Islam and Catholicism Same God?

[jakasaki]

Um, okay, My styles vary, didn’t know there was a rule against it.

There are NO rules for font size,.

You need to take your preaching to a muslim forum.

I’ll bet you a chocolate cake you’ll fail.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

There are NO rules for font size,.

You need to take your preaching to a muslim forum.

I’ll bet you a chocolate cake you’ll fail.

Well, not interested in Muslim forums. I know stuff, but not enough
to take on a group of them (yes I realize it’s all internet based).

If you were implying that I ought not have posted that link the way I did, as though it was irrelevant, some Sunni here brought up Numbers 23:19 as a proof for Islam, in this particular thread, so as a Christian I sought to directed him to a site where more valid information on Numbers 23:19 can be found, plus I was inviting any other Muslim observers to check it out.

 

[adawgj]

Wow I never thought I’d get so many responses amazing how one little question turns into a very interesting debate bravo bravo:clapping:

 

[nmgauss]

The Prophecy could very well be about both, although it pertains more to Jesus.

It’s important to note that God can not lie and if He says,

Of the greatness of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the Lord Almighty
will accomplish this.

You see, if it’s only about Hezekiah then God’s promise has failed. If it’s about Jesus (or both) then He has succeeded in His promise.

A failed prophecy does not prove anything.

“As for Immanuel, “God is with us”, Isaiah might mean simply that any young pregnant woman in 734 BCE would be able to name her child “God is with us” by the time he is born; but if a specific child is meant, then it might be a son of Ahaz, possibly his successor Hezekiah (which is the traditional Jewish understanding); or, since the other symbolic children are Isaiah’s, Immanuel might be the prophet’s own son.[5] However this may be, the significance of the sign changes, from Isaiah 7, where Immanuel symbolises the hope of imminent defeat for Syria and Ephraim, to Isaiah 8:8, where Immanuel is addressed as the people whose land is about to be overrun by the Assyrians.[2]”

Barker, Margaret (2001). “Isaiah”. In Dunn, James D.G.; Rogerson, John. Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Eerdmans

Childs, Brevard S (1996). Isaiah. Westminster John Knox Press.Coogan, Michael D. (2007).

“Isaiah”. In Coogan, Michael D.; Brettler, Mark Zvi; Newsom, Carol Ann. New Oxford Annotated Bible. Oxford University Press.

Sweeney, Marvin A (1996). Isaiah 1–39: with an introduction to prophetic literature. Eerdmans.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

The Prophecy could very well be about both, although it pertains more to Jesus.

It’s important to note that God can not lie and if He says,

Of the greatness of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the Lord Almighty
will accomplish this.

You see, if it’s only about Hezekiah then God’s promise has failed. If it’s about Jesus (or both) then He has succeeded in His promise.

But the point is it CAN’T be about Hezekiah.
Nothing, NOTHING suggests that the prophecy refers to Hezekiah, except maybe the Jews who deny Jesus as the Messiah.

 

[dronald]

A failed prophecy does not prove anything.

“As for Immanuel, “God is with us”, Isaiah might mean simply that any young pregnant woman in 734 BCE would be able to name her child “God is with us” by the time he is born; but if a specific child is meant, then it might be a son of Ahaz, possibly his successor Hezekiah (which is the traditional Jewish understanding); or, since the other symbolic children are Isaiah’s, Immanuel might be the prophet’s own son.[5] However this may be, the significance of the sign changes, from Isaiah 7, where Immanuel symbolises the hope of imminent defeat for Syria and Ephraim, to Isaiah 8:8, where Immanuel is addressed as the people whose land is about to be overrun by the Assyrians.[2]”

Barker, Margaret (2001). “Isaiah”. In Dunn, James D.G.; Rogerson, John. Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Eerdmans

Childs, Brevard S (1996). Isaiah. Westminster John Knox Press.Coogan, Michael D. (2007).

“Isaiah”. In Coogan, Michael D.; Brettler, Mark Zvi; Newsom, Carol Ann. New Oxford Annotated Bible. Oxford University Press.

Sweeney, Marvin A (1996). Isaiah 1–39: with an introduction to prophetic literature. Eerdmans.

You didn’t address a thing I said, instead you quoted the same old Jewish rhetoric we’re used to when addressing Prophecies concerning Jesus.

If the Prophecy has failed then it’s not of God.

 

[dronald]

But the point is it CAN’T be about Hezekiah.
Nothing, NOTHING suggests that the prophecy refers to Hezekiah, except maybe the Jews who deny Jesus as the Messiah.

I often give the Jewish interpretation the benefit of the doubt, but yes; no doubt this is either a major failure of Prophecy or it is a true one about Christ.

 

[DebChris]

The OP asked if Muslims and Catholics worship the same God.
Both Catholics and Muslims trace our historical lineage to Abraham.
Both Catholics and Muslims worship the same God that Abraham worshiped.
Abraham had two sons. Ishmael was born of Hagar. Muslims’ historical lineage is through Ishmael.The Catholic lineage is the Judeo lineage through Sarah which is Isaac. Both Ishmael and Isaac were circumcised. God promised Abraham that He would bless both Ishmael and and Isaac in the book of Genesis, although His promise remained with Isaac.
The idea of the Triune God is not understood until the establishment of Christianity, although it is foretold and foreshadowed throughout the OT. The Trinity cannot be explained by logic, which is what our Muslim friends want us to do do in a few words.
Islam means “submission to God.” As Catholics, we too are called to submit our wills to the Will of God, to accept with faith the mystery that is our God and enter into that mystery. He calls us to a relationship with Him through His divine Son.
What our Jewish and Muslims brothers and sisters have difficulty accepting is that Jesus is the Son of God, that the Word became Flesh and dwelt among us. Yes, they accept the historical Jesus, the man who walked the earth, but not His divine nature. As Catholics, we accept that the man Jesus was indeed crucified and raised from the dead. Once Christ ascended into heaven, He sent His Holy Spirit to dwell within each of us who has been baptized into Christ.
We worship the one and same God; but we part company on the nature of God.

 

[Daniel_Amor]

God Bless and may Jesus be with you all.

It appears the thread took a minor left turn, with regards to the original question, that being “Islam and Catholicism, Same God?” While discussing the Trinity is warranted, the majority of the discussion stops at that point. Indeed, there is a lack of discussion between the triune and how Catholics view God, as compared to how Muslims view Allah. For some, it may be as simple as agreeing, that if Catholics believe in God of Abraham and our fellow Muslim brothers and sisters believe in God of Abraham (along with our Jewish brothers and sisters), then we believe in One God, the Almighty. For others, the story, expectedly, becomes increasingly complicated, passionate, even spiritually challenging, if there is critical, logical, and respectful dialogue, pointing to several contradictions and ‘heresies’. One would also take heed in particular Holy elements not amenable to logic, such as how the Triune is understood. Here’s how I view things and some things to keep in mind.

As Christians, it would be ignorant, not necessary, however, not to consult our Church on such related matters. Interestingly, in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), it says:
Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(Mk 1:15; Mt 1:2-17.) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh (Rom. 9:4-5). On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues (Rom. 1 1:28-29). But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us, adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(Acts. 17:25-28) and as Savior wills that all men be saved.(Tim. 2:4) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience (Mk. 4:14). Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(Lk. 4:14-15)”.

Perhaps, this section from the Lumen Gentium, is interesting for what it omits to say, than what to does, but let’s look at the latter here (blessed are the words). The first few assertions are shown to indicate that Muslims (and those also not yet blessed by the Words of Jesus Christ), figure in a salvific plan, but only through the Gospel of Christ (need to reach a state of Holy readiness and preparedness for Lord Jesus, through the Holy Gospel). But whether Catholics or Muslims believe in the same Abraham is carefully worded (“who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham); relatedly, the Nostra Aetate, does the same. Thus, for Christians, since we believe that the genealogy from Abraham (originally Abram), to David, to Babylon, and to Christ, was so, and given Muslims believe that Ibrahim (a ‘Khalil’), is one of the ancestors of Muhammad, there is scope to concede that Catholics (and Christians, in general) and Muslims believe in the One God, the same. Interestingly, and in contrary to the Lumen Gentium and the Second Vatican Council’s position, what the Qur’an also mentions is that, “Abraham was not a Jew nor yet a Christian; but he was true in Faith, and bowed his will to Allah, and he joined not gods with Allah (3:67) and “Become Jews or Christians if ye would be guided (to salvation)”. Say thou: “Nay! (I would rather) the Religion of Abraham, the True, and he joined not gods with Allah.” (2:135). Thus, according to Muslims, Christians (especially those who believe in the Holy trinity), are supposed to believe in Abraham the Muslim, not Abraham the Jew.

With regards to the Trinity, Catholics view it as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. By contrast, the Qur’an does not accurately reflect the Trinity, as Allah questions Jesus: “O Jesus son of Mary, didst thou say unto men, “Take me and my mother as Gods, apart from God?” (5:116) and “The Messiah, Jesus Son of Mary, was only a messenger of God, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from him. So believe in God and His messengers, and do not say “Three”. Desist, it will be better for you. God is only One God….The Messiah would never have scorned to be a slave of God” (2:171). Accordingly to Muslims, the Qur’an instructs to discount and discourage the Trinity, but the Qur’an only mentions Allah, our Lord Jesus, and Mary (an inherently important flaw for Islam’s holy book and the All-Knowing Allah, which some Muslims have intentionally mistranslated), whereas the Trinity, for Catholics, is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but One God (tri-unity). Indeed, Muslims believe that Jesus is not the Son of Man, yet, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mk 10:41-45), so according to scriptures centuries earlier, Muslims have a great deal of difficulty explaining this, and others: “Father, if you are willing, remove this chalice from me; nevertheless not my will, but yours be done” (Lk 22:42).

 

[Daniel_Amor]

Continued:

Interestingly, the Qur’an also states that “Allah is the third of three have most certainly committed a blasphemy. There is no God except the One True God. A painful punishment will surely torment those disbelievers who do not quit making such (blasphemous) statements” (5:73). Despite the menace attributed to unbelievers, some Muslims point to Trinity-like concepts, which in reality, bear very little (to no) resemblance of the Catholic Trinity, given they believed in three Gods with no One God concept possible. For instance, The Greek triad of Zeus, Athena, and Apollo; and the Egyptian triad of Isis, Horus, and Sub; and The Hindu Triad of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, are commonly cited, yet if individuals would further inspect texts explaining these concepts, it would do their knowledge base a very good deed.

For Christians who inspect texts to gain knowledge and understanding of, not only their own faith, but those of others, some would know very well, that for Muslims, Allah instructed Muhammad (and logically Muslims) not to quarrel (argue) with Jews and Christians: “Dispute not with the People of the Book save in the fairer manner, except for those of them that do no wrong; and say, ‘We believe in what has been sent down to us, and what has been sent down to you; our God and your God is One, and to Him we have surrendered’” (29:46) and “, which may appear strange to some, given the verses 3:67 and 2:135.

Given Muslims believe Christians and Jews are apparently misguided in their understandings of Abraham, and vice versa, a chronological view would be logically and naturally the most correct, given things speculated at a later stage in any discussion, can disfigure and misconstrue anything said in the past, which is what I believe occurred to Muhammad when hearing the ‘angel of light’ at the apparent Cave of Hira. Indeed, the Hadith of Gabriel indicates that “a man with very white clothing and very black hair came up to us”. Yet, as Christians, we were warned of these occurrences well in advance: “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light” (Cor 11:14); “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” (Mt 7:15). Even though there are many other elements to this issue, in my view, as a Catholic, I view God, as the All-Mighty, All-Knowing, Creator, as reflected from our Jewish Brothers and Sisters and our Lord Jesus Christ, and as distinct from the Muslim God, or Allah, given the revelations by the ‘angel of light’ do not hold substance across the Qur’an; may the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit bless their Muslim hearts.

 

[Daniel_Amor]

Another interesting element to this discussion (which I forgot to include) is that Allah, as viewed from a Muslim perspective, is ultimately responsible for both the human’s inclination toward good and evil: “By the sun and his morning brightness; by the moon when she follows him; by the day as it shows up glory; by the night as it conceals it; by the heaven and that which built it; and by the earth and that which extended it; by the soul, and that which shaped it, and inspired it to lewdness and godfearing!” (91:1-8). This verse indicates that only Allah created and inspired good and evil and embedded these into human’s nature; hence, Allah is responsible for humankind’s tendency to think, believe, reason, reflect upon, and act in good and evil. By contrast, the Christian (and Catholic) conception of God is that: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it (or yet the darkness did not overcome it)”. (Jn 1:5). As we compare the conceptual understanding of God, from a Christian perspective, He is unlike darkness and disapproves of evil as inspired by Satan the greatest deceiver, but He is Good (however Goodness doesn’t equal Kindness; scope for calamity/judgement still exists), the Light, and Forgiving, as revealed by our Lord Jesus Christ. It is left to the Muslim to explain why their God inspired good and evil and embedded these into humankind’s nature (not merely as a test), yet taught their prophet such evil in the Qur’an and the Hadith, as opposed to our Lord Jesus Christ and His teachings. Conceptually, then, the Islamic God, is viewed quite distinctly, from the Christian (Catholic) God, regarding the moral sense of good and evil.

 

[drac16]

Another interesting element to this discussion (which I forgot to include) is that Allah, as viewed from a Muslim perspective, is ultimately responsible for both the human’s inclination toward good and evil: “By the sun and his morning brightness; by the moon when she follows him; by the day as it shows up glory; by the night as it conceals it; by the heaven and that which built it; and by the earth and that which extended it; by the soul, and that which shaped it, and inspired it to lewdness and godfearing!” (91:1-8). This verse indicates that only Allah created and inspired good and evil and embedded these into human’s nature; hence, Allah is responsible for humankind’s tendency to think, believe, reason, reflect upon, and act in good and evil.

My goodness. What a gratuitous misuse of surah 91. You isolated verses 7 and 8 from the context before and after, ignoring their consistency in that argumentation, and ignored verses 9 and 10 [of that surah] which addresses the entire spectrum of human responsibility. On top of that, I was not able to find an english translation that rendered that surah in the way you posted. I checked all of the most trusted translations; Sahih International, Muhsin Khan, Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, Shakir and Dr. Ghali’s translations and none of them render verses 7-8 in the way that you posted.

You chose an obscure english translation, one that I’ve never even heard of, and one that is different from every english translation that has academic credibility in order to try to legitimize your misuse of surah 91. Did you think nobody would notice this? Would you like it if I quoted the Jehovah’s Witness Bible and used it to try to disprove one of Catholicism’s doctrines? I didn’t think so. Every single translation I looked at shows verse 8 as illustrating the fact that God shows man right from wrong-- not that God compells some men to do wrong and some to do right. quran.com/91/8-10

Ok, so on to the argumentation itself. If you had bothered to quote the full argumentation, which ends at verse 10, not as verse 8, you’d have seen “Truly he succeeds that purifies it and he fails that corrupts it”. Which means what? it means man has the choice of turning to Allah and trusting in Him to purify His soul OR to ignore God’s calling, which verse 8 refers to, and corrupt his own soul. Verses 9-10 is crystal clear in saying that each man/woman is responsible for his/her own actions. Each person is responsible for how they respond to God’s conviction (which He sends upon every human soul). Nothing about God compelling people to commit sin. Astaghfirallah.

By contrast, the Christian (and Catholic) conception of God is that: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it (or yet the darkness did not overcome it)”. (Jn 1:5).

Oh so now we’re quoting Bible verses. Ok, here’s one for you: “And you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Deuteronomy 5:20). Lying about my religion and accusing me and my brothers and sisters of believing in a God that inspires people to do evil does seem to qualify. If you would only bother to read the Qur’an rather than scimming through bits of it and ripping them out of context, you would find countless examples of Allah treating evil very differently from how He treats Righteousness. That’s why He drowned the sinners in the flood and saved Noah [peace be upon him] and his followers.

 

[nmgauss]

I often give the Jewish interpretation the benefit of the doubt, but yes; no doubt this is either a major failure of Prophecy or it is a true one about Christ.

There are some scholars that infer that New Testament writers of the Gospel purposely changed the OT scripture to support the Messiah prophecy. Since biblical writings were not published in fixed print versions until the Gutenberg Bible in the 15th Century, but required scribes to laboriously copy by hand, the opportunity to change these scriptures to fit the purposes of the scribes or the Church was very tempting.

In the Complete Jewish Bible translated from the Hebrew, the prophecy mentioned by Isaiah relates that a young woman, not necessarily a virgin, will be with child. However, when the Greek version of the OT was written this young woman became a virgin. Obviously this is a distortion.

 

[Daniel_Amor]

My goodness. What a gratuitous misuse of surah 91. You isolated verses 7 and 8 from the context before and after, ignoring their consistency in that argumentation, and ignored verses 9 and 10 [of that surah] which addresses the entire spectrum of human responsibility. On top of that, I was not able to find an english translation that rendered that surah in the way you posted. I checked all of the most trusted translations; Sahih International, Muhsin Khan, Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, Shakir and Dr. Ghali’s translations and none of them render verses 7-8 in the way that you posted.
You chose an obscure english translation, one that I’ve never even heard of, and one that is different from every english translation that has academic credibility in order to try to legitimize your misuse of surah 91. Did you think nobody would notice this? Would you like it if I quoted the Jehovah’s Witness Bible and used it to try to disprove one of Catholicism’s doctrines? I didn’t think so. Every single translation I looked at shows verse 8 as illustrating the fact that God shows man right from wrong-- not that God compells some men to do wrong and some to do right. quran.com/91/8-10

Gratuitous is not nearly close, but more of convenience. I did not misuse these verses more than simply illustrating them for others to read. I intentionally left out those verses (i.e., 9 and 10) because what was relevant, was not how human free will/choice was involved, but how the conception of the Muslim God was both the original source of good and evil and how, according to your text, it was *embedded *into humankind. Within the majority of religions, there is free will (even in those who don’t believe in the supernatural), so mentioning this using verses nine and ten, does not add nor take away, from the intended message (that the Muslim God is viewed as distinct from God, on the moral sense of + -). Indeed, mentioning how the verses were interpreted is a very common response of Muslims, but the underlying message, is undoubtedly similar. I did not think no one would not notice this, because I was not intending to ‘mislead’ (don’t presuppose, it’s a bad habit). You are obviously quite frustrated with the literal verses I used, but this speaks more about how you cannot absorb the message I’m conveying, than a cheeky grab from behind, using the literal translation argument that is all too common. Any further personal frustrations, using this issue, would be better suited via private message thank you (it leeks throughout your post).

Ok, so on to the argumentation itself. If you had bothered to quote the full argumentation, which ends at verse 10, not as verse 8, you’d have seen “Truly he succeeds that purifies it and he fails that corrupts it”. Which means what? it means man has the choice of turning to Allah and trusting in Him to purify His soul OR to ignore God’s calling, which verse 8 refers to, and corrupt his own soul. Verses 9-10 is crystal clear in saying that each man/woman is responsible for his/her own actions. Each person is responsible for how they respond to God’s conviction (which He sends upon every human soul). Nothing about God compelling people to commit sin. Astaghfirallah.
Oh so now we’re quoting Bible verses. Ok, here’s one for you: “And you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Deuteronomy 5:20). Lying about my religion and accusing me and my brothers and sisters of believing in a God that inspires people to do evil does seem to qualify. If you would only bother to read the Qur’an rather than scimming through bits of it and ripping them out of context, you would find countless examples of Allah treating evil very differently from how He treats Righteousness. That’s why He drowned the sinners in the flood and saved Noah [peace be upon him] and his followers

Again, you are not being sensible, nor responsible. At no point, throughout those three posts of mine, did I mention, as you have *accused *of me, that God compels people to commit sin (do not accuse without some just cause/evidence, it is a bad habit). I am not lying about your religion (far from it) and I am not accusing our brothers and sisters, merely quoting verses with your book (even then you’re not happy about it; I can post many more sinister verses from your prophet, but in light of the themes, it was not required, but that would provide all the context anyone needs). Another common response from Muslims, is using the ‘out-of-context’ argument, in nearly every case; it is rather superficial, and expected. This brings into the discussion my *categorical *view that the angel of light Muhammad saw, was Satan, as warned in advance by our Lord Jesus Christ, so saying Allah drowned the sinners of old, is unfounded and was already in existence thousands of years earlier. In fact, much of your attempt to reason is not effective, because you have isolated particular sentences (not themes), perhaps intentionally, without answering some of the main issues.

It would be a good gesture to discuss the intended themes, because any Tom, Dick, and Jane can accuse anyone of not including enough context and enough verses, but miss the point, as you have done for your own spiritual sake. More than happy to clarify in the future. God bless and may our Lord Jesus Christ bless you for giving your time to respond to a fellow brother.

 

[dronald]

There are some scholars that infer that New Testament writers of the Gospel purposely changed the OT scripture to support the Messiah prophecy. Since biblical writings were not published in fixed print versions until the Gutenberg Bible in the 15th Century, but required scribes to laboriously copy by hand, the opportunity to change these scriptures to fit the purposes of the scribes or the Church was very tempting.

In the Complete Jewish Bible translated from the Hebrew, the prophecy mentioned by Isaiah relates that a young woman, not necessarily a virgin, will be with child. However, when the Greek version of the OT was written this young woman became a virgin. Obviously this is a distortion.

You’re ignoring everything I’m saying though. Isaiah 9:6 is not the same as Isaiah 7:14 but let’s look at Isaiah 7:14 because even though I keep trying to discuss Isaiah 9:6 you seem very interested in 7:14.

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin (young woman) shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Please explain what in the world kind of “a sign” is it for a young woman to have a child? Answer this and then we can move on. A young woman can be a virgin and the earliest interpretation of this we have comes from Matthew 1:23 and not from writings of the 15th century.

Anyways, I’ve been trying to discuss Isaiah 9:6 which is a separate Prophecy that has failed if it’s about anyone besides Jesus.

 

[Skadi]

I am a bit confused on if Catholics and Muslims believe in the same God because Catholics believe in a trinity and Muslims do not.

Yet in the Catechism of the Catholic Church it says in
841 “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in first place amongst whom are Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

Is the paragraph in means with God the father in the trinity that we share the same God?
I’m confused.

Muslims worship the god of Abraham. So the short answer is yes.

 

[TheSufi]

I don’t know myself either, but how do you know he doesn’t know Hebrew?

He may have taken a class on Hebrew, but he doesn’t know Hebrew, and** it is obvious.**

For example:

He said,

Sure!
kazab: to lie, be a liar
Original Word: כָּזַב
Part of Speech: Verb
Definition
to lie, be a liar

The literal definition of kazab is “he lied,” NOT “to lie or be a liar.” it is past tense, masculine verb. And it is root verb and all root verbs are third person masculine past tense (always).

He will argue that this definition can be found in any Hebrew –English dictionary. This is true, but it is not the literal definition of kazab. The same is with Arabic-English dictionary, for example, the Hebrew equvalient in Arabic is kazaba (or kadhaba) means “to lie”.(refer to Hans Wehr A dictionary of modern written Arabic) But it doesn’t literally mean that, it literally means “he lied.”

What took me so long to reply, is I didn’t have my Hebrew bible, or my book on Hebrew language. Although I found my Hebrew bible, I was unable to locate my book on the Hebrew language.

Notice how both words are verbs. It could read, "God is not a man to be a liar, God is not a son of man to be sorry."

This translation is just wrong, it doesn’t even make sense. When you translate, you have to be able to understand the language you are translating from and be able to covey that meaning into the English language.

The ability to open a dictionary and define words, doesn’t mean you know the language.
The reason I suggested to going to the Hebrew was simply because, sometimes the Hebrew can be more precise in meaning, or sometimes it can be ambiguous (ie two or more meanings can be derived from it).

Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t, but that isn’t what we’re talking about. So long as we’re on that discussion, however, before departing it, do you know Hebrew well yourself?

I know a little bit of Hebrew. My Arabic is much better than my Hebrew, and it does matter, because Hebrew and Arabic are so similar as a language, that when Hebrew became a dead language, and scholars wanted to revive it, they turned to Arabic to do so.

And I know a little bit about translating as well, having studied Arabic with a professional translator. Translating many times is difficult.

You also said “English translation alone, supports my argument,” which tells me that you base your argument only on the English version. It does matter to you what the original language says… right?

And it does matter what the original language says.

 

[nmgauss]

He may have taken a class on Hebrew, but he doesn’t know Hebrew, and** it is obvious.**

He will argue that this definition can be found in any Hebrew –English dictionary. This is true, but it is not the literal definition of kazab. The same is with Arabic-English dictionary, for example, the Hebrew equvalient in Arabic is kazaba (or kadhaba) means “to lie”.(refer to Hans Wehr A dictionary of modern written Arabic) But it doesn’t literally mean that, it literally means “he lied.”

The ability to open a dictionary and define words, doesn’t mean you know the language.
The reason I suggested to going to the Hebrew was simply because, sometimes the Hebrew can be more precise in meaning, or sometimes it can be ambiguous (ie two or more meanings can be derived from it).

And I know a little bit about translating as well, having studied Arabic with a professional translator. Translating many times is difficult.

A person without a thorough grounding in a language will not be able to accurately translate idioms. American English has such idioms as “beat it!”, “(To) add fuel to the fire”, “All thumbs”, “(To) bark up the wrong tree”, “basket-case”, “(The) birds and the bees”, etc.

 

[livingwordunity]

Muslims see God as a slave master and not as a father. That’s because Ishmael, who the Muslims place emphasis on, was the son of Hagar who was Sarah’s handmaiden.

 

[dronald]

He may have taken a class on Hebrew, but he doesn’t know Hebrew, and** it is obvious.**

For example:

He said,

The literal definition of kazab is “he lied,” NOT “to lie or be a liar.” it is past tense, masculine verb. And it is root verb and all root verbs are third person masculine past tense (always).

He will argue that this definition can be found in any Hebrew –English dictionary. This is true, but it is not the literal definition of kazab. The same is with Arabic-English dictionary, for example, the Hebrew equvalient in Arabic is kazaba (or kadhaba) means “to lie”.(refer to Hans Wehr A dictionary of modern written Arabic) But it doesn’t literally mean that, it literally means “he lied.”

What took me so long to reply, is I didn’t have my Hebrew bible, or my book on Hebrew language. Although I found my Hebrew bible, I was unable to locate my book on the Hebrew language.

This translation is just wrong, it doesn’t even make sense. When you translate, you have to be able to understand the language you are translating from and be able to covey that meaning into the English language.

The ability to open a dictionary and define words, doesn’t mean you know the language.
The reason I suggested to going to the Hebrew was simply because, sometimes the Hebrew can be more precise in meaning, or sometimes it can be ambiguous (ie two or more meanings can be derived from it).

I know a little bit of Hebrew. My Arabic is much better than my Hebrew, and it does matter, because Hebrew and Arabic are so similar as a language, that when Hebrew became a dead language, and scholars wanted to revive it, they turned to Arabic to do so.

And I know a little bit about translating as well, having studied Arabic with a professional translator. Translating many times is difficult.

And it does matter what the original language says.

You use many words to simply state an opinion and not rebuke one thing. You keep making claims that what I say is false then do nothing to back it up. For example, you said the literal meaning of “Kazab” is “he lied” and then you say my translation doesn’t make sense. So let’s try yours then because you still haven’t attempted to translate the passage, even though you are apparantly good at it.

“God is not a man he lied.”

Yes, this makes much sense.