Re: Mish'al Abdullah Al-Kadhi's book

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 

Subject  : Re: Mish'al Abdullah Al-Kadhi's book 

Comments:
: Hello Mohamed,

: We shouldn't lose sight of the original item of this thread which is about Al-Kadhi's book and
: its ridicilous statement about the Greek text of John 1.1 -- a statement which, as I learnt in
: the meantime, originated from Ahmad Deedat, who hardly can be taken seriously in this
: matter.

: Concerning your comment:

: : I enjoy helping people to the Right Path.  For people who refuse and insist on defaming
: Islam, I enjoy exposing them...

: I surely refuse to get hoaxed and to consider Islam as the Right Path. But I am not aware to
: have defamed it -- though I would not be afraid to defame things which I see as infamous.
: But let us go forward in our argument!

: My comment

: : {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.}

: got this reply from you:

: : The Books collected into the New Testament do not constitute the utterances of Jesus nor
: of his disciples. Jesus was of Jewish ancestry and so were his disciples. If any of Jesus'
: utterances were to be found preserved in their original form, they could only be in the Hebrew
: language.

: Wrong!

: Firstly, Jesus' utterances "in their original form" would not be in Hebrew, but in Aramaic, his
: mother toungue. Furthermore we have to allow for the possibility or even probability that
: sometimes he used Greek. (For instance: Which language do you guess may he have used
: when he spoke to the Phenician women or to Pontius Pilatus? Do you believe that this
: arrogant Roman officer and official of the occupational power was prepared to learn Aramaic
: to speak to the subdued Jews?)

: Secondly, do you expect me and should the apostles of Jesus Christ expect their audiences
: to learn Aramaic in order to learn what some Jesus unknown to them said and did? Of course
: the apostles and disciples translated what he said and described what he did into the world
: language of those times, which was Greek.

: Thirdly, the utterances of his disciples contained in the New Testament more or less all may
: be in their original Greek form. Why should St. Paul write a letter to the Romans in another
: language than Greek (or perhaps for the less educated Romans in Latin)? Why should St.
: Peter write his letter to the Christians of his time in a language unknown to most of its
: addressees? Why should St. Luke, an educated physician from Antioch, write his Gospel and
: his Acts for some Timotheos in another language than Greek?

: :  ...But no copy of the New Testament in ancient Hebrew exists in the world. The old copies
: are all in Greek.

: Of course -- since there never have been such unicorns as a New Testament in ancient
: Hebrew (or, as you perhaps have in mind, Aramaic). Only in the case of St. Matthew's gospel
: there is a tradition and are some speculations that it used a precursor in Aramaic language,
: what may be possible and would do no harm.

: :  Christian writers try to cover this Grave Defect by saying that in the times of Jesus the
: language in general use was Greek as you do. This is impossible for more reasons than one.

: : Nations do not easily give up their language. It is for them as valuable an inheritance as any
: property or other possession. In Eastern Europe, there are people who for three or four
: hundred years have lived under Russian rule, but their languages remain intact to this day.

: :  France and Spain have ruled over Morocco and Algeria for a long time. Yet the language of
: these former subjected people is still Arabic. Two thousand years have passed since the time
: of Jesus. Yet the Jews have not forgotten their language.

: You continued to argue:

: :  Even today, in parts of Europe and America, Jews speak "Yiddish", a corrupt form of
: ancient Hebrew. If this long lapse of time spent amongst other peoples has not destroyed the
: Jewish language, then Roman rule in Palestine which had begun only about 50 years before
: the advent of Jesus was not long enough for a people to forget their language.

: Again wrong!

: Firstly, Yiddish is no "corrupt form of ancient Hebrew". It is a form of ancient (medieval)
: German with a big portion of Hebrew words.

: Secondly, the Jews actually had "forgot their language" long ago: After the Babylonian exile
: they used Aramaic in daily life and no more Hebrew, which was reserved for religious
: matters.

: Thirdly, it would be futile of you to argue against all evidence that especially the Jews in the
: diaspora in the Roman empire did not speak Greek (and to some extent Latin) and that they
: did not use the Greek translation of their holy books even in religious services. The Jews of
: Alexandria even had a special feast to celebrate this translation, the so called Septuaginta. It
: would be futile of you to deny the fact that the Jews even in Judea -- and the more in Galilee
: of those times with its mixed population -- to a large extent were able to understand and
: speak Greek. In the vicinity of Nazareth there was a Greek theatre!

: :  But there are other important considerations also to be kept in view:

: :      1.   Nations which attain to any importance in history do not give up
: :           their language, and the Jews were a very important people indeed.

: Who speaks about the Jews having given up their language? They used various languages
: dependent on the circumstances -- as they and other sufficient intelligent people do in our
: times.

: :      2.   The religion of the Jews was recorded in Hebrew and for this
: :           reason particularly it was impossible for them to give up their
: :           language.

: The same as above.

: :      3.   In the scale of civilization and refinement, the Jews did not
: :           regard themselves as inferior to the Romans, rather they felt
: :           Superior and this must have made them proud of their language
: :           and reluctant to give it up.

: The same as above.

: :      4.   The Jews entertained hopes for the return of their political
: :           power; nations which fear the future become pessimistic and
: :           therefore tend to lose pride in their language. But the Jews in
: :           the time of Jesus were awaiting the advent of their King who
: :           was to re-establish Jewish rule. Looking forward to such a
: :           future, they could not have been so negligent in protecting
: :           their language.

: The same as above. Only one additional remark: Do you know that even the zealots in
: Masada at least occasionally used the Greek language in their commands, as we know from
: archeological evidence?

: :       5.   Jewish authors of that time wrote in their own language or in
: :            some corrupt form of it. If their language had changed, we
: :            should have had books of the time written in a language other
: :            than Hebrew.

: We do have such books in Greek and Aramaic written by Jewish authors. I wonder why you
: don't know.

: :    6. ... But in the time of Jesus, the Roman Empire had not become divided into two halves.
: The center of the Empire was still Rome.  The Roman and Greek languages are very
: difficult. If Roman influence had at all penetrated Jewish life, it should have resulted in the
: assimilation of Latin (and not Greek) words into the Hebrew language.

: Whether the "Roman Language", usually called Latin, and the Greek language are difficult
: depends on one's ability. For Al-Kadhi, obviously, Greek is too difficult. Your argument,
: however, is not convincing. Actually, the Romans didn't mind the Greek language to be the
: universal medium in the East of their empire. For some time even the educated parts of the
: Roman nobility in Rome preferred Greek. On the other hand, there were some authors in the
: East of the Roman empire who were fond of Latin and not of Greek.

: :    Yet the oldest manuscripts of the Gospels are all in Greek. This proves that the Gospels
: were written down at a time when the Roman Empire had become divided and its eastern
: possession had become part of the Greek Empire, so that the Greek language had begun to
: exert its influence on Christianity and its literature.

: This argument shows deep ignorance about the importance of the Greek language in the
: Eastern mediterranian and the adjacent parts (in the states of the Diadochs and their
: successors) from the time of Alexander the Great till the first centuries of the Christian era.

: :        7.   Phrases such as the following which are preserved in the
: :             Gospels in their original form are all Hebrew phrases:

: :  (a) "Hossana" - Matthew 21:9  (b) "Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani" - Matthew 27:46   (c)
: "Rabbi" - John 3:2   (d) "Talitha cumi" - Mark 5:41

: The phrase "Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani" ("My God, my God, why thou havest forsaken me?",
: the words which Jesus spoke, when he died on the cross) is not Hebrew. It is the Aramaic
: translation of the Hebrew "Eli, Eli, lama azabthani", a part of a psalm, which Jesus quoted
: praying in his death struggle. It is a nice piece of evidence that Jesus -- contrary to you,
: Mohammed, -- didn't mind translations of the Bible.

: : From the Acts, it appears that even after the crucifixion Jews spoke Hebrew:

: I don't understand why the Jews should have changed their language after the crucifixion.
: And again: It was not Hebrew, but Aramaic.

: <Quote from the Acts snipped.>

: :     It is evident that at this time the language spoken in Palestine was Hebrew. Speaking any
: other language was extraordinary.

: Again, it was Aramaic, and the Jews in those time weren't less intelligent than in our times
: and to a good portion were able to speak various languages.

: :     Among the names mentioned [in the snipped quote form the Acts; Ch.H.] is Rome, which
: means that the Roman language was not spoken in Palestine and whoever spoke it seemed
: a stranger.

: The usage of Latin, of course, was not so common in Jerusalem as the use of the Greek
: language, though certainly not totally unknown.

: :     We are not concerned here with the merits of the narrative but we only wish to point out
: that this passage from the Acts proves conclusively that even after the crucifixion the
: language of the Jews was Hebrew.

: As I said before, it was Aramaic, and I don't understand why it should have changed after the
: crucifixion.

: :     Those who knew other languages were exceptions.

: How do you know -- against all evidence?

: :     When some of the disciples spoke these other languages - among them latin. some
: people thought they were drunk and talking nonsense.

: The text of the Acts says the opposite: people not only did understand what the disciples
: said, but they understood it in their own languages and were astonished that they did. As
: everywhere, not all inhabitants of a land are able to understand and to speak a foreign
: language or to understand and speak it fluently.

: :     If the country as a whole used Roman or Greek. no such reaction would be possible.

: Firstly, the passage from the Acts explicitly speaks about Jews coming from abroad.
: Secondly, nobody said, that the country as a whole gave up to speak Aramaic and used
: Greek or even Latin in daily life.

: :     It is clear, therefore, that the language which Jesus and his disciples spoke was Hebrew,
: not Latin or Greek.

: Again, he usually spoke Aramaic, but surely he had some command of Greek und probably
: used it occasionally.

: :     So copies of the New Testament written down in Latin or Greek must have been written
: down long after the time of Jesus,...

: What do you call long? The first fragments are from before 50 AD, i.e. appromately 20 years
: after the crucifixion of Jesus. By the way, do you have some idea about the age of the oldest
: manuscripts or fragments of the Qur'an?

: :     ...at a time when Christianity had begun to penetrate into Roman territory and Roman
: imperialist power had become divided into the Italian and Greek Parts. Books of this kind,
: composed 100 or 200 years after Jesus by unknown authors and attributed by them to Jesus
: and his disciples, can be of little use to any believer today.

: Who told you this nonsense of "100 or 200 years after Jesus"? The only -- till now -- unknown
: author is the author of the letter to the Hebrews. I think the scholars have some guess about
: him, and we may be hopeful that further research will reveal his name to those who are
: interested in such matters.

: :     It was necessary, therefore, that we should have had another book sent to us from
: heaven, free from these defects and one which readers could regard with certainty as the
: very Word of God.

: That's beyond me. Mankind surely was and is in desperate need of a lot of things, but
: certainly not in the first run of books, especially not of boring ones. What gave you the idea to
: assert that the Qur'an was sent from heaven? Because you can read such a claim in it? It is
: free from defects? O dear! That's a very special item, too special for this posting, which
: already is long enough. Only this: Please read again my contributions to the thread "What is
: the Language of the Qur'an" on this webboard! It has become clear that at least parts of the
: Qur'an originally were not written down in Classical Arabic, in which it alledgedly was
: revealed, but in an Arabic vernacular. At least those parts have been reshaped to let them
: look like Classical Arabic. And so on..., but I have to stop now.

: : {Please explain: Who accepted the Bible in English -- instead of its original languages - as
: word of God? }

: I have no idea. I think nobody.

: : Every Western church which preaches, and asks for Prayers in English, all.

: Why shouldn't they preach and ask for prayers in a language a great portion of mankind is in
: command of? What's your point?

: : {In which passages and when the bible was tempered with? Show some paleographic
: evidence!}

: : I was going to write out a long list for you, but instead I'll just give you this link...

: I visited these web-sites. And what I experienced before with other sites quoted by you,  I
: experienced again: The first site wasn't relevant at all, and the second presents such a crude
: mixture of intelligent and unintelligent stuff, that you cannot expect me to waste my time on it.
: Please present your arguments yourself and not by pointing to such stuff.

: Returning to the original item of this thread:

: : {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.}

: Unfortunately, you don't have to say anything concerning it. Instead you asked:

: : Are you a Christian Bishop, because as the link above shows, Christian Bishops, Scholars,
: and Priests admitting to the faults, but I guess you know more.

: I am no bishop. What should I have to do with them and their alledged admissions. Some are
: right and some are not.

: : { 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.}

: : I am amused you mention this one:

: : 1. The Koran gives women inheritance rights almost 1,500 years ago, they have the right to
: inherit property and wealth, God gave this rule centuries before the West adopted it alittle
: less than a 100 years ago, maybe because the ... Bible claims only men get to inherit, not
: women.

: My argument was about an amusing offence against mathematics, not about wisdom or lack
: of wisdom of Islamic hereditary law in general, which doesn't faze me. Jochen Katz is right: it
: just doesn't add up. And the lengthy quote you presented is unable to obscure this simple
: fact.

: : { Even if the Qur'an were "scientifically and literally perfect" -- what would be proven by
: that?}

: : That there is a book by God more accurate and reliable than the Bible.

: Even than the Qur'an would be second to any good monography in mathematics in terms of
: accurateness and reliability. I only have to declare that it fell down from heaven.

: : { But on the contrary, it not only contains a variety of contradictions and scientific humbug }

: : Humbugs?, show at least 1, or do you rely on the way Brother Jochen twists the words,

: I already have presented you the hereditary thing. There are a lot more. May be that you can
: visit them in Jochen Katz'web site.

: : <http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch13.html> have already proven the
: Koran to be from God, our Brother Jochen has proven he is willing to lie for his pride, despite
: God.

: Be careful with your allegations! By the way, chapter 13 wasn't better than the above
: mentioned chapter 2.1.

: : Since you say "Humbugs", let's look at the Bee. {Koran 16:68} "And your Lord inspired the
: Bee, build your dwellings in hills, on trees, and in {human's} habitations."

: : The imperative "build" above is the translation of the Arabic word "attakhithi", which is
: feminine form {Arabic unlike English, differentiates between the sexes}  The feminine form is
: used when all of those it refers to are female, whereas the masculine is used when a group
: consists of at least 1 male.

: : Therefore the Koran is in fact saying "build, you female bees.."  A swarm of bees {who
: collect honey and build the hive}, are female only, thus the phrasing of this command is in
: agreement with the Fact that male bees do not partake in the construction of the hive.

: Can you do me the favour and tell me what you are arguing, before I invest some time in
: scrutinizing this nice piece of prose?

: : { 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.}

: :  I have already answered this concern in a ... Previous Reply, the Koran is perfect.

: And I already have answered:  Unfortunately, your contribution contained nothing pertinent to
: the item of the primordial language of the Qur'an.

: :  You try to find fault in the Koran from God that ... Labels Jesus as Sinless, while the Bible
: Labels Jesus as a Sinner

: It's well known to me that the Qur'an confirms that Jesus was sinless, contrary to (all?) other
: prophets. But in the Bible, too, Jesus is sinless. In the Old Testament the announced
: Messiah is sinless, and in the New Testament Jesus Christ himself declares that nobody is
: able to blame him for any sin.

: : The Straight Path is in front of you, follow your logic...

: The same applies to you.

: : you know what is right.

: Yes, indeed.

: Kind regards,
: Christoph Heger