Is Allah The Name Of God?
Carl
area of serious incompatibility between Christianity and Islam.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
Is Allah The Name Of God?
by Mike Oppenheimer
Allah is the name of the only God in Islam. Allah is a pre-Islamic name
coming from the compound Arabic word Al-ilah which means the God, which is
derived from al (the) ilah (deity).
The Arabic name for "God" is the word "Al-ilah." It is a generic title for
whatever god was considered the highest god. Different Arab tribes used
"Allah" to refer to its personal high god. "Allah" was being worshipped at
the Kaa'ba in Mecca by Arabs prior to the time of Mohammed. It was formerly
the name of the chief god among the numerous idols (360) in the Kaaba in
Mecca before Mohammed made them into monotheists. Historians have shown that
the moon god called "Hubal" was the god to whom Arabs prayed at the Kaa'ba
and they used the name "Allah" when they prayed.
Today a Muslim is one who submits to the God Allah.
Islam means submission to (Allah), but originally it meant that strength
which characterized a desert warrior who, even when faced with impossible
odds, would fight to the death for his tribe. (Dr. M. Baravmann, The
Spiritual Background of Early Islam, E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1972)
Many believe the word "Allah" was derived from the mid- eastern word "el"
which in Ugaritic, Caananite and Hebrew can mean a true or false God. This
is not the case, "The source of this (Allah) goes back to pre-Muslim times.
Allah is not a common name meaning "God" (or a "god"), and the Muslim must
use another word or form if he wishes to indicate any other than his own
peculiar deity." (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (ed. Hastings),
I:326.)
According to the Encyclopedia of Religion, Allah corresponded to the
Babylonian god Baal, and Arabs knew of him long before Mohammed worshipped
him as the supreme God. Before Islam the Arabs recognized many gods and
goddesses, each tribe had their own deity. There were also nature deities.
Allah was the god of the local Quarish tribe, which was Mohammed's tribe
before he invented Islam to lead his people out of their polytheism. Allah
was then known as the Moon God, who had 3 daughters who were viewed as
intercessors for the people into Allah. Their names were Al-at, Al-uzza, and
Al-Manat, which were three goddesses; the first two daughters of Allah had
names which were feminine forms of Allah. Hubal was the chief God of the
Kaaba among the other 360 deities. Hubal was the chief God of the Kaaba
among the other 360 deities. Hubal was a statue likeness of a man whose body
was made of red precious stones whose arms were made of gold. (Reference
Islam George Braswell Jr.)
"Historians like Vaqqidi have said Allah was actually the chief of the 360
gods being worshipped in Arabia at the time Mohammed rose to prominence. Ibn
Al-Kalbi gave 27 names of pre-Islamic deities...Interestingly, not many
Muslims want to accept that Allah was already being worshipped at the Ka'ba
in Mecca by Arab pagans before Mohammed came. Some Muslims become angry when
they are confronted with this fact. But history is not on their side.
Pre-Islamic literature has proved this." (G. J. O. Moshay, Who Is This
Allah? (Dorchester House, Bucks, UK, 1994), pg. 138).
History has shown Mecca and the holy stone al-Kaaba were holy sites for
pre-Islamic pagan Arabs. The Kaaba in Mecca was formerly named Beit-Allah
meaning House of Allah. We are told it was first built in heaven. This is in
contradistinction to what Moses was instructed to build, something
overlooked by the Muslims in their reading of the Bible.
The Koran tells us that Mohammed drove the other idols away; he made one God
now the only god and he was its messenger. He kept the Kaaba as a holy,
sacred place and confirmed that the black stone had the power to take away
man's sins. He obligated every believer to make a pilgrimage to the stone at
least once in his lifetime. (Sura 22:26-37) No Old Testament saint ever had
a pilgrimage to the Kaaba and kissed its black stone despite stories that
Abraham and Ishmael restored it.
Mohammed used the name Allah which was formerly the name of a specific idol
without ever distinguishing it from the idol the Meccan's were already
worshipping. This was a modification of their former worship but never a
complete break. He never did say for the people to stop their worship of the
wrong Allah, for the right one. It can still be monotheism and not be the
God of the Bible
Al-Lat which is a T at the end of the name of Allah, was represented by a
square stone whose major sanctuary was in the city of Taif. In the sanctuary
was a black stone in the town of Qudayd between Mecca and Medina. She was
the goddess of fate, a female counterpart of Allah. Al-uzza was the goddess
of east Mecca. It has been said there were human sacrifices made to her and
Islamic tradition tells of a story of Mohammed's grandfather almost
sacrificing his son the father of Mohammed to her. What prevented this was
his seeking counsel from a fortune teller which told him to ransom his son
with one hundred camels. Muslims look to this as the will of Allah to bring
Mohammed into existence. (Reference Muhammad husain haykal, Hayat mohammed)
"The name Allah, as the Qur'an itself is witness, was well known in
pre-Islamic Arabia. Indeed, both it and its feminine form, Allat, are found
not infrequently among the theophorous names in inscriptions from North
Africa." (Arthur Jeffrey, ed., Islam: Muhammad and His Religion (1958), p.
85.)
The literal name of Mohammed's father in Arabic is Abd Allah. His uncle's
name Obred Allah. These names show the devotion of Mohammed's families pagan
roots, and also prove that Allah was part of a polytheistic system of
worship before Allah was made the supreme and only god from the other God's.
This should be proof to the pre- Islamic root of the name of Allah to the
Muslim. Remember they were pagans who used this name. He kept his family
name above all the other names. Mohammad had good intentions in removing the
people from their polytheistic worship however he did not go far enough in
his reform.
Mecca was the place where the idol Allah was located, so the people would
face in that direction when they prayed. Prior to Islam the people would
pray 5 times a day facing Mecca (The Encyclopedia of Islam p.303) Prior to
Islam's beginning each Arab tribe used Allah to refer to its own particular
high god. This is why Hubal, the Moon god, (known by other names) was the
central focus of prayer at the Kaabah and people prayed to Hubal and they
used the name Allah. The crescent moon was the symbol of the moon God Allah
(Hubal) and is still used as a symbol of Islam today (although they have
changed the meaning to be -from Mecca to the moon Islam will spread). Today
there is hardly a Muslim that knows its ancient origin. History records it
as an ancient pagan fertility symbol that is found throughout the Middle
East. Mohammed smashed all the idols that led the people into idolatry but
the black stone was kept which Muslims continue to kiss today. This was
another practice that preceded Mohammad.
Mohammed made Allah into a single being who, unlike the Bible's God who is
called Father, has no Son. Because of this portrayal, there is no fellowship
or love among the godhead before God created man. Creation and man therefore
become a necessity for God to express His attributes or characteristic's.
This God has never revealed Himself to man but revealed only His will. This
God is so removed from man that it is impossible to know him in a personal
way, he relates to man only through his will and law. It is a religion of
obedience no different than any other.
To the Muslim God is strictly singular, all seeing, all hearing, almighty,
He is the first and the last. But what differs is that he has no Son and he
cannot be called Father who relates to His son in a unique way (Son and
Father does not mean offspring in historic Christianity).
Of the 99 names of God in Islam, not one is "Father" or has a personal
connotation. The difference is not to be overlooked. The God of the Bible is
personal and wants an ongoing friendship with each of us. Islam portrays God
as one who expects us to do our religious duty or He angers. There are rules
to be obeyed and one can only please him but not know him personally. No
Muslim would ever consider being able to have a personal relationship with
him, by talking to him, and loving him. Jesus instead taught Christians to
pray "our Father in heaven" (Matthew 6:9). Throughout the Old Testament God
was real to the prophets who had him personally speak to them and they to
him. "Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why do we deal
treacherously with one another by profaning the covenant of the fathers?"
(Mal 2:10)
In Islam some state that if one memorizes the 99 names of Allah and repeats
them he will get into paradise because they give the believer power, making
them conscious of God. Neither the Koran nor the Hadith speak of these names
in such a way. The Suras in the Koran begin with "In the name of Allah, most
gracious, most merciful. Yet in practice Islam's god is portrayed as stern,
harsh, having compassion on those who do right and deals severely with those
who do not.
To a Muslim the God of the Bible who is described as triune is offensive and
pagan, reminding them of what Mohammed destroyed. This is recorded in their
Qu'ran. They interpret this as 3 separate Gods and not a unified one. " They
are unbelievers who say God is a third of three. No God is there but one
God." While Muslims affirm Jesus' virgin conception, they deny He had any
pre-existence that would imply He is God. To call a prophet God is the
ultimate in blasphemy to them. " Verily God will not forgive the union of
other gods with himself." This is a true statement; however if Jesus is who
He said He is, the true God, then it is they who are in union with another
than the true God.
Muslims claim that the name Allah can be found in the Bible. This is no
different than what the Jehovah's Witnesses do for the name Jehovah. Allah
is not called Yahweh once in the Koran but neither is Yahweh called Allah in
the Bible. So they can't be the same God. Neither is the word Elohim which
is applied to Yahweh over 2,500 times in the Bible used in the Koran.
Neither is he called I Am, which He said to Moses would be His name forever.
The God of the Bible identifies himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob. Jacobs name is later changed to the name Israel, being the father of
the 12 tribes of Israel. The God of the Bible calls Jerusalem the city of
David and that the Messiah would descend from his lineage. Neither does the
God of the Bible does not mention Mecca or Medina but instead Jerusalem 800
times. Yet Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Koran, which the Muslim claims
as there own.
The God in the Bible is called the God of the Jews, an impossibility with
Allah. They are called his chosen people, but they are not Allah's chosen.
Allah commands the Muslim to not take the Jews or Christians as friends,
Sura.5:51 disdains the Jews. Mohammed said, "The last hour will not come
before the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Muslims kill them." (Mishkat Al
Masabih Sh.M. Ashraf pp.147, 721, 810-11, 1130). So how could Israel inherit
the land or any of God's promises from Allah, if he is their God. Clearly he
is not the same God of the Bible.
Muslims trying to prove their position from the Bible point to the Old
Testament with the word alleluyah, interpreting the first portion of the
word alle as Allah. The word [H]alleluyah is not a compound Hebrew word. It
is not two words but a singular word meaning praise to Yahweh. (alle-
praise, lu-to, yah-Yaweh). The beginning of the word is Hallel meaning
praise. This has nothing to do with an Allah, and the last syllable of the
word is a reference to Yahweh the God of the Bible, this is hardly any
evidence for their assertions. They are also confusing Aramaic with Arabic.
This is not unusual, as Muslims will often take words and meanings set in
another language and culture and adopt them for proof of their own book or
religion.
This word play only gets more ludicrous as they try to have Jesus saying the
name of their God. When Jesus was on the cross they claim when he cried out
Eli, Eli it was really is Allah, Allah. The New Testament was written in
Greek, however it points us to him speaking the Aramaic language, not
Arabic. Jesus was quoting Psalm 22:1 which read in full says, Eli, Eli
Sabbathani "My God, My God why have you forsaken me." What makes even less
sense for this position is the fact that they don't believe that it was
Jesus on the cross in the first place, but that another took His place. Some
think it was Judas; so it was Judas crying out Allah, Allah?
The first Arabic translation of the Bible was made about the 9th century.
Nowhere is the name of Allah found in the Old or New Testament. When Islam
became the dominant political force people were coerced to use the name
Allah for God or suffer the consequences from the hands of militant Muslims.
Because of Islam's dominance Allah became the common name of God. The
translators of the Bible gave in to the religious pressures and substituted
Allah for Yahweh in the Arabic Bibles, but this is not the name of the God
of the Hebrews, nor of the creator who made heaven and earth because of its
source in paganism. His nature and attributes have only a few basic
similarities and many more differences. And the most important point is that
all through the Qu'ran it says Allah has no son.
Steve Hayes
>Is Allah The Name Of God?
>by Mike Oppenheimer
>
>Allah is the name of the only God in Islam. Allah is a pre-Islamic name
>coming from the compound Arabic word Al-ilah which means the God, which is
>derived from al (the) ilah (deity).
Simply not true.
Allah is the name of Giod in Christianity too.
Mike Oppenheimer must have got that from the father of lies, the Devil.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Carl
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:21:20 -0400, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
> >Is Allah The Name Of God?
> >by Mike Oppenheimer
>
> >Allah is the name of the only God in Islam. Allah is a pre-Islamic name
> >coming from the compound Arabic word Al-ilah which means the God, which is
> >derived from al (the) ilah (deity).
>
> Simply not true.
>
> Allah is the name of Giod in Christianity too.
>
Nope. Not true.
The God of the Bible is not nor ever has been the "Allah" of Islam and
was never called "Allah" anywhere in the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic or
Koine Greek. That claim that "Allah" is the name of God is
Christianity is actually a falsehood that has quite thoroughly been
debunked time and time again by Bible language scholars.
Carl
Allah is the personal name for God in Islam. We make no distinction in
this book, as some do, between the word “Allah” and the English word
“God.” As one well-known Muslim author puts it, “Al Lah means ‘the
Divinity’ in Arabic: it is a single God, implying that a correct
transcription can only render the exact meaning of the word with the
help of the expression ‘God.’ For the Muslims, al lah is none other
than the God of Moses and Jesus.”[1]
In agreement with this warning, Kenneth Cragg, the noted Christian
scholar of Islam, also claims that “since both Christians and Muslim
faiths believe in One supreme sovereign Creator-God, they are
obviously referring when they speak of Him, under whatever terms, to
the same Being. To suppose otherwise would be confusing. It is
important to keep in mind that though the apprehensions differ, their
theme is the same. The differences, which undoubtedly exist, between
the Muslim and the Christian understanding of God are far-reaching and
must be patiently studied. But it would be fatal to all our mutual
tasks to doubt that One and the same God over all was the reality in
both.”[2] Arab Christians use the term “Allah” for God. Of course,
their understanding of what this term means differs from that of
Muslims, but both have the same referent in mind.
Etymology of the Word “Allah”
There has been much speculation and endless discussion among Muslim
exegetes and lexicographers concerning the real significance of the
Arabic word “Allah.” A well-respected Muslim commentator, Beidhawi,
suggests that Allah is derived “from an [invented] root illaha = to be
in perplexity, because the mind is perplexed when it tries to form the
idea of the Infinite!”[3] Still, “according to the opinion of some
Muslim theologians, it is infidelity (kufr) to hold that the word has
any derivation whatever! … They say that God is not begotten, and so
His name cannot be derived. He is the first, and had an Arabic name
before the creation of the worlds.”[4] The author of the Muheet-el-
Muheet dictionary says: “Allah is the name of necessary Being. There
are twenty different views as to the derivation of this name of the
Supreme; the most probable is that its root is illah, the past
participle form, or the measure fi’al, from the verb ilaho = to
worship, to which the article was prefixed to indicate the supreme
object of worship.”[5]
Ajijola, a Muslim author and apologist, writes, “In the Arabic
Language the word ‘ilah’ means ‘one who is worshipped’.… The word
‘Allah’, on the other hand, is the essential personal name of God. ‘La
ilaha illa-Allah’ would literally mean, ‘There is no “ilah” other than
the One Great Being known by the name Allah.’ ”[6]
Cragg, in his highly acclaimed work The Call of the Minaret, notes,
“The Arabic form ilahun meaning ‘a god’ is similar to the Hebrew and
Aramaic words for deity. When used with the definite article Al-Ilahu
meaning ‘The God’ the l consonant of the article coalesces with the
same letter in the first syllable of the word eliding the i sound to
make Al-lah. If we take the word to be of genuine Arabic form this is
the obvious origin. If, as some scholars believe, the word does not
have this origin but is historically derived from a sister language,
its significance is the same. Allah means ‘God’ which connotation
English achieves by dismissing even the definite article and using the
capital letter—a device which Arabic lacks.”[7]
Notes:
1 Maurice Bucaille, The Bible, the Qur’an and Science, trans. Pannell
and Bucaille (Paris: Editions Seghers, 1988), 120–21.
2 Kenneth Cragg, The Call of the Minaret (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1964), 36.
3 From the famous Muslim exegete Beidhawi (d. a.d. 1307), as cited by
Zwemer, 24.
4 Related from Muhammad by Abu Huraira and cited by ibid., 24.
5 Ibid., 23.
6 Alhaj A. D. Ajijola, The Essence of Faith in Islam (Lahore,
Pakistan: Islamic Publications Ltd., 1978), 16.
7 Cragg, 37.
Pre-Islamic Use of the Word “Allah”
Even if the exact etymology of the word “Allah” cannot be determined
with certainty,[1] one thing we can be sure about from historical
records is that the Arabs of pre-Islamic days, despite all their
idolatry, knew of and acknowledged Allah’s existence as the supreme
God. In proof of this point Cragg comments: “It is clear from the
negative form of the Muslim creed, ‘There is no god except God,’ that
the existence and lordship of Allah were known and recognized in pre-
Islamic Arabia. The Prophet’s mission was not to proclaim God’s
existence but to deny the existence of all lesser deities. The fact
that Muhammad’s own father bore the name Abd-Allah, slave of God,
would indicate that God was known by that name prior to Islam.”[2]
Cragg goes on to say that “There can be no doubt then that the
Prophet’s contemporaries knew of a Supreme Being, but He did not
dominate their minds. Rather they thought more directly and frequently
of the lesser gods, the daughters, perhaps even the sons, of Allah who
were far more intimately related to their daily lives, their wars,
their harvests, and their fertility.”[3]
Zwemer makes a similar point: “But history establishes beyond the
shadow of a doubt that even the pagan Arabs, before Mohammed’s time,
knew their chief god by the name of Allah and even, in a sense,
proclaimed His unity. In pre-Islamic literature, Christian or pagan,
ilah is used for any god and Al-ilah (contracted to Allah), i.e., ῾ο
Θεός, the god, was the name of the Supreme. Among the pagan Arabs this
term denoted the chief god of their pantheon, the Kaaba, with its
three hundred and sixty idols.… As final evidence, we have the fact
that centuries before Mohammed the Arabian Kaaba, or temple at Mecca,
was called Beit-Allah, the house of God, and not Beit-el-Alihet, the
house of idols or gods.”[4]
Notes:
1 For disagreement with Cragg’s explanation, see Arthur Jeffery,
Islam: Muhammad and His Religion (New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company,
Inc., 1958), 85.
2 Cragg, 37
3 Ibid., 37–38.
4 Zwemer, 25–26. Also see W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad’s Mecca
(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1988), 31–36.
Muhammad’s Adaptation of the Word “Allah”
Some Western scholars have speculated about Muhammad’s adaptation of
the word “Allah” for the one and only true God. Richard Bell writes,
“Muhammad had, in fact, to meet the difficulty which … confronts all
those who seek to introduce a high religion amongst a people of
primitive ideas, whose language has no term for God quite free from
polytheistic associations. He begins by using rabb, ‘Lord’, generally
in some combination, such as ‘my Lord’, ‘thy Lord’, or as we have
seen, ‘Lord of this house’.”[1] Bell adds, “He also uses Allah, but
rather hesitatingly, [maybe] … because it was already combined with
belief in subordinate deities. Then ar-Rahman appears alongside it.
The use of too many names, however, had its disadvantages.” This he
believes “might lend colour to polytheistic ideas again. He seems to
have solved the difficulty finally by adopting Allah as the name for
Deity, retaining rabb in the sense of Lord, and associating with both
words, descriptive epithets, and phrases.” Apparently, “these set
phrases were convenient as rhyming conclusions to verses. But they
also had their use in dinning into the minds of his community his
conception of God as all-powerful, all-knowing, as Judge and Ruler, as
glorious, merciful, and compassionate.”[2]
Of course we must understand that from the orthodox Muslim viewpoint
any such Western speculations about Muhammad’s adaptation and use of
the term “Allah” in the Qur’an is unacceptable. Nevertheless, the
important point on which all could agree is that Muhammad’s great
revolutionary achievement lies not in his mere use of the term
“Allah,” but in his conception of Allah and Allah’s character.
Notes:
1 Richard Bell, The Origin of Islam in Its Christian Environment
(London: Frank Cass and Company Ltd., 1968), 117.
2 Ibid.
(Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross by Norman Geisler
& Abdul Saleeb)
Therion Ware
wrote:
>Meaning of the Term “Allah”
So what about Al-Lat?
Steve Hayes
>On Sep 30, 2:43 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:21:20 -0400, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
>> >Is Allah The Name Of God?
>> >by Mike Oppenheimer
>>
>> >Allah is the name of the only God in Islam. Allah is a pre-Islamic name
>> >coming from the compound Arabic word Al-ilah which means the God, which is
>> >derived from al (the) ilah (deity).
>>
>> Simply not true.
>>
>> Allah is the name of Giod in Christianity too.
>>
>
>Nope. Not true.
>
>The God of the Bible is not nor ever has been the "Allah" of Islam and
>was never called "Allah" anywhere in the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic or
>Koine Greek. That claim that "Allah" is the name of God is
>Christianity is actually a falsehood that has quite thoroughly been
>debunked time and time again by Bible language scholars.
Nor is the "God" of the Bible called "God" anywhere in the Bible in Hebrew,
Aramaic or koine Greek. The claim that "God" is the "God" of the Christians is
a falsehood that has been thoroughly debunked time and time again, so God is
not the God of the Christians.
So neither God nor Allah can be the god of the Christians.
So do you believe that this not-God, not Allah of yours can be worshi[pped
only in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew?
Carl
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:52:09 -0700 (PDT), Carl <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 30, 2:43 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:21:20 -0400, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
> >> >Is Allah The Name Of God?
> >> >by Mike Oppenheimer
>
> >> >Allah is the name of the only God in Islam. Allah is a pre-Islamic name
> >> >coming from the compound Arabic word Al-ilah which means the God, which is
> >> >derived from al (the) ilah (deity).
>
> >> Simply not true.
>
> >> Allah is the name of Giod in Christianity too.
>
> >Nope. Not true.
>
> >The God of the Bible is not nor ever has been the "Allah" of Islam and
> >was never called "Allah" anywhere in the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic or
> >Koine Greek. That claim that "Allah" is the name of God is
> >Christianity is actually a falsehood that has quite thoroughly been
> >debunked time and time again by Bible language scholars.
>
> Nor is the "God" of the Bible called "God" anywhere in the Bible in Hebrew,
> Aramaic or koine Greek. The claim that "God" is the "God" of the Christians is
> a falsehood that has been thoroughly debunked time and time again, so God is
> not the God of the Christians.
>
> So neither God nor Allah can be the god of the Christians.
>
> So do you believe that this not-God, not Allah of yours can be worshi[pped
> only in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew?
If you wish to try to sidestep and attempt to redirect the point to
etymology then you will have to do so alone. I am staying with the
main point which is that the God of the Bible is not nor ever has been
"Allah" of Islam.
Steve Hayes
>If you wish to try to sidestep and attempt to redirect the point to
>etymology then you will have to do so alone. I am staying with the
>main point which is that the God of the Bible is not nor ever has been
>"Allah" of Islam.
Why do you speak of the "God" of the Bible when the Bible does not, in either
Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, use the word "God", any more than it uses the word
"Allah"?
If, as you say, "Allah" is not the God of the Bible, then neither is God the
God of the Bible - because there isd no mention of "God" in the Bible.
But that is an evasion on your part.
The fact is that Allah is the God of Christianity, and the original statement
in the article you posted, saying that Allah is not the God of Christianity,
was and remains a lie.
Carl
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:29:25 -0700 (PDT), Carl <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
> >If you wish to try to sidestep and attempt to redirect the point to
> >etymology then you will have to do so alone. I am staying with the
> >main point which is that the God of the Bible is not nor ever has been
> >"Allah" of Islam.
>
> Why do you speak of the "God" of the Bible when the Bible does not, in either
> Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, use the word "God", any more than it uses the word
> "Allah"?
>
> If, as you say, "Allah" is not the God of the Bible, then neither is God the
> God of the Bible - because there isd no mention of "God" in the Bible.
>
> But that is an evasion on your part.
>
> The fact is that Allah is the God of Christianity, and the original statement
> in the article you posted, saying that Allah is not the God of Christianity,
> was and remains a lie.
No, Steve, the God of the Bible, the God of Isaac, Abraham, etc. as
taught in Scripture is not nor ever has been the "Allah" of Islam.
That is a fact. For example, the mere fact that the God of the Bible,
the one true God, is the God of the Jews as well as the Gentiles is in
direct opposition to what is taught in Islam about "Allah" which
wishes to destroy the Jews and Gentiles. No Christian denomination I
know of, at least no Protestant Christian denomination, refers to the
God of the Bible as "Allah." Your contention that the God of the Bible
is the same as the "Allah" of Islam is patently absurd even on the
surface but becomes quite erroneous when examining God as taught in
Scripture and as believed by Orthodox Christians compared to the
"Allah" of Islam as taught in the Q'ran/Koran and believed by various
Muslim sects. Many prominent Christian scholars like Norman Geisler,
James White, John Ankerberg, etc. have clearly proven that the God of
the Bible is not nor ever has been the "Allah" of Islam.
Some books showing how and why Islam is completely incompatible with
Christianity and why the God of the Bible is not nor ever has been the
Allah of Islam include, but are not limited to:
Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross by Norman Geisler
& Abdul Saleeb
The Dark Side of Islam by R. C. Sproul and Abdul Saleeb
Reasoning from the Scriptures with Muslims by Ron Rhodes
The Facts on Islam (Revised and Updated) by John Ankerberg, John
Weldon, and Dillon Burroughs
The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant
Religion by Robert Spencer
Unveiling Islam: An Insider's Look at Muslim Life and Beliefs by Ergun
Mehmet Caner and Emir Fethi Caner
I urge you to read some of these so you may correct your erroneous
belief.
Finally, I offer the following article by Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr.
John Weldon which explains clearly why the God of the Bible is not nor
ever has been the "Allah" of Islam.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
Are Allah and the Biblical God the Same?
by Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon
What does Islam teach about God and is he like the God of the Bible?
Islam teaches that the true God is the Muslim deity, Allah. All other
views of God are false because the Koran teaches, "The true religion
with God is Islam."1 The Koran emphasizes of Allah: "There is no God
but he, the Living, the everlasting."2
But who is Allah? Is he anything like the God of Christian faith? As
we will see, the Muslim God is entirely different from the biblical
God. First, the Koran stresses that Allah is one person only: "They
are unbelievers who say, ‘God is the Third of Three.’ No god is there
but one God. If they refrain not from what they say, there shall
afflict those of them that disbelieve a painful chastisement."3 Here,
the Koran emphasizes that Christians are unbelievers because they
accept the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity.4 But, as we
fully documented in our Knowing the Truth About the Trinity (Harvest
House, 1997), the Bible unmistakably tells us that God has revealed
Himself as a triune Being, as One God eternally existing in three
Persons—Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Mt. 28:19; Jn. 1:1,14; Acts
5:3-4).5 Although many Muslims believe otherwise, Christians do not
believe in three gods. This idea is a clear misrepresentation of
Christian belief. Christians are not polytheists, who accept three
gods, but monotheists who believe in one God.
Second, the Muslim God has a different character than the biblical
God. It is significant that of the "99 beautiful names for Allah,"
which Muslims memorize and use for worship, not one of these names is
"love" or "loving." The Koran stresses that Allah only "loves" those
who do good, but that he does not love those who are bad. Allah
himself emphasizes that he does not love the sinner.6 Thus, the love
of Allah is not the love of the God of the Bible. The biblical God
does love the sinner—in fact, He loves all sinners. God does not love
the sin, but He does love the sinner: Christ died for the ungodly....
God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we were still
sinners, Christ died for us... if when we were God’s enemies, we were
reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having
been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life?" (Rom. 5:6,8,10).
Essentially, Allah is primarily a God of power, not a God of love. But
the Bible declares, "God is love" (1 Jn. 4:6).
Next, through predestination of all things, Allah is considered the
direct author of both good and evil. This is not the God of the Bible.
While the biblical God is sovereign and permits evil, He is not its
direct cause. Even when it is part of His plan, He frequently turns it
to a higher good, as seen in the death of Jesus for our sins, Joseph
being sold into slavery (Gen. 45:8; 50:20) and in Romans 8:28: "And we
know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him,
who have been called according to his purpose." Again, the biblical
God is not the direct author of evil. Rather, He is infinitely holy
and righteous (1 Sam. 2:2; Ps. 77:13; 99:9; Rev. 15:4) and His "eyes
are too pure to look on evil" (Hab. 1:3).
Third, Allah is ultimately unknowable and incomprehensible. In Who Is
Allah in Islam, Abd-al-Masih writes, "Allah is the unique,
unexplorable, and inexplicable one—the remote, vast and unknown God.
Everything we think about him is incomplete, if not wrong. Allah
cannot be comprehended."7
In "What Is Allah Like?" George Houssney writes, "we humans can never
know Allah, because he is so far from us and so different from us. The
only knowledge Muslims may admit to is knowledge about Allah, not a
personal, experiential knowledge of him. People cannot know Allah and
should not even try to know him. Allah is not involved in the affairs
of humans." Thus, Houssney goes on to point out the contrast between
Muslim and Christian concepts concerning humanities’ relationship to
God: "The Christian claim that humans can have a relationship with God
is considered by Muslims to be a metaphysical impossibility. To
Muslims, Allah has not revealed himself, but rather he has revealed
his mashi’at (desires and wishes, i.e., his will). His will, according
to Islamic teaching, is limited to Islamic law. A person performs the
will of Allah when he follows the dictates of the Islamic legal
system." [This involves the Koran as interpreted by Muslim clerics; to
submit to the "will of Allah," is to submit to the religious leaders’
interpretations of the Koran which involve everything relating to
life, including Islamic law, politics, cultural customs, family, etc.
To submit to Allah is to submit to the Islamic powers that be. The
concept of separation of church and state is never found in Muslim
nations.] Finally, Houssney further illustrates the distinction
between Muslim and Christian concepts of God at this point: "Allah has
no personality and is indescribable by any characteristic attributable
to man. Most of his attributes are absolute qualities which are unique
to himself, like adjectives of majesty. Although some of his
attributes may appear to be relational, such as mercy, they are
nonmutual and one-directional. According to the Islamic doctrine of
Allah, he is nonrelational. To claim that Allah is relational is to
make him dependent on his creation."8
All this stands in contrast to the biblical teaching that men and
women can know God personally on an intimate, relational level.
Consider the scriptures below: e.g., "This is eternal life to know
Thee the only true God and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent" (Jn.
17:3). "Jesus said, ‘my sheep know me"’ (Jn. 10:14).
The Apostle Paul prayed for Christian believers concerning God, "that
you may know him better." (Eph. 1:17) The Apostle Paul also said, "I
know whom I have believed" (2 Tim. 1:12).
The Apostle John emphasized, "We know that we have come to know him if
we obey his commands. The man who says, ‘I know him,’ but does not do
what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (1 Jn.
2:3-4). Thus, he emphasized, "Dear friends, let us love one another,
for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and
knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is
love" (1 Jn. 4:7-8).
The above reveals that the Muslim God, Allah, and the biblical God,
Yahweh, constitute two distinct and opposing concepts of God.
Regrettably, because Muslims teach that Allah alone is the one true
God, they claim that Christians worship a false god.
[Excerpted from John Ankerberg, John Weldon, The Facts on Islam
(Harvest House, 1991)]
Notes:
1 A. J. Arberry, The Koran Interpreted (NY: MacMillian, 1976), p. 15.
2 Ibid., p. 65.
3 Ibid., p. 140
4 Ibid., pp. 139-140.
5 See our Knowing the Truth About the Trinity (Eugene, OR: Harvest
House, 1997). See also E. Calvin Beisner, God In Three Persons
(Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1984) and Edward Bickersteth, The Trinity
(Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, rpt.).
6 E.g., Arberry, pp. 81, 91, 142, 178, 204.
7 Cited in a book review in Reach Out, Vol. 6, no. 3 & 4, 1993, p. 15.
8 George Houssney, "What is Allah Like?", Reach Out, Vol. 6, no. 3 &
4,1993, pp. 12-13.
Carl
incompatibilities between Christianity and Islam:
http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/archives-is.htm
Raymond
> >If you wish to try to sidestep and attempt to redirect the point to
> >etymology then you will have to do so alone. I am staying with the
> >main point which is that the God of the Bible is not nor ever has been
> >"Allah" of Islam.
>
> Why do you speak of the "God" of the Bible when the Bible does not, in either
> Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, use the word "God", any more than it uses the word
> "Allah"?
It sure does in ENGLISH, which most believers speak. The Word in
Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic is not found in Spanish, Chinese etc but is
in the language of them that do speak English.
>
> If, as you say, "Allah" is not the God of the Bible, then neither is God the
> God of the Bible - because there isd no mention of "God" in the Bible.
Since Allah is NOT the God of the Bible but the "god" of the Koran
which also is not a holy book as the Holy Bible is the Book of God.
The term "God" is all over the Bible to make such a stupid statement
as you did above is pure foolishness. I do say Allah is Islam or
Muslims is not the God of the Bible!
>
> But that is an evasion on your part.
>
> The fact is that Allah is the God of Christianity, and the original statement
> in the article you posted, saying that Allah is not the God of Christianity,
> was and remains a lie.
If you think the Devil is God as he wanted to be, and can be seen as
the god of this world, then Satan the Devil and Allah would be found
in the Bible. Only the God of the Jews and Christianity is not the
God of Islam and His name is not Allah so the facts proved you are the
one that lied.
Raymond
Steve Hayes
>Excellent source for informative articles showing the
>incompatibilities between Christianity and Islam:
I'm not talking about incompatibilities between Christianity and Islam,
because that is not the question. Clearly Christianity and Islam have
different theologies, and different conceptions of God.
I was disputing a statement made in the article you posted that said "Allah is
not the God of Christianity".
That statement is simply not true.
Arabic-speaking Christians call God "Allah", and their conception of God is
different from the Islamic one. So the question is not whether Islamic
theology is the same as Christian theology.
The question is whether the statement that "Allah is not the God of
Christianity" is true or not, and it clearly is a lie, since Christians use
the name "Allah" for God.
Steve Hayes
Sorry, I'm not sure what you are talking about -- most of it seems to have
nothing to do with the point.
The simple fact is that millions of Christian pray to Allah every day, so to
say that "Alllah is not the God of Christianity" is a lie.
It's as simple as that.
Carl
Nope. Christians pray to the God of the Bible, known as Jehovah or
Yahweh if you will. Even Arabic Christians differentiate the fact that
the Islamic "Allah" is not Jehovah God of the Bible. You obfuscations
are really looking to be intentional on your part.
> It's as simple as that.
>
Steve, once again you're trying to play semantic games. The point,
from the start, has been the fact that the God of Christianity is not
not ever has been the "Allah" of Islam. Oppenheimer is making that
distinction as well as the pre-Islam origin of the word.
The portion you claimed to be not true was this:
"Allah is the name of the only God in Islam. Allah is a pre-Islamic
name coming from the compound Arabic word Al-ilah which means the God,
which is derived from al (the) ilah (deity)."
Since the article is dealing SPECIFICALLY with the incompatibilities
between Christianity and Islam and the Islamic apologists' repeated
yet false contention that the Allah of Islam is the God of the Bible
and that "Allah" [Islam] is just another name for Jehovah God. You
seem to be completely ignoring the context. Mike Oppenheimer's
information in that paragraph is quite correct.
Carl
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:08:16 -0700 (PDT), Carl <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
> >Excellent source for informative articles showing the
> >incompatibilities between Christianity and Islam:
>
> I'm not talking about incompatibilities between Christianity and Islam,
> because that is not the question.
Actually that is the point. Oppenheimer takes the opportunity to show
an area of incompatibility between Christianity and Islam.
> Clearly Christianity and Islam have different theologies, and different conceptions of God.
As I and other Christians have stated, the God of Christianity is not
the god of Islam. The god of Islam is a false god.
> I was disputing a statement made in the article you posted that said "Allah is
> not the God of Christianity".
No. Now you're misrepresenting your original claim. The portion from
Oppenheimer's article you specifically cited was:
"Allah is the name of the only God in Islam. Allah is a pre-Islamic
name coming from the compound Arabic word Al-ilah which means the God,
which is derived from al (the) ilah (deity)."
To which you replied:
"Simply not true."
and
"Allah is the name of Giod [sic] in Christianity too."
Your statement of "Allah is the name of Giod [sic] in Christianity
too" is theologically unorthodox and borderline heretical.
Theologically speaking, which was the overall context of Oppenheimer's
article, Allah is not a name of God. Granted in the Arabic language
"allah" or "alilah" are words that correspond with the English word
"god." But even Arabic Christians differentiate between a
nontheological use just as Christians differentiate a nontheological
use of the English word "god." God [capitalized in Christianity to
indicate proper name] is obviously not the same as god [lower case,
informal usage]. What you are trying to do, whether intentionally or
unintentionally, is obfuscate the difference between the formal,
theological terms and usage vs. the informal term and usage.
> That statement is simply not true.
>
> Arabic-speaking Christians call God "Allah", and their conception of God is
> different from the Islamic one. So the question is not whether Islamic
> theology is the same as Christian theology.
Arabic Christians obviously have a different conception of the "Allah"
of Islam simply because the "Allah" of Islam is and always has been a
_false god_. If you deny the fact that the "Allah" of Islam is a false
god and try to equate the God of the Bible with the "Allah" of Islam
then you have departed from the faith in regards to essential doctrine
and entered into anathema. I certainly hope you are not of such an
erroneous and heretical position.
> The question is whether the statement that "Allah is not the God of
> Christianity" is true or not, and it clearly is a lie, since Christians use
> the name "Allah" for God.
The statement you cite: "Allah is not the God of Christianity" is not
found in Oppenheimer's article but his implied and via logical
progressionary point is that the "Allah" of Islam is not the God of
Christianity. Why you keep misstating his point on this is confusing
to me.
Biblically speaking, God of Christianity is called several specific,
formal names in Scripture:
El Shaddai (Lord God Almighty)
El Elyon (The Most High God)
Adonai (Lord, Master)
Yahweh (Lord, Jehovah)
Jehovah Nissi (The Lord My Banner)
Jehovah-Raah (The Lord My Shepherd)
Jehovah Rapha (The Lord That Heals)
Jehovah Shammah (The Lord Is There)
Jehovah Tsidkenu (The Lord Our Righteousness)
Jehovah Mekoddishkem (The Lord Who Sanctifies You)
El Olam (The Everlasting God)
Elohim (God)
Qanna (Jealous)
Jehovah Jireh (The Lord Will Provide)
Jehovah Shalom (The Lord Is Peace)
Jehovah Sabaoth (The Lord of Hosts)
This is obviously not an exhaustive list. The Bible was originally
written in Hebrew (most of the OT) and Koine Greek (NT) with some
Aramaic. The Aramaic portions of the Old Testament are the following:
Ezr 4:8 through 6:18; 7:11-26; Dan 2:4 through 7:28; Gen 31:47 (two
words); Jer 10:11. The language in which they are written used to be
called Chaldee, but is now generally known simply as Biblical Aramaic.
Nowhere in Scripture is Allah used as a formal name of Jehovah.
I want to understand and request you clarify a point of which you have
implied but not specifically stated. I wish to know specifically, do
you claim that the God of Christianity is the same as the god of
Islam? Yes or no. Thus far you've not addressed this specifically. I
request that you answer this simple question to aid my understanding
of your theological position.
Steve Hayes
>On Sep 30, 11:11 pm, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:08:16 -0700 (PDT), Carl <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
>> >Excellent source for informative articles showing the
>> >incompatibilities between Christianity and Islam:
>>
>> I'm not talking about incompatibilities between Christianity and Islam,
>> because that is not the question.
>
>Actually that is the point. Oppenheimer takes the opportunity to show
>an area of incompatibility between Christianity and Islam.
Starting off with a misleading title ("Is Allah the name of God?") is not a
very good way of going about it.
It makes one thing that the rest of what he wrote might be equally unreliable,
and therefore not worth reading.
>> Clearly Christianity and Islam have different theologies, and different conceptions of God.
>
>As I and other Christians have stated, the God of Christianity is not
>the god of Islam. The god of Islam is a false god.
But the fact is that Allah is the name of God for millions of Christians.
>"Allah is the name of Giod [sic] in Christianity too."
>
>Your statement of "Allah is the name of Giod [sic] in Christianity
>too" is theologically unorthodox and borderline heretical.
>Theologically speaking, which was the overall context of Oppenheimer's
>article, Allah is not a name of God. Granted in the Arabic language
>"allah" or "alilah" are words that correspond with the English word
>"god." But even Arabic Christians differentiate between a
>nontheological use just as Christians differentiate a nontheological
>use of the English word "god." God [capitalized in Christianity to
>indicate proper name] is obviously not the same as god [lower case,
>informal usage]. What you are trying to do, whether intentionally or
>unintentionally, is obfuscate the difference between the formal,
>theological terms and usage vs. the informal term and usage.
Christians worship Allah, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Muslims don't.
Clearly their theologies differ, but in the context of the title,
Oppenheimer's opening statement is disingenuous.
Is Allah the name of God? Yes.
Is Allah the name of the God that Christians worship? Yes.
Millions of Christian pray to Allah, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
--
Carl
games. Fine. We will just have to agree to disagree. However I also
noticed you didn't answer my direct question put to you. Perhaps you
missed it. So I ask again: do you claim that the God of Christianity
is the same as the god of Islam? Yes or no.
I await your answer.
Carl
>
> Is Allah the name of the God that Christians worship? Yes.
Actually, no.
Allah is not a formal name for Jehovah and is not found as such
anywhere in any of the original languages in Scripture.
You are in error, my friend.
Steve Hayes
>I notice that you still sidestep the issue and instead play semantical
>games. Fine. We will just have to agree to disagree. However I also
>noticed you didn't answer my direct question put to you. Perhaps you
>missed it. So I ask again: do you claim that the God of Christianity
>is the same as the god of Islam? Yes or no.
If you read what I have already said, Christians believe in Allah, Father, Son
and Holy Spirit.
No Muslim would ever accept that.
Steve Hayes
>On Oct 1, 4:08�am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Is Allah the name of the God that Christians worship? Yes.
>
>Actually, no.
>
>Allah is not a formal name for Jehovah and is not found as such
>anywhere in any of the original languages in Scripture.
And, as I said before, neither is God found in any of the original languages
of scripture.
If that is your argument, then you cannot speak of the "God of the Bible",
because the original languages of scripture nowhere speak of such a "God".
Carl
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 01:14:26 -0700 (PDT), Carl <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
> >I notice that you still sidestep the issue and instead play semantical
> >games. Fine. We will just have to agree to disagree. However I also
> >noticed you didn't answer my direct question put to you. Perhaps you
> >missed it. So I ask again: do you claim that the God of Christianity
> >is the same as the god of Islam? Yes or no.
>
> If you read what I have already said, Christians believe in Allah, Father, Son
> and Holy Spirit.
>
> No Muslim would ever accept that.
Doesn't answer the question I put to you. It's a simple yes or no
question, Steve. One last time: do you claim that the God of
Christianity is the same as the god of Islam? Yes or no.
If you avoid directly answering this yes or no question again, I will
have to question your claim of being "orthodox" since in Orthodoox
Christianity, the answer is quite clear and certain. All you have
provided thus far is obfuscated rhetoric instead of a clearcut answer.
You are still playing word games. I wonder if you intentionally
attempting to throw people into confusion because I cannot believe you
are that obtuse.
Carl
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 01:24:47 -0700 (PDT), Carl <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 1, 4:08 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Is Allah the name of the God that Christians worship? Yes.
>
> >Actually, no.
>
> >Allah is not a formal name for Jehovah and is not found as such
> >anywhere in any of the original languages in Scripture.
>
> And, as I said before, neither is God found in any of the original languages
> of scripture.
>
> If that is your argument, then you cannot speak of the "God of the Bible",
> because the original languages of scripture nowhere speak of such a "God".
Again, you're trying to play semantic games and your knowledge of
Biblical Hebrew is obviously either lacking or nonexistant.
El Shaddai (Lord God Almighty)
El Elyon (The Most High God)
El Olam (The Everlasting God)
Elohim (God)
Furthermore, I can only conclude that you must be intentionally trying
to confuse since you are making the logical fallacy of argument from
inequality. You are trying to equate formal names and informal
references which makes your argument moot. I have consistently stated
that the God of the Bible (informal; clarified) is not nor ever has
been the "Allah" of Islam (informal; clarified). And furthermore, I
will conclusively and clearly state that Jehovah who is worshipped by
Christians and Jews is not nor ever has been Allah which is worshipped
by Muslims. I find it highly revealing that you are unwilling (and
perhaps unable) to agree or disagree directly with this contention. I
also find it even more revealing that you have avoided answering my
straightforward question put to you (i.e. - Do you claim that the God
of Christianity is the same as the god of Islam?). Orthodox Christians
are quite willing and able to declare, as I do that the God of
Christian is NOT the same as the god of Islam. The god of Islam is a
false god. You are described both on your blog and elsewhere of being
"Orthodox" and "Orthodox Christian" but if you cannot produce a
clearcut declaration on this essential point of doctrine then it
brings about your description of "Orthodox" and "Orthodox Christian"
into serious question.
For the benefit of Christians on Usenet, I highly recommend the
following books for thorough examinations of Islam in light of
Scripture and Christianity.
Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross by Norman Geisler
& Abdul Saleeb
The Dark Side of Islam by R. C. Sproul and Abdul Saleeb
Reasoning from the Scriptures with Muslims by Ron Rhodes
The Facts on Islam (Revised and Updated) by John Ankerberg, John
Weldon, and Dillon Burroughs
The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant
Religion by Robert Spencer
Unveiling Islam: An Insider's Look at Muslim Life and Beliefs by Ergun
Mehmet Caner and Emir Fethi Caner
Carl
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:52:09 -0700 (PDT), Carl <sai...@nettally.com>
> wrote:
> 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 30, 2:43 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:21:20 -0400, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
> >> >Is Allah The Name Of God?
> >> >by Mike Oppenheimer
>
> >> >Allah is the name of the only God in Islam. Allah is a pre-Islamic name
> >> >coming from the compound Arabic word Al-ilah which means the God, which is
> >> >derived from al (the) ilah (deity).
>
> >> Simply not true.
>
> >> Allah is the name of Giod in Christianity too.
>
> >Nope. Not true.
>
> >The God of the Bible is not nor ever has been the "Allah" of Islam and
> >was never called "Allah" anywhere in the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic or
> >Koine Greek.
>
> critics) constitutes the breaking of a promise you have made to me,
> and you told me you made the same promise to others;
> "you will not respond to your critics anymore," especially when we
> all know they're lying, and being antagonistic.
>
> I believe you owe me an apology, Carl.
I will apologize to you since you feel that way, however I was giving
Steve the benefit of the doubt intitially that perhaps we were not
understanding each other. Before this, I don't remember ever
conversing with Steve Hayes before and intitially he was being civil.
However he has grown more obfuscatory and increasingly has been
playing semantic games. This has raised strong red flags for me. I
have given him a simple, straightforward question to answer which
would clarify for me where he is coming from. He's not answered twice
thus far so I asked a third and final time. If he still refuses to
answer, then I will have nothing to do with him in accordance with
Titus 3:9-11. I have warned him the Biblically appropriate times and
if he still evades and brings forth illogical and unScriptural
argumentation then I will have nothing more to do with him.
On a related note, those books I recommend are very good and if you
can obtain a copy of one or more of them I don't think you will be
disappointed.
Carl
humbly request some recommendations from you on various yet related
items. I'm working on building my theological library (borrowing a
phrase from a Christian blogger) and was wondering if you had
recommendations on commentaries, Bible studies, and Christian books in
general (fiction and non-fiction included). You can see what I already
have on LibraryThing and was wondering if you had some suggestions on
books I might add?
I'd appreciate any suggestions you may have.
Oh, and PUH-LEEEEZE don't recommend anything by Benny Hinn. (*big
smile as I duck and run*)
ujb
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:29:25 -0700 (PDT), Carl <sai...@nettally.com>
> wrote:
> � 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
> Why are you breaking your promise
hahahahahah "promise", what are you 8?
> and engaging the enemy?
unlike you he is not a coward "that" runs....
> You promised me you would not do this anymore!!!
poor poor stupid
--
*talk is cheap - until you hire a lawyer to do it for you...*
_I'm sweet sweet, and I approve this archived post..._
Best answer by Sarah:
all i can say is, dont plan on getting this published....
hahahahahah
Carl
told you about this or not but wanted to mention it publically in case
other Christians would benefit. There is a website called OnePlace
(http://www.oneplace.com/) that has a lot of sermons in mp3 format
online that you can listen to directly while online or download for
listening on portable devices. I like to put several sermons and
lessons on my iPod and listen to them at work. Also I know several
ministries are offering this as well. One site that has wonderful
sermons is found via New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary though
their Leavell Chapel (http://www.nobts.edu/chapel/Default.html). The
URL where their sermons are archived is at http://www.nobts.edu/chapel/Archives/Default.html
and the more recent ones are in mp3 format while older ones are in
other audio formats. I was particularly touched by their sermon from a
year or so ago held on the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.
Anyway, if I had already mentioned these to you, I apologize for being
redundant. I also hope that Christian brethren will utilize those
links and listen to those sermons and lessons.
Carl
> john w <j wrote:
>
> > CARL!
> > Why are you breaking your promise
>
> hahahahahah "promise", what are you 8?
>
C'mon ujb, lay off John. His concern is genuine and I appreciate it
and his honest, brotherly rebuke.
> > and engaging the enemy?
>
> unlike you he is not a coward "that" runs....
Sorry, but I disagree. I've not seen any evidence that John is a
coward.
John has a deep, wonderful faith in Jesus Christ and he is never
afraid of gently rebuking me when he witnesses me doing to saying
something I ought not have done or said. For that I am grateful. We
may not agree on 100% of everything but then again we disagree on
maybe a very small number of things however we DO agree 100% on God's
grace and love for us.
So, please cease provoking John. There is nothing in this posts to me
to warrant such.
Carl
> > Why are you breaking your promise
>
> hahahahahah "promise", what are you 8?
>
[Apparently for some reason my reply didn't post so try, try again.]
ujb, please cease with this provocation of John. I appreciate his
brotherly rebuke here and thank him for it.
> > and engaging the enemy?
>
> unlike you he is not a coward "that" runs....
Nothing I have seen indicates John is a coward. In fact, he is not
afraid to rebuke me when he thinks I need it and I am grateful that he
does so. He has been firm but not insulting to me. So this attack
against is unwarranted and needs to cease, please.
Steve Hayes
>On Oct 1, 2:35�pm, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 01:24:47 -0700 (PDT), Carl <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
>> >On Oct 1, 4:08 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Is Allah the name of the God that Christians worship? Yes.
>>
>> >Actually, no.
>>
>> >Allah is not a formal name for Jehovah and is not found as such
>> >anywhere in any of the original languages in Scripture.
>>
>> And, as I said before, neither is God found in any of the original languages
>> of scripture.
>>
>> If that is your argument, then you cannot speak of the "God of the Bible",
>> because the original languages of scripture nowhere speak of such a "God".
>
>Again, you're trying to play semantic games and your knowledge of
>Biblical Hebrew is obviously either lacking or nonexistant.
No, you are the one trying to play semantic games by saying that Allah as not
the name of God because it dfoes not appear in the Bible, because that
argument applies equally to God, because God does not appear in the Blible.
>El Shaddai (Lord God Almighty)
>El Elyon (The Most High God)
>El Olam (The Everlasting God)
>Elohim (God)
El Shaddai (Lord Allah Almighty)
etc.
>Furthermore, I can only conclude that you must be intentionally trying
>to confuse since you are making the logical fallacy of argument from
>inequality. You are trying to equate formal names and informal
>references which makes your argument moot.
No, it is you who are trying to do that, by saying that since Allah does not
appear in the Bible, it is not the name of God.
I have consistently stated that if God is a legitimate name of God, even
though "God" does not appear in the Bible, then so is Allah, Gott, Dieu, Deos,
Unkulunkulu and other names for God in other languages.
Millions of Arabic Christians (not Muslims) worship God as Allah. Are you
saying that they are not worshipping the God of the Bible?
Steve Hayes
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:43:42 +0200, Steve Hayes
><haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> � 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:21:20 -0400, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Is Allah The Name Of God?
>>>by Mike Oppenheimer
>>>
>>>Allah is the name of the only God in Islam. Allah is a pre-Islamic name
>>>coming from the compound Arabic word Al-ilah which means the God, which is
>>>derived from al (the) ilah (deity).
>>
>>Simply not true.
>>
>>Allah is the name of Giod in Christianity too.
>
> False. Anyone who can read can skim the Bible, from Genesis to
>Revelation. There is not one single reference to "Allah" in the Bible,
>other than the non-specific references in scripture to "false" gods or
>"other gods" (false gods)
And you can skim through the Bible and find not one single reference to "God"
in the Bible.
This is an utterly specious argument, because if you really believed it you
would not speak, or be able to speak of the "God" of the Bible. If, as you and
Carl argue, it isn illegitimate to translate the name of the God of the Bible
into Arabic as Allah, then it is equally illegitimate to translate it into
English as "God".
> If you can find a reference to "Allah " in the Bible, post that
>reference. Otherwise, you owe Carl and Christians in general an
>apology.
That's a ridiculous statement.
If you can find a reference to "God" in the Bible, then show it.
"God" is just as much a translation as "Allah". If, as you say, it is
illegitimate to translate the name of God into one language, then you must
show why it is not equally illegitimate to translate it into other languages.
Steve Hayes
>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:43:42 +0200, Steve Hayes
><haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> � 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:21:20 -0400, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Is Allah The Name Of God?
>>>by Mike Oppenheimer
>>>
>>>Allah is the name of the only God in Islam. Allah is a pre-Islamic name
>>>coming from the compound Arabic word Al-ilah which means the God, which is
>>>derived from al (the) ilah (deity).
>>
>>Simply not true.
>>
>>Allah is the name of Giod in Christianity too.
>
> False. Anyone who can read can skim the Bible, from Genesis to
>Revelation. There is not one single reference to "Allah" in the Bible,
>other than the non-specific references in scripture to "false" gods or
>"other gods" (false gods)
And likewise, you cannot find one single reference to "God".
> If you can find a reference to "Allah " in the Bible, post that
>reference. Otherwise, you owe Carl and Christians in general an
>apology.
If you can find a reference to "God" in the Bible, post that reference.
If you believe it is illegitimate to translate the name of God into Arabic as
"Allah", then it must be equally illegitimate to translate it into English as
"God".
ARAH
Will thisnews help you to understand the word " Allah"
Malaysian church sues government for banning use of word 'Allah'
A Malaysian church has sued the government for banning the import of
Christian books containing the word "Allah," alleging it was
unconstitutional and against freedom of religion, a lawyer said
Thursday.
The Sabah Evangelical Church of Borneo is also challenging the
government for declaring that the word "Allah" _ which means God in
the Malay language _ can only be used exclusively by Muslims, said the
church's lawyer Lim Heng Seng.
"The decision to declare 'Allah' as only for Muslims, categorizing
this as a security issue, and banning books with the word 'Allah' is
unlawful," Lim told The Associated Press.
Religion issues are extremely sensitive in Malaysia, where about 60
percent of the 27 million people are Malay Muslims. Ethnic Chinese,
who follow Christianity and Buddhism, account for 25 percent of the
population, while mostly Hindu Indians are 10 percent.
Minorities often complain they don't have full freedom of religion
even though the constitution guarantees everybody the right to
worship.
In an affidavit made available to The AP, pastor Jerry Dusing said
customs officials in August confiscated three boxes of education
material for children from a church member who was transiting at the
Kuala Lumpur airport.
He said he was informed later the publications were banned because the
contained the word "Allah," which could raise confusion and
controversy among Muslims. The Internal Security Ministry also told
him the issue was sensitive and has been classified as a security
issue, he said in the affidavit.
But Dusing said Christians in Sabah on Borneo island have used the
word "Allah" for generations when they worship in the Malay language,
and the word appears in their Malay Bible.
"The Christian usage of Allah predates Islam. Allah is the name of God
in the old Arabic Bible as well as in the modern Arabic Bible," he
said, adding Allah was widely used by Christians in Egypt, Lebanon,
Iraq, Indonesia and other parts of the world without problem.
Dusing also said the confiscated material was for use only within the
church.
The church is asking the court to declare their constitutional right
to use the word "Allah" and for the right to import publications with
the word in it, he said in the affidavit.
Dusing and internal security officials couldn't be reached immediately
for comment.
Earlier this month, a Catholic weekly newspaper was told to drop
"Allah" in its Malay-language section if it wants to renew its
publishing permit.
Steve Hayes
>My dear Raymond
>
>Will thisnews help you to understand the word " Allah"
>
>Malaysian church sues government for banning use of word 'Allah'
>
>A Malaysian church has sued the government for banning the import of
>Christian books containing the word "Allah," alleging it was
>unconstitutional and against freedom of religion, a lawyer said
>Thursday.
>
>The Sabah Evangelical Church of Borneo is also challenging the
>government for declaring that the word "Allah" _ which means God in
>the Malay language _ can only be used exclusively by Muslims, said the
>church's lawyer Lim Heng Seng.
>
>"The decision to declare 'Allah' as only for Muslims, categorizing
>this as a security issue, and banning books with the word 'Allah' is
>unlawful," Lim told The Associated Press.
Carl and John W appear to side with the Malaysian government in this.
Steve Hayes
>But Dusing said Christians in Sabah on Borneo island have used the
>word "Allah" for generations when they worship in the Malay language,
>and the word appears in their Malay Bible.
>
>"The Christian usage of Allah predates Islam. Allah is the name of God
>in the old Arabic Bible as well as in the modern Arabic Bible," he
>said, adding Allah was widely used by Christians in Egypt, Lebanon,
>Iraq, Indonesia and other parts of the world without problem.
A right which Carl and John W apparently want to deny them.
ARAH
Sorry, Allah is not the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Allah is the
Creator and Unique
On the Use of "Allah" vs. "God"
Shaikh Adil Salahi's answer on Using the word God for Allah was good
and agreeable. However, it would now be appropriate to point out some
differences between the words 'God' and 'Allah'.
In matters of religion, the source of all authority is Allah (swt),
Whose instructions regarding what we should believe and how we should
act come down to us via His messengers. Therefore, we are to take our
guidance from the messengers in order to practice that faith to the
fullest. At least the more we can stick to the directions and examples
of the prophets, the better of we would be in nearness to Allah (swt).
The word Allah is not exclusively used by Muslims at all. All Semitic
languages use one or another variation of the same word. For example,
in Hebrew, it is Eloah, which is very closed to sounding Allah. In the
Old Testament, the word Elohim is used to denote God, which is
actually the plural for "Eloah" but used in singular sense. In
Aramaic, which is the language spoken by Jesus (peace be upon him),
the word for God is Eli - which again sounds close to "Allah". Thus we
can safely say that all the Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic prophets as
well as other prophets who spoke a Semitic language used the word
"Allah" for God or one of its variations.
On the contrary, the word "God" comes from English - a language that
was developed centuries later. Thus it would be completely unknown to
any Prophet, and if any of them were to arrive here today he would not
know what it means.
While it is acceptable to use "God" if anyone feels more comfortable
with it, for those who think that "Allah" is a foreign god peculiar to
only Muslims should know that "Allah" is actually more authentic and
universal and there are more evidence for using "Allah" than for "God"
or any other word denoting the Supreme Being of the universe.
Secondly, the Supreme Being who created this universe and rules it is
Absolutely Unique. There is no likeness of Him and there is no second
to Him. In fact, if anyone forms some sort of mental imagination of
Him, then that is not Him since there is nothing like Him and
therefore He is beyond human imganiations.
The word "Allah" has never been used for anything other than that
Supreme Being. It only refers to that one Absoulte Power, the Lord of
entire universe. There is no plural to this word, nor is there any
gender associated with it. It is completely pure from any
contaminations in its use. And therefore, it is consistent with the
Uniqueness that characterizes the Lord of the universe.
On the contrary, "God" is a masculine word which has a feminine form
"goddess" and plural "gods". All of these forms are used in myriads of
mythologies in various cultures. Presently, the word "god" has been
contaminated so much that it is found in many others usage as well.
For many Muslims, the word "Allah" is so close, loving, comforting,
and inseparable from their experience of faith that no other word can
substitute it. Probably the same is true for those who are used to the
word "God".
My suggestion is that it is better to use the word "God" when we are
communicating with believers of other faith, for this facilitates
communications and understanding. Muslims converts may also continue
to use the word "God" if that brings them more meaning and more
experience of Allah (swt). Otherwise, my opinion is that Muslims
should generally use "Allah" since it is more authentic, logical and
consistent with what the prophets and messengers used in the past, and
since it is used by Allah (swt) Himself in the Qur'an, the Living
Guide for all Muslims.
As always, Allah knows best.
- Mushfiqur Rahman, 16 November 2004
Steve Hayes
>My dear Steve
>
>Sorry, Allah is not the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Allah is the
>Creator and Unique
>
>On the Use of "Allah" vs. "God"
>
>Shaikh Adil Salahi's answer on Using the word God for Allah was good
>and agreeable. However, it would now be appropriate to point out some
>differences between the words 'God' and 'Allah'.
>
>In matters of religion, the source of all authority is Allah (swt),
>Whose instructions regarding what we should believe and how we should
>act come down to us via His messengers. Therefore, we are to take our
>guidance from the messengers in order to practice that faith to the
>fullest. At least the more we can stick to the directions and examples
>of the prophets, the better of we would be in nearness to Allah (swt).
>
>The word Allah is not exclusively used by Muslims at all. All Semitic
>languages use one or another variation of the same word. For example,
>in Hebrew, it is Eloah, which is very closed to sounding Allah. In the
>Old Testament, the word Elohim is used to denote God, which is
>actually the plural for "Eloah" but used in singular sense. In
>Aramaic, which is the language spoken by Jesus (peace be upon him),
>the word for God is Eli - which again sounds close to "Allah". Thus we
>can safely say that all the Hebrew, Arabic, and Aramaic prophets as
>well as other prophets who spoke a Semitic language used the word
>"Allah" for God or one of its variations.
There is the word, and then there is the theological understanding of the
word.
When Christians speak of God, or Allah, they believe in God (or Allah) who has
revealed himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Obviously Muslims do not, and that is the primary difference between
Christianity and Islam.
There are other differences too, but that is the root difference.
So Christians think that Muslims are mistaken, and Muslims think that
Christians are mistaken.
I don't think we will resolve the question by arguing about it here.
We can merely note the theological differences.
walksalone
From: john w <j<no>@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.religion.christ
ian.methodist,alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,free.christians
Subject: Re: Is Allah The Name Of God?
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:59:25 -0700
Message-ID: <4jl7e4h6je7srflcs...@4ax.com>
References: <gbsgh1$ik1$1...@news.utelfla.com>
<cfi3e4l8bm57k524d...@4ax.com> <26a47a2c-7e0b-4b92-ac24-
e5dda7...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
<hop3e45a6b0vmiabg...@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 47
Organization: Qwest Communications Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: 1853d9c1.news.qwest.net
X-Trace: DXC=l<dXOjHDf=J\i2S_D1manFF85SKJoGf>DS\GgRA9M4=JgRiX5Ran0@KSkXT
\\;jgJJ3o<SQQiQGTCDD010NBAW=O0HBCT;B:W:B
X-Complaints-To: ne...@qwest.net
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 10:51:02 +0200, Steve Hayes
> <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> � 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:52:09 -0700 (PDT), Carl <sai...@nettally.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sep 30, 2:43�am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:21:20 -0400, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >Is Allah The Name Of God?
>>>> >by Mike Oppenheimer
>>>>
>>>> >Allah is the name of the only God in Islam. Allah is a pre-Islamic
>>>> >name coming from the compound Arabic word Al-ilah which means the
>>>> >God, which is derived from al (the) ilah (deity).
>>>>
>>>> Simply not true.
>>>>
>>>> Allah is the name of Giod in Christianity too.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Nope. Not true.
>>>
>>>The God of the Bible is not nor ever has been the "Allah" of Islam
>>>and was never called "Allah" anywhere in the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic
>>>or Koine Greek. That claim that "Allah" is the name of God is
>>>Christianity is actually a falsehood that has quite thoroughly been
>>>debunked time and time again by Bible language scholars.
>>
>>Nor is the "God" of the Bible called "God" anywhere in the Bible in
>>Hebrew, Aramaic or koine Greek.
>
> In your previous post, you didn't mention which language you were
> referring to.
To people that know your 6th. grade level anthology is not anywhere near
the origianl, that wan not needed.
> So this post constitutes a LIE, and an attempt to attack Carl
> falsely.
No, it does not. If anything, it could be called something xians of your
levcel of education do automatically. & then only if it was made a
requirment for discussion.
It's called moving the goal posts.
Carl is not being attacked, but his misinformation & hypocrisy is being
pointed out. & in your world, the two are the same.
> john w
snip jwesque moment.
which wannabe this time baby john, the imitation self proclaimed scholar�
making a foolk of itself still.
walksalone who has to laugh when Donald points out his actions in others,
& then calls them a lie.
for Dawn
0ts8vuolo9qs1v2sa...@4ax.com Mon, 09 Dec 2002
I guess I missed your point again. The group knows why I'm here; this
is MY group! You're the interloper, you heretic!
Unless you want to explain, just be aware that you're being scored!
I've asked God to give your sorry, heretic ass to me, and I'm counting
on it!
John W
pmhd609ovs9d4bdmo...@4ax.com 28 Mar 2004
As for the story you are objecting to, you really ought to have gotten
some education. You are coming across as a ignoramus, a bigot,
uneducated, opinionated, and downright nasty when people don't jump on
your strings.
And as I've told the rest of the group, don't try to alpha male me.
When you get out your shovel to bury me, I'll get out my baseball bat.
Same source
If you don't know it, all caps is considered VERY bad manners, as it
signifies shouting. And I believe you DO know it. One thing I
learned in grad school. Once you have #1 begun shouting or #2 begun
hitting, you are out of control, and in the flesh, NOT the Spirit.
Same source
If you BOTHERED to figure me out, you might even find a worthwhile
person underneath. You won't as long as you approach me with
unrealistic expectations.
In fact, in my entire life (since high school), I've never had so many
friends who say "Hi! How are you?" than in my building. They ALL know
I'm a Christian, I'm VERY open about it, and I've found myself in the
lounge 100 times preaching and teaching the scriptures. People don't
provoke me (as you do in here), and I don't provoke them. One of my
best buddies now is a young black African Muslim guy. I fixed his
computer twice, he asked me probably 50 questions about the Bible and
Christianity, and he concluded, some 6 months now, that he liked me,
and that I was a good and knowledgeable Christian. He says he's never
before met anyone who knows the Bible so well. ALL praise to God!
4r96vu823s546u23r...@4ax.com Sun, 08 Dec 2002
Oh, I hope I run into you someday before the 2nd Coming, and that I
have my baseball bat handy! I'd LOVE to teach you some respect!
And God says, "I can threaten, but I can't harm you until the 2nd
coming!"
Darn! You're SUCH a little weasel! I was giving you some slack for
being a war vet, but you've used that up by being a TOTAL prick!
Jani
"john w...@yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
news:67s9e4127b1q08skl...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 13:06:51 -0700 (PDT), Carl <sai...@nettally.com>
> wrote:
[]
> Before this, I don't remember ever
>>conversing with Steve Hayes before and intitially he was being civil.
>>However he has grown more obfuscatory and increasingly has been
>>playing semantic games.
>
> Be aware that he's very likely NOT "Steve Hayes."
So who is he, then? Steve always posts under his real name, and his sig
links to his personal website and blog. He's exactly who he says he is.
Jani
Carl
answer a simple question on an essential Christian doctrine. This
tells me that you are not "Orthodox" nor an "Orthodox Christian" but
merely a divisive person who is teaching falsely. Therefore I will
have nothing further with you in accordance with Scripture. Your
ignorance of Biblical languages is telling and your disigenuousness is
readily apparent.
Steve Hayes
>>And you can skim through the Bible and find not one single reference to "God"
>>in the Bible.
>
> On the contrary. I can find dozens, probably hundreds of references
>to God in the Bible.
Never mind hundreds -- just cite one reference to "God" in the Greek, Hebrew
and Aramaic originals.
> Peter spoke of "You are the Christ! The Son of the Living GOD!"
>
> Judas declared Christ, "My Lord and my GOD!"
Not in the original Greek they didn't, which is the point that Carl was
making.
> Don't you DARE point a finger at me because I demonstrate my
>reverence in a different way than you find appropriate.
Eh?
What are you on about?
Steve Hayes
>Well, Steve, you've been asked three times and you've refused to
>answer a simple question on an essential Christian doctrine.
I've been waiting a long time for you to explain where in the Bible it says
it's OK to worhsip God and speak about him in English, but not in Arabic.
Are you one of those people who believes we should all read the King James
version, just as Moses did?
Are you one of those English chauvinists who believes that people who speak
Arabic and other non-English languages are damned, because in heaven only
English is spoken?
I've got news for you mate -- Zulu is by definition the language of heaven.
All others are imitations.
Lihle izulu
ikhaya labangcwele
lapho abangwele
bayophum'la khona.
Ngiyakuthanda
uJesu owami
ngoba wangifela
esiphambanweni.
This
>tells me that you are not "Orthodox" nor an "Orthodox Christian" but
>merely a divisive person who is teaching falsely. Therefore I will
>have nothing further with you in accordance with Scripture. Your
>ignorance of Biblical languages is telling and your disigenuousness is
>readily apparent.
>
>May God bless,
>Carl
>my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
>my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
--
walksalone
From: john w <j<no>@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.religion.christ
ian.methodist,alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,free.christians
Subject: Re: Is Allah The Name Of God?
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:28:13 -0700
Message-ID: <ubt9e4ha1n8r1tqnq...@4ax.com>
References: <gbsgh1$ik1$1...@news.utelfla.com>
<cfi3e4l8bm57k524d...@4ax.com>
<7al7e4hr4tbauqdf9...@4ax.com>
<v0e8e4hffjm6f7dm3...@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 88
Organization: Qwest Communications Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: c14301a1.news.qwest.net
X-Trace: DXC=daS6F\\oFaNeaRKj03I:5EF85SKJoGf>D^M`hU=GlYIEgRiX5Ran0@KSkXT
\\;jgJJ3o<SQQiQGTCDD010NBAW=ONFSNAeImjVD
X-Complaints-To: ne...@qwest.net
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 05:05:00 +0200, Steve Hayes
> <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
snip
>>On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 12:55:37 -0700, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>x-no-archive: yes
>>>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 08:43:42 +0200, Steve Hayes
>>><haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
snip
>>>>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:21:20 -0400, "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com>
>>>>wrote:
snip
>>And you can skim through the Bible and find not one single reference
>>to "God" in the Bible.
>
> On the contrary. I can find dozens, probably hundreds of references
> to God in the Bible.
No, no you can't. What you can do is find translations that may or may
not mean god, the adjective, god, the noun, or God, the proper noun.
Given your ignorance of teh source material, you can't tell which is
which.
> Who ever is pumping your head full of cow dung is the person you
> should be blaming now.
He's not buting your pretensions, nor is anyone else that has bothered to
check you out.
>>This is an utterly specious argument, because if you really believed
>>it you would not speak, or be able to speak of the "God" of the Bible.
>
> Don't talk down to me.
People have to, you are such a mental lightweight. BTW, he didn't, it's
just your delicate sense of importance ringing your chimes. & he is
correct.
> Each of us has our own way of dealing with our view of "reverence."
& yours excludes others as well as the Hebrew Bible's version.
> Peter spoke of "You are the Christ! The Son of the Living GOD!"
Peter who? You can't even discuss the temple incident in context, & now
you ar going to pretend that circular argumentation is good enough for
those that desire [none do] to discuss anything with you? People don't
discuss things with you, you can't. You don't know enough as the above
attempt to invoke invalid authority shows.
> Judas declared Christ, "My Lord and my GOD!"
Judas who, & why was it needful for him to declare it if he believed it?
> Don't you DARE point a finger at me because I demonstrate my
> reverence in a different way than you find appropriate.
Stuff it Donald, you attempt to lord it over everyone that dares point
out that like the Emporors New Clothes, your messiah is absent. Or
worse, tell you you don't know what yolu are talking about. Which means
you stay pretty well upset most of the time.
> john w
Liar john, indeed the same.
> If, as you and
>>Carl argue, it isn illegitimate to translate the name of the God of
>>the Bible into Arabic as Allah, then it is equally illegitimate to
>>translate it into English as "God".
> The issue of "Allah" being the "True God" is far more than the NAME;
> the way you define "Allah" is FAR from how we define Yhwh God.
Not really, you have never heard the OP's version of who or what Allah
is. & you can not coherently describe your pencil dicked gods either.
Gods that priests claim require belief share that in common.
> Yhwh and Allah are two entirely different deities.
YHWH is Kennenite ISFAIAA, sucker.
> Yhwh is the True, living God; "Allah" is a false, phony,
> non-existent deity.
Wrong on both accountgs. & your pretending to have the authorityn to
declare such indicates how little you actually know about your gods, gods
that probably number in the billions with 4 primary gods claimed.
>>> If you can find a reference to "Allah " in the Bible, post that
>>>reference. Otherwise, you owe Carl and Christians in general an
>>>apology.
>>
>>That's a ridiculous statement.
> You are ridiculous.
The man's ststement is correct, & he is not ridiculous. But I digress,
no one can be as consistently ridiculous as you. Like a terained seal
all you do is bark & clap your flippers in self congratulatory applause.
> And this discussion is closed.
Until you need another attention fix or see a chance to play prima donna,
drama queen or whichever role fits your mood ring at the time.
> I have seen through your bullshit much faster than Carl did.
No you haven't, you would have to see through your's first, something
you've yet to do.
>>
> SNIP
To late Donald, you left your steaming brown pile behind.
which wannabe this time baby johnnie, the poser that assumes he can
buffalo others because he assumes he knows more than he can demonstrate?
You can't even discuss your myth, yet you pretend to know it.
walksalone who does realise that yes, by name Allah is not mentioned in
the Hebrew Bible or even the Greek testaments. Unlike baby johnnie, I
know why.
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 06:37:00 -0700
Message-ID: <bunne3tb8nlqkpbvq...@4ax.com>
Perhaps-- oh Genius Extrordinaire-- you have forgotten how I have
instructed others at least a dozen times to address ME.
1. If you wish to communicate with me, Mr Genius, don't BEGIN your
comments to me with an insult.
If you begin with an insult, I will probably not read past it!
Does your GENIUS mind comprehend THAT?
Unlikely.
Raymond
> nothing to do with the point.
Read what I wrote again and without prejudice.
>
> The simple fact is that millions of Christian pray to Allah every day, so to
> say that "Alllah is not the God of Christianity" is a lie.
Yes Millions of Christians did use the word Allah to pray to the one
God. Last year the Islamic law makers made a rule that Christians can
not use the term "Allah" for the name of the Christian God or the
Jewish people to use that word either. They themselves pointed out
that "Allah" was only to be used by Muslims the followers of Islam.
That was reported over the news and Iran, and all the leaders of Islam
made that statement. Any Christian that calls their GOD by the name
of "Allah" would be punished according to the law of the Koran and the
teachings of Mohammad. Christians and Jews do not accept the false
teachings of Mohammad or the Koran. How can you say it is a lie, when
the ones that started the use of that name "Allah" say it is not the
Christian or Jewish God. They speak out of both sides of their mouth
and will lie or kill, murder etc, to make and force people to accept
their god and holy books. It has nothing to do with the God of the
Holy Bible, which also Islam say is full of errors as it does not
agree with the Koran. I just checked with the dictionary and even that
points this out "Muslim name for the one and only God".
> It's as simple as that.
Not so simple unless you know all the facts and those facts do not
agree with your view.
Raymond Knapp
Steve Hayes
And you appear to agree with those Muslims who wish to forbid Christians to
refer to God as Allah in their own language.
I don't.
Jani
"john w...@yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
news:c1nbe4p986ik70ipe...@4ax.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 17:28:42 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@jani.adsl24.co.uk>
> wrote:
> � 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>
>>
> ^ ^ ^ ^If that's true, thanks for correcting me.
>
> This is the first time I recall ever seeing his name. I tend to
> not follow conversations with Muslims.
Since Steve is Orthodox Christian clergy, that's a complete non sequiter.
Jani
Steve Hayes
>x-no-archive: yes
>On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 20:48:50 +0200, Steve Hayes
><haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> � 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
>may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:28:13 -0700, john w <j<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>And you can skim through the Bible and find not one single reference to "God"
>>>>in the Bible.
>>>
>>> On the contrary. I can find dozens, probably hundreds of references
>>>to God in the Bible.
>>
>>Never mind hundreds -- just cite one reference to "God" in the Greek, Hebrew
>>and Aramaic originals.
>
> Obviously the words we translate as "God" in the English would not
>translate as the WORD "God" in the ancient languages.
And exdactly the same applies to the word Allah.
> And your word games prove you are not serious.
Not my wrod games -- yours, and Carl's.
I just debunk them.
Steve Hayes
>> Judas declared Christ, "My Lord and my GOD!"
>
> I mis-spoke! ^ ^ ^ I obviously meant, "Tom declared Jesus Christ,
>"My Lord and my GOD!"
Which would have been "Allah" in Arabic.
Steve Hayes
>On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 21:28:17 +0200, Steve Hayes
>>I've been waiting a long time for you to explain where in the Bible it says
>>it's OK to worhsip God and speak about him in English, but not in Arabic.
>
> The point is that no matter WHAT you call the deity you refer to as
>"Allah", he is not Yhwh of the Bible.
>
> That is the point that you continue to side-step.
I don't sidestep it at all.
I have confronted that lie head-on, and pointed out that it is false.
It is false, untrue, a lie, a fabrication, supported only by your silly word
games.
It wouldn't be with the bother of contradicting were it not for the danger of
others being entangled in your web of deceit.
"The Christian usage of Allah predates Islam. Allah is the name of God
in the old Arabic Bible as well as in the modern Arabic Bible," he
said, adding Allah was widely used by Christians in Egypt, Lebanon,
Iraq, Indonesia and other parts of the world without problem.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/27/asia/AS-REL-Malaysia-Allah-Ban.php
There is the evidence: the God of the Bible is Allah, just as much as he is
God.
walksalone
From: john w <j<no>@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.religion.christia
n.methodist,alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,free.christians
Subject: Re: Is Allah The Name Of God?
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 01:53:51 -0700
Message-ID: <lanbe455n19po5gbp...@4ax.com>
References: <gbsgh1$ik1$1...@news.utelfla.com>
<cfi3e4l8bm57k524d...@4ax.com>
<7al7e4hr4tbauqdf9...@4ax.com>
<gke8e41sbeuugf7nn...@4ax.com> <de583f60-f01f-49c1-a6ec-
8c2c73...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
<ll7ae41tgc7fc6sgh...@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 30
Organization: Qwest Communications Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: 6b86cbd1.news.qwest.net
X-Trace: DXC=TAolVOQKmHSP]C1Y\^PcFSF85SKJoGf>T`C>boDii2UQgRiX5Ran0@[SkXT
\\;jgJZ3o<SQQiQGTSDD010NBAW=_@Y@M^:R>a3S
X-Complaints-To: ne...@qwest.net
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 21:28:17 +0200, Steve Hayes
> <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote:
snip
>>On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 10:57:06 -0700 (PDT), Carl <sai...@nettally.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Well, Steve, you've been asked three times and you've refused to
>>>answer a simple question on an essential Christian doctrine.
>>
>>I've been waiting a long time for you to explain where in the Bible it
>>says it's OK to worhsip God and speak about him in English, but not in
>>Arabic.
>
> The point is that no matter WHAT you call the deity you refer to as
> "Allah", he is not Yhwh of the Bible.
Now, it is well known you're not exactly an authority on the Hebrew Bible,
or the Greek Testament. Just for the other people who are wondering how
ignorant you really are, let me assist them in finding out.
In the first place, you do not know when yahweh came to be the god of
Judeo. You take it for granted that people that live the youth told you
the truth about how that happened. Just as there was no Moses, prior to
the claim for a Moses, the god of Judea was commonly known as �l, but more
likely was baal.
Now, this becomes complicated for people like Johnny, but the remainder of
can see how this can happen.
During the era of the claim, approximately -12th-century Gregorian, the
Middle East was a cauldron of misfortune, in the Judea high lands were
being left pretty much alone. They were of no value politically,
militarily, or economically. The trade routes had yet to be established
that would go. Eventually, through Jerusalem. We find no indications of
heavily populated towns or cities such as claimed in the Hebrew Bible, nor
do we find the effects of mass destruction such as we would have to find
had the Judean high lands been invaded by the Hebrews.
What archaeologists do find a way of mass destruction either predates or
postdates the claimed invasion era. This creates problems that are not
surmountable. For those that want to claim Judea always was, especially
when they want to pretend there was a biblical Israel as claimed by the
Judean mythmakers.
What this has to do with the acceptance of yahweh, as the tribal god of
Judea is very simple. They had to change gods, if they were going to be
taken seriously. They had no nation, they had no capital city, they had
nothing but possibly come a very loose confederation of tribes, and that is
not indicated by the evidence on the ground. This does not mean they did
they not have strong family relationships among the tribes, just that the
tribes were at that time not affiliated.
This is where it gets complicated for people like Johnny, what were they
supposed to do. They need a god, one that was not famous, but one that had
a good reputation, so to speak. The evidence currently available
indicates, the probability that the bar old. The god of the Kennenites.
Yes, the same ones who received a subordinate position according to the
Hebrew Bible, provided the gods for the Hebrew Bible.
As a side note, this is also the source of the legend of Abraham.
So now, even though Johnny cannot see, people can understand how the god
yahweh became the god of the Judean high lands.
This by no means would require anyone to change their mind about anything,
this is simply the information that is readily available to anybody that
wants to do the research. But a word of warning, if I might, research plus
thinking about the evidence presented had been known to cause xians to lose
their faith, as well as Islamic, as well as Jewish, as well as Hindu, etc.
etc. etc. ad infinitum.
> That is the point that you continue to side-step.
There is no point that you are forwarding, is simply another attempt, a
rather routine one and transparent one, to move the goal posts, and
therefore make the other person look to be a bit of an imbecile such as you
are. Like most of your presentations, it only impresses you and other weak
minded individuals. The point is, Allah & god are interchangeable in the
original languages. A point that offends your delicate sensibilities and
pretensions of being a self appointed and proclaimed biblical scholar���.
You're not even close to being a scholar, let alone a biblical scholar.
You would not know how to begin.
> Which is why neither Carl nor I will bother with you further.
Is Carl your lapdog now, that you can speak on his behalf & expect to be
obeyed?
Even more importantly, you are lying. You're going to attempt to use your
redefinition of god in the Hebrew Bible's and the various languages of the
ancient world, as a justification for running away to us, it's starting to
dawn, you. You are failing to support your claim. Therefore, as is
standard operating procedure for you,. It may, therefore, you will run
away shouting victory over your shoulder. It may impress Carl, and
possibly the new kid Dawn, but it fails to impress anybody that knows you
and knows you well. Not every body is weak minded as Carl.
>>Are you one of those people who believes we should all read the King
>>James version, just as Moses did?
>
> ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ If that was intended to be clever, Satan, you missed.
It was clever, but he does not know you very well yet. You're one of those
who believe that the sixth grade edition of the Bible that you read, is the
original works of the original text. It's not, but that does not stop you
from being convinced that because you can almost understand it, it must be
true. It's not even true to the writings of the apostles as claimed by the
Greek Testaments. But that's alright, anything more poetic would give you
a headache, according to you.
By the way, the attempt to demonize the other person has been noticed. You
use a name, and you don't even know who or what it's supposed to be. All
you know you are afraid of it and therefore, it must be an insult to
anybody else, if you, & especially you use it as their personal name. It's
simply another aspect of your Donald Duck routine. So common that it's
hardly noticeable anymore.
> john w
which wannabe this time Johnny, the self-proclaimed, genuine, imitation,
biblical scholar� that really has no clue as to what he is talking about?
Why is no one surprised.
walksalone, who really does not object to the ignorance demonstrated by
john buoy and company, after all, not everybody can understand big words of
five letters or more. The objection comes when he spends a day in the half
with a dictionary making a post it as almost lucid enough to bambozzle
those that are not familiar with his techniques. In other words, the
objection is not that he talks faster than he can think, but that he types
faster than he can think. Apparently so, somewhere around two words a
minute.
Yes, quite a few, actually. When I have asked two different pastors
about why I'm seeing so many demons, it was explained, "John you are
special. Like Jesus, like Peter, like Paul, the Holy Spirit is strong
in you. Demons see you and they SHRIEK for mercy."
jw Jul 24 20:58:54 2004
walksalone
From: john w <j<no>@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.christian.baptist,alt.religion.christ
ian.methodist,alt.religion.christian.pentecostal,free.christians
Subject: Re: Is Allah The Name Of God?
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 04:04:46 -0700
Message-ID: <71vbe4l1erndjp7g6...@4ax.com>
References: <gbsgh1$ik1$1...@news.utelfla.com>
<cfi3e4l8bm57k524d...@4ax.com> <26a47a2c-7e0b-4b92-ac24-
e5dda7...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
<2el7e49d898u8ifa0...@4ax.com> <7f85ad17-6485-4967-b7c4-
3fefea...@t41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
<67s9e4127b1q08skl...@4ax.com> <gc2sp2$on6$1
@energise.enta.net> <c1nbe4p986ik70ipe...@4ax.com> <gc4pdm
$12a9$1...@energise.enta.net>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 55
Organization: Qwest Communications Corporation
NNTP-Posting-Host: 888089bd.news.qwest.net
X-Trace: DXC=GT\3925\AU=bL3S>^IbD76F85SKJoGf>4G6nmgSc:iB=gRiX5Ran0@;SkXT
\\;jgJ:3o<SQQiQGT3DD010NBAW=?XMkDBO4b^>9
X-Complaints-To: ne...@qwest.net
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 10:43:37 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@jani.adsl24.co.uk>
> wrote:
snip
>>"john w...@yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
>>news:c1nbe4p986ik70ipe...@4ax.com...
>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 17:28:42 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@jani.adsl24.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
snip
>>>>"john w...@yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
>>>>news:67s9e4127b1q08skl...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 13:06:51 -0700 (PDT), Carl <sai...@nettally.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>[]
>>>>
>>>>> Before this, I don't remember ever
>>>>>>conversing with Steve Hayes before and intitially he was being
civil.
>>>>>>However he has grown more obfuscatory and increasingly has been
>>>>>>playing semantic games.
>>>>>
>>>>> Be aware that he's very likely NOT "Steve Hayes."
>>>>
>>>>So who is he, then? Steve always posts under his real name, and his
sig
>>>>links to his personal website and blog. He's exactly who he says he
is.
>>>
>>>
>>> ^ ^ ^ ^If that's true, thanks for correcting me.
>>>
>>> This is the first time I recall ever seeing his name. I tend to
>>> not follow conversations with Muslims.
>>
>>Since Steve is Orthodox Christian clergy, that's a complete non
sequiter.
>
> If Steve is "Orthodox ", he's not a Christian by the standards set
> by Jesus Christ and the Apostles.
How would you know, biblical standards did not become Orthodox until
after the reign of Constantine and his major revision of xianity. It
would help immensely if you were to keep your mouth shut when you don't
know the subject, and let people assume you are a fool. But you insist
on opening your mouth & verifying it beyond reasonable doubt.
> Galatians 1.
Meaningless quote mining on your part. You don't even know who the first
apostle really was, from the first one to suffer martyrdom. You don't
even know which apostle was spoken to directly by god. You know so
little about your mythology, that when you open your mouth and commence
to bray like a jackass, you're an embarrassment to xians. But then,the
ignorant are quite frequently the most boastful, and you give credence to
that observation.
which wannabe this time johnny, the genuine ate up with the dumb ass
pretender who likes to convince himself that he has the authority to make
observations about the status of xians. When his conduct says, he's
anything but a xian.
walksalone, who is rather curious about something. Is anyone who is not
addlepated or gullible convinced by Johnnie? If so, why?
From: jess me <jess...@home.burp>
Newsgroups: alt.cracks
Subject: REQ Crack/serial 4 Agent 2.0
Reply-To: You're Kidding
Message-ID: <oqt1909a64t8pjoov...@4ax.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 05:39:48 -0700
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.5.184.23
X-Trace: news.uswest.net 1083242403 67.5.184.23 (Thu, 29 Apr 2004
07:40:03 CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 07:40:03 CDT
Had it; computer crashed. Lost d/l and crack.
:-(
TIA
jess
Carl
>
> Since Steve is Orthodox Christian clergy, that's a complete non sequiter.
Jani, that designation is highly questionable and frankly, since Steve
won't make a simple confirmation on an essential Christian doctrine,
it's highly doubtful if he is "Orthodox" and "Orthodox Christian."
Furthermore, if he is indeed clergy, it is apparent from his posts
that he is ignorant in Biblical studies that realy clergy should know,
such as Biblical languages. So, like "Pastor Dave" and Steve Winter,
if he considers himself to be clergy then it's probably a self-
designated title with little to no substance to it. Thus far, there is
no evidence whatsoever that this Steve [Hayes] is either legitimately
"Orthodox" or "clergy"
Jani
"john w...@yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
news:71vbe4l1erndjp7g6...@4ax.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 10:43:37 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@jani.adsl24.co.uk>
> If Steve is "Orthodox ", he's not a Christian by the standards set
> by Jesus Christ and the Apostles.
And you know better than the Orthodox church, in that regard, do you?
Jani
Jani
"Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote in message
news:24f5a91b-de73-4898...@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 3, 5:43 am, "Jani" <j...@jani.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Since Steve is Orthodox Christian clergy, that's a complete non sequiter.
>
> Jani, that designation is highly questionable and frankly, since Steve
> won't make a simple confirmation on an essential Christian doctrine,
> it's highly doubtful if he is "Orthodox" and "Orthodox Christian."
> Furthermore, if he is indeed clergy, it is apparent from his posts
> that he is ignorant in Biblical studies that realy clergy should know,
> such as Biblical languages. So, like "Pastor Dave" and Steve Winter,
> if he considers himself to be clergy then it's probably a self-
> designated title with little to no substance to it. Thus far, there is
> no evidence whatsoever that this Steve [Hayes] is either legitimately
> "Orthodox" or "clergy"
Oh, Carl, look at the links in his sig. Unlike many people on Usenet, Steve
is quite open about who he is, and his credentials are rock-solid.
Jani
Raymond
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 19:11:24 -0700 (PDT), Raymond <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 1, 12:03 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> The simple fact is that millions of Christian pray to Allah every day, so to
> >> say that "Alllah is not the God of Christianity" is a lie.
>
> >Yes Millions of Christians did use the word Allah to pray to the one
> >God. Last year the Islamic law makers made a rule that Christians can
> >not use the term "Allah" for the name of the Christian God or the
> >Jewish people to use that word either. They themselves pointed out
> >that "Allah" was only to be used by Muslims the followers of Islam.
> >That was reported over the news and Iran, and all the leaders of Islam
> >made that statement. Any Christian that calls their GOD by the name
> >of "Allah" would be punished according to the law of the Koran and the
> >teachings of Mohammad. Christians and Jews do not accept the false
> >teachings of Mohammad or the Koran. How can you say it is a lie, when
> >the ones that started the use of that name "Allah" say it is not the
> >Christian or Jewish God. They speak out of both sides of their mouth
> >and will lie or kill, murder etc, to make and force people to accept
> >their god and holy books. It has nothing to do with the God of the
> >Holy Bible, which also Islam say is full of errors as it does not
> >agree with the Koran. I just checked with the dictionary and even that
> >points this out "Muslim name for the one and only God".
>
> And you appear to agree with those Muslims who wish to forbid Christians to
> refer to God as Allah in their own language.
>
> I don't.
I would think the Christian would not want to accept that the Muslim
Allah is the OT and NT name for God. Then the Muslim in this case are
correct to forbid the true Believer in God to call the false god of
Islam their God. Then since you are not a Muslims you can say what
you like or agree with what you like, it will have no foundation in
what the Muslims do or the true believer in Christ Jesus. The
document that CARL posted and I read today, cover the matter in some
detail and I do agree with that post.
Carl
The links really prove very little. However what he has posted indeed
give strong evidence that he is neither "Orthodox" nor "Orthodox
Christian" in the sense of the theologically traditional definition of
orthodox since he has rejected at least one orthodox doctrine
essential to the Christian faith.
Carl
> wrote:
> © 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>
>
> >> Since Steve is Orthodox Christian clergy, that's a complete non sequiter.
>
> >Jani, that designation is highly questionable and frankly, since Steve
> >won't make a simple confirmation on an essential Christian doctrine,
> >it's highly doubtful if he is "Orthodox" and "Orthodox Christian."
> >Furthermore, if he is indeed clergy, it is apparent from his posts
> >that he is ignorant in Biblical studies that realy clergy should know,
> >such as Biblical languages. So, like "Pastor Dave" and Steve Winter,
> >if he considers himself to be clergy then it's probably a self-
> >designated title with little to no substance to it. Thus far, there is
> >no evidence whatsoever that this Steve [Hayes] is either legitimately
> >"Orthodox" or "clergy"
>
> aware), "Orthodox Christianity" is not Christianity. It's just their
> version.
>
> I have met quite a few "Orthodox Christians." They deny every
> single precept that you and I hold dear, from the Trinity to the deity
> of our Lord, to the virgin birth.
I was referring to the term "Orthodox" in the theologically tradition
definition rather than in relation to a particular sect. In regards to
Mr. Hayes, I am uncertain at this point of which sect he belongs. From
my understanding "Orthodox Christian" in regards to sects could refer
to The Eastern Orthodox Church, The Oriental Orthodox Churches, or any
number of eastern churches which have departed from the essential
doctrines of the Christian faith. As of this point however it is
apparent that Mr. Hayes is in grievous error in his equating the God
of Christianity (formal names: Jehovah, Yahweh, El Adonai, etc.) with
the "Allah" of Islam. For example, the God of Christianity cannot lie
according to the Bible while the Allah of Islam does lie and is a
deceiver according to the Quran. There are numerous other examples of
opposition that cannot be rencociled between the one, true God of the
Bible and the false god of the Quran.
However at this point, since Mr. Hayes has shown himself to be
evasive, obfuscatory and in clear oppposition to Scripture, whatever
sect or cult of which he is involved is of no concern to me and I have
nothing more to do with him in accordance to Scripture other than to
pray for him and leave it in God's hands.
Jani
"john w...@yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
news:t3tce41p9fv03v2qg...@4ax.com...
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 10:00:12 -0700 (PDT), Carl <sai...@nettally.com>
> wrote:
> � 2008 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
> may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
>>On Oct 3, 5:43 am, "Jani" <j...@jani.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Since Steve is Orthodox Christian clergy, that's a complete non
>>> sequiter.
>>
>>Jani, that designation is highly questionable and frankly, since Steve
>>won't make a simple confirmation on an essential Christian doctrine,
>>it's highly doubtful if he is "Orthodox" and "Orthodox Christian."
>>Furthermore, if he is indeed clergy, it is apparent from his posts
>>that he is ignorant in Biblical studies that realy clergy should know,
>>such as Biblical languages. So, like "Pastor Dave" and Steve Winter,
>>if he considers himself to be clergy then it's probably a self-
>>designated title with little to no substance to it. Thus far, there is
>>no evidence whatsoever that this Steve [Hayes] is either legitimately
>>"Orthodox" or "clergy"
>
> Um.... Carl... if you were not aware (I don't believe you're not
> aware), "Orthodox Christianity" is not Christianity. It's just their
> version.
>
> I have met quite a few "Orthodox Christians." They deny every
> single precept that you and I hold dear, from the Trinity to the deity
> of our Lord, to the virgin birth.
Your ignorance is quite astounding; I suggest you go over to
soc.religion.christian and tell Matthew Johnson that he 'denies the virgin
birth'. But be prepared to duck. He doesn't suffer fools gladly.
Jani
Jani
"Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote in message
news:669d6e21-b68f-4763...@64g2000hsu.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 3, 2:42 pm, "Jani" <j...@jani.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:24f5a91b-de73-4898...@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Oct 3, 5:43 am, "Jani" <j...@jani.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> Since Steve is Orthodox Christian clergy, that's a complete non
>> >> sequiter.
>>
>> > Jani, that designation is highly questionable and frankly, since Steve
>> > won't make a simple confirmation on an essential Christian doctrine,
>> > it's highly doubtful if he is "Orthodox" and "Orthodox Christian."
>> > Furthermore, if he is indeed clergy, it is apparent from his posts
>> > that he is ignorant in Biblical studies that realy clergy should know,
>> > such as Biblical languages. So, like "Pastor Dave" and Steve Winter,
>> > if he considers himself to be clergy then it's probably a self-
>> > designated title with little to no substance to it. Thus far, there is
>> > no evidence whatsoever that this Steve [Hayes] is either legitimately
>> > "Orthodox" or "clergy"
>>
>> Oh, Carl, look at the links in his sig. Unlike many people on Usenet,
>> Steve
>> is quite open about who he is, and his credentials are rock-solid.
>
> The links really prove very little.
They prove that he's ordained clergy in the Orthodox church, and if you read
his writing, you'll see they also prove that he's an extremely
well-educated, intelligent and articulate individual.
However what he has posted indeed
> give strong evidence that he is neither "Orthodox" nor "Orthodox
> Christian" in the sense of the theologically traditional definition of
> orthodox since he has rejected at least one orthodox doctrine
> essential to the Christian faith.
Oh, so your fight is actually with the Orthodox Church. Why didn't you say
so in the first place?
Jani
Steve Hayes
A commenter onmy blog has said "I’ve actually run into people online who say
that “God” is a false god, and that we should only pray to YHWH. As a
consequence of this, they claim that Christ should only be called YHWHshua."
So you and Carl are obviously in good company, and nuttiness abounds even more
than I believed possible.
Steve Hayes
Well, I looked at Carl's sig, and I wonder if he is really who he says he is.
For all we know he might be an extra-terrestrial space alien who was sent by
Elvis to debrief Bigfoot.
John W, of course being Bigfoot. I mean, who is he, really?
To judge from his comments in this thread, however, I suspect he is a Grand
Wizard of the KKK who is determined to keep dirty Ay-rabs our of the Christian
Church, and to reserve it only for Anglish-speaking Anglos (and perhaps only
those who speak English with an American accent too).
All their posts seem calculated to stir up hatred against people who speak
Arabic.
walksalone
>
>
> "john w...@yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
> news:71vbe4l1erndjp7g6...@4ax.com...
>> x-no-archive: yes
>> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 10:43:37 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@jani.adsl24.co.uk>
>> wrote:
snip
>>>"john w...@yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
>>>news:c1nbe4p986ik70ipe...@4ax.com...
>>>> x-no-archive: yes
>>>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 17:28:42 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@jani.adsl24.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
snip
>>>>>"john w...@yahoo.com>" <j<no> wrote in message
>>>>>news:67s9e4127b1q08skl...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Wed, 1 Oct 2008 13:06:51 -0700 (PDT), Carl
>>>>>> <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
snip
>>>>>So who is he, then? Steve always posts under his real name, and his
>>>>>sig links to his personal website and blog. He's exactly who he
>>>>>says he is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ^ ^ ^ ^If that's true, thanks for correcting me.
>>>>
>>>> This is the first time I recall ever seeing his name. I tend to
>>>> not follow conversations with Muslims.
>>>
>>>Since Steve is Orthodox Christian clergy, that's a complete non
>>>sequiter.
>>
>> If Steve is "Orthodox ", he's not a Christian by the standards set
>> by Jesus Christ and the Apostles.
>
> And you know better than the Orthodox church, in that regard, do you?
>
> Jani
Jani? If I may. I suspect john boy hasn't a clue what orthodox is, what
it actually means, or how it came to win the xianity purity wars of the
early -4th Gr. century.
Indications are, he beleives the bibles of today are teh same one used in
first century xianity. He appears to not even klnow that books, very
popular books of tghe time, are not included in his fractured fairy tale
version of xianity. Given the molst ignorant are frequently the loudest
screamsers in professing their opinion is ccorrect & arguements based on
lackalogic™, he is certqainly a candidate for the duh award.
I doubt he realises that his precious Greek Testaments contain forgeries.
walksalone who was not very thrilled when he found out that yes, the word
of god™ contains forgeries, there is probably another word in use to
excuse them.
Evil is like a shadow - it has no real substance of its own, it is simply
a lack of light. You cannot cause a shadow to disappear by trying to
fight it, stamp on it, by railing against it, or any other form of
emotional or physical resistance. In order to cause a shadow to
disappear, you must shine light on it.
-Shakti Gawain, teacher and author (b. 1948)
Jani
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:981ee4t1q4jg9vcrr...@4ax.com...
Not to mention people who worship the same god, but according to the limits
of their interpretations. It's pretty obvious (to me, at least) that the
three monotheistic faiths don't differ in their god, only in the matter of
messiahs and prophets.
Jani
Steve Hayes
>
>
>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> All their posts seem calculated to stir up hatred against people who speak
>> Arabic.
>
>Not to mention people who worship the same god, but according to the limits
>of their interpretations. It's pretty obvious (to me, at least) that the
>three monotheistic faiths don't differ in their god, only in the matter of
>messiahs and prophets.
Oh they differ all right -- Christians believe that God is Trinity, Jews and
Muslims don't.
But it's the theology that differs, not the name.
Arabic-speaking Christians and Muslims both use the name "Allah" for God, so
to say "Allah" is not the God of the Bible is ridiculous.
Jani
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a9vhe4ddu27qv7f86...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 16:57:58 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@jani.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> All their posts seem calculated to stir up hatred against people who
>>> speak
>>> Arabic.
>>
>>Not to mention people who worship the same god, but according to the
>>limits
>>of their interpretations. It's pretty obvious (to me, at least) that the
>>three monotheistic faiths don't differ in their god, only in the matter of
>>messiahs and prophets.
>
> Oh they differ all right -- Christians believe that God is Trinity, Jews
> and
> Muslims don't.
>
> But it's the theology that differs, not the name.
Now, are you saying that Christianity's polytheist? *grin*
>
> Arabic-speaking Christians and Muslims both use the name "Allah" for God,
> so
> to say "Allah" is not the God of the Bible is ridiculous.
Of course. It's the same god, and the difference is only apparent when you
talk to reconstructionists of pre-christian faiths; even they acknowledge
one initiator, ground-of-being, or whatever. Dualism and so on comes later.
Jani
Steve Hayes
>
>
>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:a9vhe4ddu27qv7f86...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 16:57:58 +0100, "Jani" <ja...@jani.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Steve Hayes" <haye...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> All their posts seem calculated to stir up hatred against people who
>>>> speak
>>>> Arabic.
>>>
>>>Not to mention people who worship the same god, but according to the
>>>limits
>>>of their interpretations. It's pretty obvious (to me, at least) that the
>>>three monotheistic faiths don't differ in their god, only in the matter of
>>>messiahs and prophets.
>>
>> Oh they differ all right -- Christians believe that God is Trinity, Jews
>> and
>> Muslims don't.
>>
>> But it's the theology that differs, not the name.
>
>Now, are you saying that Christianity's polytheist? *grin*
Not me, but Muslims would.
ARAH
"......Any Christian that calls their GOD by the name
of "Allah" would be punished according to the law of the Koran and
the
teachings of Mohammad. ..."
Can you provide proof to your allegation.
Good Luck
On Oct 3, 5:11 am, Raymond <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> On Oct 1, 12:03 am, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:50:43 -0700 (PDT), Raymond <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote:
> > >On Sep 30, 1:22 pm, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 09:29:25 -0700 (PDT), Carl <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
> > >> >If you wish to try to sidestep and attempt to redirect the point to
> > >> >etymology then you will have to do so alone. I am staying with the
> > >> >main point which is that the God of the Bible is not nor ever has been
> > >> >"Allah" of Islam.
>
> > >> Why do you speak of the "God" of the Bible when the Bible does not, in either
> > >> Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, use the word "God", any more than it uses the word
> > >> "Allah"?
>
> > >It sure does in ENGLISH, which most believers speak. The Word in
> > >Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic is not found in Spanish, Chinese etc but is
> > >in the language of them that do speak English.
>
> > >> If, as you say, "Allah" is not the God of the Bible, then neither is God the
> > >> God of the Bible - because there isd no mention of "God" in the Bible.
>
> > >Since Allah is NOT the God of the Bible but the "god" of the Koran
> > >which also is not a holy book as the Holy Bible is the Book of God.
> > >The term "God" is all over the Bible to make such a stupid statement
> > >as you did above is pure foolishness. I do say Allah is Islam or
> > >Muslims is not the God of the Bible!
>
> > >> But that is an evasion on your part.
>
> > >> The fact is that Allah is the God of Christianity, and the original statement
> > >> in the article you posted, saying that Allah is not the God of Christianity,
> > >> was and remains a lie.
>
> > >If you think the Devil is God as he wanted to be, and can be seen as
> > >the god of this world, then Satan the Devil and Allah would be found
> > >in the Bible. Only the God of the Jews and Christianity is not the
> > >God of Islam and His name is not Allah so the facts proved you are the
> > >one that lied.
>
> > Sorry, I'm not sure what you are talking about -- most of it seems to have
> > nothing to do with the point.
>
> Read what I wrote again and without prejudice.
>
>
>
> > The simple fact is that millions of Christian pray to Allah every day, so to
> > say that "Alllah is not the God of Christianity" is a lie.
>
> Yes Millions of Christians did use the word Allah to pray to the one
> God. Last year the Islamic law makers made a rule that Christians can
> not use the term "Allah" for the name of the Christian God or the
> Jewish people to use that word either. They themselves pointed out
> that "Allah" was only to be used by Muslims the followers of Islam.
> That was reported over the news and Iran, and all the leaders of Islam
> made that statement. Any Christian that calls their GOD by the name
> of "Allah" would be punished according to the law of the Koran and the
> teachings of Mohammad. Christians and Jews do not accept the false
> teachings of Mohammad or the Koran. How can you say it is a lie, when
> the ones that started the use of that name "Allah" say it is not the
> Christian or Jewish God. They speak out of both sides of their mouth
> and will lie or kill, murder etc, to make and force people to accept
> their god and holy books. It has nothing to do with the God of the
> Holy Bible, which also Islam say is full of errors as it does not
> agree with the Koran. I just checked with the dictionary and even that
> points this out "Muslim name for the one and only God".
>
> > It's as simple as that.
>
> Not so simple unless you know all the facts and those facts do not
> agree with your view.
>
> Raymond Knapp- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Raymond
> Raymond wrote
>
> "......Any Christian that calls their GOD by the name
> of "Allah" would be punished according to the law of the Koran and
> the
> teachings of Mohammad. ..."
>
> Can you provide proof to your allegation.
If one checks with the nations that made the statement public a few
months ago, pointing out in the newspapers that they were upset
because when Christians called their God by the name of Allah it was
confusing people and had to be stopped. I do not write the news only
read it when I see something like this. The Christian news that was
reporting on areas that persecute the Church around the world also had
the references and statements on records. I sure if some would look
or write the leaders of Islam and the view on this, you have all the
proof you would need. Not something a few years ago, but this year
2008.
>
> Good Luck
I do not need Luck, I have God.
Raymond
Steve Hayes
>Etymology of the Word “Allah”
>There has been much speculation and endless discussion among Muslim
>exegetes and lexicographers concerning the real significance of the
>Arabic word “Allah.” A well-respected Muslim commentator, Beidhawi,
>suggests that Allah is derived “from an [invented] root illaha = to be
>in perplexity, because the mind is perplexed when it tries to form the
>idea of the Infinite!”[3]? Still, “according to the opinion of some
>Muslim theologians, it is infidelity (kufr) to hold that the word has
>any derivation whatever! … They say that God is not begotten, and so
>His name cannot be derived. He is the first, and had an Arabic name
>before the creation of the worlds.”[4]? The author of the Muheet-el-
>Muheet dictionary says: “Allah is the name of necessary Being. There
>are twenty different views as to the derivation of this name of the
>Supreme; the most probable is that its root is illah, the past
>participle form, or the measure fi’al, from the verb ilaho = to
>worship, to which the article was prefixed to indicate the supreme
>object of worship.”?[5]
>Ajijola, a Muslim author and apologist, writes, “In the Arabic
>Language the word ‘ilah’ means ‘one who is worshipped’.… The word
>‘Allah’, on the other hand, is the essential personal name of God. ‘La
>ilaha illa-Allah’ would literally mean, ‘There is no “ilah” other than
>the One Great Being known by the name Allah.’ ”[6]?
>Cragg, in his highly acclaimed work The Call of the Minaret, notes,
>“The Arabic form ilahun meaning ‘a god’ is similar to the Hebrew and
>Aramaic words for deity. When used with the definite article Al-Ilahu
>meaning ‘The God’ the l consonant of the article coalesces with the
>same letter in the first syllable of the word eliding the i sound to
>make Al-lah. If we take the word to be of genuine Arabic form this is
>the obvious origin. If, as some scholars believe, the word does not
>have this origin but is historically derived from a sister language,
>its significance is the same. Allah means ‘God’ which connotation
>English achieves by dismissing even the definite article and using the
>capital letter—a device which Arabic lacks.”?[7]
Etymology of the word "God"
Com. Teut.: OE. god (masc. in sing.; pl. godu, godo neut., godas
masc.) corresponds to OFris., OS., Du. god masc., OHG. got, cot (MHG.
got, mod.Ger. gott) masc., ON. goð, guð neut. and masc., pl. goð, guð
neut. (later Icel. pl. guðir masc.; Sw., Da. gud), Goth. guþ (masc. in
sing.; pl. guþa, guda neut.). The Goth. and ON. words always follow
the neuter declension, though when used in the Christian sense they
are syntactically masc. The OTeut. type is therefore *gu¤om neut., the
adoption of the masculine concord being presumably due to the
Christian use of the word. The neuter n., in its original heathen use,
would answer rather to L. numen than to L. deus. Another approximate
equivalent of deus in OTeut. was *ansu-z (Goth. in latinized pl. form
anses, ON. dss, OE. Ós- in personal names, ésa genit. pl.); but this
seems to have been applied only to the higher deities of the native
pantheon, never to foreign gods; and it never came into Christian use.
The ulterior etymology is disputed. Apart from the unlikely
hypothesis of adoption from some foreign tongue, the OTeut. *guðom
implies as its pre-Teut. type either *ghudho-m or *ghutó-m. The former
does not appear to admit of explanation; but the latter would
represent the neut. of the passive pple. of a root *gheu-. There are
two Aryan roots of the required form (both *g%heu, with palatal
aspirate): one meaning ‘to invoke’ (Skr. hG), the other ‘to pour, to
offer sacrifice’ (Skr. hu, Gr. vŒeim, OE. ¼éotan yete v.). Hence *g
%hutó-m has been variously interpreted as ‘what is invoked’ (cf. Skr.
puru-hGta ‘much-invoked’, an epithet of Indra) and as ‘what is
worshipped by sacrifice’ (cf. Skr. hutá, which occurs in the sense
‘sacrificed to’ as well as in that of ‘offered in sacrifice’). Either
of these conjectures is fairly plausible, as they both yield a sense
practically coincident with the most obvious definition deducible from
the actual use of the word, ‘an object of worship’. Some scholars,
accepting the derivation from the root *g%heu- to pour, have supposed
the etymological sense to be ‘molten image’ (= Gr. vts¾m), but the
assumed development of meaning seems very unlikely.
From a desire to utter the name of God more deliberately than the
short vowel naturally allows, the pronunciation is often (gQ;d) or
even (gO;d), and an affected form (gVd) is not uncommon: see gud. (For
the variations in oaths see 10 and 11.) In Sc. the usual pron. is
(god), but Gude (g{d), i.e. good a., is frequently substituted in such
expressions as Gudesake, Gude keep's, etc
Raymond
It would be nice if one could pronounce that YHWH since the proper
pronunciation has been lost in time, and adding vowels to it is silly
as that would change the name also. Then it is better then "Allah"
which originally was one of 360 or so, ask a Rabbi and maybe one could
get closer to the Hebrew used before that "Allah" name was invented.
I sure God knows the heart and them that love Him and His word, others
will make up "holy books" and false prophets which God also knows
their intention as they murder and kill innocent Iraq's in the name of
their so called god.
> So you and Carl are obviously in good company, and nuttiness abounds even more than I believed possible.
Then at least Carl is in good company and not with nutty folks that
need to have a false name to call on their deity.
Raymond
Raymond
> "Steve Hayes" <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Then that is why people go to College and get their degree in Theology
so they would know the differences. It is clear you not so educated.
Raymond
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 16:57:58 +0100, "Jani" <j...@jani.adsl24.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >"Steve Hayes" <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> All their posts seem calculated to stir up hatred against people who speak
> >> Arabic.
>
> >Not to mention people who worship the same god, but according to the limits
> >of their interpretations. It's pretty obvious (to me, at least) that the
> >three monotheistic faiths don't differ in their god, only in the matter of
> >messiahs and prophets.
>
> Oh they differ all right -- Christians believe that God is Trinity, Jews and
> Muslims don't.
Christians belive God is ONE GOD the same as the JEWS but not the
false teachings of Islam.
Christians also believe Mohammad is a false prophet and the Koran is
not the book of God.
>
> But it's the theology that differs, not the name.
>
> Arabic-speaking Christians and Muslims both use the name "Allah" for God, so
> to say "Allah" is not the God of the Bible is ridiculous.
I know many atheist that will use the term "Oh god" and "jesus" etc,
but do not mean the same as them that worship God. Which make your
remarks ridiculous.
Raymond
Try this: 1god \'gäd also 'gȯd\ n [ME, fr. OE; akin to OHG got god]
(bef. 12c)
1 cap : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in
power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of
the universe b Christian Science: the incorporeal divine Principle
ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes
and powers and to require human worship ; specif: one controlling a
particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler
2god vt, god·ded god·ding (1595) : to treat as a god : idolize deify
Ot this: singular Eloah (Hebrew: God), the God of Israel in the Old
Testament. A plural of majesty, the term Elohim—though sometimes used
for other deities, such as the Moabite god Chemosh, the Sidonian
goddess Astarte, and also for other majestic beings such as angels,
kings, judges (the Old Testament shofeṭim), and the Messiah—is usually
employed in the Old Testament for the one and only God of Israel,
whose personal name was revealed to Moses as YHWH, or Yahweh (q.v.).
When referring to Yahweh, elohim very often is accompanied by the
article ha-, to mean, in combination, “the God,” and sometimes with a
further identification Elohim ḥayyim, meaning “the living God.”
Though Elohim is plural in form, it is understood in the singular
sense. Thus, in Genesis the words, “In the beginning God (Elohim)
created the heavens and the earth,” Elohim is monotheistic in
connotation, though its grammatical structure seems polytheistic. The
Israelites probably borrowed the Canaanite plural noun Elohim and made
it singular in meaning in their cultic practices and theological
reflections.
Then I could post a lot more, but when dealing with non-belivers and
their silly statements and so called proof it would just be a waste of
time, now if you disagree I be happy to post some more, then why make
you look more ignorant in things of religion then you have already
shown. I wonder if you would qoute Chairman Mao or some leader of
atheistism that have their own agenda that would only end in
supporting its own foolishness.
Jani
"Raymond" <rwk...@aim.com> wrote in message
news:77671d1d-0a38-496e...@u28g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
You don't need a MDiv to see that there are only two options here - either
there is one god, and two out of the three belief systems have got it wrong,
or there are several separate gods and each has their own following. It's
perfectly reasonable for a Christian to say that the Islamic interpretation
is flawed, and vice versa, but that difference in *human* religious
philosophy is not going to change the nature of god, if there is only one to
begin with.
Jani
Raymond
>
> "......Any Christian that calls their GOD by the name
> of "Allah" would be punished according to the law of the Koran and
> the
> teachings of Mohammad. ..."
>
> Can you provide proof to your allegation.
>
> Good Luck
You asked for this proof so here it is, and I did not need any
luck.
News Briefs
Malaysia bans non-Muslim publications from using "Allah," Episcopal
church takes disciplinary action against two conservative bishops, and
April issue to be CCM magazine's last.
March 3, 2008
The Malaysian government has ruled that non-Muslim publications may
not use the word Allah. The Herald, a Catholic newspaper, filed a
lawsuit against the government December 5 protesting the prohibition,
and it continued to use Allah in its 2008 editions. The government has
not revokedTheHerald's license, but has reportedly confiscated other
publications.. Supporters of the publisher note that Christians in
Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei — and other
parts of Asia and Africa where local languages have come in contact
with Arabic — use Allah to refer to God. Christians make up less than
10 percent of the religiously diverse but Muslim-majority nation of
Malaysia, which guarantees freedom of religion in its federal
constitution.
Plans for a global gathering of conservative Anglicans have continued
as the Episcopal Church has taken disciplinary action against two
conservative bishops. The gathering, called "Global Anglican Future
Conference," is scheduled for June 15–22 in Jerusalem, one week before
the communion's once-a-decade Lambeth Conference. Conservative leaders
of the 70-million-member church are expected to discuss next steps in
the ongoing dispute over homosexuality and scriptural authority. Those
disputes have been sharpest in the communion's U.S. body, the
Episcopal Church (TEC), which acted to censure two conservative
bishops in January. John-David Schofield, bishop of San Joaquin,
California, was "inhibited" — meaning he was barred from carrying out
any ministerial or oversight duties — after leading his diocese to
secede from the national church. Similarly, an Episcopal committee
declared that Pittsburgh bishop Robert Duncan, who has taken the first
steps to lead his diocese out of TEC, had "abandoned the communion of
the church." TEC's presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, sought
to inhibit Duncan but was unable to get the necessary unanimous
support of TEC's three senior bishops.
Christianity Today's articles about the Anglican division are in our
full-coverage section.
After nearly 30 years of covering Christian recording artists and the
Christian music industry, CCM magazine will print its last issue in
April. Salem Communications, which bought CCM in 1999, will continue
to host its online music channels. "CCM magazine readers tell us they
want more information and want it faster than can be delivered in a
monthly printed magazine," said publisher Jim Cumbee.
Copyright © 2008 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
I hope this will show you why the Muslisms do not believe that the
Christian/Jewish God is their Allah, so stop saying it is, as it makes
you a liar or just uninformed, you could of found this out yourself if
you would of looked.
Raymond
www.pioneers-for-jesus.org
> > RaymondKnapp- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Raymond
> "Raymond" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote in message
> >> Jani
>
> > Then that is why people go to College and get their degree in Theology
> > so they would know the differences. It is clear you not so educated.
>
> You don't need a MDiv to see that there are only two options here - either
> there is one god, and two out of the three belief systems have got it wrong,
> or there are several separate gods and each has their own following. It's
> perfectly reasonable for a Christian to say that the Islamic interpretation
> is flawed, and vice versa, but that difference in *human* religious
> philosophy is not going to change the nature of god, if there is only one to
> begin with.
There is only ONE GOD and lots of belief systems got it wrong. The
Bible does use the term "gods" when it is idols made by man or it is
demons that try to act like they are god of some kind. It is not only
reasonable it is fact when a book has to use the Bible to make itself
then say that Bible is full of errors as it does not agree with the
Koran the new book, it is clear the Koran is fake. The problem is
folks that do not believe there is a God or that God is alive and well
today, helping mankind that do obey him. I am not sure if you had a
point here or not? Then it is a wonder why people want to teach about
God and Theology but do not think they need to go to college first and
study that subject. Like going to a person to operate on your
kidneys but never went to a medical college or classes on that
subject. Who in their right mind would want such a person no matter
how nice he can talk or how educated his remarks sound, if he never
finished and got his MD?
Raymond
Jani
"Raymond" <rwk...@aim.com> wrote in message
news:aaeaf33a-16c1-401b...@k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
I'm not sure that *you* have, since you're drifting off on a tangent about
'believers'.
Then it is a wonder why people want to teach about
> God and Theology but do not think they need to go to college first and
> study that subject. Like going to a person to operate on your
> kidneys but never went to a medical college or classes on that
> subject. Who in their right mind would want such a person no matter
> how nice he can talk or how educated his remarks sound, if he never
> finished and got his MD?
How can the number of believers, or the level of human beings' education,
affect whether there is one god, or many gods? Surely the god or gods will
exist and retain the same nature, no matter what people say about
him/her/them.
Jani
Raymond
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:08:16 -0700 (PDT), Carl <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
> >Excellent source for informative articles showing the
> >incompatibilities between Christianity and Islam:
>
> I'm not talking about incompatibilities between Christianity and Islam,
> because that is not the question. Clearly Christianity and Islam have
> different theologies, and different conceptions of God.
>
> I was disputing a statement made in the article you posted that said "Allah is
> not the God of Christianity".
>
> That statement is simply not true.
But it is true, it is a god of Islam, not Christianity.
>
> Arabic-speaking Christians call God "Allah", and their conception of God is
> different from the Islamic one. So the question is not whether Islamic
> theology is the same as Christian theology.
It is not the same, and the God of one is not the god of the other
theology.
>
> The question is whether the statement that "Allah is not the God of
> Christianity" is true or not, and it clearly is a lie, since Christians use
> the name "Allah" for God.
What is clear is you are the one that is clearly lying about the
matter. Your opinion does not make it truth. The God of Abraham,
Moses and the Jews is not the god of Islam. Just because someone uses
the name Allah for their god and say it is the same, does not make it
so. Today we seen in the news that Islam have posted that Christians
can not call their God by the name Allah. Which I did post that news
report here, making it very clear they do not see the God of Jesus as
the same god they worship.
> --
Steve Hayes
>On Sep 30, 11:11 pm, Steve Hayes <hayesm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 11:08:16 -0700 (PDT), Carl <sai...@nettally.com> wrote:
>> >Excellent source for informative articles showing the
>> >incompatibilities between Christianity and Islam:
>>
>> I'm not talking about incompatibilities between Christianity and Islam,
>> because that is not the question. Clearly Christianity and Islam have
>> different theologies, and different conceptions of God.
>>
>> I was disputing a statement made in the article you posted that said "Allah is
>> not the God of Christianity".
>>
>> That statement is simply not true.
>
>But it is true, it is a god of Islam, not Christianity.
Is that invincible ignorance, or do you just like lying for the sake of lying?
>> The question is whether the statement that "Allah is not the God of
>> Christianity" is true or not, and it clearly is a lie, since Christians use
>> the name "Allah" for God.
>
>What is clear is you are the one that is clearly lying about the
>matter.
No, what is clear is that you are lying about the matter.
> Your opinion does not make it truth. The God of Abraham,
>Moses and the Jews is not the god of Islam. Just because someone uses
>the name Allah for their god and say it is the same, does not make it
>so. Today we seen in the news that Islam have posted that Christians
>can not call their God by the name Allah. Which I did post that news
>report here, making it very clear they do not see the God of Jesus as
>the same god they worship.
Which is all an irrelevant evasion and quite beside the point.
It has as much to do with the question as saying that motor cars have
hydraulic brakes, or that elastic stretches or that round things roll.
It still does not mean that Christians who worship Allah are Muslims, or that
Christians who read of God in the Bible are Muslims, or that Allah is not the
God of the Bible, because his name clearly appears in the Bible, and nothing
you say will change that.
The statement that "Allah is not the Bible" is a lie.
But is seems that the god of this world has blinded you to that fact.
>
>> --