L
Lapell
Guest
Say, if you can’t find a Bible in any library, or you are not at liberty to go and read it there, you must not be living in North America nor in Europe… or are you?
- Status
L
Lapell
Guest
It was revealed in Hebrew mostly as far as OT is concerned, and NT was originally written in Greek… not Modern Greek, you understand! Do you want to imply that God doesn’t know all the languages of the world? As for your question about the use of “a book”, I don’t see why you ask. Is it because of the expression “the people of the Book”? The Bible is one book and many books at the same time, at any rate…
P
planten
Guest
**That is o.k. Bible OT was written in Hebrew. But why was bible NT written in greek? Did Jesus speak greek? So that God addressed him in greek. I hope not.
I do not mind if bible was in old time greek. My question was different. I wanted to know if bible calls itself a book within its text? Shall I say that bible never refers to itself as a book. o.k.??
It also does not tell in which language it was revealed. Does the bible NT tell that it was revealed in old style greek?? I hope not. But you are saying it. Your book does not say it. Your book does not tell in which language it was revealed to Jesus.
That is what I was trying to discuss. Because people take interest in these thing when comparing the authenticity of the sacred books… Otherwise I have no problem with the bible. We are looking for the bible. But we do not know where to find it.**
D
Dymphna2008
Guest
No, none of the NT relies on it’s own statement of scriptural validity. The closest is the line in 2 Tim 3:16. It is used most often by evangelicals to prove the authority of all scripture as we have it now, OT and NT. In fact, Paul nowhere claims that his writings are new additions to scripture, though he does take the time to correct and teach as an apostolic authority, which later, as the Church reads him, finds authority as “scripture”. But for Paul, 2 Tim 3:16 is focused on the OT, which even at that point in his writings was not fully canonically established; only after the fall of Jerusalem did the surviving Jewish community authorize what we know as the OT, though they accepted various texts under the form of Pentateuch, Prophets, and Writings.
The same is true for all other books except for possibly the Revelations of John. All other books went through a process of development and acceptance or rejection by various parts of the Church until the Council of 384, at Hippo, I believe (correction welcome) when the present NT canon was set. And the Christian, version of the OT, with the Deutero-Canonicals, was accepted. But nowhere does any book, of its own accord call itself scripture, that is left to the larger ruling community to decide, and that took centuries.
The same is true for all other books except for possibly the Revelations of John. All other books went through a process of development and acceptance or rejection by various parts of the Church until the Council of 384, at Hippo, I believe (correction welcome) when the present NT canon was set. And the Christian, version of the OT, with the Deutero-Canonicals, was accepted. But nowhere does any book, of its own accord call itself scripture, that is left to the larger ruling community to decide, and that took centuries.
L
Lapell
Guest
I still wonder: Why the question about any book of the Bible using the expression “book” in singular? In fact, I don’t think any book of the Bible, including the Torah ( Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy ), the Psalms and the Gospels, uses the expression to designate the scroll itself ( each book originally was written in a separate scroll)… I think it’s really only in the Koran, nowhere else! But what bearing does it have with authority received from God? I actually found it peculiar that Muhammad had to repeat that expression over and over… although it would be logical if the messages came ponctually, to answer the people who came to him, repeating the same questions and the same accusations over and over.
L
Lapell
Guest
The Jews in the Greek world and even in the Roman world spoke Greek. Or maybe a kind of Greek full of Hebraisms. The Alexandria Septuagint Bible was written in Greek. This was the Old Testament for the Jews of the Diaspora. The Massorete Hebrew Bible came even after! (I was surprised when I learned this some time ago.) Actually, the texts in the Septuagint were translated from the Hebrew. Some books are not found in the Massorete because the texts didn’t exist in Hebrew or were lost.
As for Jesus, I don’t know if he, living in the Land of Israel, spoke Greek. But he knew Hebrew, although he used to speak Aramaic, another Semitic language apparently close to Hebrew.
But then, the Gospel was to be spread in the whole world, and the Jews of the Diaspora knew Greek, so Greek was quite the common ground. Hence the Greek language used in the original NT. Does this answer your question?
As for Jesus, I don’t know if he, living in the Land of Israel, spoke Greek. But he knew Hebrew, although he used to speak Aramaic, another Semitic language apparently close to Hebrew.
But then, the Gospel was to be spread in the whole world, and the Jews of the Diaspora knew Greek, so Greek was quite the common ground. Hence the Greek language used in the original NT. Does this answer your question?
L
LaMar
Guest
Hey Sister Amy (and Tom Shaikh too),
Just wanted to thank you for such interesting conversations. I’ve probably learned more about Islam here than I have about Catholicism.
Best,
LaMar
Just wanted to thank you for such interesting conversations. I’ve probably learned more about Islam here than I have about Catholicism.
Best,
LaMar
L
Lapell
Guest
L
Lapell
Guest
A
agangbern
Guest
Of course the word “Jesus” as referring to Christ could not be found in Genesis! The word “Jesus” was the name given to Him when He became man. In Genesis, the Word who was God and was with God and was the right arm of God, and is one of the THREE DIVINE PERSONS manifesting the ONE GOD did not as yet become man as we are. It is therefore not fitting to find the man who at that time was not yet “made flesh”.
However, in Genesis "the Lord appeared to Abrahan in the terebinths of Mamre as he sat at the entrance of his tent in the heat of the day. And when he raised his eyes, he saw three men standing at a distance from him. As soon as he saw them, he ran from the entrance of the tent door to meet them, and bowed down to the earth and said, “My Lord, if I find favor with you do not pass by your servant.” (Genesis 18:1-3)
Read that passage again! Three men appeared to Abraham. And how did Abraham addressed these three? Abraham said, “My Lord…”, not “My Lords…” There in Genesis, the Lord gave us an opportunity to have a glimpse of the Lord, that He is manifested in three persons. And as we read in the new testament and up to the gospel of Mathew, we come to know that these three persons manifesting the ONE GOD are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
P
planten
Guest
I find your post #125 quite well, informative and true. You have mostly told the truth. I won’t press about the bible calling itself a book or not. You described it well. But I would try to remain on the language because it is concerned with revelation.
In this post (#127) also you have described the truth and I agree with you except the last two line about the word and the flesh etc. Which I do not understand and I do not believe.
But I agree with you that in whichever language God talked to Jesus, it was alright. Surely, it was the language that Jesus was understanding very well and it was the language in which he was talking to the masses and delivering his sermons.
We Muslims believe all that. We believe that Jesus told all the truth that was necessary for him, in whatever language (Surely Araimic) and conveyed the message to the people. The present message is not the exact word of God in bible. But it is the meaning of the words of God. It is explained by the people in their own words. So it cannot be the actual words of God.
Please forgive me for saying that. Because that is what it boils down to.
P
planten
Guest
Very good. I am amused at the good reply about the name of Jesus not being in Genesis. That is good. Even though Jesus was not yet born but he could have been mentioned by name then well before time of his appearance, The Jews would have been mindful of the person mentioned by name in Genesis.
About the three persons " Three men appeared to Abraham. And how did Abraham addressed these three? Abraham said, “My Lord…”, not “My Lords…” I have read all that. Could you tell me who were these three persons please? Were they men? Were they angels? Were they gods? Were they ghosts? Who were they please.
We have a good description of that event, described in the Quran too. But you please tell your version from the bible. Thanks.
A
agangbern
Guest
Just read again that post to which you made the above reply. The answer is already there! I do not believe that you are playing a fool!
S
swariffin
Guest
Christianity opens the bible for all including the non believer to study it in whatever way we want to. All may say his/her opinions without being afraid of sharing the apartment with Salman Rusdhie (Author of the Satanic Verses), and yet Christianity still existed and will continue to exist. Off course, some opinions may cause some believers become unbelievers, but no treason for that. Christianity is not afraid of anybody saying that the bible is wrong, because we believe what we believe, and we let the Lord do His business to others who does not believe.
What will happen if all people study Quran and publish his/her opinion whatever it is? If you are convinced that Quran is from God, why you are not open yourself to negative opinions? I am not saying that Quran in bad anyway. At least Quran made the brother of my grandma love me so much.
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
Where does the Christian Bible differ from what the Jews believe with the exception of the NT? What story is different, what prophet is different, or what words of God are different?
Why shouldn’t I believe the nearly 2000 years of unchanged histoy, and the 600 years of accepted history before Mohammed said they were corrupt?
L
Lapell
Guest
Well, if you have the book of Genesis, there it is in chapter 18. In verse 2 it says: “Abraham looked up, and suddenly he saw three men standing near him.” But later, from verse 10 on, it is said: “The Lord said” when in the previous verse it is said: “They asked him.” I suppose Abraham realised who they were only when they, strangers, called his wife Sarah by name… How did they know?" Another thing rather mysterious is that Abraham immediately spoke to “them” in the singular from the start, “Please, sir”, even though the invitation was made to the three of them! Why is that? He was not singling one from the two others, it seems! So? I don’t know what to say here. Why did the name of the Lord appear only when He made His promise to Abraham in verse 10? I suppose that until then Abraham had received them as though they were messengers of God (angels), but may have had some shadow of a doubt. But then, they call Sarah by her name when they were supposed not to know her at all. And then the promise made in verse 10 had to do with what God had told him many, many years ago! And so the shadow of doubt evaporated immediately…
L
Lapell
Guest
In a French version of the whole Bible (Old and New Testament) made by a Jew, Andre Chouraqui (pronounce Shooraqi), he leaves the hebraisms and makes a quite litteral translation to give us the flavor of the original. For instance, where our usual translations would have “Why did you do this to me?”, he would put it this way: “Why did you do this word to me?” Looks like to hebrews words and actions go hand in hand…
Now, where some translations have “my Lord” and some others “sir”, like in this conversation between Abraham and the three visitors, the word used is “Adon”, while the word for God as “the Lord” is “Adonai” (usually put instead of the Tetragram (that is, YHWH, the "unpronunceable Name).
Now, where some translations have “my Lord” and some others “sir”, like in this conversation between Abraham and the three visitors, the word used is “Adon”, while the word for God as “the Lord” is “Adonai” (usually put instead of the Tetragram (that is, YHWH, the "unpronunceable Name).
P
planten
Guest
**O.K. I have read your post. You also please read it again. Lord appeared to Abraham (How did he appear to Abraham when Abraham was looking down?)
When Abraham looked up he saw **three men standing at a distance from him. So it means that they were three men and not angels. Surely that was not God or three gods. In the bible, Lord is used for God too. So can we say that those men were Gods?? Why do you not explain the matter please? Even though Abraham spoke as " My Lord…" But there were three men in front of him.
Do you mean that Abraham was talking and requesting the three gods to have rest there?? It is a very confusing matter (it has been made confusing intentionally). We understand that Abraham understood that they were the angels sent by God. So he addressed them as my Lord. That was alright.
Otherwise please explain what you understand by the words of Abraham. Thanks.
A
agangbern
Guest
What Abraham saw were three men. The ONE GOD appeared to him as three men. Why do we say this? Because upon seeing the three, Abraham ran to them and bowed down to the earth and said, “My Lord…”. Although they appeared to him as three men, they were not three gods but only One God.
If the three men that appeared to him was not God, they should have objected to his bowing down to the earth before them. He who is not God (only an angel of God) would object to such act that Abraham did. This can be seen in Revelation 19:10. “And I fell down before his feet to worship him. And he said to me, "Thou must not do that. I am a fellow-servant of thine and of thy brethren who give the testimony to Jesus. Worship God!” But in Genesis, the “three men” did not object to Abraham’s act, confirming therefore that the three was ONE GOD.
D
Dymphna2008
Guest
Just to put the question, even as Catholic. Why couldn’t Abraham have been addressing the “leader” of the group, and the others deferring to him as spokesman? But granted, I do see the logic of your argument.
- Status