Libnanee

The Truth and nothing but The Truth

Archive for the ‘Bible’ Category

Does God pray to Himself?

Posted by Libnanee on February 16, 2006

http://www.themodernreligion.com/comparative/christ/bible_son.htm

Posted in Bible, Christianity | Leave a Comment »

What about “Unto us a child is born”?

Posted by Libnanee on February 16, 2006

Taken from the book, “What did Jesus Really Say?“”

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Isaiah 9:6

When someone reads this verse of Isaiah they immediately see a clear prophesy of God coming to earth in the form on a human child. Is this not what the verse says? Does it not say that Jesus shall be the “incarnation” of God on earth? Actually, it does not. Let us study it together.

Firstly, it is important when applying a prophesy to someone to not selectively pick and choose catch phrases from the prophesy and disregard the rest. In this prophesy we find that the very first stipulation presented for this person is that he shall carry the government upon his shoulders. However, as is popular knowledge, Jesus (pbuh) never in his whole lifetime ever formed a government nor became a head of state.

In fact we find him saying in the Bible quite explicitly:

  • John 18:36 “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”
  • Matthew 22:21 “Then saith he (Jesus) unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.”

So according to the Bible, Jesus never tried to establish a government nor to challenge the authority of the pagan emperor Caesar over himself and his followers. Now, if someone were to go the extra mile and to make the case that Jesus commands a “spiritual” government in the hereafter, then we need to know whether the hereafter shall be a place of governments, kings, laws and regulations?

Secondly, when we study the words “mighty God” carefully, we notice an interesting fact. For some reason, the words used are not “Almighty God” but rather “mighty God.” Naturally, this makes one curious as to what the original Hebrew text actually says. So we decide to study it.

The word for “Almighty” as applied exclusively to God in the OT is the Hebrew word “Shadday” {shad-dah’-ee}. However, this is not the word used in this verse. The actual word used in this verse is the Hebrew word “Gibbowr” meaning “mighty” and not “The Almighty.” Now, although to us such a difference might seem subtle and insignificant, still, to the Jews, the difference was quite pronounced. Let me elaborate…..

In the famous Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary by James Strong the word “gibbowr” or short “gibbowr” {ghib-bore’}, is translated as; warrior, tyrant:-champion, chief, excel, giant, man, mighty (man, one), strong (man), valiant man. On the other hand the word “Shadday” {shad-dah’-ee}, is translated as, the Almighty:-Almighty.

The word translated as “God” here is the Hebrew word “El” {ale} which in addition to it’s use to refer to God Almighty in the Bible is also used to refer to mighty men, to demons, to angels, and to idols. As we have already seen in the previous section, it was a common practice in the Bible to use the word “god” to convey an air of authority or power. Some of the examples presented were:

“I have said, Ye (the Jews) are gods; and all of you are children of the most High” Psalms 82:6 and “And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh”Exodus 7:1 as well as “the god of this world (the Devil) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not.” 2 Corinthians 4:4

When reading such verses we begin to understand the reason why Isaiah 9:6 refers to a “mighty god” and not an “Almighty God.” If the author did indeed mean to convey that this person would be the “incarnation” of God Almighty who would come down to earth in the form of a human being in order to walk among us and die on the cross, then why did this author chose to “water down” his statement by only referring to him with the generic term used for humans, demons, idols, and angels, and not the specific term reserved for God Almighty alone?

And finally, we study the term “everlasting father.” In the Bible, the term “everlasting” or “forever” is often used as a figurative term and does not necessarily convey its literal sense, for example,

  • “and my servant David [shall be] their prince forever.” Ezekiel 37:25.
  • and “The king shall joy in thy strength, O LORD … He asked life of thee, [and] thou gavest [it] him, [even] length of days for ever and ever.”Psalm 21:1-4 , etc…

The same goes for the use of the term “father”. It does not necessarily mean; “the Heavenly Father” (God), or the biological father. Let us read for example:

  • Joseph is called a father to Pharaoh. Genesis 45:8,
  • and Job is called the father of the needy. Job 29:16. etc..

So, just as king David shall be an “everlasting prince” so too shall this person be called an “everlasting father.” This is the language of the Jews. This is how it was meant to be understood. We can not simply interpret a verses in a vacuum of the culture, customs, and verbal constructs of the people who wrote them. We must always be careful when “translating” such verses to make sure that we translate them as they were intended by the author and as his people had come to understand them.

I am sure that the people of this age would be quite upset if one of them were to write to their closest friend “you are an angel and a prince” and then centuries later a Japanese speaking person were to say: “See? The author has just born witness that his friend is a divine creature with wings that came down to earth and became royalty. He says so very clearly right here!”

Well is all of this only my own personal attempt to pervert the verses and manipulate their meanings? Far from it. Many Christian scholars have known and recognized the true meaning of this verse and translated it into English accordingly, however, their translations were not met with a whole lot of enthusiasm and thus, they did not receive the same degree of publicity as has such translations as the King James Version. For example, Mr. J. M. Powis Smith in “The Complete Bible, an American Translation,” quotes this same verse as follows:

“For a child is born to us, a son is given to us; And the government will be upon his shoulder; And his name will be called ‘Wonderful counselor is God Almighty, Father forever, Prince of peace’” “The Complete Bible, an American Translation,” Isaiah 9:6

And again, if we were to read the translation of another Christian, for example Dr. James Moffatt, we would find that in his translation “The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments” the verse reads:

“For a child has been born to us, a child has been given to us; the royal dignity he wears, and this the title he bears – ‘A wonder of a counselor, a divine hero, a father for all time, a peaceful prince’” “The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments” Isaiah 9:6

Posted in Bible, Christianity | Leave a Comment »

Because God “gave His only begotten Son..”?

Posted by Libnanee on February 15, 2006

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”John 3:16

The above is the King James “translation” of John 3:16. If we were to open up the Revised Standard Version of the Bible on this exact same verse we would find it now translated as “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only son, ….”

What is going on here? The RSV is the work of thirty two Biblical Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations. They produced the RSV in an effort to correct the “many” and “serious” errors they had found in the King James Bible. So why have they scrapped the word “begotten” from this cornerstone of Christian preaching? The reason is because they have decided to be honest with us when translating this verse.

The Greek term for “begotten” in ancient Greek is “gennao” {ghen-nah’-o} as found for example in Matthew 1:2. In the verses under consideration, however, the word used was not “gennao” but “monogenes” {mon-og-en-ace’}.

“Monogenes” is a Greek word which conveys the meaning “unique” and not “begotten.” Thus, the true translation of this verse is “His unique son.”

Some of the more honest translations of the Bibles, such as the New Testament by Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith (published in 1923) have indeed given the same translation as that of the RSV. However, such “tell it as it is” Bibles were not generally met with a lot of enthusiasm since they forced the reader to face the fact that much of what the translators of the KJV have “translated” for them was not in fact part of the Bible.

We have already seen in previous sections that the Bible bears witness that God has “sons” by the tons. So what does the Bible mean by “only son” or “unique son” when referring to Jesus? It means what the Bible has told us and the Qur’an has confirmed for us, namely, that Jesus was “unique” in that he was born of a human mother without a father. God merely said to him “Be!” and he was.

Posted in Bible, Christianity | Leave a Comment »

The “son of God”

Posted by Libnanee on February 15, 2006

The “son of God” adapted Taken from the book, “What did Jesus Really Say?“”

And unto Him belongs whosoever is in the heavens and the earth and those who dwell in His presence do not scorn to worship Him nor do they weary. They glorify Him night and day; They flag not. Or have they chosen gods from the earth who raise the dead If there were therein gods besides Allah then verily both (the heavens and the earth) would have gone to ruin. Glorified be Allah, the Lord of the Throne from all they ascribe (unto Him). He is not questioned as to that which He does, but they will be questioned. Or have they chosen other gods besides Him, say: Bring your proof (of their godhead), this is the reminder of those with me and those before me, but most of them know not the truth so they are averse (to it). And we sent no messenger before you but we inspired him (saying): There is no god save Me (Allah) so worship Me. And they say: The Compassionate has taken unto himself a son. Nay! but (they) are but honored servants. They speak not until He has spoken and they obey His command. He knows what is before them and what is behind them and they cannot intercede except for those whom He accepts and they quake for awe of Him. And whosoever among them says: I am a god other than Allah, the same shall We reward with Hell. Thus do We reward the wrong doers.”The noble Qur’an, Al-Anbia(21):19-29

“And the angles said ‘O Mary, Allah gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him, his name is Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, High honored in this world and the next, of those near stationed to Allah.“The noble Qur’an, A’al-Umran(3):40.

We as Muslims do not differ with Christians in the fact that Jesus (pbuh) was indeed born miraculously without a human father. Muslims only differ with Christians in the Christian’s claim that Jesus (pbuh) must have a father. Trinitarians believe that if he has no human father then his father must be God. Muslims believe that he had no father whatsoever, and this was the essence of his miraculous birth.
“The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam, he created him from dust, then said to him: ‘Be’ and he was” The noble Qur’an, A’al-Umran(3):59.

They say: Allah has taken a son. Glorified be He! He has no needs! His is all that is in the heavens and that is in the earth. You have no warrant for this, do you say regarding Allah that which you know not?” The noble Qur’an, Yunus(10):68

“The Messiah, son of Mary, was only a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. They both used to eat (earthly) food. See how we make the signs clear for them, then see how they are deluded!” The noble Qur’an, Al-Maidah (5):75.

“And this is life eternal, that they might know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” John 17:3.

Notice the above words of the Bible: “YOU the ONLY true God.” Some Christians manage to see a hidden abstract meaning for the verses of the Bible. Even when they read the above verse they some times manage to understand something totally different than that which they are reading. Some interpret the word “you” to be “we,” and thus, understand the above verse to say “WE the only true god.” Jesus (pbuh) is obviously talking to a distinctly different entity than himself and telling that entity that He ALONE is the only true God. Is Jesus (pbuh) incapable of saying “I the only true God” or “We the only true God” if that is what he meant? Can we see the difference?

Mr. Tom Harpur says in the preface to his book: “The most significant development since 1986 in this regard has been the discovery of the title “Son of God” in one of the Qumran papyri (Dead Sea Scrolls) used in relation to a person other than Jesus…..this simply reinforces the argument made there that to be called the Son of God in a Jewish setting in the first century is not by any means the same as being identical with God Himself.” For Christ’s Sake, pp. xii.

With regard to your second comment, Mr. J, I am not “implying” anything. The Qur’an clearly states in no uncertain terms that God “created” Jesus. Let us quote from the unbiased Webster’s dictionary as to what is “implied” by the word “begotten”: “To procreate as the father, sire, to produce as an effect or an outgrowth.” Muslims feel such claims with regard to God Almighty are an abomination.

Posted in Bible, Christianity | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.