M
MartinJordan
Guest
Definitely not the God who declared that one must listen to His Son the Beloved,That’s fine Martin
But who was Muhammad addressing with His Message?
Perhaps he forgot
MJ
- Status
Perhaps he forgot
MJ
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
First, KJV is a bad translation.
Second, some commentary on Numbers 23:19 - Yahoo Answers:
The context has nothing to do with Jesus. it is simply a prophetic statement declaring God is not capricious
and changeable like a man, that He should change His mind, in this context, about blessing the Israelites,
whom He has just rescued from Egyptian slavery.
Carm:
Those who deny that Jesus has two natures, the divine and human, will often quote Numbers 23:19 as proof that
Jesus cannot be God in flesh . But this verse is not a challenge to the doctrine that Christ is God in flesh . First
of all, at the time Numbers was written, God had not yet become incarnate. So, it is true that God was not then
a man - because the Word had not yet become flesh ( John 1:1,14 ). Remember, the verse says, “God IS not a
man. . .” Second, the verse says that “God is not a man , that he should lie , nor a son of m an, that he should
repent.” In other words, the verse is dealing with the issue that God does not lie nor does he repent (of his sins).
The verse isn’t denying that the Word becomes incarnate later on.Instead,it is saying that God is not like people
because he does not lie, nor does he need to repent from sin.
Those who would use this verse to deny the incarnation of the Word in flesh should read what it actually says.
You are just totally misusing Numbers 23:19, lacking the necessary understanding.
J
jakasaki
Guest
chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9951
Tanakh the original!
You must take the original Tanakh if you need to debate the Old Testament
chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9951
The Complete Jewish Bible with Rashi Commentary. Go … Online English translation of the Tanakh (Jewish Bible) with Rashi’s commentary.
God is not a man that He should lie, nor is He a mortal that He should relent. Would He say and not do, speak and not fulfill?
יט. לֹא אִישׁ אֵל וִיכַזֵּב וּבֶן אָדָם וְיִתְנֶחָם הַהוּא אָמַר וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂה וְדִבֶּר וְלֹא יְקִימֶנָּה:
M
MartinJordan
Guest
Very interesting. Thank you for this dear sister Jakasaki
It must be noted there is a similar verse from one of the other books of our Catholic Bible and also used by the Eastern Orthodox
Can you guess which one? (you can send me a PM 
).Im just pointing this out because if one proof texts Numbers 23:19 I can wager they’ll proof text that too…if they knew of it
MJ
D
daler
Guest
Reuben,
. How are ya, friend? Hope all is well with you.
. So often people have assumptions and don’t know it. In the world of “us vs them”, “we” (whoever we happen to be) always start from a position of being right, which automatically presupposes the others to be wrong. Then there continues to be such confidence in “our” position that we have no room to reconsider a third option. That there is room for all in light of viewing things from a slightly different perspective may always be possible. (This assumes that one is not threatened by alternatives to commonly held belief structures and open to logical alternatives to the prevailing view in the “us” camp, requiring “them” to be similarly open minded and unthreatened by new ideas as well.)
. Allah is one of the most ancient names of God, and various slight accents or cultural associations do not nullify this commonality. Historically some may have ascribed this ancient Name in one direction or another, but it remains as a guide and serves as a reference. Allah is “God” in Arabic, (as El in Hebrew, Elah, Elohim) and millions of Arabic speaking Christians pray to Allah, and interpret Isa (Jesus) to be His Son (Ben or Ibn)
. The crucifixion argument assumes that Jesus was “not crucified”, as many translations will have you believe, such as a “substitution” or other wide latitude of interpretations. The subtle reality seems to evade understanding to this day, even amongst Muslims, that while the physical body of Jesus was crucified, His Spirit, as in “Ruhullah” (Spirit of God) was not, and indeed, could never be crucified.
. The problem here is that forever viewing religious scriptures through literal lenses will always reduce imparted truths to their casings, as shells which never hatch meaning other than the calcified crusts of words which carry them. Hence, understanding remains handicapped, comprehension stunted, and prejudices perpetuated…
. To remedy this does not require one to abandon one’s belief or position, but merely to explore fearlessly other explanations and comprehensions so as to come to the table in dialogue without fear mongering and forever demonizing others as though it were a noble goal to do so. An atmosphere of tolerance and respect yields fruits which otherwise wither on the vine, some of which, are quite sweet to the palate.
.
T
TheSufi
Guest
I have actually researched this verse pretty indepth, going to synagogues, studying the Hebrew grammar of it, and reading various commentaries etc…
When I first studied the Hebrew grammar, I didn’t like the King James Version translation of it. In fact, i didn’t like any of the translations that I read, simply because those translations didn’t really conveyed what was precisely in Hebrew. Simply because we do not have their grammatical construct in English. But when I began to study the commentaries, actually reflect on it, the King James Version, is a very sound translation. It is really good translation. In fact, the early Jewish communities in America, used the King James translations of the Old Testament. I actually bought a Jewish Old testament with copy right dates of 1917, 1945, 1955. It is pretty much the King Version of the Bible The King James Version of the bible is based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text. (That is a testament to the soundness of that translation, the King James version is not perfect, but it is pretty accurate, yes you could argue that there are some verses that could have been rendered in a better way, or etc, I come across verses like that all of time, but in general, the King James Version is pretty good.)
The words, Son of man, is really Son of Adam. The word mortal is not there in the Hebrew. And when you actually research the words Son of man in the Old Testament it is Son of Adam, through out the Old Testament. Mortal is a good translation of it as well, when you reflect on the meaning of Son of man.
Ultimately Numbers 23:19 is saying God is not a man, period.
D
dronald
Guest
I didn’t see a period in the text after it says that.
T
tonyfish58
Guest
Edwin - You have been a fair witness with both your replies, thank you
I am stressing that the Bible (and IMHO the other Holy Scriptures) are the word of God. Thus if one was not exposed to any previous conceptions re what is Truth, the reading of that text alone would be sufficient to impart upon that Soul Love and Knowledge of God.
Unless one immerses themselves in the ocean of Gods Words, there is little chance of the Love of God to permeate their Soul. It matters not what Religion you follow these words are applicable to any person of any Faith …“The understanding of His words and the comprehension of the utterances of the Birds of Heaven are in no wise dependent upon human learning. They depend solely upon purity of heart, chastity of soul, and freedom of spirit”… Baha’u’llah The Kitáb-i-Íqán - reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/KI/ki-7.html
If Human learning is the Path to God why would a mere fisherman accept Christ and the most learned Doctors of that age did not! There is a lesson here for all of us
Regards Tony
D
daler
Guest
Sufi,
. If I may ask you a question regarding the “verses” as proof of the Revelation of the Quran. Curious how you see that, because after so many years that became the greatest proof, far and above any logic and reasonings.
. I used to have a lot of cats growing up and the little kittens take a couple of weeks to open their eyes. Everything appears real fuzzy to them for awhile, but eventually all comes into focus.
. So when I look at the thread topic asking “Could Muhammad (PBUH) be a Prophet?” All I can think is, well look at the verses. Study the verses, see how they flow. I wish I knew Arabic, for it is supposed to be much more apparent. When I’ve listened to really good chanting, how it flows, it is understandable that people refer to the Quran as a miracle.
. I would appreciate any comment you have in this light. (and do you happen to speak Arabic?)
. Thank you, sir
.
J
jakasaki
Guest
God is not a man THAT HE SHOULD LIE!!! ~ Period.
M
Mount_Carmel
Guest
Ah, but isn’t it said later in ‘Uthman’s Qur’an’ that ‘the non-believers plotted and deceived, but that ‘Allah’ is the best of plotters and deceivers’? So maybe it is that Jews and Christians are perceiving a different God to that of Muslims after all?
T
TheSufi
Guest
Nor the Son of man, that He should repent!!! Period…
T
TheSufi
Guest
No, it doesn’t say that.
It says God is the best of planners or plotters. It does not say deceivers.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
Let’s try this…
Nor the Son of man, **that He should repent!!! **Period…
You gotta stop with these false interpretations. We don’t believe Jesus repented or had
anything to repent of, and that’s the POINT! God (the Son) came down to live as a per-
fect man, then die the perfect death, sinless, in payment for the sins of all who believe.
T
TheSufi
Guest
I really don’t understand the question. I know a little bit of Arabic.
One can know the Quran by the mind (Arabic or translation) or by the spirit (experience it with the heart).
T
TheSufi
Guest
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
Where?
Where does it say that Jesus repented?
T
TheSufi
Guest
In the Gospels.
J
Judas_Thaddeus
Guest
Show me, because that response sounds
more like a “Somewhere in there” answer.
M
Mount_Carmel
Guest
Ah, the number of times this explanation is proffered.
The Arabic word ‘makara’ means - deceive, plan, plot, scheme’ - in all cases the underlying inference is negative and indeed malevolent.
English translations seek to gloss over the harshest meaning of the word, UNLESS of course it is referring to non-believers/kufrs or apostates. [Yet another case of dualistic ‘reasoning’?]
Even omitting deceiver from the list, what sort of ‘God’ needs to resort to plotting and planning against anything or anyone? Sounds more like the sort of tactics used by those with more limited intellectual resources and knowledge, and perhaps lacking in perfect love and mercy.
- Status