Posted by Jochen Katz on March 30, 1998 at 20:12:00:
In Reply to: Re: Jochen's commitment to God's Truth? #1 and #2 posted by Mohamed Ghounem on March 24, 1998 at 01:37:17:
Mohamed,
I will no longer talk about all your many attacks on my person.
Attack all you want. Call me a deceiver if it pleasures your heart.
Feel free to make up your own definition of words and apply them
whenever and wherever you want. I will no longer play the name calling
game.
This way I can cut out most your posting and concentrate on
some factual issues instead.
: : 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?
May I even add: The Bible was only translated into English in
the 16th century AFTER it was translated into German. Was the
German translation not a Bible because the "authentic" English
Bible didn't exist yet? This is on the same level of silliness
as to claim that the Qur'an came into existence when the first
English translation was made. No, the basic text is what is written
in the original language. And all the rest is a discussion with
little value. All translations have to be checked against the
original manuscripts. And if there are errors in the translations
then they have to be corrected.
: 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.
See, you are again accusing others whom you have never met
that they "intentionally mistranslated". You always have the best
of intentions and others have always the worst. Your heart is pure
and theirs is evil. Does it even astonish you if people think it is
a waste of time discussing with you? All others are wrong and bad
even before the evidence is discussed.
There is no objective evidence from history or from existing
manuscripts that the New Testament was originally written in
Hebrew. Nor is there any such objective evidence that the
later Christians added or deleted anything to the original
texts that altered the doctrine of Christ's deity. This is
all a fabrication. Does it not bother Mr. Ghounem to make
unsubstantiated allegations?
There are a few historical references that possibly Matthew was
originally written in Hebrew. But these references are not clear,
and no Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew exist, which tends to
deny the possibility. No NT scholars that I know of suggest that
all the Gospels and the rest of the NT were written in Hebrew.
Such fabrications are the product of an overly active critical
imagination. Nothing else!
: 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"
Did it ever bother you that the Qur'an removed divinity from the Torah?
You seem to assume that the Torah calls "Moses the god". Why did Muhammad
take that out? Isn't that a serious corruption of God's truth?
This is a rethorical question. No need to answer. The issue is that
you jump on everything you think you can make an accusation. Why don't
you just ask to explain something you find difficult to understand?
I gladly explain to those who show desire to learn. I admit it is very
little pleasure talking with you against your constant accusations.
Why can't you formulate the same issue in a friendly question instead
of an attack?
Since my own Hebrew is a bit rusty, I have asked a Hebraic studies
professor about this and his answer is:
: Mohamed:
: 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.
Price:
It is nice to see that Mohamed admits that the Bible is "the word of
God All Mighty." Mohamed is right that the Hebrew text does not
contain the word "as" or "like." The Authorized Version of Exodus 7:1
reads as follows:
"And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a
god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet."
Obviously this classical Christian translation was not affected
by Mohamed's allegation. The context makes it perfectly clear
that the LORD was not attributing deity to Moses here. The text
says "I have made thee a god to Pharaoh." It does not say
"I have made thee God." Being made a god to Pharaoh is not the
same as being made God. Translators who have added the word
"as" have done so to make that point more clear.
: Mohamed:
: Do you see the Major difference between calling Moses "like a god"
: and "Moses the god"
Price:
The difference is not between "like a god" and "Moses the god."
The difference is between "like a god to Pharaoh" and "a god to
Pharaoh." There is no essential difference in the given context.
Let Mr. Mohamed not twist and change the text so as to make
a great difference where none exists. The Hebrew text does not
have the definite article that Mr. Mohamed added. Does it not bother
Mr. Mohamed to add his own word to the text? A word that does
change the essential meaning!
: Mohamed:
: What support would Christians have in trying to claim divinity for Jesus,
: if Moses, a clear Prophet is called god, "None".
Price:
None, if that is all that is involved in the doctrine of the
deity of Christ. The doctrine is supported by much greater
evidence than this.
Jochen:
And if Mohamed had cared to read the exposition of the doctrine of the
Trinity then he would have known that there is plenty of evidence
which is not touched by the above verse at all. I would invite him
to read it carefully and make an effort to understand it.
: 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.
I can give you dozens of passages in the Qur'an where Muslims have
translated dishonestly. One example is the word "Trinity" which appears
many times in Yusuf Ali's translation but which is not found in the
Arabic original. I wonder why?
But if you wish you can go and buy the Bible in the original
language. I have it. And then you can learn Hebrew and Greek and
translate it for yourself. Nobody hinders you. Any bookstore can order
it for you and the Christian bookstores usually have them in stock.
There is all the opportunity to control just as in the Qur'an.
What is your problem?
: 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?
If you don't even know this most elementary fact, then what business
do you have attacking the Bible?
The Old Testament is written in Hebrew (mostly, some small parts in Aramaic)
and the New Testament is in Greek. Therefore is is Hebrew AND Greek.
The earliest gospels are in Greek because they were originally
written in Greek. Oh how great is this mystery.
: Mohamed:
: I apreciate your steps towards being commited to God's Truth,
You probably don't even realize it, since it is your second nature.
You are again accusing and insulting my character. You again have
to say that I am not committed to truth usually, but I am making
a step towards it.
: 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?
Yes, I am a man of my word and I have added it BEFORE I even responded on
this board. If you read the first longer paragraph on that page you will
find a reference to the issue of using English language translations as a
basis for the discussion. I will NOT put this into the title of the page
as you seem to demand. There is absolutely no reason for it. Again,
I ask you to approach the various Muslim web sites with their Bible contradiction
pages and let them change their titles to "Seeming contradictions in the translation
of the meaning of the Bible". After you have done that, we might have a
basis to talk about this again.
Jochen Katz