Posted by Christoph Heger on November 11, 1997 at 14:05:54:
In Reply to: Re: Mish'al Abdullah Al-Kadhi's book posted by Mohamed Ghounem on October 28, 1997 at 14:11:48:
Hello Mohamed,
You wrote:
: Thankyou for your responce although I found it futile to reply to
: someone who didn't even know what language Jesus spoke.
So, why did you?
: {Mohamed, agree with me, that they are blatantly unfounded, as everybody may see who is
able to read
: the passage in its original Greek language?}
: Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek, the Gospel was translated into Greek
: decades after Jesus taught.
The argument was about the nonsense Mish'al Abdullah Al-Kadhi wrote about the Greek text
of John 1:1-2, not what language(s) Jesus spoke. Furthermore, nobody doubts that Jesus
usually spoke Aramaic. He without any doubt had some knowledge also of Hebrew, the
language in which nearly the whole of the Old Testament is written. Nevertheless he
preferred to use the Aramaic version of the texts, at least occasionally. What you, Mohamed,
apparently don't know: Jesus surely had some command of the Greek language, too. He
grew up in a region of rather mixed population, parts of which spoke Greek, the main medium
of communication in the Eastern mediterranian of those times. He would have been less
intelligent, if he hadn't been able to speak it, too, to some extent.
: Secondly, the Bible is accepted as the word of God in the English
: translation, therefore dispite your hypothetical responce, the facts
: stand as they are, the Bible has been tampered with.
Please explain: Who accepted the Bible in English -- instead of its original languages -- as
word of God? What hypothetical response of mine you are speaking about? In which
passages and when the bible was tempered with? Show some paleographic evidence!
: The author of "What Jesus Really Says" is not the only one making
: these factual claims,...
Again, my argument was about the nonsense Al-Kadhi wrote about the Greek text in John
1:1-2. In the meantime I learnt that Al-Kadhi got this nonsense from Ahmad Deedat. That's
explanation enough.
: I don't see anything in your post debating the
: Christians declaring the faults in the Bible.
Yes, that wasn't the item of my post. And I declared you that this item is boring me.
: { For fun you may visit Jochen Katz' Web site on contradictions
: in the Qur'an.}
: Your right it was amusing to see Brother Jochen revealed...
I appreciate your sense of humour. My personal favorite amongst the contradictions Jochen
displayed in the Qur'an is the mathematics of Qur'anic hereditary rules, where the portions
sometimes add up to more than 100 percent.
: My question now is out of all the contradictions in the Bible, and
: all the Tampering, why do you rest your soul on it when the Koran
: from God has been proven time and time again for almost 1,500 years
: to be scientifically and literally Perfect.
Even if the Qur'an were "scientifically and literally perfect" -- what would be proven by that?
But on the contrary, it not only contains a variety of contradictions and scientific humbug --
what doesn't faze me -- but also a lot of linguistic faults which possibly are the traces of the Qur'an's
emendation from a text in the Arabic vernacular to a text in Classical Arabic.
Kind regards,
Christoph Heger