Do those of you who studied Hebrew, Greek &/or Arabic found out that the english versions of your holy books?

Question

lost something thru translaion? If so, does that change your opinion of it?

Answer 1

I have found that whomever translated from the original language to English, the translation was as the person saw fit. As my roommate pointed out last year, the bible is much more explicit that one realizes.

Answer 2

Not really. I wouldn't say "lost" something....but there are changes in language that happen naturally with time. It makes historical context all the more important. Just understanding Koine Greek is not enough. I think that our modern English translations are sufficient, but it does help to be able to go back and see the original manuscripts for "clarification" - but that, in itself, does not make them any "better".

Answer 3

people who do not know Hebrew usually do not realize how much of the bible is poetry.

poetry is one thing that is impossible to translate.

also some of the feeling and passion is lost with the translation. Most the the time the translation is accurate but the authors message is dulled somewhat.

Answer 4

Of course, translations of the Qur'an are not the Qur'an, they are mere translations. These words have been chosen by man not by God Almighty.

However, unlike Christianity and Judaism, Islam still has its Holy Book from God intact, the original. So, we do nt have the same problems as the others, that they haev to keep revising their holy books to meet new standards, the Qur'an stays teh same regardless of who translate it.

Answer 5

there are various Bibles seen to be the works of a God! What all of them have in straightforward is there introduction by men of countless cobbled mutually writings by men for the objective of having means & administration over the susceptible inhabitants! regrettably even the supposedly smart fall prey to this additionally, subsequently that's undesirable effect on our worldwide on the instant nonetheless!

Answer 6

No, we have over 2700 ancient manuscripts that have been dissected and cross referenced so many times, that we know what the original meaning was. The Bible is the most studied book ever written.

Answer 7

yes. english versions of the bible are not nearly as useful or inspiring as the hebrew.

but Hamlet in Hebrew is just terrible.

Answer 8

No, Jesus filled all prophecies when He was here in the flesh. God's Written Word has stood the test of time & is part of history...............In Christ <><

Answer 9

any translation of the Qur'an immediately ceases to be the literal word of Allah, and hence cannot be equated with the Qur'an in its original Arabic form.

he message of the Qur'an is couched in various literary structures, which are widely considered to be the most perfect example of the Arabic language. It has a rhythm of peculiar beauty and a cadence that charms the ear (Guillaume 1990). By general consensus of Muslim rhetoricians, the Qur'anic idiom is considered to be sublime. God (Allah) challenged the Arabs to produce a literary work of a similar caliber as the Qur'an. The Arabs found it unapproachable despite their well-known eloquence and literary power.

Translation of the Qur'an has been traditionally rejected by Muslim scholars.
The Qur'an has been translated into many languages; there are several translations in many languages, including English. These translations are considered to be as glosses for personal use only, and have no weight in serious religious discussions. Translation is an extremely difficult endeavor, because each translator must consult his/her opinion and aesthetic sense in trying to replicate shades of meaning in another language. This inevitably changes the original text. Thus, translation of the Qur'an has been traditionally rejected by Muslim scholars. The Muslim scholar Abu Hanifah, for example, sanctioned the reading of al-faatiha (the opening chapter) in its translated form in any language in prayers. And the consensus has since been that the Qur'an is to be read during prayers in its Arabic original by Arabs and non-Arabs alike. Raof (2001)

The trend has been to accept exegetical translation--based on commentary and explanation of the Qur'anic discourse and pointing out its significance. Since no translation is entirely 'acceptable' or entirely 'adequate' (Toury 1980:49), the change in word order and the subsequent semantic change in the target language have led some Muslim scholars, such as Muhammad Shakir (1926:163), of the Al-azhar mosque in Egypt, to oppose the translation of the Qur'an into foreign languages. He states that in the matter of the lawfulness of translating the Holy Quran into any foreign language, we can have as little confidence in the balance of meaning being preserved, as we can in regard to changing the order and arrangement of words within the sacred text itself.

According to Raof (2001), Qur'anic discourse is a linguistic scenery characterized by a rainbow of syntactic, semantic, rhetorical, phonetic and cultural features that are distinct from other types of Arabic prose. Through the combination of these features, a unique linguistic texture unfolds to the reader, dominated by harmony on the syntactic, semantic and prosodic levels. In fact, interfertilization among these elements could not be better achieved. Most of these features are alien to the linguistic norms of other languages. The frequent use of shift in tense or person, for instance, is employed in Qur'anic discourse to achieve what Longacre (1983:28) calls 'heightened vividness'. This may be obtained by a shift in the nominal/verbal balance, a tense shift, a shift from third person to second person and then back to first person; a shift from plural to singular within a given person, or by using rhetorical questions. The following example illustrates a unique shift in person (full and partial citations from the Qur'an are represented by the chapter and verse numbers (10:16)

ومنْ يؤمنْ بالله ويعمل صالحا يدخله اللهُ جنّات تجري من تحتها الأنهار خالدين فيها قد أحسن الله لهم رزقا

God will show anyone who believes in Him (God) and acts honorably into gardens through which rivers flow, to live there forever, what a handsome provision God has granted him (Irving 1985:333). Here we have the third person pronoun in the words يؤْمن( he believes), يعمل ( he acts), يدخلْه ( He, God, shows to the way), third person pronoun plural in the words خالدين (they live there forever), and then the third person singular in the word له (for him). Shifting personal pronouns and verbs is a linguistic mechanism quite common in the Qur'anic discourse. Its goal is to achieve heightened vividness, a sublime style and mental preparedness, by alerting the reader to the message conveyed by the statement


Lexical and morphological challenges

One language can be semantically more specific than another. This linguistic specificity can be achieved either through the lexemes or the morphological system of the language. English, for example, is semantically more specific than Arabic in the description of military actions like 'shelling, bombardment' Arabic, however, does not distinguish between the two acts unless more words i.e., through paraphrasing, are added. Thus, shelling is gasf bil-midfa'iyya ( قصف با لمدفعية (and 'bombardment' is qasf biT-tTa'iraat قصف بالطائرات) . (Conversely, Arabic can be more specific than English, for example, in the morphological sense that cannot be accounted for without some sort of paraphrasing. Verb patterns in Arabic are frameworks for distinguishing semantic subtleties. Consider the following verse:

Nazzala'alayka-l-kittaba bil-Haqqi muSaddiqan limma bayna yadayhi wa'anzala t-tawraata wal-injiiil (3:3)

نزّل عليك الكتاب بالحق مصدّقا لما بين يديه وأنزل الثوراه والاتجيل

It is He who sent down to you (step by step) in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it, and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)

The word 'nazzala' ( نزّل) creates a semantic challenge as it signifies the piecemeal revelation of the Quran that lasted 23 years. This verb form denotes repetitiveness in the action. By contrast, the verb form 'anzala'(انزل ) means 'to reveal in one go and at once. Thus, a distinction is made between the two kinds of revelation; the piecemeal revelation of the Qur'an and the singular revelation of the Torah and the Gospel. To appreciate the nuances of Qur'anic discourse on the lexical level, consider the following aaya in which the semantic subtleties are vividly expressed through two lexical items which may look similar to the reader but whose componential features are drastically distinct

huwal-ladhi ja'la sh-shamsa Diyaa'an wal-qamara nurran (10:5)

هو الذي جعل الشمس ضياءً والقمر نوراً

It is He who made the sun to be shining glory and the moon to be a light (Ali, 983:484)

Although the words 'Diyaa'an' (ضياءً ) and 'Nuuran' (نوراً ) seem to be synonymous, the two signify distinct semantic properties in this Qura'nic statements. Diyya'an is not captured by the translation 'shining glory' because its meaning--the generation of heat--is not echoed; hence the requirement for an informative periphrastic translation. The word 'Nuran' however, is appropriately rendered as "light," perhaps by coincidence, signifying, no generation of heat but light only. The word 'Diyya'an' also suggests that the sun radiates with its own light, but "Nuran" suggests that the moonlight is a reflection of the "sunlight"

Some lexemes cannot even be paraphrased. For example, the lexical item duuni, in the following aaya, co-occurs with false gods compared to God, and the closest approximation given by all Qur'an translators for this item are 'beside,' besides, instead.

Qual'ud'uul-ladhiina za'amtum min duuni l-laahi (34:22)

قل ادعو الذين زعمتم من دون الله

Say: Appeal to those whom you claim to instead of God (Irving 1985:238)

That interpretation falls short of the semantic complexity of the word 'dunni'

The word Duuni signifies dignity, might and monotheism, meaning there is nothing' above' God or equal to him. There should be explanatory notes to convey these aspects of meaning.

Some َQur'anic items are pregnant with specific emotive overtones, which in turn create lexical voids in translation. This lexical compression of Qur'anic expressions can only be tackled through componential analysis: the translator's nightmare can be alleviated by the semantic decomposition of the words. The Qur'anic lexical and morphological core senses are impenetrable. Thus, a periphrastic translation approach is advisable. Consider the following terms:

Tayammum: (تيمّم ) (4:43) to strike your hands on the earth and pass the palm of each hand on the back of the other and then blow off the dust from them and pass-rub-them on your face. It is a kind of ablution that is adopted when someone is spiritually unclean and there is no water.

Mawquudah: (موقوذة ) (5:3) any animal that receives a violent blow, is left to die, and then eaten without being slaughtered according to Islamic law

Kazhiim ( كظيم ) (12:48) to fall into silent melancholy; to be filled with grief but not to complain to any one except to your lord.

According to Catford (1965), when the lexical substitutes are unavailable in the target language, equivalence is not achieved at all. In light of Catford's remark about translation in general, there is no doubt that these Qur'anic terms are untranslatable.


Referential Versatility of Qur'anic lexemes

Qur'anic translators tend to restrict the sense of the lexical words as they transfer them from Arabic into English. They tend to transfer Qur'anic terms according to their referent in the real world rather than according to the core sense they possess within the language system. For example, the word Al-falaq الفلق (113:1), a generic term referring to the process of splitting, has been restricted in most English versions of the Qur'an to one particular type of 'splitting' , namely, 'daybreak' or 'dawn.' Although the notion of 'splitting' is still encapsulated in the English equivalent 'daybreak' and in the idiom 'the crack of dawn,' the generic sense of the word al-falaq that applies to all entities that crack, by necessity including seeds and fruits, is lost. The same process of semantic reduction is evident in the word ghasigin ) غاسق 113:3) where only a specific referent is selected from a list of potential referents that include tears, rain, floods, as well as 'sun' and 'moon' and all other entities that descend by necessity. To suggest that this dynamic word denotes only 'night,' as it appears in English versions of the Qur'an, is as inaccurate as equating 'fall' with common collocational patterns such as 'night' or 'rain.'

Likewise, the word 'istawa' استوى (20: 5) fell short of its generic sense. It does not refer in particular to 'going up or ascending to his throne' for استوى has no sense of going up in the way that the term 'ascend' does, and God is higher than his throne. This collocation 'istawa ala al-arsh (استوى على العرش ) is the perfect image of power and authority over everything.

Another example of lexical challenge is the attribute 'As-samad الصّمد (102:2). Most translators use descriptive words such as 'eternal' or 'almighty' for this attribute. The Qu'anic expression signifies the notion of aS-samadiya ( سورة الاخلاص ) which designates the total perfection of might, power, wisdom, knowledge, and honor. This generic sense is lost by attributing only one particular sense to the term "the eternal' to God. The term : الصمد suggests the need of others for him, while the reverse is not true (Kathir 1993). Qur'anic translators have expressed their frustration over rendering this expression. Ali (1983), for example, admits that it is difficult to translate it by one word and Asad acknowledges (1980) that his rendering gives no more than an approximate meaning for the word.

Part of the difficulty in translating the Qu'an is the presence of huge number of difficult and archaic words with a wide range of contextual meanings. To illustrate the problem this versatility poses to translators, consider the words Al-waswas (الوسواس ) and yuwaswis(يوسوس ), derived from the root verb waswasa ) وسوس ) and translated respectively as 'the whisper' and 'whispereth' in Pickhall's and most other English versions of the Qur'an 'from the evil of the sneaking whisperer who whispereth in the hearts of mankind من شر الوسواس الخنّاس الّذي يوسوس في صدور النّاس (124-4-5). Considering the root وسوس by the monolingual dictionary , المحيط the definition of the root verb وسوس is as follows:

1. of the devil-to talk evil words to someone
2. of the self (نفس ) to talk evil to oneself
3. of a man-to talk repetitively in secret

The noun al-waswas and the gerund waswasa are also listed under the same entry:

1. al-waswas-name of the devil
2. waswasa
1. whispering sounds of hunting dogs
2. the clank of jewelry or light metal
3. Every evil thought that comes to the heart

As the above definition reveals, the verb وسوس is etymologically a mimetic term associated with the clank of jewelry or light metal. Like tick-tack and choo-choo in English. The duplicate syllabic structure of waswasa comes close to being a direct transcription of the repetitive voice of its common referent 'Satan.' Such repetitiveness adds semantic intensification to the basic iconicity of the word. The synonyms offered in more bilingual dictionaries to the word waswasa include to whisper, to suggest, and to promote evil thoughts. Although waswas is a closely associated with Satan and the inner self (nafs) wherein the devil is assumed to reside, the meaning of the verb is usually extended to include any secretive incitement to evil or sin. Given the Arabic definition above, the English verb 'to whisper' lacks three essential components that are integral to the Arabic verb, namely (+ satan + negative + sound)

It is important to realize that the process of waswasa is restricted to Satan in the Arabic language system, and cannot have a positive sense. Even when the grammatical subjects are human agents, they are meant to be assuming the role of the devil (Shaytan). Thus, the Arabic word "waswasa' and the noun Shaytan collocate like the pairs dog-bark or cat-purrs. The English verb "whisper' on the other hand has a positive sense component derived from its association with the rustle of leaves, wind, and soft agreeable sounds (Leeman 662)

It is also significant to note that the theory of one-to-one translation failed because the common one-to-one word for 'whisper' in Arabic is washwasha وشوش and not waswasa. In addition, one must keep in mind that 'whispering' denotes some measure of soft or low-frequency sounds which make the word incompatible with the mute internal speech of waswasa. In an attempt to compensate for the loss of the crucial (+Satan) encapsulated in waswasa, Pickthall (1969) inserted the word 'sneaking', thus hoping to convey some of the negativeness of the Arabic original while Ali (1983) chose to insert the adjective 'evil' in brackets after the verb

There are probably a number of reasons for Pickthall's and Ali's translations of waswasa as 'whisper.' Foremost among them is the fact that washwasha and waswasa are semantically and phonologically similar: both are words that are low in frequency and high in sussuration. They are also intrinsically iconic. Yet they are not used interchangeably in Arabic. This translation may have been readily accepted since there appears to be no exact one-to-one equivalent in the English lexicon.

Arabic lexical terms, however, are not always translation-resistant. Rather, at times translation requires deep knowledge of the denotational and referential system in Arabic as well as in English. For example, English has alternatives to the word waswasa in Arabic. One can find the verbs 'tempt' and 'hiss' as possible equivalents to waswasa. The verb 'tempt,' however, has a syntactic limitations because it cannot be used in conjunction with the prepositional phrase of direction (in the hearts of people). On a lesser scale, it also lacks the /s/ sound and it is not used as an iconic for Satan. Hence, it loses a basic functional and aesthetic factor. Since the /s/ embedded within the word, waswasa is actually an icon of the mute but internally ringing and reverberating incitements of the devil.

A more adequate equivalent for the Arabic verb waswasa may be the English word /hiss/ which is loaded with /+ s/ and (+iconic) components, in addition to its strong collocation with 'snakes' and 'serpents' which in turn are figuratively collocated with Satan. The employment of this verb surely saves the aesthetic value of the Arabic text.

Again, a relative amount of sense-components of the English word 'whisper' appear as an equivalent to the word Hamsan (همسا ) in the translations of Ali, Shakir, and Pickthall. The word همسا (hamsan) is semantically reduced and inaccurately rendered in aaya (20:108) يومئذ يتّبعون الداعي لا عوج له وخشعت الاصوات للرحمن فلا تسمع لهم الاّ همسا to a faint voice, soft murmuring, and whispers) in the above three translations. No translation combined two or more sense-components of the word hamsan, which shows selectivity in choosing equivalent words for the Arabic word hamsan

Taking a close look at القاموس المحيط we find that the word hamasa is used to denote the sound of hooves of camel that is barely heard, and the sound of the breath, in addition to soft murmuring. These referential senses also appear in the dictionary "Mukhtar us-Sihahah," but not, for example, in the dictionary of Al-mawrid where the word Hamsan suggests whispers, susurration, and soft murmuring. There is no reference in the latter dictionary to other referential senses included in the former two dictionaries. As a modern dictionary, Al-mawrid may not be a good source to consider in the translation of a highly classical language of the Qur'an, simply because it seems to be selective. I do believe that 'whispers' does not apply as equivalent to the word hamsan in the aforementioned verse on the grounds that when people humble their voices before God in the hereafter only the sound of their tramps and their breaths may be heard. These meanings were reflected in the classical dictionaries, but not in modern ones.


Stractural/Stylistic Challenges

Quranic discourse has its specific syntactic and lexical items. Both the word order and the selection of specific lexical items are semantically orientated. In addition, its stylistic and syntactic properties are language-specific and may not be shared by other languages. Foregrounding (clefting) of certain constituents in Qur'anic discourse has a special communicative function. Foregrounding is a syntactic operation that places one or more constituents to the beginning of the sentence for effective stylistic reasons. Thus, syntax and style stand 'shoulder to shoulder' to produce the desired communicative goal whose meaning would not have been achieved via an ordinary simple syntactic pattern. Style and meaning are inextricably linked, with the former contributing to or even creating the latter (Adab, 1996). Some translations like that of Ali (1983) are regarded as text-centered because the translator is constantly 'loyal' to the source text. This type of translation applies to syntactic structures that exhibit foregrounding of constituents. Consider the following examples:

Min nuTfatin khalaqahu

من نطفة خلقه

From a sperm-drop He has created him (Ali; 1983:1963)

The translator manages to render the Quranic structure but at the expense of the syntactic norms of English. Consequently, his translation sounds formally biased and the patterns archaic. The aim of Ali's translation is to preserve the Qur'anic text tone, its splendor and stylistic specialty. The intentionality of the text can be echoed by the stylistic variations through foregrounding, for instance, in order to highlight a particular notion in a given statement. In the above example, the fore grounded element is the prepositional phrase min nuTfatin from a sperm-drop

The stylistic mechanism of word order in Qur'anic discourses is a semantic requirement. In other words, word order is semantically motivated and there are communicative goals to be achieved out of a given marked order that involves foregrounding of the lexical item. One potential implication for foregrounding the prepositional phrase Min nutfatin is reminding man where he has originated from so that he should not be arrogant and disobedient to God's commandments, whereas when the verb is foregrounded, the aaya may only state a fact that God created man from a sperm-drop.

Asad (1980:928), ignores the importance of the foregrounded constituents in structures like min nutfatin in the above example, and opts for a different word order. But Quran translators need to realize that foregrounded Qur'anic elements have a particular communicative function in the hierarchy of the text levels

Generally, the syntactic norms of the target language fail to match those of Qur'anic discourse

Fa'awjasa fii nafsihi kkhiifatan musa (20:67)

فأوجس في نفسه خيفة موسى

In the Arabic version, the subject, Moses, is backgrounded (placed at the end of the statement) while in the English translation, it is foregounded (placed at the beginning of the sentence). While there is a certain consensus that it is often possible to achieve a fairly good degree of resemblance in semantic representation across languages, the same cannot be said of stylistic properties, which often consist of linguistic features that are far from universal

If we examine structures like those found in the following two examples:

Innani' anal-laahulaa anna fa-budnii (20:14)

أنني أنا الله لا اله الاّ أنا فاعبدني

Verily I am God; there is no God but I; therefore serve me (Arberry 1980:340)

The Qura'nic structure may, from a surface structural point of view, look too long for its intended message: it has pronouns unnecessarily repeated innani, anaa which, in fact, all refer to the same referent i-laahu. This, however, is not without a good semantic reason; there are two separate but interrelated propositions relayed via this Qur'anic style' the first proposition is about knowing God and His existence (innanii anal-laahu followed by the second proposition, which is about knowing the oneness of God and that He alone is worthy of worship (laa ilaaha illa annaafa-budnii. The use of the cohesive tie fa before the verb budnii (serve or worship me) also has a semantic function: immediate action with no hesitation, i.e., to execute the action verb to worship at once

Sayaj'alu I-laahu bad a usrin yusraa

سيجعل الله بعد عسر يسرا

After difficulty, God will soon grant relief (Ali, 1983:1565)

The oxymoron words are usrin and yusraa (difficulty and relief) Qur'anic word order has not been maintained in the target text which, as a consequence, has lost this stylistic feature


Rhetorical devices

Some rhetorical features whose translation imposes some limitations on the translator can be observed in the Qur'anic discourse. These include:


Alliteration

Alliteration is the occurrence of identical sounds sentence-initially that add up melodic sounds and enhances cadence. This achieved by the letter m in the following aaya, and is lost in the translation

wa man 'azhlamu mi-mman mana'a masaajidal-lahaahi (2:114)

ومن أظلم ممّن منع مساجد الله

Who is more unjust than he who forbids from any of his houses of worship (Asad 1980:24)


Metaphor

Consider this rhetorical feature of metaphor which is almost hard to render in another language: wa la taj'al yadaka maglulatan ilaa unigika wa la tabsutha kullal-basti fa tag'uda maluuman mahsuura ولا تجعل يدك مغلولة الى عنقك ولا تبسطها كلّ البسط فتقعد ملوما محسورا (17:29) And let not your hand be tied to your neck (like a miser) nor stretch it forth to its utmost reach (like a spendthrift) so that you become blame-worthy and deprived (like a poor) (17:29). The addition of the above parenthetical material helps make explanation possible and is often supplied by so-called explanatory of the Qur'an, such as the comprehensive 1997 edition by al-Hilali and.Khan

The translations below failed to convey the core sense of the message: take a middle position in your life: Don't spend lavishly like a spendthrift nor be tight-handed like a miser.
YUSUFALI: Make not thy hand tied (like a niggard's) to thy neck, nor stretch it forth to its utmost reach, so that thou become blameworthy and destitute.
PICKTHAL: And let not thy hand be chained to thy neck nor open it with a complete opening, lest thou sit down rebuked, denuded.
SHAKIR: And do not make your hand to be shackled to your neck nor stretch it forth to the utmost (limit) of its stretching forth, lest you should (afterwards) sit down blamed, stripped off.

Consider the semantic complexity of the word 'khaashi'tan in the following aaya:

Wa min' aayaatihi'annaka taral-arDa khaashi'atan fa'idhaa 'anzalnaa'alyhal-maa'a 'ihtazzat wa rabat (7;154)

ومن أياته أنّك ترى الارض خاشعة فاذا انزلنا عليها الماء اهتزّت وربت

Among his signs, you see how desolate the earth is; yet whenever we send water down upon it, it stirs and sprouts. (Irving, 1985:270)

The use of the word "desolate' in English as equivalent to khashi'tan in Arabic does not convey the sense of humility, piety, genuine love and fear of the Lord, implied in the word. The earth and heaven are treated in the Qur'anic sense as living beings. They have feelings and weep for those who are pious and do good on earth, but not for disbelievers: "And the heavens and the earth wept not for them,[1] nor were they given a respite (44:29)


Ways of enhancing the Qur'anic translations

Most Qur'an translations into English are source-language oriented. They are marked by dogged adherence to source syntax and the use of archaic language. The Qur'anic discourse enjoys very specific and unique features that are semantically oriented and Qur'an-bound and cannot be reproduced in an equivalent fashion in terms of structure, mystical effect on the reader.

Unlike in structures and rhetorical effects, Qur'anic lexemes can be adequately translated into English provided that bilingual dictionaries that accurately document and explicate various meanings of Arabic words, both common and rare, and elucidate the range of contexts in which they occur, are available. The absence of such comprehensive bilingual dictionaries remains a drawback to Qur'an translators. To date there is no user-friendly Arabic thesaurus accessible to translators in which the vocabulary of the language is divided into semantic areas and each are given a detailed sub-classification. Given that contexts determine meanings of words, some sort of contextual dictionary is necessary to aid translators by providing accurate information about usage, derivatives, and etymology

Any translator may be hampered by the basic lack of reference books that are readable and do not just provide the most frequently sought meaning, but also the more archaic, rare, or idiomatic one.

An ideal, still non-existent, dictionary must make a distinction between the classical definition of a word and the more modern one. Contemporary translators frequently rely on Modern Arabic dictionaries. These dictionaries are often at variance with the language of the original, as was evident in the Al-mawrid dictionary. The basic need is for a bilingual dictionary of classical usage of words, which in the final analysis is also a dictionary of the Qur'an. No doubt that the use of textual material from the Qur'an for citation purposes has been standard practice in Arabic lexicographers for a very long time. Even today, the Qur'an continues to provide a rich source of vocabulary which can be, and is, exploited for the compilation of monolingual dictionaries. Such dictionaries definitely resolve the problem of multiple word meanings for distinguishing polysemous words or for elucidating idiomatic expressions such as the metaphoric idiom: let not your hand be tied to your neck ( like a miser) nor stretch it forth to its utmost reach (like a spendthrift) so that you become blame-worthy and deprived (poor) These idiomatic metaphors can only be explained by the addition of the above parenthetical material, which is often supplied by explanatory notes. For the enhancement of the field of the Qur'an translation one would have to suggest that all such idiomatic expressions be documented and codified in dictionary format rather than scattered within various commentaries and translations. These documented idiomatic expressions have to be translated into English because their availability in one monolingual dictionary does not avail translators since we do not assume that English translators are familiar with these idiomatic expressions

As for the torah and the bible it is widely accepted as a translation.