A Concern About A British Airline Policy - For Chistians Only (Important)!!

[Verity1]

discipleofJesus:

Where in the Bible are these stories, if they do exist? What are the references to these stories, if they do exist?

Check out the Sacred Scripture thread “are acts inherently good or evil”.

 

[discipleofJesus]

Ortho:

This doesn’t sound very differnt from Christian teachings.

Really? What Christian teachings would these be?

 

[discipleofJesus]

Ortho:

This doesn’t sound very differnt from Christian teachings.

What a joke. What Christian teachings are like the Muslim teaching of taqiyya? None!

 

[Ortho]

discipleofJesus:

What a joke. What Christian teachings are like the Muslim teaching of taqiyya? None!

Is a Christian allowed to lie to save the life of his family?

 

[discipleofJesus]

(a Christian’s (Jochen Katz’s) view of Taqiyya in Islam and the honor (and glory) of God in Christianity)
“Taqiyya and the honor of God”
by Jochen Katz
answering-islam.org/Why-not/30taqiyya.html

( the above article is part of Jochen Katz’s “My Questions to Muslims”
answering-islam.org/Why-not/index.html )

 

[Neverland]

Dear Ortho,

You said:
But my question was, "Do protestants normally address each other as “My Dear.” That’s two words

I answer: That’s my style. And why you think because a protestant said so then it should be a normal thing to do to for Protestants? I think you need to be careful in making hasty generalization, because I see that you do it again and again.
I believe it’s a normal thing to do to someone that we love. And we must love each other, as our Lord said, although it’s hard.

You also said:
I didn’t ask if Jesus was the Son of God. I asked if most protestants think he is the son of God. Do they?

They do believe so, because they believe in BIBLE. I have answered that already, if you care to read CAREFULLY.

You then said:
Glad you think Islamic books are a good source to learn about Islam. They are written by Muslims.

Only ONE source - and not enough. I told you to read from all sources for relevant subject. I wonder if you care to READ CAREFULLY. Make comparison, so you can be richer in wisdom.

Dear Gonzales,

You said:
key words bolded. while all languages can be “translated” to other languages, there is always something lost in translation. this is a fact.

What is something lost in translation? Is it very big? When a French bok is translated to English, of course there may be one or two words that is hard to explain - and usually with additional note, it can be explained. The essence of the book will not change, unless the translator is VERY BAD.
So, since you insist, would you care to give us examples of Arabic words that CAN NEVER BE TRANSLATED to another language, say English?

Neverland

 

[Neverland]

Dear Ortho,

You said:
Is a Christian allowed to lie to save the life of his family?

Hmm, it’s I think the freedom to choose and let God then decide. I don’t think that Bible told us to lie when we are at war or for safety. Bible is not a book on war tactics, anyway.

 

[Ortho]

Neverland:

Dear Ortho,

You said:
But my question was, "Do protestants normally address each other as “My Dear.” That’s two words

I answer: That’s my style. And why you think because a protestant said so then it should be a normal thing to do to for Protestants? I think you need to be careful in making hasty generalization, because I see that you do it again and again.
I believe it’s a normal thing to do to someone that we love. And we must love each other, as our Lord said, although it’s hard.

You also said:
I didn’t ask if Jesus was the Son of God. I asked if most protestants think he is the son of God. Do they?

They do believe so, because they believe in BIBLE. I have answered that already, if you care to read CAREFULLY.

You then said:
Glad you think Islamic books are a good source to learn about Islam. They are written by Muslims.

Only ONE source - and not enough. I told you to read from all sources for relevant subject. I wonder if you care to READ CAREFULLY. Make comparison, so you can be richer in wisdom.

Dear Gonzales,

You said:
key words bolded. while all languages can be “translated” to other languages, there is always something lost in translation. this is a fact.

What is something lost in translation? Is it very big? When a French bok is translated to English, of course there may be one or two words that is hard to explain - and usually with additional note, it can be explained. The essence of the book will not change, unless the translator is VERY BAD.
So, since you insist, would you care to give us examples of Arabic words that CAN NEVER BE TRANSLATED to another language, say English?

Neverland

Finally you face the “My Dear” question. Sure took a long time. It’s gratifying you call your fellow prorestants “My Dear.”

I didn’t make a generalization about protestants calling each other, “My Dear.” I asked a question about it.

Protestants believe the bible? Did you interview 51% of them? (is the 51% rule still in effect, or does it only apply when discussing Muslims?)

I’m glad you are sticking to your conviction that Muslims are a good source to learn about Islam. Don’t let anyone tell you differently.

 

[Ortho]

Neverland:

Dear Ortho,

You said:
Is a Christian allowed to lie to save the life of his family?

Hmm, it’s I think the freedom to choose and let God then decide. I don’t think that Bible told us to lie when we are at war or for safety. Bible is not a book on war tactics, anyway.

If Christians have the freedom to choose to lie to save their family, then they have the freedom to lie. Sounds just like Islam.

 

[r.gonzales]

Neverland:

When a French bok is translated to English, of course there may be one or two words that is hard to explain - and usually with additional note, it can be explained.

the fact that some additional explanitory notes may be needed proves my point. as for your french-english example, the amount that may be lost in translation may be miniscule, given the fact that both languages are closely related. try translating something from english to tagalog or vice versa. i’ll tell you right now that there is no tagalog equivalent for “toast” (i.e., toasted slice of bread).

Neverland:

The essence of the book will not change, unless the translator is VERY BAD.
So, since you insist, would you care to give us examples of Arabic words that CAN NEVER BE TRANSLATED to another language, say English?

let’s take a look at a hadeeth that was mentioned recently in another thread; the hadeeth in which prophet muhammad “struck” his beloved wife aa’ishah in the chest and caused her pain. the word used in the hadeeth is the verb lahada (in another narration the verb lahaza was used). lahada means to overburden or to overexert; this is the definition you will find in an arabic-english dictionary like hans wehr. here’s what i posted in that other thread:
al-imam an-nawawee, who authored an explanation of saheeh muslim, states, “it has been narrated as lahazanee and both lahaza and lahada] are close [in meaning]. the people of language said lahadahu and lahhadahu meaning he pushed him. and it is said lahazahu is if he struck him with his fist in his chest.” in explanation of this hadeeth as found in his explanation of sunan an-nasaa’ee, as-sindee states, “al-lahz is striking with the fist in the chest. and in some of the copies is “then he lahada me”; and it is the strong push in the chest. and this was as a punishment for her due to her evil suspicion.”

what they describe is the exact manner in which prophet muhammad “hit” aa’ishah; he pushed her in the chest using his fist. it wasn’t an actual strike or punch.
in the context used in the hadeeth mentioned, there is no english translation for the arabic verb lahada, which means to push someone very strongly in the chest using your fist; and there is no way of translating it without providing lengthy explanation of what it exactly means.

likewise there is no english equivalent for the word takfeer, which is the charge of disbelief upon an individual or group. the closest english word that can be used is excommunication, however, it doesn’t carry the same connotation and import that the word takfeer does.

yet another example is the word rabb, which is usually translated as lord. the word rabb carries the meaning of cherisher, sustainer and somone who rears and raises; as well as owner, possessor and controller. very little of this is conveyed when the word rabb is rendered as the word lord.

there are many, many other examples like this.

 

[r.gonzales]

Neverland:

I don’t think that Bible told us to lie when we are at war or for safety. Bible is not a book on war tactics, anyway.

the portrayal is that islam instructs its adherents to lie in these occasions and instances. it does not. it gives the allowance as an option and says there is no blame on those who take this course of action. telling the truth is strongly encouraged and recommended, in all instances; there are many Quranic verses and prophetic hadeeths that prove this.

 

[Neverland]

Dear Ortho,

You said:
Finally you face the “My Dear” question. Sure took a long time. It’s gratifying you call your fellow prorestants “My Dear.”

Thanks. But you made your question unclear. First you only mention Dear. So I said it’s commonly used.

You also said:
I didn’t make a generalization about protestants calling each other, “My Dear.” I asked a question about it.

Hmm, really? But the only fact that you know is a Protestant (me) calling you dear and my dear. Then you asked IF EVERY PROTESTANT call each other that way. A very active mind that loves to make hasty generalization, I see.

You then said:
Protestants believe the bible? Did you interview 51% of them? (is the 51% rule still in effect, or does it only apply when discussing Muslims?)

All the protestant that go to the church read bible. And I think it’s better to call us CHRISTIAN. Every Christian believes in Bible. If a Christian doesn’t believe in Bible, then He is not a CHRISTIAN any longer. That’s simple. Even a logic like this you cannot get? How old are you?
And about the Arabs, do you still think MOST OF THEM find Christianity boring? Already make you research? Take your time.

You continue saying:
I’m glad you are sticking to your conviction that Muslims are a good source to learn about Islam. Don’t let anyone tell you differently.

A good source but not enough. Please reread again. You also have a tendency to cut my statements bit by bit.

You conclude out of the blue:
If Christians have the freedom to choose to lie to save their family, then they have the freedom to lie. Sounds just like Islam.

Another twisting words.
WE have freedom to choose, to act and have our responsibility in front of A REALLY MERCIFUL GOD. Bible says that we must say nothing but the truth. Nowhere Bible tells exactly that it’s permitted to do taqiyya at war. That’s why I said that Bible is not a book of war tactics. Do you agree with that? So, does Quran really prescribes to use taqiyya as a war tactic?

Neverland

 

[Neverland]

Dear Gonzales,

So, the example shows that the words NEED additional explanation to translate, but NOT IMPOSSIBLE.
May be the poetic sense of some books can be taken away when being translated. Like when I read Khalil Gibran, I believe it will be more beautiful in his mother language. The English took away some of the beauty. But not the real meaning, given we have good translator.

Neverland

 

[r.gonzales]

Neverland:

So, the example shows that the words NEED additional explanation to translate, but NOT IMPOSSIBLE.

perhaps you need to reread what i said here also . . . (emphasis added)

as someone who is fluent in english and can also understand arabic, i can honestly say without any sort of exaggeration, that translating arabic to english and maintaining the exact understanding and full import of what’s being said is near impossible.

Neverland:

May be the poetic sense of some books can be taken away when being translated.

no, not quite. a lot more than just “poetic sense” is lost in translating arabic to other languages like english.

 

[Neverland]

Dear Gonzales,

You said:
perhaps you need to reread what i said here also . . . (emphasis added)

Near IMPOSSIBLE but CAN BE DONE, with additional explanation as you said. I don’t see what I have missed.

You then said:
no, not quite. a lot more than just “poetic sense” is lost in translating arabic to other languages like english.

What is that? The meaning can be translated somehow. language is not a dead or frozen thing. It expands, with assimilation and acculturation. The advancement in technology give rise to the culture contact, and also languages. I am sure of that. If necessary, the words from other language that don’t have synonim in one language are absorbed. May be you can see how the word “Karaoke” comes from Japanese to English. Or the word “Kampong” from Indonesian to English. Or Rendezvous from French. We must ask Rodrigo on this.

Neverland

 

[r.gonzales]

Neverland:

But you made your question unclear. First you only mention Dear. So I said it’s commonly used.

seemed rather clear to me. and you’re wrong, his first question contained “my dear” proof.

Neverland:

Then you asked IF EVERY PROTESTANT call each other that way. A very active mind that loves to make hasty generalization, I see.

there was no generalisation—even implicit—found in his question.

Neverland:

All the protestant that go to the church read bible.

take note: what you made is a generalisation. i knew protestants who went to church and never read the bible.

Neverland:

And about the Arabs, do you still think MOST OF THEM find Christianity boring?

i believe his statement was with regards to saudis, not arabs in general.

Neverland:

You also have a tendency to cut my statements bit by bit.

his statement contained no indication of whether or not you felt it was a sufficient source, just that you felt it was a good source, which you do admit.

 

[r.gonzales]

Neverland:

I don’t see what I have missed.

let me remind you of what you just said:

Neverland:

So, the example shows that the words NEED additional explanation to translate, but NOT IMPOSSIBLE.

no one said it was impossible. looks like a strawman to me (wow, look! i named a fallacy).

Neverland:

If necessary, the words from other language that don’t have synonim in one language are absorbed. May be you can see how the word “Karaoke” comes from Japanese to English.

the fact that a word from one language would need to be assimilated into another is proof enough that not everything can be translated. i rest my case . . .

 

[Neverland]

Dear Gonzales,

So you speak for Ortho, fine:

You said:
seemed rather clear to me. and you’re wrong, his first question contained “my dear” proof.

While it is true, the difference between MY dear and dear is the usage of MY, the possessive pronoun, so this is my calling to him.

You also said:
there was no generalisation—even implicit—found in his question.

He met me and then asked about ALL PROTESTANTS. Who am I to say about ALL or MOST Protestants? I never say on behalf of Arabian. I never say anything about Ummah. I only say about ME.

Then you said:
take note: what you made is a generalisation. i knew protestants who went to church and never read the bible.

Never? Even a verses or two? Have you ever gone to the Church?

You also mention:
i believe his statement was with regards to saudis, not arabs in general.

Hmm, good. thanks. So most of the saudis. Thanks for reminding him again about this.

You conclude:
his statement contained no indication of whether or not you felt it was a sufficient source, just that you felt it was a good source, which you do admit.

Hmm, but have I also said ONLY THAT? He said that thank you I said…but don’t continue what I said overally.
The proof:
Only ONE source - and not enough. I told you to read from all sources for relevant subject. I wonder if you care to READ CAREFULLY. Make comparison, so you can be richer in wisdom.

Thanks for corrections.

Then we continue to yours:
Strawman? Thanks.
let me refresh you:

You said:
lastly, translations are always lacking, hence the old idiom "lost in translation.
My understanding: Lost in translation means that the content not fully translated.

Then I said:
What is something lost in translation? Is it very big? When a French bok is translated to English, of course there may be one or two words that is hard to explain - and usually with additional note, it can be explained. The essence of the book will not change, unless the translator is VERY BAD.
So, since you insist, would you care to give us examples of Arabic words that CAN NEVER BE TRANSLATED to another language, say English?

You continue:
the fact that some additional explanitory notes may be needed proves my point.

Then I said:
So, the example shows that the words NEED additional explanation to translate, but NOT IMPOSSIBLE.
May be the poetic sense of some books can be taken away when being translated. Like when I read Khalil Gibran, I believe it will be more beautiful in his mother language. The English took away some of the beauty. But not the real meaning, given we have good translator.

You continue:
perhaps you need to reread what i said here also . . . (emphasis added)
(NEAR IMPOSSIBLE).

I said:
Near IMPOSSIBLE but CAN BE DONE, with additional explanation as you said. I don’t see what I have missed.

You then change your tone:
no one said it was impossible. looks like a strawman to me (wow, look! i named a fallacy).

Then if you see, you said about things lost in translation - means the meaning are not fully tranlated. And you cannot provide the missing words. All words can be translated, even with notes.

You conclude:
the fact that a word from one language would need to be assimilated into another is proof enough that not everything can be translated. i rest my case . . .

Oh, so when a language absorbs a word or two from another language, it is NEVER become the word of that language? Sound funny. Languages borrow from each other. If Arabic took Messiah into Almasih, and then people translate Jesus the Messiah as Isa Almasih, is it a translation or not?

It’s enjoyable to talk with you, but the case is still long anyway. You haven’t given me any words in Arabic that LOST IN TRANSLATION.

Neverland

 

[r.gonzales]

Neverland:

He met me and then asked about ALL PROTESTANTS. Who am I to say about ALL or MOST Protestants? I never say on behalf of Arabian. I never say anything about Ummah. I only say about ME.

like i said, seems like you don’t know the difference between a question and an assertion.

Neverland:

Never? Even a verses or two? Have you ever gone to the Church?

never implies that, doesn’t it? what does my ever attending church have to do with anything? i never said i was one of those protestants.

Neverland:

Hmm, but have I also said ONLY THAT? He said that thank you I said…but don’t continue what I said overally.
The proof:
Only ONE source - and not enough. I told you to read from all sources for relevant subject. I wonder if you care to READ CAREFULLY. Make comparison, so you can be richer in wisdom.

he never said you “only” said that, did he? he made a statement in accordance with what you said. he didn’t limit it to that, nor did he mention anything about its sufficiency.

Neverland:

So, the example shows that the words NEED additional explanation to translate, but NOT IMPOSSIBLE.

the need for explanitory notes shows that something is lost in translation. supplimentary notes are not part of the actual translation, they are supplimentary notes to the translation.

here is an examples for you:
the phrase: al-hamdu lillahi ar-rabb il-'aalameen.
translation: the praise is for Allah, Lord of the worlds.

ar-rabb – the Lord. the word “lord” does not convey the full meaning of the word rabb, which also includes “cherisher”, “sustainer”, “someone who rears, raises, cultivates”. these meanings are all lost when the word rabb is translated as lord.

Neverland:

You then change your tone

where did i change my tone? reread all my posts to this thread on this topic, not once did i say it was “impossible”. “near impossible” is not quite the same as “impossible”.

Neverland:

Oh, so when a language absorbs a word or two from another language, it is NEVER become the word of that language? Sound funny.

i never said anything about it becoming or not becoming part of the language.

the fact that one language has to “borrow” or “assimilate” a word from another language shows that things cannot always be translated, hence the need to “borrow” or “assimilate” that word. if it would be translated, then there’s no need for the borrowing or assimilating.

Neverland:

Languages borrow from each other. If Arabic took Messiah into Almasih, and then people translate Jesus the Messiah as Isa Almasih, is it a translation or not?

uhhh . . . not quite. arabic and hebrew are sister languages; similarities are expected. al-maseeh is not borrowed or assimilated from hebrew. it’s derived from the arabic root word masaha, which means “to wipe, to annoint”. if you want an example of an arabic word that was borrowed or assimilated from another language, then ديموقراطية (deemooqraatiyyah) is a perfect example.

 

[discipleofJesus]

r.gonzales:

if you want an example of an arabic word that was borrowed or assimilated from another language, then ديموقراطية (deemooqraatiyyah) is a perfect example.

Be more specific r.gonzales, what are you trying to say? Which language borrowed or assimilated ديموقراطية (deemooqraatiyyah)? Explain the meaning of the word in Arabic and the meaning of the word in the other language and how you know that the other language borrowed or assimilated this word from Arabic and not vice versa?