Posted by Mohamed Ghounem on March 24, 1998 at 01:37:17:
In Reply to: Re: Jochen's commitment to God's Truth? #1 and #2 posted by Jochen Katz on March 22, 1998 at 23:34:18:
Dear Brother Jochen,
Thank you for your response,
It is a honor
: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.
Jochen;
I consider this to mean that you finally admit that I am honest.
Mohamed:
My, my, how we have selective reading, (maybe) honest with yourself, disqualifing you as a certified deciever, and puting you into the catigory of being certifiably in denial becuase your dishonest with reality. This is not to insult but to help: my psycosis is that your alittle of both, before you get all huphy pufy, again, I will show analytical evidence.
Jochen;
Why then do you call me a deceiver? A deceiver is somebody who says things which he knows to be wrong.
Mohamed:
O.K. we'll use that defination for a deciever, you Mr. Katz on the night in question claim that you were in your room with the door closed and did not hear or see anything? Your defense is that you did not and do not know, therefore you are not a deciever, lets see if your alaby holds :-)
Jochen;
Instead of admitting that you were wrong in your last attack you just change to something else now.
Mohamed:
It is not a attack, I clarified many many times that it is to help you recognize non-Holy actions on your part, your faith is your choice, although if your going to promote Christianity, then atleast be a good example of one, Agreed?
Jesus never said to deny Truth or to decieve, or to have evil intent, when did our honored Messiah Jesus ever do anything like that.
The topics have remained the same, (#1 and #2) I would like to help you with more so that you can be a better worshiper of God, how can you want me to go to your page and to point out more if you deny these first two.
I started with the first one, to add the word _Translation_ to the difficulty page and then you brought one here which I have also resolved for you, although until these two are fairly delt with, then I will answer more if you want.
: Mohamed:
: Are you stateing that the Bible is Not to be accepted as the
: Authentic Word of God in the English language?
Jochen;
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?
Mohamed:
Does it not concern you that the original text is to be in Hebrew and men 'intensionally' mistranslated words to promote the divinity of Jesus, isn't it troubleing you that in the original Hebrew text, Jesus was a Prophet but as the Gospel got 'translated' and accepted as a 'translation' alot of evidence that clarify that Jesus was another one of the Special Prophets was taken out.
For Example: Some Christian translations of the Old Testament in Exodus 7:1 where God calls Moses a god (Elohim), add the word "like" or "as" a god to pharaoh . The words "like" or "as" are not in the Hebrew text . Do you see brother Jochen how the 'translators' remove divinity here and add it there as though the word of God All Mighty can be changed, that is the current Bible.
Do you see the Major difference between calling Moses "like a god" and "Moses the god"
What support would Christians have in trying to claim divinity for Jesus, if Moses, a clear Prophet is called god, "None". You seem deeply concerned that the word "alaq" is mistranslated to "blood clot" instead of the True meaning "leech like organism" as shown in many dictionaries.
Why then do you not have a Equal concern for how the Bible is "purposefully mistranslated"?? Especially when it would settle the True status of Jesus, not to mention ending many senseless killings.
That is why the True message from God is kept in the Original Language, and not left up to 'men' to translate how they want, that is why the Qur'an is only excepted in Arabic, that is why when scholars translate the Qur'an, they do it to the best of their honest ablility, because the Original is available to expose any mistranslations.
Besides, don't you believe the Bible prediction of the Believers being re-united with one language? Click Here
Jochen;
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.
Mohamed:
Hebrew _and_Greek? which _One_ was it? If you admit it was given in Hebrew, why then is the eariest Gospel only in Greek?
Jochen;
Only because Christians are not as paranoid about the language than you ar about the Arabic of the Qur'an.
Mohamed:
That is what I sympothize, Christians accept mistranslations, it makes me sad to hear a Christian say Jesus is God when the same according to the original Hebrew language can be said about Moses and others in the Bible.
Have you ever found it strange that the People who actually know Sematic languages of the Bible, are mostly Muslim, and the ones that are not Muslim are non-Christian (Jews), the people who understand the sematic languages Hebrew/Arabic, are Majority Muslim, or non-Christian, do you find that odd?
: Mohamed:
: I just ask you put it in one spot, where it says difficulties in the Qur'an,
Jochen:
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.
Mohamed:
I apreciate your steps towards being commited to God's Truth, although It is now 3-24, I've waited since 3-22 when you wrote you changed it, yet 'Difficulties in the Qur'an' located Here , still appears without the word translation. I know you are a man of your word, Right?
Jochen;
I happen not to believe Al-Kadhi. The word might well mean different things.
Mohamed:
The Issue is not weather you Believe Mr. Al-Kadhi or not, the concern is your non-acceptance of Factual Dictionary Meaning of the word "alaq". You were given by Mr. Al-Kadhi the verifyable referece "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."
And according to my Arabic-English Dictionary, under the word "alaq", blood clot is _Not_even used. My Dictionary does not give it a dual meaning as other Dictionaries, mine refers to the word to _exclusively_ mean "leech like organism".
Al-Fara'id Arabic-English Dictionary, by J.G. Hava fifth edition ISBN 2-7214-2144-1 (Pg.494): To have leeches.., to hang, to be suspended, to catch, to cling, to hold fast to. No where does it say _Blood Clot_ in this Arabic-English Dictionary.
Jochen;
The question is what it originally meant in the Qur'an. And I have not seen any reason that it meant leech.
Mohamed:
Well, you have been just shown again and again, do you still deny? Are you affraid to accept something new?
Jochen;
The article on Embryology in the Qur'an is very well researched and documented and quite convincing to me.
Mohamed:
You have been shown the True meaning, how well can it be researched if they use the word _blood_clot_ instead of "leech like organism"? this shows a complete lack of research on their part and a complete display of denial on your part.
For once and for all, why go through life accepting 'Mistranslations' when the Real Thing is available?
Jochen:
"Bishop David Benjamin Keldani" made in tis paper is a Muslim hoax
Now I do not find your Muslim hoax page credable for many reasons, 1. you claim real conversions and list a testimony paper by Timothy, I have already proven that he knew little about Islam, therefore was never a Musim as seen Here
Second, you claim the French surgen Maurice Bucaille is not a Muslim, read (pg. 251) in his book "The Bible, the Qur'an, and Science", Dr. Maurice Bucaille makes it clear in his book that the Qur'an is sent from God and he is a Faithful Believer in the Final Testament.
Jochen;
"Blood clot" is a valid meaning of the word 'alaq' and we might disagree whether it is the meaning in this verse or not.
Mohamed:
This is a display of evil intent, you know that in proper context, the word means "leach like organism" many words have many meanings, to take a dual meaning word and to use it's unintended meaning to falsely claim a contradiction is evil intent.
For example: "Jesus rode a young ass" John 12:14, now I can have evil intent and make a statement concerning this verse and would be backed up by the dual meaning of the word 'ass' in the Dictionary, but you see, that would be a sin on my part, why then do you do it with the word "Alaq"?
Jochen;
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.
Mohamed:
It is not me or the Muslims that concern me, it is the angry atheists and Christians, who's intensions are to attack, so they skim through your page without going to the Muslim responses, why? because you do not have the Muslim responses side by side with your false claims as Mr. Al-Kadhi does, he puts your polemics word for word side by side with his verifiable responses.
It's those atheists and Christians that I have pity for, Muslims know that the Qur'an is the word of God, and know there are no contradictions within, the atheists and the Christians don't, and when they see a site like yours, you only set them back from reaching the Truth, you may deny the Truth for yourself, but why promote this attitude upon others?
Jochen;
Is that such an evil thing to do? Should I remove them so that you a basis for your complaint?
Mohamed:
That wasn't so hard to do, thank you for admitting that you decieve, you use the excuse that you do not decieve because the Muslim responses are in some corner of your page and not side by side to your polemics
Jochen;
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.
Mohamed:
I am not thankful, but sorrowful that you admit that it is not a contradiction and yet list it as a contradiction, the moon issue is answered, you were able to find every verse with the word "Therein" but were not able to find the many that refrenced to the moon as I showed you, how suspecious does that seem? :-)
Jochen;
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.
Mohamed:
Moore uses the proper translated word "leech like organism" the embyology article uses the mistranslation 'blood clot', what is the point of linking to something that stands in denial of the proper meaning?
Jochen;
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?
Mohamed:
I'd love to except that they've all been already answered, if there is one that is unanswered, send it over, do not tell me the Qur'an has a contradiction because someone's name in the Bible does not match a name in the Qur'an, because we have already seen that the Bible is questionable when it comes to names, Yes?
What we're dealing with now, is your denial of the verifiable, factual, accurate answers.
To summurize: #1 Kindly keep your word and put the word "translation" in the phrase 'difficulty in the Qur'an' located Here #2 The moon issue? if it is not a error "as you admit", then do not list it as one.
I should not have to point these things out to you brother Jochen, if you are at one with God, and have peace and Truth from God, then you would not deny God's given Truth.
God, brother Jochen, gave you eyes, not to keep them shut, gave you ears, not to keep them plugged, and gave you a heart, to seek forgiveness and to repent Directly to Allah.
Peace and Blessings,
Your Brother in Islam: Mohamed