Posted by Jochen Katz on March 22, 1998 at 23:34:18:
In Reply to: Re: Jochen's commitment to God's Truth? #1 and #2 posted by Mohamed Ghounem on March 21, 1998 at 21:20:09:
: Before I lock and load :-) I would like to say that I do like you, at the same time
: I sympothize because I think you actually believe your own writings.
I consider this to mean that you finally admit that I am honest.
Why then do you call me a deceiver? A deceiver is somebody who says
things which he knows to be wrong. I believe in what I say and I say what
I believe.
I have not time for your many quibbles you bring up again.
Instead of admitting that you were wrong in your last attack you
just change to something else now. There is no point adding many
new rounds. It is not going anywhere.
: Mohamed:
: Are you stateing that the Bible is Not to be accepted as the
: Authentic Word of God in the English language?
God's word is the meaning, the content, and not any particular English
translation. Where would this leave the Indonesian Christians or the
German Christians if God's authentic Word were only the English? Or the
Arabic Christians who don't speak English? The Arabic translation of the
word of God is equally "word of God" than the English one.
No, God's word is in the content, not the form. And since it was given in
Hebrew and Greek, that is the original and all translations and all commentaries
have to be constantly checked against the original language.
The NIV is no more and no less the word of God than the KJV or the
German Lutherbibel. Given that you understand that so well in the case of
the Qur'an I wonder why you don't understand that in regard to the Bible?
Only because Christians are not as paranoid about the language than you ar
about the Arabic of the Qur'an doesn't mean that we don't know that it was
not originally written in English.
I wonder if you ever discussed the Bible in Arabic with Arabic Christians?
Are you refering to the KJV then? That would be strange, eh?
: Jochen;
: Putting the word "translation of" in front of thousands of times
: Mohamed:
: I just ask you put it in one spot, where it says difficulties in the Qur'an,
No problem, just did it. I don't think it make any difference since that is
what I have always believed and based my arguments on, but if it makes you
happy, why not.
: Why? This is the part where you tighten your helmet strap:-) Incommmingggg.
You are too emotional or excited here.
: The Translation by Yusif Ali was writen in the 1930's due to lack of scientific knowledge,
: Yusif Ali takes the word "Alaq" and translates it to say "blood clot"
He is not the only one. Pickthall and Shakir and others do just the same.
: You have been corrected since 1996 Click Here, you were given the refrence:
: "A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic" By J. Milton Cowan.
: On page 634, this word is translated into English as "medicinal leech; leech, blood, blood clot."
: You were shown 2 years ago that the word "Alaq" has a dual meaning and in context,
: it means a leach like organism, which in the original Qur'an, that is known. You
: falsely say that it is a contradiction because the 1930's Translation says
: 'blood clot', you have been corrected Two Whole Years Ago and were given
: refrence to back up the correct meaning and yet you have not changed it, Why?
And you don't even take into account that I have a link to that site so
that all can go and read and judge for themselves? Boy, what a deceiver I am.
I happen not to believe Al-Kadhi. The word might well mean different things.
The question is what it originally meant in the Qur'an. And I have not seen any
reason that it meant leech. The article on Embryology in the Qur'an is very
well researched and documented and quite convincing to me. But so that
everyone can form their own convictions therefore I have linked to Al-Khadi's
material from my contradition site.
By the way, Al-Khadi NEVER informed me about his material. It seemed he hoped I wouldn't
find it so that he will not be rebutted. Well I found it and linked to him anyway.
What a deceiver I am, now dishonest.
But since you point to his long article, do you know that Misha'al Al-Kadhi has been
informed over a year ago that his claim about "Bishop David Benjamin Keldani" made in tis
paper is a Muslim hoax?
I wonder if Mohamed Ghounem would ask the people on the various Muslim
websites propagating this lie to remove it from their pages? And if you could
please start with Misha'al Al-Kadhi who knows this very well but is not
in the least interested to change his text?
"Blood clot" is a valid meaning of the word 'alaq' and we might disagree whether
it is the meaning in this verse or not. My page does not say anything that is
false in this case. You might have a different interpretation, but because we
differ, therefore I have provided links to the Muslim opinions on this topic.
Do the Muslims link to the above paper on Embryology? I do not know even one
Muslims site that does. Could it be that they want to deceive their readers and
withold from them those arguments they don't like? Would you please answer that?
If the Muslims do not even correct clear errors even though they know them,
let alone give links to different interpretations of non-Muslims, why would you
accuse me of being dishonest and deceptive when I link to the Muslim opinion
in the articles on my site?
I don't really understand your problem. If you follow the links on
my pages, then you will find the Muslim presentations on the issue.
Is that such an evil thing to do? Should I remove them so that you
a basis for your complaint?
: You were able to change the moon issue in a matter of hours, why have you not
: changed the proper meaning of the word "Alaq" in over Two Years? Aren't you
: commited to God's Truth?
Never weill they be satisfied ...
I hope you recognize this fitting quotation from the Qur'an.
Instead of saying thank you that I invested several hours in rewriting that article
and to give you a thorough response, you just go on accusing and complaining.
I am committed to truth and that is why I give links to the other views.
How many Muslim sites are committed to truth in this way? In particular,
how many of the Muslim sites that carry Dr. Keith Moore's article about
embryology link to our response to this article? I do not even know of
a single one.
As I said, if a Muslim writes an article in response to anything
about Islam that is on our pages, and requests that we link to it,
I will put a link to the response. Most Muslims never inform me of
their responses and that looks like they don't want the interaction.
That is fine, that is their decision.
Why don't YOU write responses and put them up on the web and ask me to
link to them? Why do you constantly complain, instead of going to work
yourself?
How about it?
May you find true peace from the Lord,
Jochen Katz