع

الأعضاء الذين يشاهدون هذا الموضوع

الذين يشاهدون الموضوع الآن: 1 (0 من الأعضاء و 1 زائر)

المواضيع المتشابهه

  1. مشاركات: 5
    آخر مشاركة: 20-07-2021, 05:18 PM
  2. الرد على شبهة ان القران اقتبس دعوى الوهية فرعون لنفسه من المدراشات
    بواسطة محمد سني 1989 في المنتدى شبهات حول القران الكريم
    مشاركات: 4
    آخر مشاركة: 02-07-2020, 10:36 PM
  3. مهزلة : منصر فاشل يحاول اثبات الوهية المسيح من رؤيا يوحنا 1
    بواسطة محمد سني 1989 في المنتدى حقائق حول الكتاب المقدس
    مشاركات: 0
    آخر مشاركة: 25-03-2020, 08:36 PM
  4. الرد على أن القران الكريم اقتبس من شعر امرئ القيس
    بواسطة password في المنتدى الرد على الأباطيل
    مشاركات: 17
    آخر مشاركة: 21-05-2012, 08:52 AM
  5. الترجوم الثاني لاستير
    بواسطة hussienm1975 في المنتدى الرد على الأباطيل
    مشاركات: 3
    آخر مشاركة: 31-03-2009, 12:34 AM

الكلمات الدلالية لهذا الموضوع

المفضلات

المفضلات

ضوابط المشاركة

  • لا تستطيع إضافة مواضيع جديدة
  • لا تستطيع الرد على المواضيع
  • لا تستطيع إرفاق ملفات
  • لا تستطيع تعديل مشاركاتك
  •  

الرد على منصر غربي اراد اثبات ان القران اقتبس من الترجوم الثاني لاستير

الرد على منصر غربي اراد اثبات ان القران اقتبس من الترجوم الثاني لاستير