Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

BOOK REVIEW: Mohamed Ghounem's "200+ Ways the Quran Corrects the Bible"

51 views
Skip to first unread message

Denis Giron

unread,
Dec 12, 2004, 9:01:57 PM12/12/04
to
Pax Vobis!

I just received a copy of the following book...

Mohamed Ghounem, "200+ Ways the Quran Corrects the Bible: How Islam
Unites Judaism and Christianity," (MMNC, 2003)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0972851887
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0972851887

...and would like to offer a brief review (with the hopes of motivating
others to give their thoughts). It should be noted that, although this
book is essentially a Muslim critique of Christianity, I myself am (at
this time) neither Muslim nor Christian. Those who wish to see a
Christian review of the book (as well as the author's response) might
consider the following exchange:

http://www.tektonics.org/books/goony.html
http://www.jews-for-allah.org/replytotektonics.html
http://www.tektonics.org/af/goony2.html
http://www.jews-for-allah.org/replytotektonics2.htm

While I know the author (I have met him in person, had lunch with him
once, and have conversed with him over email many times), and have the
greatest respect for him, I must regrettably confess that I found this
book somewhat disappointing. When I received the book from Barnes &
Noble, I had it in my hand for less than ten seconds when I flipped it
open (at random) to page 54. What immediately caught my eye was the
word "embryology," as I knew the author was a proponent of the
problematic (though popular) scientific-hermeneutic approach to the
Qur'an (a form apologia which is employed by Muslims as an attempt to
demonstrate the divine origin of Islam's Holy Writ).

There on page 54, Ghounem claims that the Biblical account of human
embryology is in error, while the Qur'anic account is in harmony with
modern science. Unfortunately, the approach found therein is highly
duplicitous in nature. An English translation of Job is stated to be
similar to the erroneous beliefs of Aristotle, while the Qur'an is
subjected to scientifically-informed reinterpretation. The reality,
however, is that we could just as easily play the same game in reverse,
reinterpreting the Hebrew text of Job in light of science while showing
that a specific English translation of the Qur'an bares a striking
resemblance to the writings of Galen.

What we realize is that the book pits Ghounem's interpretation of the
Bible against his interpretation of the Qur'an, with the latter text
receiving a considerable amount of favorable exegesis that is not
extended to the former. This is a pattern that is found throughout the
book.

Another telling example of such a problematic mode of comparison
appears on page 41, when Ghounem writes the following:

"The Bible says that the earth was created in six days (Genesis 2:1)
while modern scientists state that according to archeological evidence,
the earth was created in a time span of millions of years. [...] The
Quran is preserved and considered authentic in Arabic and thus the
Arabic term in reference to the earth's creation is "periods" or "eons"
rather than days as in the Bible versions[.]"

The hilarity of this passage can be found in the fact that the Bible
and Qur'an employ the exact same word. The Hebrew reads "yom"
(yod-vav-mem, YWM) while the Arabic reads "yawm" (yaa-waw-mim, YWM). It
is simply the height of duplicity to claim that when the Bible employs
the Semitic construction YWM it necessarily means a literal 24 hour
day, but when the Qur'an employs this term it means "eon". The reality
however is that the author does not know the Hebrew language.
Nonetheless, anticipating that critics may respond by noting the
inconsistent approach to translation taken by the author, Ghounem
refers readers to page 17, which contains a relevant portion of his
"Rebuttal Chart". There Ghounem writes the following:

"Apologetics [sic*] admit that some of the errors in the Bible are
attributed to translation errors from Hebrew to Greek to German to
English. Of course, any linguist would also admit that no word could be
perfectly translated from one language to another, especially from one
language funneled down through four languages. This may be acceptable
in earthly texts, but this excuse is unacceptable in Divine Scripture,
especially in light of the Quran. This excuse is corrected by the Quran
because the Quran is only accepted as authentic in its original
language (Arabic). Yet, Bible apologetics want us to still believe that
the Bible is Divine and inerrant in every langauge of the world when
that is linguistically impossible, and at the same time, Biblicists
confess that there are translation errors in the Bible."

[*Throughout the book Ghounem refers to apologists as "apologetics".]

It seems that the author should take issue with whichever (rather
misinformed) Christians he has come into contact with. There is no
reason, however, to extend such an argument to the Bible, especially in
light of the fact that the overwhelming majority of serious Biblical
scholars recognize that a translation brings with it the exegesis of
the translator(s), and acknowledge the value in consulting the Greek
and Hebrew texts. It is clear that this passage allows Ghounem to
poison the well from the start, quickly waving aside any criticism of
the incommensurate translation strategies employed in the book.

The book is 214 pages long (including bibliography and index), and
reads at a fast pace. Nonetheless, I found myself agreeing with Ghounem
on very few of the subjects listed. The only topic I agreed with
whole-heartedly was the final one (#210, p. 205), which covers an
apparent problem Ghounem and I have discussed in the past: the Bible is
inconsistent on the issue of whether God's love is conditional or
unconditional. However, here too I found myself disagreeing with
Ghounem when he then argues that the Qur'anic account of God's love is
superior to that which is found in the Sermon on the Mount. He confuses
God's perfect love with God's perfect justice, and fallaciously
presents a God who loves sinners as one who necessarily blinks at sin.

In the end, I must state that Ghounem's book exhibits very little
familiarity with the way serious Jewish and Christian scholars approach
many of the difficulties cited. Therefore, many of Ghounem's
contentions are at best misinformed, and at worst deliberate straw man
arguments. So, with this review putting forth such a strongly critical
view of the book, are we to assume that it will not be successful in
converting Christians to Islam? The answer is no. The average
Christian, like Ghounem, has probably not considered modern scholarship
on many of the problems listed, and thus the author's arguments could
be successful in shaking his or her faith. Which raises a question
about Ghounem's motives: is the author's goal to actually confront the
arguments of modern Biblical apologists, or to merely convince
Christians of the veracity of Islam? In many instances this book may
achieve the latter despite the fact that it fails to engage in the
former.
-Denis Giron
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/home.htm


ConvertstoIslam

unread,
Dec 15, 2004, 9:47:53 PM12/15/04
to
Salam Denis,

thank you for your review:

>The reality,
>however, is that we could just as easily play the same game in reverse,
>reinterpreting the Hebrew text of Job in light of science while showing
>that a specific English translation of the Qur'an bares a striking
>resemblance to the writings of Galen.

That's actually not the reality, I believe it's acceptable to emphasize on one
of the many fundamental advantages of Islam, which is the strict adherence to a
"one language" system of worship rather than the majority notion in Christendom
that God is powerful enough to convey His Bible in every language.

"playing the game in reverse" as you put it would be interpreted in Islam as
switching the authors from a Divine Creator of the Universe to mere human
translator, thus invalid, whereas in Christianity, flipping through languages
is much more fluid because the translators are considered holy men filled with
the spirit of God and divinely inspired.

>It seems that the author should take issue with whichever (rather
>misinformed) Christians he has come into contact with. There is no
>reason, however, to extend such an argument to the Bible, especially in
>light of the fact that the overwhelming majority of serious Biblical
>scholars recognize that a translation brings with it the exegesis of
>the translator(s), and acknowledge the value in consulting the Greek
>and Hebrew texts.

1) It is the English Bibles themselves that state their interpretation is exact
words of God;

You may never have to look up a word in the English Bible to see the Hebrew
and Greek meaning behind that word. The same word for word English equivalent
is used for the same word every place the word appears in the original text.
God's truth lights up inside of you in a new and fresh way! Faith is out of
hearing, and hearing is through the exact Words of God, that is, God's voice is
through the exact words that God has spoken. It is through these exact words
that He speaks to you today! {The Heritage Bible}

http://www.cathedraluniversity.com/heritagebible/index.asp

(I can just imagine what Spanish, French, or Italian Bibles are saying about
themselves)

2) Even if we were to attempt consulting the original languages of
Christianity, another major fundamental advantage of Islam is that the Gospel
does not have a original language. Instead, Christian scholars believe in a
"trilinity" (newly coined word:-) meaning that when you ask them what the
original language is, Christians list [Hebrew, Aramayic, and Greek] as three
interchangeably one original language of the Gospel, although in reality, the
three, as in trinity, are not interchangeable and contradictions can easily
happen between those three languages as in any three languages in the world.

Furthermore, the reason why I state there is no available original language of
the Gospel is because Jesus spoke in Aramaic, and the disciples presumable
translated his "oral Aramayic" into written Greek, thus a translation process
took place, leaving the door open for translation errors and the inability to
verify what words were mistranslated because the oral recording of what Jesus
said in Aramaic is unavailable.

>In the end, I must state that Ghounem's book exhibits very little
>familiarity with the way serious Jewish and Christian scholars approach
>many of the difficulties cited.

Im surprised by this comment since I've been through nearly every Christian
book that focused on contradictions in the Bible, namely the top selling "When
Critics Ask" by Dr. Norman Geisler and I feel I more than fairly presented
their excuses and I included the passages they cited for the excuses. I have
even included excuses from top Christian websites who address Bible
contradictions as well. I understand your fond of Craig and the angle he takes
on Trinity, which I will reply to in the upcoming book "101 Bible Quotes on
Christ Disproving Trinity", but what author(s) would you recommend that focus
on the hundreds of contradictions in the Bible other than the ones I've used?

Thank you for your comments, they will be strongly considered for future
editions/books.

Peace

Mohamed Ghounem

---

[
* I'm not aware that any translators claim to be inspired, except if
you're speaking of the presumed translation between Aramaic and Greek
lying behind the Gospels. Claims of inspiration are sometimes made by
others for the King James translators, but only by a small number of
people who are regarded by most of us as extremists.

* The claim made by the Heritage Bible isn't that their translation
is perfect, but that it is literal, and that this literalness gives
you a clearer view of the original wording and style. But this is a
one-man translation, which hardly has a major impact on Christianity.
Do you want us to evaluate Islam by the equivalent people?

* I'm not clear who would claim that Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek are
"interchangable" originals for the Gospels. To my knowledge, there's
no serious doubt that the Gospels as we have them now were originally
written in Greek. There's also little doubt that much of Jesus'
teaching would have been in Aramaic. So they aren't interchangable;
translation was done at some stage. Unlikely the poetry in the Quran,
Jesus' teaching in the NT are in fairly straightforward prose. There
are certainly questions how to apply his teachings in today's world,
but these questions arise from Jesus' tendency to teach by parables,
and by cultural differences between 1st and 21st Cent, not because of
problems understanding his language.

--clh]


bushbadee

unread,
Dec 16, 2004, 11:03:06 PM12/16/04
to
It is interesting that in any language the NT is printed while every word is
converted to the venacular language, two words are never converted and
always appear in the origonal Hebrew.
Those words are Barabbis.
It is as if Christians are afraid of those two words, because they have the
power to destroy Christianity and in fact they do.

> That's actually not the reality, I believe it's acceptable to emphasize on
> one
> of the many fundamental advantages of Islam, which is the strict adherence
> to a
> "one language" system of worship rather than the majority notion in
> Christendom
> that God is powerful enough to convey His Bible in every language.

>>It seems that the author should take issue with whichever (rather


>>misinformed) Christians he has come into contact with. There is no
>>reason, however, to extend such an argument to the Bible, especially in
>>light of the fact that the overwhelming majority of serious Biblical
>>scholars recognize that a translation brings with it the exegesis of
>>the translator(s), and acknowledge the value in consulting the Greek
>>and Hebrew texts.

My experiance is that it is not so much the translations which are at
variance, that is understandable.
The problem lies in the outright additions to the present NT that were not
in the origonal NT"s as written back in 350CE and there abouts.
These can and do often change the whole meaning of Christianity from what it
origonally was to a version modified by the Catholic Church throught the
ages.

>
> 1) It is the English Bibles themselves that state their interpretation is
> exact
> words of God;
>
> You may never have to look up a word in the English Bible to see the
> Hebrew
> and Greek meaning behind that word.

That is utter nonsense.
What then is the meaning of the word Himmini

The same word for word English equivalent
> is used for the same word every place the word appears in the original
> text.
> God's truth lights up inside of you in a new and fresh way! Faith is out
> of
> hearing, and hearing is through the exact Words of God, that is, God's
> voice is
> through the exact words that God has spoken. It is through these exact
> words
> that He speaks to you today! {The Heritage Bible}

The bible, all bibles are the works of man.
You may call him divinely inspired.
You may say he was on mushrooms, but in the end, the bible and the Koran for
that matter are the words of man.


>
> http://www.cathedraluniversity.com/heritagebible/index.asp
>
> (I can just imagine what Spanish, French, or Italian Bibles are saying
> about
> themselves)
>
> 2) Even if we were to attempt consulting the original languages of
> Christianity, another major fundamental advantage of Islam is that the
> Gospel
> does not have a original language.

Nor does the Koran.
The origonal Koran was not written in Arabic but in a form of ancient Serio
Aramayic or plain Serio, I forget which. There is a movement under foot
today, by some of my aquaintanences to retranslate the Koran back to the
origonal meanings. I have a site which has 4 different translations of the
Koran including an attempt to bring it back to it's origonal meanings.
But for sure, the origonal language of the Koran was not Arabic as many
Muslims would like to think.

> Furthermore, the reason why I state there is no available original
language of
> the Gospel is because Jesus spoke in Aramaic,

There is no proof or evidence of that.
That is an assumption.
We know that many of the writings of that time were Hebrew and that Hebrew
was a venacular language of the time. We have only to look at the language
that the secular texts of the dead sea scrolls were written in to see what
language was spoken and used at the time.
'

and the disciples presumable
> translated his "oral Aramayic" into written Greek, thus a translation
> process
> took place, leaving the door open for translation errors and the inability
> to
> verify what words were mistranslated because the oral recording of what
> Jesus
> said in Aramaic is unavailable.

Perhaps that is because they never existed.

>
> Im surprised by this comment since I've been through nearly every
> Christian
> book that focused on contradictions in the Bible,

but what author(s) would you recommend that focus


> on the hundreds of contradictions in the Bible other than the ones I've
> used?

There are no contradictions in the NT.
The NT is not a historical book that it can contradict itself. .
It consists of a series of books by different authors who each in their own
way attempt to explain and teach Christianity.
Of course different people come at the task in different ways and they give
different explainations for the same questions, but that is not
contradictions.

> Mohamed Ghounem


> * I'm not aware that any translators claim to be inspired, except if
> you're speaking of the presumed translation between Aramaic and Greek
> lying behind the Gospels. Claims of inspiration are sometimes made by
> others for the King James translators, but only by a small number of
> people who are regarded by most of us as extremists.
>
> * The claim made by the Heritage Bible isn't that their translation
> is perfect, but that it is literal, and that this literalness gives
> you a clearer view of the original wording and style. But this is a
> one-man translation, which hardly has a major impact on Christianity.
> Do you want us to evaluate Islam by the equivalent people?
>

> but these questions arise from Jesus' tendency to teach by parables,
> and by cultural differences between 1st and 21st Cent, not because of
> problems understanding his language.
> --clh]

And there you have the problem Chuck.
Many of the so called parrables, are not parrables, but good solid advice
for the times.
It is just that most Christians do not understand the NT and apply thier own
present meanings to words that were written then.

ConvertstoIslam

unread,
Dec 16, 2004, 11:03:07 PM12/16/04
to
Hi Charlie,

It's a sincere honor when you include your comments:

>I'm not aware that any translators claim to be inspired, except if
>you're speaking of the presumed translation between Aramaic and Greek
>lying behind the Gospels.

question: weren't the earlier translations filtered/approved through a
hierarchy within the Church (i.e. the Pope), who was considered "inspired", but
in general I assumed that the translators were considered "filled with the
spirit" which I may have exaggerated?

>I'm not clear who would claim that Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek are
>"interchangable" originals for the Gospels.

this may be another point I exaggerated, they may not "say" the three are
interchangeable, but they "imply" the three are *one* original language of the
Bible, I am simply clarifying that the three are separate.

>There
>are certainly questions how to apply his teachings in today's world,
>but these questions arise from Jesus' tendency to teach by parables,
>and by cultural differences between 1st and 21st Cent, not because of
>problems understanding his language.

I agree, but there are many mistranslated words in the Bible:

http://www.Jews-for-Allah.org/the-Jewish-Bible/300newtranslations.htm

some with less importance than others, that cause tensions with other parts of
the Bible, and the Quran miraculously settles the differences between them.

Peace

Mohamed Ghounem

----

[The standard translation in the West was the Vulgate. It was done by
Jerome, who was one the best scholars of the time. It was approved a
few decades after it was done, but I've seen no evidence that the Pope
"filtered" it.

The Church is considered inspired in the sense that it doesn't err
about major doctrinal issues in the long run. One would certainly
hope that translators are in guided by the Holy Spirit. But
responsible translators don't claim to have produced translations that
are inspired in the sense that you mean.

I haven't checked out all the passages in your web page, but I'm
betting that these are primarily textual issues, not questions about
how to translate. As you probably know, King James is based primarily
on a text assembled by Erasmus in the 16th Cent. A number of early
manuscripts were found since that time. Modern translations are
typically based on critical texts that use that newer evidence. As
you note, the changes are small enough that they don't affect the
message. But obviously we want to use the most accurate text
available.

--clh]

ConvertstoIslam

unread,
Dec 20, 2004, 12:17:12 AM12/20/04
to
Hi again Charlie,

>I've seen no evidence that the Pope
>"filtered" it.

I don't know the history either about whether the Pope(s) took part in
"filtering"/editing the Catholic translation of the Bible, but I do know that
the Protestants "filtered" the Catholic translation of the Bible by removing
the Deutrocanonicals (7 books) based on the claim that they were not
"inspired", thus giving the impression that the remnant Protestant translation
is "inspired".

Peace

Mohamed Ghounem

----

[I think you're confusing inspiration of the book with inspiration of
the translation. You're right that Protestants and Catholics disagree
on the status of some books that are in the Catholic OT. But the
question isn't whether the translation is inspired. It's whether the
books themselves are inspired. --clh]

ConvertstoIslam

unread,
Dec 20, 2004, 12:17:16 AM12/20/04
to
Hello Bushbadee,

> two words are never converted and
>always appear in the origonal Hebrew.
>Those words are Barabbis.
>It is as if Christians are afraid of those two words, because they have the
>power to destroy Christianity and in fact they do.

how do these words effect Christianity?

>My experiance is that it is not so much the translations which are at
>variance, that is understandable.
>The problem lies in the outright additions to the present NT that were not
>in the origonal NT"s

well, it's multiple issues, besides the additions, where are also copyist,
grammar, metaphorical, word expirations, and many OT vs. NT issues. Dr.
Geisler's book was really good in going into the various issues.

>The origonal Koran was not written in Arabic but in a form of ancient Serio
>Aramayic or plain Serio, I forget which.

I didn't think anyone would be nieve enough to make that absurd claim, since
the Quran itself states it was sent in Arabic:

"And before it the Book of Moses was a guide and a mercy: and this is a Book
verifying (it) in the Arabic language that it may warn those who are unjust and
as good news for the doers of good." (Quran 46:12)

Peace

Mohamed Ghounem

Mike

unread,
Dec 20, 2004, 12:17:15 AM12/20/04
to
ConvertstoIslam wrote:
> Hi Charlie,
>
> It's a sincere honor when you include your comments:
>
> >I'm not aware that any translators claim to be inspired, except if
> >you're speaking of the presumed translation between Aramaic and
Greek
> >lying behind the Gospels.
>
> question: weren't the earlier translations filtered/approved through
a
> hierarchy within the Church (i.e. the Pope), who was considered
"inspired", but
> in general I assumed that the translators were considered "filled
with the
> spirit" which I may have exaggerated?
>
> >I'm not clear who would claim that Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek are
> >"interchangable" originals for the Gospels.
>
> this may be another point I exaggerated, they may not "say" the three
are
> interchangeable, but they "imply" the three are *one* original
language of the
> Bible, I am simply clarifying that the three are separate.
>
> >There
> >are certainly questions how to apply his teachings in today's world,
> >but these questions arise from Jesus' tendency to teach by parables,
> >and by cultural differences between 1st and 21st Cent, not because
of
> >problems understanding his language.
>
> I agree, but there are many mistranslated words in the Bible:
>
> http://www.Jews-for-Allah.org/the-Jewish-Bible/300newtranslations.htm
>
> some with less importance than others, that cause tensions with other
parts of
> the Bible, and the Quran miraculously settles the differences between
them.
>
> Peace

Peace to you, Mohamed.

With respect, the issue of translations is a sideshow. We have enough
extant passages in the original languages, and the majority of modern
translations provide fairly copious translation notes. This then leads
us to the issue of cultural understanding. On that score a number of
volumes have been produced to help with this; the one I use the most is
"Word meanings in the New Testament". It has to be said that these
cultural nuances do find themselves from scholarship to the pulpil, at
least in the Churches I attend.

It is true that the Christian Church does not universally adhere to the
"sola scriptura" concept which (I believe) has been partly appropriated
from Islamic uses and approaches to the Qur'an. This has partly
obscured the debate on the uses of scripture and inerrancy, since many
Muslims (and, it has to be said, Christians) do seem to be under the
misapprehension that the Bible and the Qur'an are broadly equivalent
documents which require reading in similar ways. But Sola Scriptura is
a relatively modern innovation, and one without which Islamic theology
is even more distant and disjunct from Christian theology and
scriptural understanding.

A more problematic issue with the Qur'an's claim to scriptural
correction is one of its use of tautology to do so. Indeed, one has to
take the Qur'an by faith before any "corrective" concept can be
properly applied. For without such faith, the Qur'an comes across more
as an appropriative document than a corrective one. Hence the problem I
have with any concept of a book the likes of which you have written. It
seems to me that using corrective theology is completely inappropriate
in what appears to be an apology for Islam directed at Christianity,
since any "progress" in terms of persuasion towards the Islamic faith
would be based on a misunderstanding of the faith issues involved.
Mike.


ConvertstoIslam

unread,
Dec 22, 2004, 9:31:38 PM12/22/04
to
Hi Mike,

>With respect, the issue of translations is a sideshow. We have enough
>extant passages in the original languages, and the majority of modern
>translations provide fairly copious translation notes.

I respectfully disagree, translations are not as trivial as some may typify,
simply because there are an equal fraction of Christians who insist on one
translation over another, for example, there is a solid group of Christians who
read the KJV only, while the NIV has many notes discrediting the KJV.

The word "begotten" for example is omitted from the NIV, NASV, etc..., thus
there are sectors of Christians who call the NIV a false doctrine;

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdefns.htm

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivsatan.htm

while in your case, you say the "copious translation notes" makes it more valid
than the KJV?

>A more problematic issue with the Qur'an's claim to scriptural
>correction is one of its use of tautology to do so.

the entire stories are not repeated, it seems that the parts that require
clarification are the ones explained.

>For without such faith, the Qur'an comes across more
>as an appropriative document than a corrective one.

actually the Quran is universal, my book only emphasizes it's corrective
aspect, while other authors focused on many of it's other blessings.

For example, when Mel Gibson made a movie on Jesus, Gibson only focused on a
small aspect of the entire life of Jesus while I saw Jesus from the broad sense
of (a teacher of 33 years - Islam teaches Jesus miraculously spoke from the
crib).

This relates back to the translation issue in that people have different views
on the same book, but then when you change the words in those books (i.e. KJV
v.s. NIV), then you have a major split that is not a "side show".

Peace

Mohamed Ghounem

bushbadee

unread,
Dec 22, 2004, 9:31:38 PM12/22/04
to
> how do these words effect Christianity?

Because they indicate that the crowd was calling for the release of Jesus
the son of man and that he was released and not crucified.

So we would rather think that some guy called BarAbbus was released rather
than Jesus son of the farthers.

>
> well, it's multiple issues, besides the additions, where are also copyist,
> grammar, metaphorical, word expirations, and many OT vs. NT issues. Dr.
> Geisler's book was really good in going into the various issues.

I for one an not to interested in the NT vs OT issues.
I tend to compare both to the archaeological evidence that we have at this
time.


>
>>The origonal Koran was not written in Arabic but in a form of ancient
>>Serio
>>Aramayic or plain Serio, I forget which.
>
> I didn't think anyone would be nieve enough to make that absurd claim,
> since
> the Quran itself states it was sent in Arabic:

Arabic as spoken today did not exist when the Koran was written.
I have just gotten a very historical paper on the origonal language in which
the Koran was written and it puts to bed definitly that the Koran was
origonally written in Arabic.
It uses inscriptions on cliffs in SA. as references to the language used.

I do not want to go into this on a christian web site.
If you will drop me a line personally, I will look it up and send you a copy
of the paper, assuming I can find it in my terrible filing system.

> Peace
> Mohamed Ghoune

And my peace, health and prosperity find you Mohamed.


Matthew Johnson

unread,
Dec 24, 2004, 12:06:13 AM12/24/04
to
In article <e6qyd.1958$Y57.443@trnddc08>, ConvertstoIslam says...

>
>Hi Mike,
>
>>With respect, the issue of translations is a sideshow. We have enough
>>extant passages in the original languages, and the majority of modern
>>translations provide fairly copious translation notes.
>
>I respectfully disagree,

You _call_ it 'respectful', but it is not. For in order to maintain your
'disagreement', you have to IGNORE what Mike and others have been trying to tell
you. There is nothing 'respectful' in that!

[snip]

And the "KJV-only" people you keep bringing up are pretty widely recognized now
as being pretty far off the beaten-track. So 'sideshow' is not such a bad
description for their movement. Don't confuse the KJV-only people with any sort
of "mainstream Christianity" -- whatever _that_ might mean.


--
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

Aussierolf

unread,
Dec 25, 2004, 1:41:32 AM12/25/04
to
Hi Mohamed,
The extra books of th Roman Catholic Bible is full of fables and
uncertain origin. I like to give you a piece of it here:


Where are these writings of the early Fathers to be found? We have
before us quite a large volume called The Lost Books of the Bible. The
preface says these writings were "not included in the authorized New
Testament." On page 172 of this book (which is filled with all sorts
of follies and fables) I find "The Epistle of Ignatius to the
Magnesians," and it is in this "epistle" that there is a statement
favoring first-day keeping. How few there are who when this statement
is quoted in books and pamphlets written in opposition to the Sabbath
know that it comes from The Lost Books of the Bible! Preachers will
read from this book of fables with the same show of reverence and
respect as though it were the Word of God. Another early writer often
quoted in favor of first-day observance is Barnabas. We find his
writing on page 153 of Lost Books of the Bible. We are ashamed to quote
the things contained in these pages; we shall merely refer the reader
to them, but at the same time I would be far more ashamed lo read from
such a source to prove first-day sacredness! Those ministers who quote
from these sources know there is not one in a thousand who knows
.anything about the "epistle of Barnabas," and they can take advantage
of this ignorance to prove something which they cannot prove by the
Bible!

Justin Martyr is another "authority" that is greatly relied upon to
prove first-day sacredness. On page 297 of Faith of our Fathers
Cardinal Gibbons quotes Martyr to prove that the bread is Jesus
Christ: "The Eucharist is both the flesh and blood of the same
incarnate Jesus." Nobody believes that today except the Roman
Catholics. All these "authorities" prove what Paul meant when he said
that after his "departure," men would arise "speaking perverse
things," and the fact that these writings (supposed to have been done
by these men) are claimed to have been written right after the death
of the apostles shows what Paul meant when he said, "The mystery of
iniquity does already work." Clement of Alexandria is another one of
the early Fathers. We find that he is another one whose writings go to
make up The Lost Books of the Bible. He is supposed to have written
his epistles one hundred years after the death of the last apostle. He
says that by that time the seventh day had "become nothing more than a
working day." Thus do we see that the church to which he belonged was
gradually ceasing to observe the seventh day and leaning more and more
toward the day of the sun. Just how reliable his writings are may be
gathered from the following, which I dare to quote from him:

"There is a certain bird called Phoenix; of this there is never but
one at a time; and that lives 500 years. And when the time of its
dissolution draws near, that it must die, it makes itself a nest of
frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices into which when its time is
fulfilled it enters and dies. But its flesh putrefying, breeds a
certain worm, which being nourished with the juice of the dead bird
brings forth feathers; and when it is grown to a perfect state, it
takes up the nest in which the bones of its parents lie, and carries
it from Arabia into Egypt. And flying in open day in the sight of all
men, lays it upon the altar of the sun, and so returns from whence it
came." Think about being compelled to read from such a source to prove
Sunday had become the Sabbath! Note how he mentions the altar of the
sun, from which comes sun-day and the observance of the first day of
the week. No wonder he had come to recognize the seventh day as no
more than a working day. How natural it was that as he turned from the
true Sabbath, he leaned more and more to Sunday! At the risk of
wearying the reader with further quotations from such writers as we
are examining, I have two more to quote from. I quote from them
because they are read from with confidence in an effort to prove
Sunday sacredness. One of these is Tertullian, and the other is
Eusebius. Tertullian is supposed to have lived shortly after the death
of the apostles. Cardinal Gibbons relies to the utmost on Tertullian
to prove some of the absurd Roman Catholic doctrines.

On page 3 of Faith of Our Fathers, Gibbons says:

"It is also a very ancient and pious practice for the faithful to make
on their person, the sign of the cross saying at the same time: 'In
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'
Tertullian, who lived in the second century of the Christian era,
says: 'In all our actions, when we come in or go out, when we dress
and when we wash, at our meals, before retiring to sleep, we form on
our foreheads the form of the cross. These practices are not commanded
by a formal law of Scripture; but tradition teaches them, custom
confirms them, faith observes them.' " Roman Catholics practice these
things today. Gibbons quotes Tertullian again: " 'The faithful wife
will pray for the soul of her deceased husband, particularly on the
anniversary day of his falling asleep. And if she fail to do so, she
has repudiated her husband as far as it lies in her.' " You see,
Gibbons was trying to prove prayers for the dead. There is nothing in
the Bible about this, so he goes to Tertullian. This is the same thing
that is done in trying to prove first-day keeping. If this man wrote
what is attributed to him, he was certainly one of the builders of the
Roman Catholic Church.

Aussierolf


Aussierolf

unread,
Dec 25, 2004, 2:23:59 PM12/25/04
to
Beef and Vegetable Soup.
Its free, you can sell the crib, baby clothes, toys, stroller... and so easy to
procure if such a lucky find is at hand (just pick him up from the crib and
he?s good to go)!

SIDS victim, cleaned
½ cup cooking oil
Carrots
onions
broccoli
whole cabbage
fresh green beans
potato
turnip
celery
tomato
½ stick butter
1 cup cooked pasta (macaroni, shells, etc.)

Remove as much meat as possible, cube, and brown in hot oil.
Add a little water, season, then add the carcass.
Simmer for half an hour keeping the stock thick.
Remove the carcass and add the vegetables slowly to the stock,
so that it remains boiling the whole time.
Cover the pot and simmer till vegetables are tender
(2 hours approximately).
Continue seasoning to taste.
Before serving, add butter and pasta,
serve piping with hot bread and butter.

Offspring Rolls

Similar to Vietnamese style fried rolls, they have lots of meat
(of course this can consist of chicken, beef, pork, or shrimp).
Who can resist this classic appetizer; or light lunch served with
a fresh salad? Versatility is probably this recipe?s greatest virtue,
as one can use the best part of a prime, rare, yearling, or the
morticians occasional horror: a small miracle stopped short by a
drunk driver, or the innocent victim of a drive-by shooting...

2 cups finely chopped very young human flesh
1 cup shredded cabbage
1 cup bean sprouts
5 sprigs g


Denis Giron

unread,
Jan 2, 2005, 9:23:48 PM1/2/05
to
Pax Vobis Mohamed...

> That's actually not the reality, I believe it's acceptable to
emphasize on one
> of the many fundamental advantages of Islam, which is the strict
adherence to a
> "one language" system of worship rather than the majority notion in
Christendom
> that God is powerful enough to convey His Bible in every language.

It was only recently, while thinking about this discussion, that I
stumbled across a bit of a switch that you have pulled on the readers.
Your book is titled "200+ Ways the Quran Corrects the Bible". It is NOT
titled "200+ Ways Mohamed Ghounem's Interpretation of the Quran
Corrects the Approach to the Bible Employed by CERTAIN CHRISTIANS." To
elaborate on my admittedly sarcastic comment, let me note that the
sub-title of your book is "How Islam Unites JUDAISM and Christianity".
You have given ten reasons to by the book, and the number one reason is
that it will "show Christians and JEWS the truth of the Qur'an while
showing them the errors of the Bible!" Do you honestly believe that
Orthodox Jews care what the Heritage Bible or some Evangelical group
states about some English translation of the text? How should Orthodox
Jews, who consider the Hebrew text the authoritative text, understand
the bizarre argument about translations on page 17 of your rebuttal
chart?

Charles Hedrick, Matthew Johnson, and maybe a few other Christians in
this newsgroup, have noted that your pre-emptive waving away of any
argument about proper translation on the grounds that "Christians claim
the translations are inerrant" does not represent them. Such an
approach *certainly* does not represent the approach of any Orthodox
Jew. Thus I think my criticism holds strong. Your incommensurate
approach to translations when working with the Quran and Bible comes
off as woefully duplicitous.

> 2) Even if we were to attempt consulting the original languages of
> Christianity, another major fundamental advantage of Islam is that
the Gospel
> does not have a original language.

Well, it seems we know that most of the NT texts were originally
written in Greek, so why not conslut the Greek text? Admittedly,
however, they are often recording statements that were probably
originally uttered in Aramaic or Hebrew, but so what! Does not the
Qur'an also quote Jesus, Adam, Moses, Pharoah, Zu'l-Qarnain, Mary,
Aaron, et cetera? Are we to believe these people were all speaking
Qur'anic Arabic (rather than, say, Hebrew, Aramaic, Ancient Egyptian,
Farsi, Greek, or perhaps some other language)? If not, aren't many of
the quotes in the Qur'an, therefore, mere translations as well?
Furthermore, why focus on the gospels when you were responding to my
critique of your comparison of Soorat al-Mu'minoon to the Book of Job?
The Book of Job is not one of the gospels.

Finally, as I noted via e-mail, I presently do not have the book in my
possession (I loaned it to one of the Chaplains at Columbia University
with whom I am friends with), and did not want to discuss the book
until I got it back. However, I wanted to comment on one more portion.
Since I don't have the book handy, I am not able to recall what page it
is on, or what number it is, but I wish to refer to your commentary on
Mark 10:18. You mock Christians for interpreting the passage as a
reference to Jesus' alleged divinity, and in response to your position
that this verse clearly states that Jesus is not divine, you claim the
Christian retort is merely "that's what it says, but that's not what it
means." I think this should be examined further.

Jesus is quoted as stating that "only God is good". In other words, he
seems to be setting up a very clear biconditional proposition: if one
is "good" (in the sense relevant to the conversation), then one is God,
and if one is not "good" then one is not God (and so too the converses:
if not God, then not good; if God, then good). So it seems that this
indeed seems to be a statement corroborating the claim made by C.S.
Lewis (in "Mere Christianity") that Jesus has not left open to us the
option of him being merely a good human teacher. So this Markan
Biconditional states that to call Jesus "good" is to call him God.
That's what it says, and it seems, with all due respect, that you are
the one who is trying to argue that "that's not what it means". By the
way, no where in the passage does Jesus explicitly deny being "good",
much less God, so this verse does not contradict the doctrine of the
Trinity in my opinion.

I'll have more to write when I get my copy of the book back from my
friend. Until then, I look forward to your comments and the comments of
others.
-Denis Giron
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/home.htm


ConvertstoIslam

unread,
Jan 2, 2005, 9:23:56 PM1/2/05
to
Hi Matthew,

>You _call_ it 'respectful', but it is not. For in order to maintain
>your 'disagreement', you have to IGNORE what Mike and others have
>been trying to tell you. There is nothing 'respectful' in that!

It is respectful because I am addressing his comments, if I started talking
about the copyist errors, then I would be "ignoring" what Mike was saying.

>And the "KJV-only" people you keep bringing up are pretty widely
>recognized now as being pretty far off the beaten-track. So
>'sideshow' is not such a bad description for their movement. Don't
>confuse the KJV-only people with any sort of "mainstream
>Christianity" -- whatever _that_ might mean.

actually it's main stream Christians who say Jesus is "begotten", so either the
new Bibles are being ignored or Christians are trying to have it both ways.

Peace

Mohamed Ghounem

---

[The Bible (at least in English) certainly uses the term "begotten"
for Christ. The issue is whether it uses the term in John 1 and John
3:16. This isn't an issue of theology, but of doing the best
translation we can. I believe the best translation of John is simply
"only Son." On the other hand, it doesn't seem to make a lot of
difference. Since sons are begotten from the fathers, "only Son" and
"only begotten Son" mean pretty much the same thing, as long as you
realize we're not talking about begetting physically. NRSV uses it in
three NT texts that are citing Ps 2:7: Acts 13:33, Heb 1:5 and Heb
5:5. And of course the Nicene Creed uses it, together with language to
prevent misunderstanding: "begotten of the Father before time" (lit,
"before all ages"). --clh]


Matthew Johnson

unread,
Jan 3, 2005, 10:11:23 PM1/3/05
to
In article <012Cd.21344$tG3.16502@trnddc02>, ConvertstoIslam says...

>
>Hi Matthew,
>
>>You _call_ it 'respectful', but it is not. For in order to maintain
>>your 'disagreement', you have to IGNORE what Mike and others have
>>been trying to tell you. There is nothing 'respectful' in that!
>
>It is respectful because I am addressing his comments, if I started talking
>about the copyist errors, then I would be "ignoring" what Mike was saying.

But _are_ you "addressing his comments"? It certainly didn't sound like it to
me. Does it sound like it to _anyone_ but yourself? I really doubt it.

>>And the "KJV-only" people you keep bringing up are pretty widely
>>recognized now as being pretty far off the beaten-track. So
>>'sideshow' is not such a bad description for their movement. Don't
>>confuse the KJV-only people with any sort of "mainstream
>>Christianity" -- whatever _that_ might mean.
>
>actually it's main stream Christians who say Jesus is "begotten",

There you talked about "KJV-only", now you are talking about "main stream [sic]
Christians". Do you know the difference?

> so either the
>new Bibles are being ignored or Christians are trying to have it both ways.

No, that does not follow. Not at all. You are getting yourself badly confused.
But perhaps you prefer confusion, since it is only while in a _deep_ state of
confusion that you can continue to fool yourself into believing that the Quran
'corrects' the Bible.

The Moderator adds:

>[The Bible (at least in English) certainly uses the term "begotten"
>for Christ. The issue is whether it uses the term in John 1 and John
>3:16.

Well, Charles, I am sure you have thought often before about how to present this
issue, so I am particualarly disappointed that you chose to present it in _this_
way. For now it is you who are confusing the issues. For the term MONOGENHS
really is used of Christ in John 1:14. Both UBS and the "Majority Text" have it
here, so there should be no serious doubt that the word is there.

So the real issue is "should MONOGENHS here be translated as 'only', or as
'only-begotten'"?

>This isn't an issue of theology, but of doing the best
>translation we can.

But the two are really inseparable here: for the word MONOGENHS really can mean
either one. Translators _do_ allow their theology to make the decision for them
here, some even believe that is a valid thing to do, despite the current
sentiment against it.

>I believe the best translation of John is simply "only Son."

And I believe you have allowed yourself to be fooled by the disproportionate
weight modernists give to the secular Koine Greek of the Papyri.

For that matter, how could John have meant "only son", when he calls _us_ sons
of the Father also? It is not only Trinitarian theology that is ignored by this
'translation'!

>On the other hand, it doesn't seem to make a lot of difference.

How could this be? Of _course_ it makes a lot of difference. For John 1:14 IS
one of the classic "proof-texts" that the Son is begotten of the Father, even
_eternally_ begotten. If you reject it as such a proof-text, then you cast a
long shadow of doubt on far more than you seem to realize. But such doubt is
completely inconsistent with faith. But it is consistent with a lot of 'modern'
translations;)

[snip]


--
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

----

[My claim is that "son" alone does the job. And as I noted, begotten
is used in other passages in the NT. My point is that sons don't come
out of thin air. They come from their fathers. Otherwise they aren't
sons, but creations. Hence begotten is implicit in the term son.

Obviously Jesus is a son in a more direct sense than we are. Hence he
can be called the only son on one hand, although in a broader sense he
is called the first among many in Rom 8:29.

I guess you're trying to say that begotten distinguishes Jesus from
us: he's a begotten son and we're sons who weren't begotten? But the
concept of a son that isn't begotten seems self-contradictory.
"Begotten" has to be taken metaphorically, but no more so that "son."
(Clearly we're not his physical children.) After all, Ps. 2:7 uses
begotten of the king of Israel in its original literal meaning, as
much as it came to be used typologically of Christ. And one could just
as well translate John 1:13 or 1 John 3:9, which describes us as
children of God, using begotten. KJV actually does so in 1 John 5:1.

--clh]

m_gh...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 5, 2005, 10:31:34 PM1/5/05
to
Salam Denis,

> the
> sub-title of your book is "How Islam Unites JUDAISM and
Christianity".
> You have given ten reasons to by the book, and the number one reason
is
> that it will "show Christians and JEWS the truth of the Qur'an while
> showing them the errors of the Bible!" Do you honestly believe that
> Orthodox Jews care what the Heritage Bible or some Evangelical group
> states about some English translation of the text? How should
Orthodox
> Jews, who consider the Hebrew text the authoritative text, understand
> the bizarre argument about translations on page 17 of your rebuttal
> chart?

it's made abundantly obvious by the theme of the book and the
bibliography that I am addressing the "Christian" Bible and the
Christian view of the Bible, since Judaism is a splinter group compared
to Christianity (12 million Jews compared to 2 billion Christians) the
remarks towards them were token gestures, and as the conclusion points
to having Christians forgive Jews for supposedly killing Jesus, not the
other way around.

But since you mention Jews, based on a brief search from the internet,
many Jewish sites state that English is a valid language to recite
prayers in and I don't know the customs of Spanish Jews or Russian
Jews, but since Reform Judaism is the fastest growing sect within
Judaism, they most likely reform their language of prayer as well. So
again, only Islam offers a one language Monotheist system and a one
language Divine book.

> Such an
> approach *certainly* does not represent the approach of any Orthodox
> Jew.

If I was addressing orthodox Jews, who are a splinter group within a
splinter group, then half the book would be addressing the Talmud, not
the Christian edition of the OT. Your clutching at straws and trying to
have a minority within a minority represent half of humanity, do you
work for the media ;-)

> Thus I think my criticism holds strong. Your incommensurate
> approach to translations when working with the Quran and Bible comes
> off as woefully duplicitous.

well, I hope I've explained it to you that the largest religion in the
world "Christianity", is basing their beliefs on translations of
translations, and that the Holy Quran, a direct language Divine book is
available for them to get the straight message.

> Well, it seems we know that most of the NT texts were originally
> written in Greek, so why not conslut the Greek text? Admittedly,
> however, they are often recording statements that were probably
> originally uttered in Aramaic or Hebrew, but so what! Does not the
> Qur'an also quote Jesus, Adam, Moses, Pharoah, Zu'l-Qarnain, Mary,
> Aaron, et cetera? Are we to believe these people were all speaking
> Qur'anic Arabic (rather than, say, Hebrew, Aramaic, Ancient Egyptian,
> Farsi, Greek, or perhaps some other language)? If not, aren't many of
> the quotes in the Qur'an, therefore, mere translations as well?

The difference between Arabic and Aramaic in many cases is a mere
accent, compared to the ocean wide difference between the Ancient Greek
language and Aramaic, second, when the Quran quotes Prophets, a
straight forward approach is taken, so there isn't the confusion about
sonship and divinity as in the Christian Bible. It's understood through
Arabic and Hebrew texts that "son" in scripture means "one close to
God", not a "begotten" creature from God as "translated" by ancient
(ex-Zeus following) Greeks.

> Jesus is quoted as stating that "only God is good". In other words,
he
> seems to be setting up a very clear biconditional proposition: if one
> is "good" (in the sense relevant to the conversation), then one is
God,
> and if one is not "good" then one is not God (and so too the
converses:
> if not God, then not good; if God, then good). So it seems that this
> indeed seems to be a statement corroborating the claim made by C.S.
> Lewis (in "Mere Christianity") that Jesus has not left open to us the
> option of him being merely a good human teacher. So this Markan
> Biconditional states that to call Jesus "good" is to call him God.
> That's what it says, and it seems, with all due respect, that you are
> the one who is trying to argue that "that's not what it means". By
the
> way, no where in the passage does Jesus explicitly deny being "good",
> much less God, so this verse does not contradict the doctrine of the
> Trinity in my opinion.

the context is Jesus refuting the student by saying "Why" do you call
me good? "Only" God is good. That is as clear as me saying why do you
call me funny, only Jon Stewart is funny, thus I am denying being funny
in comparison to Jon Stewart, and any other interpretation based on the
context is simply avoiding the fact that Jesus repeatedly stated his
inferiority compared to God.

"I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master,
nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him." [John 13:16]

" I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment
is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the
Father who sent Me." [John 5:30]

etc...

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4229/djd.html
Peace

Mohamed Ghounem


m_gh...@yahoo.com

unread,
Jan 5, 2005, 10:31:35 PM1/5/05
to
Hi Charlie,

happy new year,

> [The Bible (at least in English) certainly uses the term "begotten"
> for Christ.

The NIV uses the word begotten in parentheses as if to say (or it might
be translated this way) which gave me the impression that they were not
confident enough to not include the parentheses or they included the
parentheses to cover themselves from actually "officially" using the
word "begotten".

> The issue is whether it uses the term in John 1 and John

> 3:16. This isn't an issue of theology, but of doing the best
> translation we can.

it is a major theological issue because other Prophets were called the
"only son" of God:

Jacob God's firstborn son (Exodus 4:22)
Ephraim is God's firstborn son (Jeremiah 31:9)
Adam was the only son of God (Luke 3:38) etc..

> I believe the best translation of John is simply

> "only Son." On the other hand, it doesn't seem to make a lot of
> difference. Since sons are begotten from the fathers, "only Son" and
> "only begotten Son" mean pretty much the same thing, as long as you
> realize we're not talking about begetting physically.

It's a major difference because if Jesus was "the only" begotten by
God, then we're ignoring Eve who was also supposedly begotten by God
unless you suggest that she was begotten by Adam. Thus the entire
parental terminology is better avoided otherwise one would easily
suggest that Adam was God's wife.

> NRSV uses it in
> three NT texts that are citing Ps 2:7: Acts 13:33

those two are talking about David, unless your suggesting that David
was a theopany of Jesus, then your claiming that David was a part of
the God head, thus increasing the number to 4 in 1 rather than 3 in 1?

> Heb 1:5

this is talking about an angel speaking, as if it was a fourth person
account.

thus the entire "only son" and "begotten" lingo is best left out of
translations otherwise it makes trinity much more confusing.
Peace

Mohamed Ghounem

----

[Trying to translate the NT in a way that is acceptable to Muslims is
unlikely to work. However you translate it, the NT assigns a role to
Christ that you're not going to find acceptable. Certainly the Bible
refers to others as children of God. Indeed even the NT refers to us
that way. But the NT sees Jesus as a son of God in a more direct sense
than the rest of us, whether it's translated as "only son" or "only
begotten son." --clh]

convertstoislam

unread,
Jan 6, 2005, 11:11:03 PM1/6/05
to
Hi Charlie,

> [Trying to translate the NT in a way that is acceptable to Muslims is
> unlikely to work.

Being Muslim has zip to do with the fact that multiple Prophets are
labeled as the only and even begotten son besides Jesus, even fellow
Christians ask these same questions as I do so skipping over the issue
to me following Islam is evading the question.

> However you translate it, the NT assigns a role to
> Christ that you're not going to find acceptable.

If I was a fellow Christian, how would you explain to me that other
Prophets were called the first/only/begotten son? (not excluding Eve
who was technically also begotten in a Christian sense)

> Certainly the Bible
> refers to others as children of God. Indeed even the NT refers to us
> that way. But the NT sees Jesus as a son of God in a more direct
sense
> than the rest of us, whether it's translated as "only son" or "only
> begotten son." --clh]

How can Jesus be more direct than Adam since Jesus was diluted through
a human (sinner?) while Adam was purely from God?

If King David (the other begotten son) came back to earth tomorrow,
would you say he was the manifestation of Jesus? If not, then we can't
say he was also Jesus when God called David the begotten son in Psalms
2:7.

Peace

Mohamed Ghounem

----

[Adam isn't typically referred to as son of God. Luke 3:37 does it,
but doesn't seem to mean anything other than that Adam was created
directly by God, rather than having a human father. Most uses of "son"
refer to king or prophet, as in Ps 2:7, i.e. to people who have a
specific commission from God. Of course in Hebrew idiom it could also
refer to a godly man.

However the NT obviously means something more specific. There's no
doubt that others had specific roles given them and particularly close
relationships to God. Thus, as with David in Ps 2:7 they can be
called God's son. However the NT sees Jesus as having a role that is
unique. That's the whole point of calling him the "only Son." The
term "Son" is used in all of the Gospels, although the phrase "only
Son" is not. But the meaning is there. It's pretty clear that all of
the Gospels use "the Son" as a unique title for Jesus.

For better or worse, Jesus and the NT writers didn't choose a
completely new term. Instead they used "son", a term that had already
been used of others. The NT writers tended to use "typological"
thought. That is, they saw Ps 2:7, which originally referred to David,
as coming to its full meaning with Jesus. Acts 13:3, Heb 1:5, and Heb
5:5 apply this passage to Jesus. That doesn't deny that it applied to
David originally. But it comes into its full meaning with
Jesus. Because of this approach, rather than invent a totally new
term, they took a traditional one and gave it a new and fuller
meaning. The infamous citation of Is 7:14 by Matthew is another
example. In its original context it referred to someone contemporary
with Isaiah. Matthew applied it to Jesus typologically.

[For a brief introduction to various ways in which the NT writers
applied the OT to their time, see
http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/OTinNT.htm]

I'm not sure what to make of your comment about being descended from
sinners. Being son of God is something that God does. It's not based
on human ancestry. That's part of the point of the stories about the
Virgin Birth.

I don't expect you to accept the theology, but you should at least be
able to understand what the NT writers intended to say. It's not
plausible to turn the NT writers into Muslims.

--clh]

Matthew Johnson

unread,
Jan 10, 2005, 5:39:10 PM1/10/05
to
In article <rZnDd.732$La2.541@trnddc09>, convertstoislam says...

>
>Hi Charlie,
>
>> [Trying to translate the NT in a way that is acceptable to Muslims is
>> unlikely to work.
>
>Being Muslim has zip to do with the fact that multiple Prophets are
>labeled as the only and even begotten son besides Jesus,

Where do you _get_ your nonsense, Ghounem? This is simply not true. No other
prophet was ever called a "only son" of God, or a "begotten son" of God.

> even fellow
>Christians ask these same questions as I do

So _you_ claim. I certainly have never heard any. So I find it much easier to
believe you simply did not understand what questions they really asked. That, at
least, is the more charitable explanation for your behavior.

[snip]

Denis Giron

unread,
Jan 10, 2005, 5:39:13 PM1/10/05
to
Pax Vobis Mohamed...

m_gh...@yahoo.com wrote:
> it's made abundantly obvious by the theme of the book and the
> bibliography that I am addressing the "Christian" Bible and the
> Christian view of the Bible,

So then the title is indeed misleading, and the book isn't really for
Jews, nor is it for any Christian who might wish to consult the Greek
and Hebrew texts for that matter. Or this admittedly harsh statement
may be true for only those verses which hinge on your approach to
translations (e.g. the comparison of Soorat al-Mu'minoon to the book of
Job on the issue of embryology).

> The difference between Arabic and Aramaic in many cases is a mere
> accent, compared to the ocean wide difference between the Ancient
Greek
> language and Aramaic, second, when the Quran quotes Prophets, a
> straight forward approach is taken, so there isn't the confusion
about
> sonship and divinity as in the Christian Bible.

Well, first I will concede that indeed there is a great deal more
similarity amongst Semitic languages than there is between a Semitic
language and a European tongue, therefore translation from one Semitic
language to another (e.g. from Aramaic to Arabic) is often easier than
from a Semitic language to a European language (e.g. from Aramaic to
Greek).

That being conceded, it should be noted that translation from one
Semitic language to another can still be fraught with many of the same
problems present in any translation. For a fun example, I set up the
following page:

http://geocities.com/denis_giron/jesus-and-quran-in-psalms.html

There are three sentences given (two in Hebrew script and four in
Arabic script), followed by charts that give the rough conversions of
equivalent characters in the Hebrew and Arabic scripts. The first
sentence is from the Hebrew text of Psalms 118:15 (but let us pretend
that we did not know that), and reads "y'shuah b'ahalei tsadeeqeem," or
"salvation is in the homes of the righteous". The second sentence
transliterates the Hebrew text into Arabic script (i.e. employing the
exact equivalent characters from the Arabic alif-baa). The third
sentence is the closest possible translation based on the
transliteration given, and reads "Yasuwa b'ahli as-Sadeeqeen," roughly
"Jesus is with the people of the righteous" (we can imagine that "ahl
as-Sadeeqeen" is some group of very righteous people, something
analogous to the muttaqeen), which comes off as a proclamation in favor
of Christianity (even employing the name for Jesus used by Christian
Arabs).

The fourth sentence is from Targum Onqelos to Psalms, and is thus the
Aramaic translation of the Hebrew verse. It reads "furqanaa
b'mashknehon d'tsadeeqei," or "salvation is in the abodes of the
righteous." The fifth sentence transliterates the Aramaic sentence into
Arabic script. The sixth sentence is the closest possible translation
based on the transliteration, and we get "al-furqaan fee masaakin
as-Sadeeqeen," or "the Furqaan [the Qur'an?] is in the abodes of the
righteous."

The point of this admittedly long-winded analogy is to show that even
translations among Semitic languages can bristle with problems (as the
same sentence can be translated one way and be misinterpreted as a
reference to Jesus, or translated another way and be misinterpreted as
a reference to the Qur'an). So this brings me back to my point: are you
willing to concede that all the Qur'anic quotes attributed to
individuals who probably didn't speak Qur'anic Arabic (such as Jesus,
Zu'l-Qarnain, Pharaoh, et cetera) are also "mere translations"?

> the context is Jesus refuting the student by saying "Why" do you call
> me good? "Only" God is good. That is as clear as me saying why do you
> call me funny, only Jon Stewart is funny, thus I am denying being
funny
> in comparison to Jon Stewart,

Your example only works if we *presuppose* that you are not John
Stewart, and indeed, while we do presuppose such, to presuppose that
Jesus was not God as part of an attempt to demonstrate that he was not
is simply fallacious. Therefore, this is where your analogy fails. The
point still stands that Jesus' biconditional proposition is clearly
stating that if one is going to call him "good" (relevant to the sense
used in the conversation), then he or she is calling him "God" (in some
sense). That is what it says, and you tried to argue that this was not
what was meant.

> Jesus repeatedly stated his
> inferiority compared to God.

Which would, therefore, either (a) be a reference to his human nature,
(b) show that Jesus is not identical to the Godhead in toto, (c)
support a subordinationist doctrine, or (d) be some combination of
(a-c). While (c) is in conflict with the classical doctrine of the
Trinity, none of these four choices demonstrates that Jesus was not
divine.

Finally, while I have yet to get back my copy of the book, I wanted to
ask another question. You supported the position that the verb
daHaahaa, referring to the earth in Soorat an-Naazi'aat 79:30, can be
translated "he made it egg shaped". As I understand it, the verb can
best be translated "he spread it out" (and most translations of the
Qur'an seem to agree with this understanding). I have checked a bunch
of Arabic dictionaries, and could not find a single one that had a verb
drawn from the dal-Haa-waw (dal-Haa-yaa?) root meaning "to make egg
shaped". Is there any dictionary you can cite that gives the meaning
"to make egg shaped" for the relevant verb? If I'm not mistaken, the
crux of the argument put forth by proponents of this translation (which
is usually part of a polemic that takes the scientific-hermeneutic
approach to the Qur'an, with the hopes of demonstrating that the text
is from a divine origin), assuming they attempt any argument at all, is
that from the same root comes a word for [ostritch?] egg. It seems to
me that if this is indeed their only argument, it commits a linguistic
fallacy, as it does not follow that if a noun can be derived from a
root, verbs from the same root can take the meaning "to shape or make
like [the noun in question]." So what is your support for this
translation?
...

Denis Giron
http://geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/home.htm


convertstoislam

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 11:34:40 PM1/11/05
to
Dear Charlie,

beautifully said, that was one of the best attempts at explaining other
Prophets being called "only son" that I've seen;

> [Adam isn't typically referred to as son of God. Luke 3:37 does it,
> but doesn't seem to mean anything other than that Adam was created
> directly by God, rather than having a human father. Most uses of
"son"
> refer to king or prophet, as in Ps 2:7, i.e. to people who have a
> specific commission from God.

Adam is a Prophet according to the Quran, unlike the Bible, Adam was
forgiven in the Quran and was commissioned to spread Islam (submission
to God).

> Thus, as with David in Ps 2:7 they can be
> called God's son. However the NT sees Jesus as having a role that is
> unique. That's the whole point of calling him the "only Son." The
> term "Son" is used in all of the Gospels, although the phrase "only
> Son" is not.

actually it was you who said that "begotten son" can also mean "only
son" and since David is called "begotten son", then it can also be
translated to say that David was the "only son" of God.

This is where the translations clash on a major theological issue,
Jesus can not be the only son of God if David was already the only son
of God, otherwise you have another Isaac and Ishmael scenario (Genesis
22:2), was David abandoned as Jews claim Ishmael was?

> That is, they saw Ps 2:7, which originally referred to David,
> as coming to its full meaning with Jesus.

This is speculation to say that "only son" as used with David is more
meaningful with Jesus, it's actually just the opposite, since David was
a Prophet and called the "only son", then by default, Jesus too must be
a Prophet.

> That doesn't deny that it applied to
> David originally. But it comes into its full meaning with
> Jesus.

Islam teaches that all the Prophets are equal, which the Bible seems to
teach also since both David and Jesus were "equally" called "only son".

> Because of this approach, rather than invent a totally new
> term, they took a traditional one and gave it a new and fuller
> meaning.

this really is a nice way to view it, but saying "only son" towards
Jesus does not sound any different than when it was said towards David,
now if the translators wrote "the really beyond a doubt absolute only
son", then I would see your point.

> I'm not sure what to make of your comment about being descended from
> sinners. Being son of God is something that God does. It's not based
> on human ancestry. That's part of the point of the stories about the
> Virgin Birth.

Mary was a sinner according to Protestants (at the objection of
Catholics) because Mary prayed for a savior (Luke 1:47). That's why I
would think that Adam was more purely a son of God rather than a
descendant of Eve. There is nothing to suggest that Mary did not have
labor pains, as such, she had the curse (Genesis 3:16) put on all women
because of the sin supposedly committed by Eve, as such, Jesus was born
from a sinner, whereas Adam was not.

Peace

Mohamed Ghounem

----

[What I said is that the Greek in John means "only son". I did not
mean to imply that "only" and "begotten" are the same. My claim is
that "son" and "begotten" are closely related in that all sons are
begotten. However not all sons are only sons. As far as I know, Ps
2:7 does not claim uniqueness. It refers to the king as having been
begotten as a son, but I would think it would apply to any king.

Since we're speaking of John 1, it would seem best to let John tell us
what he means by children of God. For that, see 1:12-13. Being a child
of God is not about ancestry. It is a spiritual matter. In John
anyone who believes in Christ is a child of God, but the power to
become a child of God is from Jesus, who is in a more direct sense the
only Son, 1:18. I think the thought here is pretty clear.

Again, I understand the Muslim thought on this matter. But that comes
from the Quran, not the NT. Please don't try to turn John into a
Muslim. It won't work. John quite clearly "associates" Christ with
God.

--clh]

convertstoislam

unread,
Jan 11, 2005, 11:34:40 PM1/11/05
to
Salam Denise

> So then the title is indeed misleading, and the book isn't really for
> Jews, nor is it for any Christian

"How Islam Unites Jews and Christians" is another way of saying
"Judaism and Christianity are the parts and Islam is the Sum" or
"The transitional process of completing Scripture". My title is
vague enough to mean either viewpoint and touches on both.

> That being conceded, it should be noted that translation from one
> Semitic language to another can still be fraught with many of the
same
> problems present in any translation.

I would not go as far as to say that, the word "son" for example,
has more meanings in the Semitic language, but because of it's
limited meaning in the European languages, it has caused Monotheistic
split.

> For a fun example, I set up the
> following page:
>
> http://geocities.com/denis_giron/jesus-and-quran-in-psalms.html
>

> Semitic languages can bristle with problems (as the
> same sentence can be translated one way and be misinterpreted as a
> reference to Jesus, or translated another way and be misinterpreted
as
> a reference to the Qur'an).

Your right that humans can make mistakes, especially without the proper
context, no one language can be translated perfectly, that has been a
long time affirmation by me.

> So this brings me back to my point: are you
> willing to concede that all the Qur'anic quotes attributed to
> individuals who probably didn't speak Qur'anic Arabic (such as Jesus,
> Zu'l-Qarnain, Pharaoh, et cetera) are also "mere translations"?

Absolutely not :-) Simply because to have a translation, you need a
translator. God in the Quran is the one saying it, so it's not a
translation because it's not being recalled by a translator. God is
reciting to us exactly what was said, even if initially it was said in
a different language, humans cannot perfectly interpret, God can.

This is made clear by conversation with Jesus in the Quran:

"And when Allah will say: O Jesus son of Mary! did you say to men,
Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah he will say: Glory be
to Thee, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to
(say); if I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it; Thou
knowest what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in Thy mind,
surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things." (Quran 5:116)

God knows every language perfectly, humans don't, we also know the
disciples of Jesus did not translate perfectly from Aramaic to Greek
because they made mistakes between themselves.

Lastly, quotes between Semitic languages was common because the Aramaic
speaking Jesus often quoted the Hebrew speaking Moses, what I would
like to know is, does the Arabic language have more depth and beauty
than the Hebrew or the extinct Aramaic? It would seem so since God
chose it over Hebrew to send his Final revelation.

> Your example only works if we *presuppose* that you are not John
> Stewart, and indeed, while we do presuppose such, to presuppose that
> Jesus was not God as part of an attempt to demonstrate that he was
not
> is simply fallacious. Therefore, this is where your analogy fails.

The one point your missing is "characteristics". I don't have the
characteristics of Jon Stewart, therefore one would not have any doubt
that I am not Jon Stewart, identically, Jesus did not have the
"characteristics" of God, therefore one did not have to presuppose
that he was just a mortal.

Everyone knew he was not God because when Jesus was captured to test
his immortality, his own students ran and hid, thus confirming that
they did not assume he was God.

> > Jesus repeatedly stated his
> > inferiority compared to God.
>
> Which would, therefore, either (a) be a reference to his human
nature,
> (b) show that Jesus is not identical to the Godhead in toto, (c)
> support a subordinationist doctrine, or (d) be some combination of
> (a-c). While (c) is in conflict with the classical doctrine of the
> Trinity, none of these four choices demonstrates that Jesus was not
> divine.

Actually (a) and (b) are in conflict with the Divinity of Jesus because
God never showed the hunger or fear that Jesus often displayed, and if
Jesus is not identical to God, (which no one is), then Jesus is not
God.

> You supported the position that the verb
> daHaahaa, referring to the earth in Soorat an-Naazi'aat 79:30, can be
> translated "he made it egg shaped". As I understand it, the verb can
> best be translated "he spread it out" (and most translations of the
> Qur'an seem to agree with this understanding). I have checked a bunch
> of Arabic dictionaries, and could not find a single one that had a
verb
> drawn from the dal-Haa-waw (dal-Haa-yaa?) root meaning "to make egg
> shaped". Is there any dictionary you can cite that gives the meaning
> "to make egg shaped" for the relevant verb?

I usually use the John Walid Arabic-English dictionary, I am not at
home to check, but I did look online and saw that some translations of
the Quran also use the "egg" / "oval" meaning:

http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/noframes/ch79.html

Also a nice article was written on it here:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_in_islam.htm

I believe it's a dual meaning word that either translation can be
right. This is one of the many beauties of the Quran, we don't
conform it's meaning, it conforms our understanding, as time moves
forward, we are glad to learn better meanings of what the Quran stated
nearly 1,400 years ago. What I mean is that in Islam, translations can
come and go without Muslims giving a blink because translations are
secondary in Islam, whereas in Christianity, translations are primary,
thus causing entire Christian groups to split up (i.e. the Mormons who
call their Bible the "divine translation because it was revealed
English) or the KJV only advocates, etc.. Translations are essential to
over 90% of Christians as a primary source of guidance because they
don't know nor intend to know ancient Greek, and even if they did
learn it, they still would not have the original verbal Aramaic.
Peace

Mohamed Ghounem


Denis Giron

unread,
Jan 12, 2005, 11:45:45 PM1/12/05
to
Pax Vobis Mohamed!

I'll break this response into three sections...

(1) THE ISSUE OF TRANSLATION

> My title is vague enough to mean either viewpoint
> and touches on both.

As was noted previously, another problem with your title is that you
make it seem like you're going to be approaching the Bible, when really
you're only taking into account the way *certain* Christians approach
the Bible. Furthermore, have you noticed that not a single Christian in
this thread has said they agree with the notion that the translations
are inspired and/or infallible?

> Simply because to have a translation, you need a
> translator. God in the Quran is the one saying it,

And thus we see yet another problem with your approach. The translation
issue evaporates for the Qur'an because you presuppose that God is the
translator. So, Christians, in response to your book, should just
presuppose God translated Jesus' sayings into Greek and be done with
it! Of course, neither approach is very objective; on the contrary, it
is highly problematic, and you would agree when it comes to the Bible.
What we see here, then, is another instance of duplicity in your
approach to the texts.

> what I would like to know is, does the Arabic language have
> more depth and beauty than the Hebrew or the extinct Aramaic?
> It would seem so since God chose it over Hebrew to send his
> Final revelation.

You're presupposing God chose it as the language of the Final
revelation. Regardless, Arabic may indeed be richer than Aramaic and
Hebrew (by virtue of the larger number of verb stems and letters). As
for "beauty," there is no set logic to aesthetics; rather it is a
purely subjective thing. Nor, in case you're wondering, does depth
necessarily relate to beauty, as I am familiar with both Hebrew and
Italian, and while I consider the Hebrew language to be much more
complex and rich, I still consider Italian to be far more "beautiful".

(2) THE ISSUE OF JESUS' ALLEGED DIVINITY

> The one point your missing is "characteristics".

The point that is being missed is one of meaning. What was said, and
what was meant? The statement presented is a clear biconditional
proposition. While you tried to mock Christians for arguing such, the
fact remains that the statement clearly argues that *if* one is going
to call Jesus good (in the sense relevant to the conversation), then
one is calling him God (in some sense).

> Everyone knew he was not God because when Jesus was captured
> to test his immortality, his own students ran and hid, thus
> confirming that they did not assume he was God.

Assuming it is true that none of his disciples *fully believed* (or
believed at all) Jesus was God prior to the resurrection, this still
does not follow. Your argument is that if a group of people do not
believe X, then they know not-X, which seems to fly in the face of
epistemology, not to mention logic itself. For the sake of simplicity,
I would roughly define knowledge as a justified true belief (admittedly
Edmund Gettier showed the problems with this definition in the 60s, but
it is sufficient for now, and was, prior to Gettier, the definition of
knowledge employed by Epistemologists). The point is, simple belief (or
lack of belief) does not reflect knowledge. Regardless, the Christian
story (as per John 20:28) seems to be that the apostles only truly
began to accept Jesus' divinity after the resurrection (as many modern
Christian Philosophers have argued, the resurrection served as a
confirmation of Jesus' radical claims to divinity).

> Actually (a) and (b) are in conflict with the Divinity of Jesus

The classical doctrine of Jesus' divinity held among the overwhelming
majority of Christians (be they Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant) is
that Jesus possessed both a human and a divine nature, thus his having
a human nature does not contradict having a divine nature. A great
explanation of this (the most coherent I have seen) can be found in
Thomas V. Morris' "The Logic of God Incarnate". So (a) is not in
conflict.

As for (b) [the position that Jesus is not identical to the Godhead in
toto], that certainly does not conflict with the notion of Jesus being
divine, as this is a key tenet of Social Trinitarianism, and the Bible
itself seems to simulatenously treat Jesus as divine and yet not
identical to God (see John 1:1 and relevant Christian commentary on the
differing usages of was/hen/erat in that verse). The aforementioned
Morris, as well as William Lane Craig & James Porter Moreland
["Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview"], and Richard
Swinburne ["The Christian God"] all hold to precisely this doctrine [by
the way, if I'm not mistaken, you have access to all these books].

> God never showed the hunger or fear that Jesus often displayed

This again has to do with the human nature. The Christian faith holds
that Jesus had an authentic human experience.

> if Jesus is not identical to God, then Jesus is not God.

Correction: if Jesus is not identical to God, then Jesus is not God *IN
A SENSE OF IDENTITY*. Not being identical to God does not negate being
God in a sense of predication (i.e. being divine, possessing the
attributes of deity).

(3) THE ISSUE OF THE FA'ALA STEM OF THE DAL-HAA-WAW ROOT

> I usually use the John Walid Arabic-English dictionary, I
> am not at home to check,

Well, when you do have time to check, please let us know if John
Walid's dictionary gives "to make egg shaped" as one of the meanings
for the relevant verb.

> but I did look online and saw that some translations of
> the Quran also use the "egg" / "oval" meaning:
>
> http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/noframes/ch79.html

TranslationS (plural)? As far as I know, Rashad Khalifa is the only one
to employ this translation (hence the link above). I'm sure you agree
that while Rashad Khalifa is, often, faithful to the Arabic, it does
not follow that his translation necessarily reflects the Arabic, hence
the reason I asked for a dictionary citation and not a translation.

> Also a nice article was written on it here:
>
> http://www.answering-christianity.com/earth_in_islam.htm

This is unfortunate, as I have discussed this with Osama in the past
(on his now defunct forum). He was wholly unable to cite a single
dictionary to support his position (hence the reason no dictionary is
cited in his article), so he just kept repeating (ad nauseum) that
there is a word for "egg" that comes from the same root. As I have
already noted, such a ridiculous argument commits a linguistic fallacy,


as it does not follow that if a noun can be derived from a root, verbs
from the same root can take the meaning "to shape or make like [the
noun in question]."

I commented on this very issue last summer in the following article:
http://geocities.com/denis_giron/quran-science.html

I'll close by reproducing the relevant paragraphs from that piece...

[------ BEGIN EXCERPT ------]

One more example of this can be found in a comparison of Soorat
an-Naziat 79:30 in the Qur'an and Isaiah 40:22 in the Bible. Admittedly
this is a far more ridiculous example, but it is very valuable in
helping to show how much wiggle room can be gained from a liberal
approach to a text written in a Semitic language. The relevant Qur'anic
verse is discussing God's formation of the earth, and employs the verb
daHaahaa, literally "He spread it out." Amazingly, some Muslims,
desparate to find a Qur'anic reference to the roundness of the earth,
argue that daHaahaa should be translated "He made it egg-shaped."[16]
Every single Arabic dictionary I have consulted gives the meanings "to
flatten, spread out" for the relevant verb, but this bizarre alternate
translation is based on the fact that from the same root is derived one
of the Arabic words for ostritch egg.

A mildly similar game can be played with Isaiah 40:22, which speaks of
the "circle of the earth". The relevant Hebrew reads chug ha-arets, and
the word chug can mean sphere as well as circle.[17] Furthermore, both
Avraham Even-Shoshan[18] and Eliezer Ben-Y'hoodah[19] give the
definition 'igool for chug. The Hebrew 'igool can mean ball (exempli
gratia: the Hebrew 'igoolei sheleg means "snow balls"). Of course those
who do not have an emotional investment in finding a reference to the
spherical earth in the Bible can admit that this does not prove that
the author intended for Isaiah 40:22 to be a reference to such (in
fact, one might argue that context precludes such an interpretation).
Nonetheless, one can imagine how a proponent of the
scientific-hermeneutic approach to the Qur'an would react if they found
a passage in the Qur'an that could be translated "sphere of the earth"
- it would be sheer glee.

======

[16] Shockingly, the translation of the Qur'an by the heterodox Muslim
Rashad Khalifa sides with this reading ("egg-shaped"). Yvonne
Yazbeck-Haddad says of Khalifa's translation over all that it is
"rendered into very clear and readable English, a translation that is
generally faithful to the Arabic" [cf. Yazbeck-Haddad, Mission to
America: Five Islamic Sectarian Communities in North America,
(University Press of Florida, 1993), p. 157], and while I agree with
her general sentiment, this particular example from Soorat an-Naziat
shows that there are a few instances where Rashad's translation can
only be described as curious.

[17] For Hebrew dictionaries that give "sphere" as one of the possible
meanings for chug, see Reuven AlQalay, Milon Ivri-Angli Shalem,
(Massadah, 1964), p. 721; Shimon Zilberman, Milon Adkani M'rookaz
Ivri-Angli, (Zilberman, 2001), p. 92; Dov Ben-Abba, The Meridian
Hebrew/English Dictionary, (Meridian, 1994), p. 105; Yisrael Efros,
Y'hudah Ibn-Shmuel Kaufman, and Binyamin Silk, Milon Angli-Ivri, (Dvir,
1952), p. 623; S.P. Tragelles (trans.), Gesenius's Hebrew and Chaldee
Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures, (James Pott & co., 1894), p.
151.

[18] Avraham Even-Shoshan, Ha-Milon HeChadash, Vol. 2, p. 726.

[19] Eliezer Ben-Y'hoodah, Milon Ha-Lashon Ha-Ivrit, (Sagamore, 1960),
Vol. II, p. 1458.

...

[------ END EXCERPT ------]


convertstoislam

unread,
Jan 17, 2005, 7:13:45 PM1/17/05
to
Hi Charlie,

> [What I said is that the Greek in John means "only son". I did not
> mean to imply that "only" and "begotten" are the same.

what you actually said is that the best way to translate the word
"begotten son" is to say "only son";

"The Bible (at least in English) certainly uses the term "begotten"

for Christ. The issue is whether it uses the term in John 1 and John


3:16. This isn't an issue of theology, but of doing the best

translation we can. I believe the best translation of John is simply
"only Son.""

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.religion.christian/msg/049c1a82d5014c0f

You are not alone in saying that "begotten son" should be translated as
"only son";

(The Holman Christian Standard Bible) John 3:16 = "only son"
(The New Living Bible) John 3:16 = "only son"
(Revised Standard Version) John 3:16 = "only son"
(Good News Bible) John 3:16 = "only son", etc...

So if you and all those Bibles say the best way to translate the word
"begotten" is to say "only son", then that means that David was also
the "only son" of God according to the Bible translations since David
was also called "begotten son". This is just one of the many problems
that depending on a translation would cause. Thus saying translation
issues are not important is preposterous.

> Since we're speaking of John 1, it would seem best to let John tell
us
> what he means by children of God. For that, see 1:12-13. Being a
child
> of God is not about ancestry. It is a spiritual matter.

that is common sense with David as well, of course saying David was the
begotten (only) son of God is not suggesting that David is an ancestor
of God. The two scenarios are so identical that Christians often say
that David was the first coming of Jesus, which you disagree with. Was
the Hebrew mistranslated?

> Again, I understand the Muslim thought on this matter. But that comes
> from the Quran, not the NT. Please don't try to turn John into a
> Muslim. It won't work. John quite clearly "associates" Christ with
> God.

you keep bringing up my religion in this matter, I am asking this
question purely from a textual perspective, the Bible says "only son"
while other sons exist, this happened with both Ishmael and David.
Peace

Mohamed Ghounem

----

[The traditional translation is not "begotten son" but "only begotten
son." I am not equating begotten with only; I am equating "only
begotten son" with "only son". I.e. I'm saying that in this passage
"begotten" is redundant, because it's implicit in "son". There's
nothing wrong with using redundant language, but in this particular
passage I don't believe John did so. Ps 2:8 does not call David God's
only Son. John 1 does call Jesus God's only son.

The Greek word involved is "monogenes." The prefix is clearly "only."
The problem is that there are a couple of words related to "genes",
so it could be seen as either "one of a kind" or "only begotten."
But words don't mean what their roots mean; meaning comes from usage,
and "monogenes" is used for "only," or more properly, one of a kind.

Here's the comment from the NET Bible:

Although this word is often translated "only begotten," such a
translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a
metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child
(a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used
of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological
Phoenix (1 Clem. 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of
Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant., 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not
Abraham's only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of
the promise. Thus the word means "one-of-a-kind" and is reserved for
Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are
children of God, Jesus is God's Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind
sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of
John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18).

--clh]

convertstoislam

unread,
Jan 17, 2005, 7:13:50 PM1/17/05
to
Salam Denis,

> As was noted previously, another problem with your title is that you
> make it seem like you're going to be approaching the Bible, when
really
> you're only taking into account the way *certain* Christians approach
> the Bible.

There are over 200 Biblical topics addressed in the book and most of
them are textual issues, of the social issues, I've tried to use the
Christian majority view point, which was challenging since Christianity
is technically split in half between Protestants and Catholics.

> Furthermore, have you noticed that not a single Christian in
> this thread has said they agree with the notion that the translations
> are inspired and/or infallible?

What a few members of SRC say and what the actual Bible editions say
about themselves, is a wide gap
http://www.cathedraluniversity.com/heritagebible/index.asp

Secondly, if you took a survey of Christians across America and asked
them if the Bible that they have on top of their dresser is the exact
words of God, over 90% of them will give you a resounding "YES!" I
know because I've asked many times, perform the survey and see for
yourself.

Now to claim that the English Bible is not the exact words of God is a
defeatist attitude, where a slim minority of individuals accept that
the English Bible can not be defended, so they retreat to putting blame
on the translators, the same defeatist attitude is also utilized by
saying the Bible has copyist and scribble errors, my whole goal is to
kindly explain to the Christians that they no longer have to live with
the errors, they can accept the Quran as their error free guidance.

> > Simply because to have a translation, you need a
> > translator. God in the Quran is the one saying it,
>
> And thus we see yet another problem with your approach. The
translation
> issue evaporates for the Qur'an because you presuppose that God is
the
> translator. So, Christians, in response to your book, should just
> presuppose God translated Jesus' sayings into Greek and be done with
> it!

This argument would fail on several levels; we know that not all of the
Gospel were found in Greek, parts of Matthew were in Aramaic, so the
question of whether Matthew was worth being translated by God would be
asked. Second, if God intended the Gospel to be in Greek, then He could
have had Zeus recite it instead of Jesus. Third, when did God ever in
the past since the Creation of humans, say one language with the
instructions to translate it to another? That is like writing a
business contract and then saying don't read it in it's original
meaning, translate it in a far and distant language.

> Of course, neither approach is very objective; on the contrary, it
> is highly problematic, and you would agree when it comes to the
Bible.
> What we see here, then, is another instance of duplicity in your
> approach to the texts.

that was a set up if I ever did see one :-) because I don't agree with
"B" does not mean that "A" is also wrong ;-) Of course I am not using a
double standard because I am not comparing identical Texts, they both
have a different history (one became diluted by translations and the
other didn't).

> You're presupposing God chose it as the language of the Final
> revelation. Regardless, Arabic may indeed be richer than Aramaic and
> Hebrew (by virtue of the larger number of verb stems and letters). As
> for "beauty," there is no set logic to aesthetics; rather it is a
> purely subjective thing.

perhaps, but I do recall hearing that Jews in the Middle East prefer
Arabic songs, but your right in that it's subjective.

> Nor, in case you're wondering, does depth
> necessarily relate to beauty, as I am familiar with both Hebrew and
> Italian, and while I consider the Hebrew language to be much more
> complex and rich, I still consider Italian to be far more
"beautiful".

your right, but depth does relate to understandability, and if you
understand God better, then isn't that more beautiful?

> (2) THE ISSUE OF JESUS' ALLEGED DIVINITY
> > The one point your missing is "characteristics".
>
> The point that is being missed is one of meaning. What was said, and
> what was meant? The statement presented is a clear biconditional
> proposition. While you tried to mock Christians for arguing such, the
> fact remains that the statement clearly argues that *if* one is going
> to call Jesus good (in the sense relevant to the conversation), then
> one is calling him God (in some sense).

We actually don't know the entire conversation or the 33 year
relationship between that student and the teacher, we do know that
Jesus has been going around doing "good" things (healing people,
etc..), and teaching "good" things (be righteous, etc...) so in
that context, it would have been completely natural to call Jesus a
"good" teacher. We would have to presuppose that Jesus was "not
kind" or a "bad teacher" (kick your donkey) to assume that Jesus
being called "good teacher" was any thing extraordinary, but we
know that by the behavior of Jesus, that he was in fact a good teacher
in the sense that he taught good things and had a generally pleasant
demeanor :-) Now in the context of the OT, when was God ever called
"good teacher"?

> The point is, simple belief (or
> lack of belief) does not reflect knowledge.

You believe what you know. Moses knew what the Bush was because the
Bush told Moses, while Jesus never told his disciples (or the student),
"I am God". How trustworthy would the disciples of Jesus be if as you
claim, they "doubted" Jesus being God all the way up to his
supposed death? This would then bring 90% of the Gospel into question
if it was written by a group of unbelievers. That is like Christians
translating the Quran.

> > Actually (a) and (b) are in conflict with the Divinity of Jesus
>
> The classical doctrine of Jesus' divinity held among the overwhelming
> majority of Christians (be they Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant) is
> that Jesus possessed both a human and a divine nature, thus his
having
> a human nature does not contradict having a divine nature. A great
> explanation of this (the most coherent I have seen) can be found in
> Thomas V. Morris' "The Logic of God Incarnate". So (a) is not in
> conflict.

I am working on a book addressing Morris and other Trinity defenders,
the question is when was Jesus a God and when was he a man because his
divinity seems to fluctuate throughout his life, when he was a baby he
seems to have been not God, when he was weak and scared and died he
seems to have been not God, and only when he came back to life is when
his God side seems to have kicked in, it's a form of selective divinity
which of course is absurd to non and ex-Christians.

> (3) THE ISSUE OF THE FA'ALA STEM OF THE DAL-HAA-WAW ROOT

> This is unfortunate, as I have discussed this with Osama in the past
> (on his now defunct forum). He was wholly unable to cite a single
> dictionary to support his position (hence the reason no dictionary is
> cited in his article)

As you may know, complete Arabic/English Quranic dictionaries are not
common, I found a Arbic/English dictionary at a English book sale in
Saudi Arabia, and that was after looking for a while in the mid 90's,
it's called the Al-Fara'id Arabic English dictionary 5th ed., by
J.G Hava, isbn # 2-7214-2144-1, and on page 198 it gives the meaning
for DAL HAA RAA WAW "as a rolled ball, rounded, globular, to become
round" This dictionary does not have just DAL HAA WAW, I think the
best thing to do would be to survey Arabic-Arabic dictionaries, and
I'm sure that some dictionaries will give the dual meanings since the
Arabic-English dictionaries are limited. I don't have a collection of
Arabic-Arabic dictionaries so maybe someone in SRI does.

I hope this has appeased your three points, 1) books are very hard to
title, I would rather have called my book "200+ Ways the Quran Helps
the Bible" knowing then what I know now, my next edition may be
called just that, I think it will be easier for people to swallow. 2)
You can't have your cake and eat it too as far as Jesus being 100%
man and 100% God, it is insulting to claim that God became a man to see
what being a man would feel like, it reminds me of the movie "boys
don't cry", where a lesbian pretended to be a man to seduce another
woman. God *knows* what it is like to be a man, woman, or any creature
on Earth so God does not have to come to earth to find out! 3) If
it's in a Quran translation, then I'm sure it's in a Arabic
dictionary or the root of it which someone in SRI may expand on.
Peace

Mohamed Ghounem


zach

unread,
Jan 18, 2005, 10:46:52 PM1/18/05
to
convertstoislam wrote:

> I am working on a book addressing Morris and other Trinity defenders,
> the question is when was Jesus a God and when was he a man because
his
> divinity seems to fluctuate throughout his life, when he was a baby
he
> seems to have been not God, when he was weak and scared and died he
> seems to have been not God, and only when he came back to life is
when
> his God side seems to have kicked in, it's a form of selective
divinity
> which of course is absurd to non and ex-Christians.

What do you think of John 10 and the parable of the sheep? Who is the
flock that are of this pen, and who are the flock who are not of this
pen but who will be brought into the pen with the present flock? Who is
the shepherd?

And regarding Jesus' divinity, why does Jesus say that he lays his life
down of his own accord and has the power to take it up again (no one
takes it from him, which would include the Romans and the Jewish
establishment who were against Jesus). Does a mere human have the power
to raise himself from the dead?

Zach


Denis Giron

unread,
Jan 23, 2005, 9:24:05 PM1/23/05
to
"convertstoislam" <m_gh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<2xYGd.1783$Hg6.909@trnddc09>...
> ...

Pax Vobis Mohamed...

> What a few members of SRC say and what the actual Bible editions say
> about themselves, is a wide gap
> http://www.cathedraluniversity.com/heritagebible/index.asp

Reading over the link, it seems to be stating that this particular
translation gives a literal, and therefore reliable rendering of the
text. I think the statement is plainly wrong, as there is no such thing
as an uninterpreted fact, and more importantly, it is impossible to
give a "literal translation" of certain Biblical phrases.

> Secondly, if you took a survey of Christians across America and asked
> them if the Bible that they have on top of their dresser is the exact
> words of God, over 90% of them will give you a resounding "YES!" I
> know because I've asked many times, perform the survey and see for
> yourself.

It depends what we mean here. If we stop Christians on the street and
ask them if the translation of the Bible they have is "the word of
God," I'm sure over 90% will say yes. But if we got them to reflect a
bit more on the issue of translation (and the plurality of
translations), the majority of Christians would respond, I believe,
that while no translation is perfect, their translation is *sufficient*
for getting the most important part of the general message to the
reader (i.e. that Jesus died for their sins, et cetera), but consulting
original texts can have tremendous value and insight. The only ones who
would take the rigid position you are putting on Christianity would be
the folks Matthew Johnson has deemed "the KJV-only crowd".

Furthermore, I bet if we walked around the streets of Pakistan, asking
certain questions of the average working-class Muslim there, we could
get them to affirm all kinds of problematic positions. Nonetheless, it
is ridiculous to try and present such things as being identical to
Islam or the Qur'an, which is what you have attempted to do here,
conflating how *certain* Christians approach Biblical translations with
the Bible itself.

> Now to claim that the English Bible is not the exact words of God is
a
> defeatist attitude, where a slim minority of individuals accept that
> the English Bible can not be defended, so they retreat to putting
blame
> on the translators

I don't see it as "defeatist". It seems every serious Seminary in this
country encourages students to learn Greek and/or Hebrew, because they
recognize the valuable insight one can gain from consulting the
original texts. All the serious scholarly sources make recourse to
Hebrew and Greek.

> > Christians, in response to your book, should just
> > presuppose God translated Jesus' sayings into Greek and
> > be done with it!
>
> This argument would fail on several levels;

The argument fails because it throws objectivity out the window. We
can't pretend we're taking an objective look at two texts while
presupposing one text is divinely inspired and the other is not.

> I am not using a double standard because I am not comparing
> identical Texts,

Again, the problem is you attacked the Bible on the grounds that many
parts found therein are mere translations, yet you tried to make the
Qur'an exempt from the same problem on the grounds of your own
presupposition that the translator was God.

> depth does relate to understandability,

Sometimes, maybe even most of the time, but surely not always. Working
as a document clerk in the mail room at the UN, I noticed that the
Israeli delegation, and most of the Arab delegations, *preferred* texts
in English or French. Arabic is one of the six official languages at
the UN, yet still almost every Arab delegation requested far more
copies in English than Arabic. One of the heads of the document and
publishing section explained that some Arabic words have so many
meanings that it is easier to just see the English version to be clear
with regard to what point is being put forth.

> We actually don't know the entire conversation or the 33 year
> relationship between that student and the teacher,

Fine, but we do know that Jesus put forth a biconditional proposition
which, if true, would mean that to call Jesus "good" (in the sense
relevant to the conversation) would be to affirm his alleged divinity
(i.e. call him "God" in some sense).

> How trustworthy would the disciples of Jesus be if as you
> claim, they "doubted" Jesus being God all the way up to his
> supposed death?

AS I understand the Christian story, Jesus made seemingly blasphemous
claims, or at least claims that, within the context of Judaism, would
be woefully blasphemous if they were made by a mere mortal. Hence the
reason that the resurrection is so important (including the realization
expressed in John 20:28), as it is, as many Christian philosophers have
put it, "in confirmation of his radical claims to divinity." To be
clear here, the argument is not that the resurrection, by itself,
implies divinity. The argument is that had he not been resurrected,
within the context of first century Judaism, he would have rightfully
died a blasphemer, but his being raised from the dead gives sanction to
his claims. According to the Christian story that is.

> I am working on a book addressing Morris and other Trinity
> defenders,

I look forward to that...

> the question is when was Jesus a God and when was he a man

According to the social trinitarian approach (espoused by Craig,
Morris, and others), Jesus was never "a God" (i.e. separate from the
Godhead). The issue is that he was God, in a sense of predication, and
therefore divine, or in possession of a divine nature.

> because his divinity seems to fluctuate throughout his life,

Which is where Morris' book comes in handy (as well as Craig and
Moreland's section on the Incarnation in "Philosophical Foundations for
a Christian Worldview"). He possessed two natures, one divine and one
human. To point to exhibitions of human nature does not negate the
existence of divine nature.

> when he was a baby he seems to have been not God,
> when he was weak and scared and died he
> seems to have been not God,

I know of no verse in the Bible that implies such. Again, Morris' book
is very valuable on this issue. Craig, Moreland, Morris, and others
argue that Jesus had an authentic human experience. The model they take
to explain this (roughly) is one of asymmetrical accessing relation,
where the divine nature (or consciousness) had full access to the human
nature (or awareness), while the reverse was not the case. So in other
words, the human nature possessed by Jesus really did have a human
experience, and was authentically human.

> You can't have your cake and eat it too as far as Jesus
> being 100% man and 100% God, it is insulting to claim that
> God became a man to see what being a man would feel like

I think you're tripping yourself up with the phrase "100%". None of the
sources I have consulted talk in terms of percentages. The Social
Trinitarians like Craig, Moreland and Morris seem to argue that Jesus
possessed a "fully" or "truely" divine nature, but do not mean to argue
there was a complete unit that broke down into 100% X and 100% Y (as
then X would have to be identical to Y).

> As you may know, complete Arabic/English Quranic dictionaries
> are not common, I found a Arbic/English dictionary at a
> English book sale in Saudi Arabia, and that was after looking
> for a while in the mid 90's, it's called the Al-Fara'id Arabic
> English dictionary 5th ed., by J.G Hava, isbn # 2-7214-2144-1,
> and on page 198 it gives the meaning for DAL HAA RAA WAW

Mohamed, the presence of the raa should give you a clue that it is not
of the same root. For example, from the raa-qaf-yaa (RQY) root, you can
get verbs meaning "to climb" or "to ascend". The spelling
raa-qaaf-yaa-meem (RQYM) gives us a word for "writing" or "text". That
doesn't mean that the RQY root in nay particular verb stem bares the
meaning "to write" or "to make into a text". Don't you find it ironic
that you can't find a single Arabic dictionary that agrees with this
meaning? Do you believe this is due to a conspiracy of silence perhaps?

> If it's in a Quran translation, then I'm sure it's in a Arabic
> dictionary

That doesn't follow at all. It is in only one translation as far as I
know, that being the Rashad Khalifa translation. There are several
words appearing in his translation that cannot be gleaned from the
Arabic text, rather they reflect his interpretation (ironically,
sometimes these interpretations are obviously influenced by the
secondary Islamic literature such as the ahaadeeth, though not in this
case). So it certainly does not follow that if it appears in a Qur'anic
translation, it represents an actual meaning for the relevant word or
verb.
...

-Denis Giron
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/home.htm


convertstoislam

unread,
Feb 3, 2005, 6:32:53 AM2/3/05
to
Hi Zach,

> What do you think of John 10 and the parable of the sheep? Who is the
> flock that are of this pen, and who are the flock who are not of this
> pen but who will be brought into the pen with the present flock? Who
is
> the shepherd?

Jesus, but being a leader does not make a person God, despite what some
presidents would like to think ;-)

> And regarding Jesus' divinity, why does Jesus say that he lays his
life
> down of his own accord and has the power to take it up again (no one
> takes it from him, which would include the Romans and the Jewish
> establishment who were against Jesus). Does a mere human have the
power
> to raise himself from the dead?

While on the cross, Jesus asks God "why did you forsake me" which
clearly indicates that the events occurring were not as Jesus expected
them to occur, and then Jesus said it was not by his own will but the
will of God.

Peace

Mohamed Ghounem

convertstoislam

unread,
Feb 3, 2005, 6:32:54 AM2/3/05
to
Salam Denis,

> > http://www.cathedraluniversity.com/heritagebible/index.asp
>
> Reading over the link, it seems to be stating that this particular
> translation gives a literal, and therefore reliable rendering of the
> text. I think the statement is plainly wrong, as there is no such
thing
> as an uninterpreted fact, and more importantly, it is impossible to
> give a "literal translation" of certain Biblical phrases.

I agree with you, but most Christians and some Bibles don't

> But if we got them to reflect a
> bit more on the issue of translation (and the plurality of
> translations), the majority of Christians would respond, I believe,
> that while no translation is perfect, their translation is
*sufficient*
> for getting the most important part of the general message to the
> reader (i.e. that Jesus died for their sins, et cetera), but
consulting
> original texts can have tremendous value and insight.

Your survey seems to depend on first instilling the negative traits of
translations and then baiting the surveyed with an unavailable
alternative :-) Then the hypothetical results seem to be content with
the surveyed accepting the translation representing the "theory" of
Christianity rather than the "textual integrity" of the English Bible.

> The only ones who
> would take the rigid position you are putting on Christianity would
be
> the folks Matthew Johnson has deemed "the KJV-only crowd".

I don't think so, I do think that most Christians believe that God is
powerful enough to write His word perfectly in every language, I think
they get that notion from the individuals speaking tongues in the
Bible.

Getting back to the "theory of Christianity" rather than the "Text of
the Bible", that is the central issue, Christians are told what the
Bible says rather than actually reading it, that is why the Bible's
history or interior is a secondary thought with the masses.

According to surveys that have already been done by Christian groups,
most Christians don't even read the Bible:

http://www.youthandreligion.org/news/2004-0623.html
http://www.biblesociety.com.au/BS/Celebration.html

So if most Christians don't read the Bible, then what ever they're told
about the Bible or what's in the Bible is generally believed, so when
the Preacher waves an English Bible and recites passages in English and
claiming these are "the words of God", then the flock will thus make
the connection that the English Bibles are the exact words of God, this
is a cycle that has been continuing since the English Bible has been in
print til today.

> I don't see it as "defeatist". It seems every serious Seminary in
this
> country encourages students to learn Greek and/or Hebrew, because
they
> recognize the valuable insight one can gain from consulting the
> original texts. All the serious scholarly sources make recourse to
> Hebrew and Greek.

yes, an elite minority does recognize that the English Bible is not the
word of God, but they do not recognize that the verbal Aramaic is also
gone and their divine alternative is the Quran.

> The argument fails because it throws objectivity out the window. We
> can't pretend we're taking an objective look at two texts while
> presupposing one text is divinely inspired and the other is not.

True that I did not make the comparison as a neutral observer, but I
did make the comparison in a sincere way to the point that an objective
observer would come to the same results.

> Again, the problem is you attacked the Bible on the grounds that many
> parts found therein are mere translations, yet you tried to make the
> Qur'an exempt from the same problem on the grounds of your own
> presupposition that the translator was God.

And again, Islam does "not allow" translations to be presumed as the
words of God, while Christianity "does", besides Christianity primarily
depending on translations, the original verbal Aramaic is absent. The
foundations of Christianity is based on translations, thus I address
the these translations.

> Sometimes, maybe even most of the time, but surely not always.
Working
> as a document clerk in the mail room at the UN, I noticed that the
> Israeli delegation, and most of the Arab delegations, *preferred*
texts
> in English or French. Arabic is one of the six official languages at
> the UN, yet still almost every Arab delegation requested far more
> copies in English than Arabic. One of the heads of the document and
> publishing section explained that some Arabic words have so many
> meanings that it is easier to just see the English version to be
clear
> with regard to what point is being put forth.

This only proves that it's tempting to switch to English rather than a
Semitic language as the Christians did, while the Monotheists remain
devoted to the original language of their Creator.

> > We actually don't know the entire conversation or the 33 year
> > relationship between that student and the teacher,
>
> Fine, but we do know that Jesus put forth a biconditional proposition
> which, if true, would mean that to call Jesus "good" (in the sense
> relevant to the conversation) would be to affirm his alleged divinity
> (i.e. call him "God" in some sense).

Those are a lot of assumptions that we don't know, while we do know
that Jesus was a good teacher for the majority of his life.

> Which is where Morris' book comes in handy (as well as Craig and
> Moreland's section on the Incarnation in "Philosophical Foundations
for
> a Christian Worldview"). He possessed two natures, one divine and one
> human. To point to exhibitions of human nature does not negate the
> existence of divine nature.

this seems to be more of an explanation rather than a historical
observation, but I will analyze those authors.

> I think you're tripping yourself up with the phrase "100%". None of
the
> sources I have consulted talk in terms of percentages. The Social
> Trinitarians like Craig, Moreland and Morris seem to argue that Jesus
> possessed a "fully" or "truely" divine nature, but do not mean to
argue
> there was a complete unit that broke down into 100% X and 100% Y (as
> then X would have to be identical to Y).

One would think that God is "Full" power, thus partial power or
diminished power or being dead would not be God, at least that's how
the Jews understood it :-)

> Don't you find it ironic
> that you can't find a single Arabic dictionary that agrees with this
> meaning? Do you believe this is due to a conspiracy of silence
perhaps?

I didn't find one because I didn't look in the Arabic-Arabic
dictionaries, nor did I look in other Arabic-English dictionaries for
the simple reason of not owning them, I'm in the suburbs of CT and
there's no Islamic libraries near by, and I don't feel like spending
hundreds buying dictionaries to help you find a dual meaning, I would
like to but...perhaps it's easier to ask the makers of the Khalifa
translation what dictionary he got his translation from.
Peace

Mohamed Ghounem


Denis Giron

unread,
Feb 3, 2005, 11:23:20 PM2/3/05
to
"convertstoislam" (m_gh...@yahoo.com) wrote in message
<news:GZnMd.1948$uc.189@trnddc05>...

>
> Your survey seems to depend on first instilling the negative
> traits of translations and then baiting the surveyed with an
> unavailable alternative

The point was with regard to being clear with what we are asking.
Simply asking "is that book in your hand the word of God" will get a
different result than if we ask them to ponder the nature of
translation. Most Christians will agree that their translation is "good
enough" for guiding them to salvation. Very few, I believe, would argue
that it is wrong or devoid of value to consult a translation
(especially when faced with a missionary of another faith, such as
yourself, who takes an incommensurate approach when comparing the Bible
to their own text). I'm sure many (if not all) Christians would agree
with my comments on your comparison of Job to Soorat al-Mu'minoon with
regard to the issue of embryology.

> True that I did not make the comparison as a neutral observer,
> but I did make the comparison in a sincere way to the point
> that an objective observer would come to the same results.

On this issue I do not believe so. Any person who takes the approach
you have taken (i.e. the approach of presupposing the Bible consists of
mere translations while the Qur'an does not suffer from the same
problem because Qur'anic quotes originally uttered in other languages
were translated by God) would not be an objective observer. The
presupposition throws objectivity out the window.

> Islam does "not allow" translations to be presumed as the
> words of God, while Christianity "does", besides Christianity
> primarily depending on translations, the original verbal Aramaic
> is absent.

See, here you're doing it again. Let me remind you that in this part of
the discussion, "translations" refer to translations that exist even
within the original texts (i.e. the original Greek text of the NT
represents translations from Aramaic or Hebrew). If this is a problem,
so too the original Arabic text of the Qur'an is also littered with
quotes (if they are historical) not originally uttered in Arabic, but
rather Hebrew, Aramaic, Farsi or Greek.

> > Fine, but we do know that Jesus put forth a biconditional
> > proposition which, if true, would mean that to call Jesus
> > "good" (in the sense relevant to the conversation) would
> > be to affirm his alleged divinity (i.e. call him "God" in
> > some sense).
>
> Those are a lot of assumptions that we don't know

Um, no, there is not a single assumption in my statement above. Jesus
is quoted as puting forth a biconditional proposition: only God is good
[i.e. for all (x), x is 'good' if and only if x is 'God']. If this
statement is true, then to call Jesus 'good' is to call him 'God' (in
the senses relevant to the discussion). This is the logical fact of
the matter regarding the Markan biconditional. Your only way out as a
Muslim (and therefore an avowed believer in Jesus who simultaneously
denies that he made any claims about divinity) is to deny that the
quote is historical, which would then beg the question why you made an
appeal to it in the first place.

> > Morris' book comes in handy (as well as Cra ig and


> > Moreland's section on the Incarnation in "Philosophical

> > Fo undations for a Christian Worldview"). He possessed
> > two natures, one div ine and one human. To point to
> > exhibitions of human nature does not ne gate the


> > existence of divine nature.
>
> this seems to be more of an explanation rather than a
> histor ical observation

Fine. The issue here is the logical coherence of the two natures view,
not the doctrine's factual correspondence. I don't believe the
historical Jesus was divine or possessed two natures, therefore I'm not
arguing that he was or did. However, I *AM* arguing that the doctrine
put forth is not logically incoherent, nor is it Biblically
inconsistent. This is where your book's appeal to the human nature of
Christ comes in. Do references to Jesus' humanity in the Bible
logically contradict the doctrine of the two natures of Christ? The
answer is, flatly, no.

> I didn't find one because I didn't look in the Arabic-Arabic
> dictionaries, nor did I look in other Arabic-English diction aries
> for the simple reason of not owning them

Well here's the rub. I went to the library investigating this claim
when I discussed it with Osama Abdallaah, and I could not find a single
dictionary supporting his view. He too was unable to list a single
dictionary supporting his view. This is rather ironic. Are we to
believe that all the dictionaries I have checked are engaging in a
conspiracy of silence?

...

-Denis Giron

convertstoislam

unread,
Feb 3, 2005, 11:23:25 PM2/3/05
to
Hi Charlie,

> Ps 2:8 does not call David God's
> only Son. John 1 does call Jesus God's only son.

you are correct, but your picking at sentence structure rather than
word meaning and what is obviously implied.

Although David was not called the "only .. begotten .. son" in that
particular order, David was obviously the only begotten son of God
because no other human was called the begotten son of God until that
day, therefore David is by default implicated as the only begotten son.

Although the word "only" is not in the sentence, who else was a
begotten son other than David?

The problem with the Hebrew word "begotten" (Yalad) and the Greek word
"begotten" (Monogenes), is that both have completely different
meanings, the Hebrew word means to give birth to while the Greek word
means one of a kind, so to an English reader, the (common) mistake that
is made that David and Jesus are presumed to be one in the same because
of the "mis-translated" word.

> Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant., 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not
> Abraham's only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of
> the promise. Thus the word means "one-of-a-kind" and is reserved for
> Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT.

There's the problem, in (Genesis 22:2) When Abraham was told to take
his "only son", the Hebrew word used was "Yachiyd" which was translated
as "only son", unlike the word "Yalad" in (Ps 2:7), so clearly in
Hebrew, the words "begotten" and "unique/only" have different meanings,
while the Greek translators gave them the same meanings, thus
Christians assume David and Jesus are the same.

The Hebrew meaning of the word "begotten" actually shows that David was
a much higher status than Jesus because the Hebrew word claims that God
gave birth to David where the Greek word for Jesus does not translate
as such.

In conclusion, regarding Jesus being one of a kind, everyone in the
world is one of a kind, just like every snow flake, but who was
"begotten" in the Hebrew meaning of the word as David was? Thus we see
the major problem that arises by translating from Hebrew to Aramaic to
Greek to English and the misidentification (was David actually Jesus?)
that resulted from one single word .

Peace

Mohamed Ghounem


Matthew Johnson

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 10:40:33 PM2/6/05
to
In article <FZnMd.1947$uc.746@trnddc05>, convertstoislam says...

>While on the cross, Jesus asks God "why did you forsake me" which
>clearly indicates that the events occurring were not as Jesus expected
>them to occur, and then Jesus said it was not by his own will but the
>will of God.

No, that is not what it indicates. For it is an _allusion_ to Psalm 23. Now
Psalm 23 -starts- with the appearance you describe, that events were not
occuring as expected, but ends with the confident expression of unshakeable
faith in the salvation that comes form God.

Therefore no, when Christ was alluding to/quoting Psalm 23, He too was
expressing His confidence, NOT that "events were not occuring as expected".

>
>Peace
>
>Mohamed Ghounem
>


--
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)


--

[That's Psalm 22. --clh]

Andr Keshav

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 10:40:37 PM2/6/05
to
"convertstoislam" <m_gh...@yahoo.com>
| Salam Denis,
[....]

| > I don't see it as "defeatist". It seems every serious Seminary in
| this
| > country encourages students to learn Greek and/or Hebrew, because
| they
| > recognize the valuable insight one can gain from consulting the
| > original texts. All the serious scholarly sources make recourse to
| > Hebrew and Greek.
|
| yes, an elite minority does recognize that the English Bible is not the
| word of God, but they do not recognize that the verbal Aramaic is also
| gone and their divine alternative is the Quran.

I don't think one can compare the Bible and the Quran in this way.
Christians do regard the Bible as the word of God, but not in the same way
as Muslims, who consider the Quran as being a direct dictation from Gabriel
revealing God's word. The Bible is rather seen as written by human writers
who were divinely inspired. So the question of translating one or the other
has different implications. I think the essence of the message is preserved
in Bible translations, and reading the original text is mainly of scholarly
interest. Conversely in the Quran, the form and the contents seem much more
indisociable.

convertstoislam

unread,
Feb 6, 2005, 10:40:39 PM2/6/05
to
Salam Denis,

> > Your survey seems to depend on first instilling the negative
> > traits of translations and then baiting the surveyed with an
> > unavailable alternative
>
> The point was with regard to being clear with what we are asking.

it's only clear if you don't change the question, what is being asked
is; "is the English Bible the exact words of God"

we are not asking them if the English Bible is a relevant theory of
what Christianity represents as your hypothetical survey would
conclude.

> Most Christians will agree that their translation is "good
> enough" for guiding them to salvation.

I disagree, the majority of Christians are not as apathetic about their
"Holy Book" to reply with a southern slang, "ah chucks, it get's the
job done". Just the opposite, the common Christian will put out his or
her chest, standing straight and in a deep voice say, "Yes, my Bible is
the exact words of God".

> > True that I did not make the comparison as a neutral observer,
> > but I did make the comparison in a sincere way to the point
> > that an objective observer would come to the same results.
>
> On this issue I do not believe so. Any person who takes the approach
> you have taken (i.e. the approach of presupposing the Bible consists
of
> mere translations while the Qur'an does not suffer from the same
> problem because Qur'anic quotes originally uttered in other languages
> were translated by God) would not be an objective observer. The
> presupposition throws objectivity out the window.

I think we've reached the peak of a circular argument on this point
because one of us is not understanding the other, I will try to clarify
why the Bible is purely a translation while the Quran is not.

Regarding your contention that the Quran uses translations because it
quotes Hebrew prophets, as I mentioned, that is absurd because it is
not a translator who is quoting Hebrew into Arabic, it is God saying
what His creations said and what He told His creations to say. Even if
I were to credit this claim of yours that the Quran contains
translations, the Gospel does the identical thing by Jesus and Paul
quoting Moses, so these so called inter-Semitic translations cancel
each other out.

But what the Bible has which the Quran does not (this is where the
circular argument comes to a halt), the Gospel is void of the original
verbal to textual language, what was said in Aramaic was "translated"
to Greek. While what was said in Arabic for the Quran was written in
Arabic.

So to make the wild claim that both the Quran and Bible are equally
translated is absolutely ridiculous.

> > Those are a lot of assumptions that we don't know
>
> Um, no, there is not a single assumption in my statement above. Jesus
> is quoted as puting forth a biconditional proposition: only God is
good
> [i.e. for all (x), x is 'good' if and only if x is 'God']. If this
> statement is true, then to call Jesus 'good' is to call him 'God'

the assumption is that Jesus was a bad teacher so that it was some sort
of biconditional hidden meaning to call Jesus a good teacher. Second,
the Greek word used is "Agathos" which has a wide range of meanings, so
it is also easy to conclude that the student meant the moderate meaning
of the word Agathos "pleasant" while Jesus replied with the extreme
meaning of the word Agathos "Honorable". Jesus was simply teaching the
student the #1 Monotheistic lesson = God is greater than I (John 13:16)

> Your only way out as a
> Muslim (and therefore an avowed believer in Jesus who simultaneously
> denies that he made any claims about divinity) is to deny that the
> quote is historical, which would then beg the question why you made
an
> appeal to it in the first place.

it is historically consistent with all the other times Jesus denied
being God, it is historically consistent with Jesus being a good
teacher and it is historically consistent with Jesus being humble so
that He who sent Jesus is the One Jesus taught about.

I hope you don't fall too much into the Christian hyper-analytical word
manipulations where you take a phrase such as "good teacher" and put on
it tri-conditions simply because the Christians can't find where Jesus
said "I am God".

> Fine. The issue here is the logical coherence of the two natures
view,
> not the doctrine's factual correspondence.

hold on now, when did we set the tone as far as which view of Trinity
we're going to accept as the standard? There are dozens of theories on
trinity, Im glad you feel Craig and Morris present a "theory" you find
semi-logical, but not all Christians feel the same way about them. I
judge trinity by the logical standards of our God given cognitions.

1+1+1 does not = 1 (and I didn't even include the OT theopanies, which
gives me the idea for a new article "trinity or octinity"). So as far
as Trinity is concerned, I find it a weak defense to criticize my
logical view point by saying I did not take some semi famous theorist
into consideration.

> I *AM* arguing that the doctrine
> put forth is not logically incoherent, nor is it Biblically
> inconsistent. This is where your book's appeal to the human nature of
> Christ comes in. Do references to Jesus' humanity in the Bible
> logically contradict the doctrine of the two natures of Christ? The
> answer is, flatly, no.

no offense but God showed us that having two natures is an anomaly
called schizophrenia. God is just God, and Jesus on earth was not
speaking to himself.

> Well here's the rub. I went to the library investigating this claim
> when I discussed it with Osama Abdallaah, and I could not find a
single
> dictionary supporting his view. He too was unable to list a single
> dictionary supporting his view. This is rather ironic. Are we to
> believe that all the dictionaries I have checked are engaging in a
> conspiracy of silence?

ok, if you have the chance, send me the list of Arabic-Arabic and or
Arabic-English dictionaries you have verified don't have that dual
meaning, then that will narrow the list, there are as with the
English-English dictionaries, dozens of Arabic-Arabic dictionaries, so
the few you've looked at and the one I've looked at can make our job of
finding it easier and less expensive :-)

Peace

Mohamed Ghounem


convertstoislam

unread,
Feb 7, 2005, 11:04:42 PM2/7/05
to
Hi Matthew,

although I make it a point of not replying to your posts because they
contain rantings with no substance, I am curious as to how you see Ps
23 related to Mt 27:46?

Ps 23 is a beautiful chapter that talks about the confidence and
tranquility that comes from being devoted to God, what passage in
particular in Ps 23 transitions from tranquility into crying foul and
forsaken as in Mt 27:46?

Ps 23 is talking about knowing that God is there with you and will
protect you, by Jesus crying out "Eloi, Eloi, lem sabachth ni?"
means that Jesus did not think God was with him at that point.

Peace

Mohamed Ghounem

Matthew Johnson

unread,
Feb 8, 2005, 10:22:46 PM2/8/05
to
In article <RqBNd.18501$t46.1585@trndny04>, Matthew Johnson says...

>
>In article <FZnMd.1947$uc.746@trnddc05>, convertstoislam says...
>
>>While on the cross, Jesus asks God "why did you forsake me" which
>>clearly indicates that the events occurring were not as Jesus expected
>>them to occur, and then Jesus said it was not by his own will but the
>>will of God.
>
>No, that is not what it indicates. For it is an _allusion_ to Psalm 23. Now
>Psalm 23 -starts- with the appearance you describe, that events were not
>occuring as expected, but ends with the confident expression of unshakeable
>faith in the salvation that comes form God.
>
>Therefore no, when Christ was alluding to/quoting Psalm 23, He too was
>expressing His confidence, NOT that "events were not occuring as expected".

Curious typo. I meant Psalm 22 (Hebrew numbering), not 23.

Matthew Johnson

unread,
Feb 8, 2005, 10:22:54 PM2/8/05
to
In article <uTWNd.7884$uc.6501@trnddc04>, convertstoislam says...

>
>Hi Matthew,
>
>although I make it a point of not replying to your posts because they
>contain rantings with no substance,

That's not true.

> I am curious as to how you see Ps
>23 related to Mt 27:46?

What relation? It is Psa 22, not Psa 23, that is clearly related to Mt 27:46

>Ps 23 is a beautiful chapter that talks about the confidence and
>tranquility that comes from being devoted to God, what passage in
>particular in Ps 23 transitions from tranquility into crying foul and
>forsaken as in Mt 27:46?

What _are_ you talking about? And no is "crying foul" in Mt 27:46. That is your
fertile imagination.


>Ps 23 is talking about knowing that God is there with you and will
>protect you, by Jesus crying out "Eloi, Eloi, lem sabachth ni?"
>means that Jesus did not think God was with him at that point.

No, it means no such thing. You are not only quoting him out of context, but
dragging in Psa 22 as a distraction while you do so.

Gary W. Bush

unread,
Feb 9, 2005, 11:29:14 PM2/9/05
to
Matthew Johnson <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<RqBNd.18501$t46.1585@trndny04>...

> In article <FZnMd.1947$uc.746@trnddc05>, convertstoislam says...
>
> >While on the cross, Jesus asks God "why did you forsake me" which
> >clearly indicates that the events occurring were not as Jesus expected
> >them to occur, and then Jesus said it was not by his own will but the
> >will of God.
>
> No, that is not what it indicates. For it is an _allusion_ to Psalm 23. Now
> Psalm 23 -starts- with the appearance you describe, that events were not
> occuring as expected, but ends with the confident expression of unshakeable
> faith in the salvation that comes form God.
>
Matthew, you may not be aware but Mohamed Ghounem has a disease
of Christianophobia, which is why he deliberately posts lots of
Anti-Christian lies here.

This Mohamed Ghounem cannot understand Christian faith as he
confuses the relationship between the OT and the NT as well as
the Holy Tradition. Maybe, to put it simple, the OT is like the
Quran, and the NT is like the Sunnah Hadith, and the Catholic
Church's Holy Tradition is like the Tafsir in Islam. Our Lord
Jesus was "fulfiling" meaning explaning the true meaning of the
OT. This is what the Cathecism of the Catholic Church tells us.
All other Gospels, such as the Jewish Babylonian Talmud and
Mohamed Ghounem's own Gospel are false.

> Therefore no, when Christ was alluding to/quoting Psalm 23, He too was
> expressing His confidence, NOT that "events were not occuring as expected".
>

The problem here is Mohamed Ghounem deliberarely pretends not
to understand this, which is already very clear.

Gary.

convertstoislam

unread,
Feb 10, 2005, 10:41:07 PM2/10/05
to
> No, it means no such thing. You are not only quoting him out of
context, but
> dragging in Psa 22 as a distraction while you do so.

Hi Matthew, thanks for reminding me why I don't bother with your posts;
first you falsely claim that PS "23" was being alluded to in Mt 27:46

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.religion.christian/msg/66beaa20858612de

Then when that was disproven by me:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.religion.christian/msg/5672331a74858012

you then compound your mistakes by saying it's not PS "23", it's
actually PS "22";

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.religion.christian/msg/cfcee782262c255a

Then in this post you say I'm "dragging in Psa 22 as a distraction"

That is a complete lie, I never mentioned Ps "22" in this thread with
you, you need to get your numbers straight because your ignorantly
jumping back and forth between chapters. Either your very mixed up or
intentionally lying, I think a little of both.

Now on to your new false claim that Ps "22" is the allusion made to in
Mt 27:46

It's insulting to Jesus to say he was trying to mimic Ps "22" because
Ps 22:6 says "But I am a worm and not a man"

Muslims don't believe that Jesus was a worm as you do, Muslims believe
Jesus was the Messiah and one of the Greatest Prophets equal to Prophet
Muhammad.

Peace

Mohamed Ghounem

----

[It's unlikely that the author of Ps 22 literally claimed to be a worm.
The context makes it clear what the image means: that he is treated as
subhuman by those around him.

--clh]

convertstoislam

unread,
Feb 10, 2005, 10:41:08 PM2/10/05
to
Hello Mr. G.W. Bush,

> Matthew, you may not be aware but Mohamed Ghounem has a disease
> of Christianophobia

I didn't know what you were a doctor Mr. G.W. Bush, I thought you were
just a oil tycoon, and headed some country. I also didn't know that
you gave me a physical without my knowledge or authorization, but I
guess you got all those "under cover" people working for you. I also
didn't know that Christianity caused any diseases, good thing I'm a
Muslim. I did know that many diseases spread in Christian countries
because Holy laws are "tossed like rags" and instead the faith in Jesus
is used as protection.

> which is why he deliberately posts lots of
> Anti-Christian lies here.

May I ask you to show me one single lie I have posted? I would be happy
to discuss it with you Mr G.W. Bush, and if you have the time, maybe we
can talk about the economy too.

> This Mohamed Ghounem cannot understand Christian faith as he
> confuses the relationship between the OT and the NT

Is there a set relationship between the two? Christians claim the OT is
tossed out like rags and yet many OT laws are selectively incorporated
into Christianity, some more than others depending on your sect.

> > Therefore no, when Christ was alluding to/quoting Psalm 23, He too
was
> > expressing His confidence, NOT that "events were not occuring as
expected".
> >
> The problem here is Mohamed Ghounem deliberarely pretends not
> to understand this, which is already very clear.

Well Mr. G.W. Bush, can you tell me how Ps "23" is related to Jesus
being forsaken? If you can find that, then maybe you find where the
weapons in Iraq are too.

Peace

Mohamed Ghounem


Matthew Johnson

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 1:06:31 AM2/14/05
to
In article <nPVOd.19968$wc.14944@trnddc07>, convertstoislam says...

>> No, it means no such thing. You are not only quoting him out of
>context, but
>> dragging in Psa 22 as a distraction while you do so.
>
>Hi Matthew, thanks for reminding me why I don't bother with your posts;
>first you falsely claim that PS "23" was being alluded to in Mt 27:46

That was a typo, which I later corrected. What a pity you did not see the
correction before posting your heated and ignorant response.

Oh, but you disproved NOTHING in this post. On the contrary: it made no sense
whatsoever. If you had checked a cross-reference yourself before pontificating
in your ignorance, you would not have posted such nonsense.

Why, if you had even _looked_ at the Psalm before pontificating, you would have
noticed that there is nothing in common between Psalm 23 and Mt 27:46; no quote,
no allusion. You didn't look before you leaped, did you?

>you then compound your mistakes by saying it's not PS "23", it's
>actually PS "22";

But even when I "compounded my mistake", my post made more sense than your
misguided ramblings. Because the Psalm _I_ quoted has a very obvious quote in
Mat 27:46.

>http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.religion.christian/msg/cfcee782262c255a

More importantly, no, I did not compound ANY mistake here. Rather, I corrected
one. You _still_ have learned nothing from the correction, I see.

But I suppose that is only to be expected from someone who does not know the
difference between _compounding_ an error and _correcting_ one. And such
confusion is to be expected in turn from anyone who dwells in the darkness while
dreaming of 'correcting' the Scriptures.

>Then in this post you say I'm "dragging in Psa 22 as a distraction"

Which is what it looked like. That is why, in general, one should include at
least a few verses of the passage being quoted. It was a mistake when I failed
to do it, but it was an even bigger mistake when you failed to do it. I hope to
make that clear to even you in this post.

>That is a complete lie, I never mentioned Ps "22" in this thread with
>you, you need to get your numbers straight because your ignorantly
>jumping back and forth between chapters. Either your very mixed up or
>intentionally lying, I think a little of both.

It is you who is either very mixed up or intentionally lying, maybe both. For
you have to be very mixed up to think that we believe Christ is a worm. Why, you
would have to be SO mixed up, you would prefer to be believed to be lying!

But wait! Even your ridiculous choice of words "intentionally lying" reveals how
mixed up you really are. For by DEFINITION, a lie is intentional.

>Now on to your new false claim that Ps "22" is the allusion made to in
>Mt 27:46

The claim is not 'false', no matter how many times you try to deny it.

>It's insulting to Jesus to say he was trying to mimic Ps "22" because
>Ps 22:6 says "But I am a worm and not a man"

No, that is NOT 'insulting'. Rather, it expresses the degradation that all human
nature is subject to as a result of the Fall. By freely taking upon Himself this
same human nature, Christ too freely and humbly suffered this degradation.

>Muslims don't believe that Jesus was a worm as you do,

Now THAT is an insult: claiming that the poetic metaphor is literal, and that
Christians believe that He was literally a worm.

Tell me, now, Ghounem: does your religion _require_ people to ignore the
distinction between the literal and poetic metaphor, or is this _your_ peculiar
fault?

>Muslims believe
>Jesus was the Messiah and one of the Greatest Prophets equal to Prophet
>Muhammad.

And THAT is an insult, too. For Mohammed was no prophet of God. So to call
Christ "his equal" is a very great sin against God indeed. Why, that one sin
alone is enough to earn damnation.

Now for the evidence that it is YOU who is intentionally lying, even from before
I jumped into this thread. Look, at long last, at the verses in question:


And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
"Eli, Eli, la'ma sabach-tha'ni?" that is, "MY GOD, MY
God, MY GOD, WHY HAS THOU FORKAKEN ME?" (Mat 27:46 RSVA)

To the choirmaster: according to The Hind of the Dawn.
A Psalm of David. MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAS THOU
FORKAKEN ME? Why art thou so far from helping me,
from the words of my groaning? (Psa 22:1 RSVA)

I put the quoted part in caps, so that even you will not be able to deny the
obvious: Christ is quoting this verse.

Now do you see why it is YOU, not I, who has put on the appearance of
"intentionally lying"? The resemblance between these verse is TOO STRIKING to be
a mere coincidence. Yet you deny the obvious. Does the truth hurt you that much?

>[It's unlikely that the author of Ps 22 literally claimed to be a worm.
>The context makes it clear what the image means: that he is treated as
>subhuman by those around him.
>
>--clh]


Clear to you and me, Charles. Yet for some mysterious reason, it is not clear to
Ghounem.

Matthew Johnson

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 1:06:32 AM2/14/05
to
In article <uqBOd.16910$uc.2072@trnddc04>, Gary W. Bush says...
>

[snip]

>> Therefore no, when Christ was alluding to/quoting Psalm 23, He too was
>> expressing His confidence, NOT that "events were not occuring as expected".
>>
>The problem here is Mohamed Ghounem deliberarely pretends not
>to understand this, which is already very clear.

I am glad to see that I am not alone: you see this too, and even despite my
unfortunate typos;)

Matthew Johnson

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 1:06:37 AM2/14/05
to
In article <oPVOd.19972$wc.7379@trnddc07>, convertstoislam says...

>
>Hello Mr. G.W. Bush,
>
>> Matthew, you may not be aware but Mohamed Ghounem has a disease
>> of Christianophobia
>
>I didn't know what you were a doctor Mr. G.W. Bush, I thought you were
>just a oil tycoon, and headed some country.

You must have confused him with a different GW Bush;)

> I also didn't know that
>you gave me a physical without my knowledge or authorization, but I
>guess you got all those "under cover" people working for you. I also
>didn't know that Christianity caused any diseases,

He never said it did. That was your vicious fancy.

> good thing I'm a
>Muslim.

NO, it is a bad thing, as you will find out when you hear the dread words
"depart from me you evildoers".

> I did know that many diseases spread in Christian countries
>because Holy laws are "tossed like rags" and instead the faith in Jesus
>is used as protection.

Well, here is _one_ of the lies you asked for GWB to point out to you.
Christians did/do no such thing.

>> which is why he deliberately posts lots of
>> Anti-Christian lies here.
>
>May I ask you to show me one single lie I have posted?

You just put one in this post, as I just pointed out.

> I would be happy
>to discuss it with you Mr G.W. Bush, and if you have the time, maybe we
>can talk about the economy too.
>
>> This Mohamed Ghounem cannot understand Christian faith as he
>> confuses the relationship between the OT and the NT
>
>Is there a set relationship between the two? Christians claim the OT is
>tossed out like rags

No, we do not. You are misquoting us with malicious intent.

> and yet many OT laws are selectively incorporated
>into Christianity, some more than others depending on your sect.

Well, that is less inaccurate.

[snip]

convertstoislam

unread,
Feb 14, 2005, 10:52:57 PM2/14/05
to
Hi Matthew,

99% of your post is repulsive, but I think you actually believe
yourself so I'll waste my time to give you a couple comments.

> That was a typo, which I later corrected. What a pity you did not see
the
> correction before posting your heated and ignorant response.

I replied to what you originally posted, can you see into the future to
know if someone is going to post a retraction? It's admirable to admit
that you were wrong about an entire chapter.

> Oh, but you disproved NOTHING in this post. On the contrary: it made
no sense
> whatsoever. If you had checked a cross-reference yourself before
pontificating
> in your ignorance, you would not have posted such nonsense.
> Why, if you had even _looked_ at the Psalm before pontificating, you
would have
> noticed that there is nothing in common between Psalm 23 and Mt 27:46

it is not my job to read the Bible for you, you specifically pointed
out Ps23, so I asked you to give a specific passage, your right that
there is nothing in common and that is why I asked you to show the
relevance, and now you missed an entire chapter and admit there is no
relevance to Ps23.

> >Then in this post you say I'm "dragging in Psa 22 as a distraction"
>
> Which is what it looked like. That is why, in general, one should
include at
> least a few verses of the passage being quoted.

In general you need to include the right chapter instead of quoting an
entirely wrong chapter. How did it look like I was dragging in Ps22,
is that the same way that it looked like Ps23 was Ps22?

>It was a mistake when I failed
> to do it, but it was an even bigger mistake when you failed to do it.

I am not your preacher, I am not responsible for your ignorance.

> >It's insulting to Jesus to say he was trying to mimic Ps "22"
because
> >Ps 22:6 says "But I am a worm and not a man"
>
> No, that is NOT 'insulting'. Rather, it expresses the degradation
that all human
> nature is subject to as a result of the Fall.

Humans have been degraded but not to the point of being worms, it is
very rare for a human to call himself a worm, Jesus did not do it in
Mt27, have you ever called yourself a worm? If not, then why do you say
Jesus called himself a worm?

> >Muslims don't believe that Jesus was a worm as you do,
>
> Now THAT is an insult: claiming that the poetic metaphor is literal,
and that
> Christians believe that He was literally a worm.

Even if it is metaphoric it is an insult, for example, if a woman
called you a dog, it is obvious it is not literal, but it does state
that you have dog like characteristics.

> >Muslims believe
> >Jesus was the Messiah and one of the Greatest Prophets equal to
Prophet
> >Muhammad.
>
> And THAT is an insult, too. For Mohammed was no prophet of God. So to
call
> Christ "his equal" is a very great sin against God indeed. Why, that
one sin
> alone is enough to earn damnation.

Put the Biblical Prophets side by side with Prophet Muhammad and you
will find that Prophet Muhammad was one of the greatest Prophets, but
Islam teaches that all Prophets are equal.

> And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
> "Eli, Eli, la'ma sabach-tha'ni?" that is, "MY GOD, MY
> God, MY GOD, WHY HAS THOU FORKAKEN ME?" (Mat 27:46 RSVA)
>
> To the choirmaster: according to The Hind of the Dawn.
> A Psalm of David. MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAS THOU
> FORKAKEN ME? Why art thou so far from helping me,
> from the words of my groaning? (Psa 22:1 RSVA)
>
> I put the quoted part in caps, so that even you will not be able to
deny the
> obvious: Christ is quoting this verse.

That is absurd, if you bumped your head (which I think you did a few
times), then you might say "God Damn it", if someone else does the same
thing, then it would be far fetched to say that second person was
quoting you because they used the same phrase. So if one person says
"why'd you forsake me", that does not mean everyone who says that is
quoting the first person, instead they are asking a sincere question,
"why did you leave me".

Peace

Mohamed Ghounem


Gary W. Bush

unread,
Feb 15, 2005, 11:22:39 PM2/15/05
to
Matthew Johnson <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<NdXPd.56217$g16.2491@trndny08>...

> In article <oPVOd.19972$wc.7379@trnddc07>, convertstoislam says...
> >
> >Hello Mr. G.W. Bush,
> >
> >> Matthew, you may not be aware but Mohamed Ghounem has a disease
> >> of Christianophobia
> >
> >I didn't know what you were a doctor Mr. G.W. Bush, I thought you were
> >just a oil tycoon, and headed some country.
>
> You must have confused him with a different GW Bush;)
>
Yes, I think Mohamed Ghounem is confused thinking I am
the Bush who led the Iraqi war, when I am not even a
U.S. citizen and live in a country in the north of
Australia, even north of Indonesia, and north of the
Republic of Singapore. I will not name this country
but you can guess it, if you are an Internet expert
in IP numbering.

> > I also didn't know that
> >you gave me a physical without my knowledge or authorization, but I
> >guess you got all those "under cover" people working for you. I also
> >didn't know that Christianity caused any diseases,
>
> He never said it did. That was your vicious fancy.
>

Mohamed Ghounem cannot comprehend the plain English
word "Christianophobia", which is like "Islamophobia"
and "Anti-Semitism". The first means hatred or dislike
against Christians, while the second means hatred or
dislike against Muslims, and finally the third means
hatred against Jewish people and Zionism.

Mohamed Ghounem is notoriously a Christianophobe as
he supports the ethnic Arab occupation of Egypt, which
belongs to the ethnic Coptic people who are Christians,
yet he practises double-standards by claiming ethnic
Hebrews are occupying "Palestinian" land, which he
allerges belongs to Arabs who are Muslims.

But the word "Palestine" means "land of the Greeks" and
anyone who knows history of the Byzantine Empire will
know the lingua franca was Greek, but today due to heavy
Arabization to the Christian Greeks who happen to be
members of the Eastern Orthodox sect, these Greeks are
denied their right to claim to be Greeks, Coptic, Arameans,
Chaldeans, and Assyrians but are forced to become Arab
Christians. Also, that is why the official name of the
Eastern Orthodox sect there is "Greek Orthodox Church of
Jerusalem" and not "Arab Orthodox Church" because those
Christians are Greeks who were forced to Arabize.

For proof do a search in Google, and please use these words
"greek orthodox church of jerusalem" and click on the first
link.

This is a brief quote :
"Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Jerusalem
The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Jerusalem The history of
the Patriarchate begins from the ... The Church and the
Episcopacy of Jerusalem was and is ..."

< http://www.holylight.gr/patria/enpatria.html >

Take note the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem does not
use "Palestinian" top level domain, .ps, but the Greek
top level domain, .gr, which is important because Greeks
are not Arabs, unless we believe Muslim propaganda as
Mohamed Ghounem spreads.

> > good thing I'm a
> >Muslim.
>
> NO, it is a bad thing, as you will find out when you hear the dread words
> "depart from me you evildoers".
>

But evildoing is part of Muslim propaganda, especially
their forcing non-Arabs (mainly Greek and Syrian Christians)
in the fictionous state called "Palestine" and Iraq to Arabize,
which means become Arab Christians and forget Greek or Syriac
languages, two important languages, the former language Paul
wrote in, the latter, Syriac, natural language of Jesus.

> > I did know that many diseases spread in Christian countries
> >because Holy laws are "tossed like rags" and instead the faith in Jesus
> >is used as protection.
>
> Well, here is _one_ of the lies you asked for GWB to point out to you.
> Christians did/do no such thing.
>

The Old Testament is not abolished but "fulfiled" by the New Testament.
This word "fulfil" means "explain". You can compare the Old Testament
to the Tanakh or Quran, while the New Testament can be compared to
Judaism's Talmud, or the Islamic Hadith. Jesus forbade literal reading
of the Old Testament as it is His Father's Speech. Only the Son can
explain such speech, and this is called "fulfiling".

> > I would be happy
> >to discuss it with you Mr G.W. Bush, and if you have the time, maybe we
> >can talk about the economy too.
> >
> >> This Mohamed Ghounem cannot understand Christian faith as he
> >> confuses the relationship between the OT and the NT
> >
> >Is there a set relationship between the two? Christians claim the OT is
> >tossed out like rags
>
> No, we do not. You are misquoting us with malicious intent.
>

I already replied to Mohamed Ghounem in the previous post of mine
that the set relationship between the OT and NT is like the Quran
and Hadith in Islam, or the Tanakh and Talmud in Judaism, but he
choose to ignore this. If I asked Mohamed Ghounem to reject the
Hadith and only follow the Quran, would he be willing to do that?
The same goes here. The OT and NT and Holy Tradition are one set
and cannot be seperated.

Gary.

Matthew Johnson

unread,
Feb 15, 2005, 11:22:44 PM2/15/05
to
In article <tmeQd.7274$uc.6335@trnddc01>, convertstoislam says...

>
>Hi Matthew,
>
>99% of your post is repulsive, but I think you actually believe
>yourself so I'll waste my time to give you a couple comments.

You wasted your time, alright. But not for the reason you so facilely claim. You
wasted your time because you are merely elaborating on your previous nonsense
with more nonsense. It is you who is digging himself into a hole, not me.

>
>> That was a typo, which I later corrected. What a pity you did not see
>the
>> correction before posting your heated and ignorant response.
>
>I replied to what you originally posted, can you see into the future to
>know if someone is going to post a retraction?

Evidently not, since I would have thought you would have had the sense to post
your own retraction by now. But you have not.

> It's admirable to admit
>that you were wrong about an entire chapter.

You can't READ, can you? That is not what I said at all. Learn to read before
you try to participate in this NG.

>
>> Oh, but you disproved NOTHING in this post. On the contrary: it made
>no sense
>> whatsoever. If you had checked a cross-reference yourself before
>pontificating
>> in your ignorance, you would not have posted such nonsense.
>> Why, if you had even _looked_ at the Psalm before pontificating, you
>would have
>> noticed that there is nothing in common between Psalm 23 and Mt 27:46
>
>it is not my job to read the Bible for you,

I didn't say it was. But apparently, you don't think it is your job to read it
AT ALL.

>you specifically pointed
>out Ps23, so I asked you to give a specific passage, your right that
>there is nothing in common and that is why I asked you to show the
>relevance,

Which I have done, and you had to respond completely off topic rather than admit
how wrong you are.


[snip]

>I am not your preacher, I am not responsible for your ignorance.

But you are responsible for your own, and your own is what you disply so
prominetnly in this entire thread./

>> >It's insulting to Jesus to say he was trying to mimic Ps "22"
>because
>> >Ps 22:6 says "But I am a worm and not a man"
>>
>> No, that is NOT 'insulting'. Rather, it expresses the degradation
>that all human
>> nature is subject to as a result of the Fall.
>
>Humans have been degraded but not to the point of being worms, it is
>very rare for a human to call himself a worm, Jesus did not do it in
>Mt27, have you ever called yourself a worm? If not, then why do you say
>Jesus called himself a worm?

I cannot believe you have -this- much trouble understanding poetic diction.

>> >Muslims don't believe that Jesus was a worm as you do,
>>
>> Now THAT is an insult: claiming that the poetic metaphor is literal,
>and that
>> Christians believe that He was literally a worm.
>
>Even if it is metaphoric it is an insult, for example, if a woman
>called you a dog, it is obvious it is not literal, but it does state
>that you have dog like characteristics.

No, it does not. If you really are this ignorant of poetic diction, you need to
go back to school before you try to 'correct' Scripture.

>> >Muslims believe
>> >Jesus was the Messiah and one of the Greatest Prophets equal to
>Prophet
>> >Muhammad.
>>
>> And THAT is an insult, too. For Mohammed was no prophet of God. So to
>call
>> Christ "his equal" is a very great sin against God indeed. Why, that
>one sin
>> alone is enough to earn damnation.
>
>Put the Biblical Prophets side by side with Prophet Muhammad and you
>will find that Prophet Muhammad was one of the greatest Prophets, but
>Islam teaches that all Prophets are equal.

No, that is not what we find at all. Do you really imagine that in the hundreds
of years that Islam has blighted the earth, none of us have done this? If so,
then here too, you show off your gross ignorance. We _have_ done this, and we
find that Muhammad was no Prophet of God at all.

>
>> And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
>> "Eli, Eli, la'ma sabach-tha'ni?" that is, "MY GOD, MY
>> God, MY GOD, WHY HAS THOU FORKAKEN ME?" (Mat 27:46 RSVA)
>>
>> To the choirmaster: according to The Hind of the Dawn.
>> A Psalm of David. MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAS THOU
>> FORKAKEN ME? Why art thou so far from helping me,
>> from the words of my groaning? (Psa 22:1 RSVA)
>>
>> I put the quoted part in caps, so that even you will not be able to
>deny the
>> obvious: Christ is quoting this verse.
>
>That is absurd,

No, it is not.

> if you bumped your head (which I think you did a few
>times), then you might say "God Damn it", if someone else does the same
>thing, then it would be far fetched to say that second person was
>quoting you because they used the same phrase.

But this is an irrelevant example, since "God D---" is such a common expression,
not unique to poetry at all. But "My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me" is
an _obvious_ reference to the Psalm. WHy, not one of the _other_ Psalms even
uses it. So there is no parallel between this and bumping your head at all.

Christ _is_ quoting this verse, despite your extremely _lame_ attempt to
'disprove' it.

Matthew Johnson

unread,
Feb 16, 2005, 11:48:45 PM2/16/05
to
In article <jUzQd.19845$uc.7963@trnddc05>, Gary W. Bush says...
>

[snip]

>But the word "Palestine" means "land of the Greeks"

I don't know where you got _this_ from!

> and
>anyone who knows history of the Byzantine Empire will
>know the lingua franca was Greek,

That part is true...

> but today due to heavy
>Arabization to the Christian Greeks

But wait! They _spoke_ Greek, but were not ethnically Greek in the first place.

> who happen to be
>members of the Eastern Orthodox sect,

It is NOT a 'sect'...


[snip]

>But evildoing is part of Muslim propaganda,

It certainly is, as Ghounem has _repeatedly_ shown us!

[snip]

>The OT and NT and Holy Tradition are one set
>and cannot be seperated.

And this is exactly why you are so wrong to call them "Eastern Orthodox sect".
For the Eastern Orthodox _are_ following Holy Tradition far more faithfully
(despite our still numerous failings) than any one who follows a bishop who
claims he has the right to overrule and Ecumenical Council and suspend the fasts
Holy Tradition has taught us are _so_ necessary to the Christian life.

>
>Gary.

Gary W. Bush

unread,
Feb 20, 2005, 8:48:47 PM2/20/05
to
Matthew Johnson <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<NmVQd.37006$Dc.21312@trnddc06>...

> In article <jUzQd.19845$uc.7963@trnddc05>, Gary W. Bush says...
> >
>
> [snip]
>
> >But the word "Palestine" means "land of the Greeks"
>
> I don't know where you got _this_ from!
>
Well, I asked my priest and he told me that
the ancient Jews in the Mishnah refer the
Greeks as either Philistines or Canaanites.
So "land of Canaan", which is the land of
the Philistines is the land of the Greeks.
Also, the Gospel [which is about the same
era as the Mishnah] refer to a Greek woman
as a Canaanite.

> > and
> >anyone who knows history of the Byzantine Empire will
> >know the lingua franca was Greek,
>
> That part is true...
>
> > but today due to heavy
> >Arabization to the Christian Greeks
>
> But wait! They _spoke_ Greek, but were not ethnically Greek in the first
> place.
>

Do you know the difference between "race" and "ethnic" ?
If not, please refer to a good dictionary, but briefly
ethnicity is determined by language spoken, or sometimes
religious law, as are Hebrews and Malays, which is a
good example in the modern world.

"race is a distinct population of humans distinguished in
some way from other humans. The most widely observed races
are those based on skin color, facial features...."
[Wikipedia]

and,

"Ethnicity is the cultural characteristics that connect a
particular group or groups of people to each other."
[Wikipedia]

So, an example of "race" would be White, Black, Brown, as
well as Yellow. This way, Arabs are definitely not a race,
but an ethnicity since it is purely cultural. A person who
is an Arab could convert and become say, a Chinese.

The word "ethnic" is derived from Greek word, which is
"ethnos", whose usage in the Bible can mean in modern
English "nation". And, as far as I know, Bible cannot
be racist, so, Hebrews were never a race as the Bible
allows non-Hebrews to become Hebrews through conversions.

While, sometimes the far-left does refer "ethnic" as race,
this is not so and neither correct but propaganda by them.
An "ethnic" refers to culture, which something that is
cultivated by humans.

The word "ethnic" is derived from a Greek word, which
means in Hebrew, "goyim", and in modern English it is,
"nation". Again, we must distinguish between "nation"
and "nation-State" and "State".

Both Canada and Australia are correctly refered to as
"State" or precisely "Federal State", as they are not
"nations" but comprise of many "nations" (ethnic), for
instance, English, Welsh, Arabs, Hebrews, Greeks, Russians,
etc.

Therefore, we can safely conclude that the Byzantine Empire
were ethnically Greeks because ethnicity is determined by
language spoken by its members, or by religious law.

In Malaysia, an ethnic Malay is defined by the Constitution
as any person who habitually speaks the Malay language and
professes the Muslim religion", while, the Torah defines an
ethnic Hebrew as anyone who follows the 613 laws codified
within it. So, Malaysian Christians are definitely not
ethnic Malays legally speaking, and if you leave the Muslim
religion, you cease to be an ethnic Malay.

> > who happen to be
> >members of the Eastern Orthodox sect,
>
> It is NOT a 'sect'...
>
>
> [snip]
>
> >But evildoing is part of Muslim propaganda,
>
> It certainly is, as Ghounem has _repeatedly_ shown us!
>

Have you looked at his posts in soc.religion.islam?
He still insists the Tanakh is racist despite the
fact Hebrews were never a race but an ethnic group,
since anyone can become a Hebrew through conversions,
as stipulated in the Torah, and be considered a true
Hebrew like Abraham and our current Israeli PM, Ariel
Sharon.

Israeli Aliya laws allow only ethnic Hebrews to immigrate
to Erets Israel. So, both these movements, "Jews for Islam"
and "Jews for Jesus" are considered non-Hebrews, hence,
they cannot get citizenship.

> [snip]
>
> >The OT and NT and Holy Tradition are one set
> >and cannot be seperated.
>
> And this is exactly why you are so wrong to call them "Eastern Orthodox
> sect".

I use this term because there are many Eastern Orthodox
sects, like Chalcedonian sect, non-Chalcedonian, and
Nestorian. All of them claim to be "Orthodox" and use
a Church name, such as "Coptic Orthodox Church", etc.

> For the Eastern Orthodox _are_ following Holy Tradition far more faithfully
> (despite our still numerous failings) than any one who follows a bishop who
> claims he has the right to overrule and Ecumenical Council and suspend the
> fasts Holy Tradition has taught us are _so_ necessary to the Christian life.

You too agree that no Church is perfect by your "despite
our still numerous failings" statement. I agree with you
there the Catholic Church is not perfect but we have
archived near perfection compared to the numerous sects
that broke away from us. This is because we have a global
pope, while most Eastern Orthodox sects have many popes
(or patriarches), such as, the Coptic Orthodox Church,
the Russian Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Orthodox Church,
etc.

As to your statement that "a bishop who claims he has the


right to overrule and Ecumenical Council and suspend the
fasts Holy Tradition has taught us are _so_ necessary to

the Christian life", this statement is false simply for
the reason the Pope is the head of the Church, who is
the voice of our Lord. Also, every Catholic Christian
also fasts during Lent.

Gary.

Matthew Johnson

unread,
Feb 21, 2005, 11:42:30 PM2/21/05
to
In article <36bSd.43728$uc.36168@trnddc04>, Gary W. Bush says...

>
>Matthew Johnson <matthew...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:<NmVQd.37006$Dc.21312@trnddc06>...
>> In article <jUzQd.19845$uc.7963@trnddc05>, Gary W. Bush says...
>> >
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >But the word "Palestine" means "land of the Greeks"
>>
>> I don't know where you got _this_ from!
>>
>Well, I asked my priest and he told me that
>the ancient Jews in the Mishnah refer the
>Greeks as either Philistines or Canaanites.

Then your priest did you a great disservice. For althought that is correct, it
is hihgly misleading, and does NOT imply that the word 'Palestine' means "Land
of the Greeks". Not in any way.

>So "land of Canaan", which is the land of
>the Philistines is the land of the Greeks.

No.

>Also, the Gospel [which is about the same
>era as the Mishnah] refer to a Greek woman
>as a Canaanite.

No, the Gospel refers to a _greek speaking_ woman as a 'Canaanite'. Not the same
at all. Despite what you say below, language does not determin ethnicity. IF
that were so, Brits, Indians, Canadians, New Zealanders and AMericans would all
be one people, since we do speak one mutually intelligible _language_ (just
differing dialects of it).

[snip]

>Therefore, we can safely conclude that the Byzantine Empire
>were ethnically Greeks because ethnicity is determined by
>language spoken by its members, or by religious law.

Quite wrong. In fact, their own Greek word for themseves was "Romaioi", a title
that irritated Rome very greatly.


[snip]

>> And this is exactly why you are so wrong to call them "Eastern Orthodox
>> sect".
>
>I use this term because there are many Eastern Orthodox
>sects, like Chalcedonian sect, non-Chalcedonian, and
>Nestorian.

Not a good reason. What is worse, your own Vatican II documents concerning the
Eastern Churches forbid you to use this term for us. You really should read your
own ecclesiology before you rush about branding others 'sects'.

[snip]

convertstoislam

unread,
Feb 21, 2005, 11:42:31 PM2/21/05
to
Hi G. W. Bush,

> Israeli Aliya laws allow only ethnic Hebrews to immigrate
> to Erets Israel. So, both these movements, "Jews for Islam"
> and "Jews for Jesus" are considered non-Hebrews, hence,
> they cannot get citizenship.

maybe that's why there is so much Israeli problems under your watch,
you don't seem to know Israeli laws or Jewish backgrounds.

A Jew for Jesus is just as much a Hebrew and Israeli as a Jew for Moses
or a Jew for Allah.

Case in point: Yousef Khatab (Joseph Cohen) became an Israeli citizen
after accepting Islam! The Israeli government does not prefer to give
citizenship to followers of religions other than Judaism, but by law if
the applicant has a Jewish mother, then they must permit citizenship.
A person's religious status does not determine citizenship in Israel.
Otherwise all present and future Jews for Jesus and Jews for Allah in
Israel would have their citizenship revoked and the so-called democracy
called Israel would not have freedom of religion.

Peace

Mohamed Ghounem


0 new messages