Archbishop Voscan Erewanci (1614-1674) put Prophet's Ahmad name in Isaiah 42:10

[Idris]

Thank you brother one more time. I will ask them insha'Allah ! May Allah bless you for your help.

As a last resort, send that screenshot to them:
http://www.proz.com/translator-directory/?sp=directory&to=eng&from=arm&mode=view&specific=123

Standard rates are:
http://www.translatebyhumans.com/armenian-to-english-translation

Salam akhi, what screenshot you mean ?

[Idris]

As'salamu Alaikum dear brother Idris to all brothers and sisters,

Keep up the great research and work, dear brother Idris.  Your work is amazing!  Insha'Allah it will be read by many.  I will also link it to the website soon, Insha'Allah, along with other brothers' works as well that are in my que.

May Allah Almighty greatly bless you, akhi.  Ameen.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

Walikum Asalaam

Just so you know, we first need to verify those claims!
The text is ancient and i don't seriously think that any average armenian would be able to translate it.

It is true we must to confirm that. I make some research upon Septuagint (analyzing the verse in greek script) and I'am almost sure that Ahmad was mentioned for the second time in Isaiah 42:10 ! The language of those Bibles is in classic Armenian, so I think people who spoke modern armenian are able to read it...but rather I'm afraid that due to the low quality of scanned pages can spoil it i.e. do not see clearly the shapes of individual letters, but you can say that it is possible to identify them

[submit]

It's true that the surrounding letters are the same but please note the distance between kaph and bet comparing the third and fourth photo from the top. The distances are not the same. You can clearly see...in the third photo there is more spaces between kaph and the next word (i.e. bo'behiri...) than that one from the fourth photo. Besides, why the author wrote under the fourth photo "Based on that, 'etmak' was originally 'ahmad' in the previous copy [of the scroll]" implying that this is a photo from a distinct scroll and he used it as the last blow! I can not believe that he edited the image just like that

-basically he is giving examples from other verses with letter L (lamed) below it in 1st and 2nd photo for comparison, to strengthen his theory that the original word was Ahmad.
-in 3rd photo he underline the kaph and letter lamed below it.
-The bo' behiri that you mentioned was cut and paste closer in 4th photo (edited one).
-the 5th photo is simply the 4th photo except that he reduces the gap so that the letter dalet that he edited will be close to the lamed below it.

he theorizes that much more older copy may have look like photo 5. but Qumran scribes when writing it try to figure what was the word and rather wrote it as atmk.

[Tahmeed]

[Idris]

It's true that the surrounding letters are the same but please note the distance between kaph and bet comparing the third and fourth photo from the top. The distances are not the same. You can clearly see...in the third photo there is more spaces between kaph and the next word (i.e. bo'behiri...) than that one from the fourth photo. Besides, why the author wrote under the fourth photo "Based on that, 'etmak' was originally 'ahmad' in the previous copy [of the scroll]" implying that this is a photo from a distinct scroll and he used it as the last blow! I can not believe that he edited the image just like that

-basically he is giving examples from other verses with letter L (lamed) below it in 1st and 2nd photo for comparison, to strengthen his theory that the original word was Ahmad.
-in 3rd photo he underline the kaph and letter lamed below it.
-The bo' behiri that you mentioned was cut and paste closer in 4th photo (edited one).
-the 5th photo is simply the 4th photo except that he reduces the gap so that the letter dalet that he edited will be close to the lamed below it.

he theorizes that much more older copy may have look like photo 5. but Qumran scribes when writing it try to figure what was the word and rather wrote it as atmk.

You may have right brother submit! So it seems actualy we do not posses a direct proof! The author however successfully proved - by presenting many examples of misreading and scribal mistakes comparing hebrew words in other places - that the passage of Isaiah 42:1 originally must have mentioned Ahmad !

[Idris]

***censured*** ATTENTION!!! Copyright reservation for the materials published in this post.

[Idris]

***censured*** ATTENTION!!! Copyright reservation for the materials published in this post.

[Tahmeed]

Yeah I am sure this is the page, bro. The verse numbers are exactly as in the modern bible.



Zoomed.....


The fact that I am going to tell you know- I found out 4 days earlier. But I thought you would lose hope so I didn't say.

The name Ahmad doesn't exist, I am truly truly sorry for that. 



? ?? ? ?? ?? ??
and his name in the ends of the earth (From Google T. = https://translate.google.com/?hl=en#hy/en/%D6%87%20%D5%A1%D5%B6%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%B6%20%D5%B6%D5%B8%D6%80%D5%A1%20%D5%9B%D5%AB%20%D5%AE%D5%A1%D5%A3%D5%A1%D6%81%20%D5%A5%D6%80%D5%AF%D6%80%D5%AB )

But I couldn't figure out what is written in the line about authority, not in the eastern one, not in Voscan's one. So we can still prove his existence if we can prove it means 'the mark of authority in his back'.  This verse simply do not exist in modern bible, so something is fishy, cuz the rest is kept exactly the same but this verse- vanish! So pls dear bro don't lose hope.

Now why did I hid that fact for 4 days and why did I exposed that now? Because you just said something u didn't earlier!

1666 and 1733 edition are a copy of an ancient Armenian translation of the Bible (5th century A.D) which was based on Septuagint.

How can you be so sure they are the exact copy? I will post two images shortly and prove that even 1666 and 1733 versions differ a little! So I say the name 'Ahmad' is obviously in the 5th century bible, which u just mentioned! Perhaps Voscan changed it. Because the later verses speak of islands (Arabia is a peninsula), village of Kedar, deserts, making war with kafirs- everything just perfectly fits in! It is obviously Prophet Ahmad.

Keep up, don't give up- we can still do it!
Tahmeed

[Tahmeed]

Now, see Isaiah 42:10 in the two editions.

1666


1733


The difference is silly, but it shows how can things change in 100 years, so they obviously changed since 5th century!

[Sam663]

Salam akhi, what screenshot you mean ?

Screenshot of those verses.

The Bible was written in 1666, almost 350 years have elapsed since then. That is more than enough for the changes to take place in vowel systems and alphabets. Even if the name "Ahmed" is mentioned in Voscan Bible, why would a site like holytrinity would inlcude it in their version of the Bible?

You need an expert.

[Tahmeed]

[Idris]

***censured*** ATTENTION!!! Copyright reservation for the materials published in this post.

[Tahmeed]

[QuranSearchCom]

As'salamu Alaikum dear brothers,

May Allah Almighty bless you for your good research.  Keep up the great work!  I apologize for not being able to interact with you lately.  I am currently buried alive with work .  Once things clear up a little bit, then I will resume my Islamic activities and responsibilities on this website, Insha'Allah.  I will translate the texts that you requested, Insha'Allah.

Take care of yourselves,
Osama Abdallah

[Idris]

***censured*** ATTENTION!!! Copyright reservation for the materials published in this post.