Posted by Illuminati on 6/6/2009, 7:35 pm, in reply to "Re: Jesus is God 3"
75.173.19.161
Amir posted:
" The modern translations are based on sound scholarship. They are not just "Christian" translations. They are as accurate as scholarly possible. Since you don't like the NIV, I will present the same verse from Young's Literal Translation of the Holy Bible. As you will discover, there is no significant difference in meaning between the NIV and the YLT."
So where are the words "light of life" in the translation u gave??
My point is that these words were inserted by Christians scribes.To insert words which do not apppear in the original text has nothing to do with sound scholarship.They did so only to support their belief and that's what i was pointing out.This is mistranslation.
Amir, if you are a Hebrew scholar, then you might have standing to make the inflammatory claim that the NIV was deliberately mistranslated. Fundamentalists Christians will sometimes debate among themselves which translations are the most accurate. Generally, thy prefer the King James version. I personally use the NIV because it is more modern and easier to read. However, for the most part, I have feel comfortable using any major translation. If I have a question, I go back to the original language and look up the words.
Amir posted:
"I have already presented the evidence from Isaiah that Jesus died for my sins and for yours."
These evidences are not sufficient and i responded to them.Unfortunately, there is no direct statement by Jesus himself that he came to fulfill this mission.
For you no evidence from the Bible can be sufficient. Your doctrines don't come from the Bible, so any discussion about Biblical exegesis with you is useless. The reason I presented the exegesis on this passage was to allow you to either accept what what Isaiah really teaches. You brought up Isaiah as an authority to prove that Jesus didn't die. When I provide a proper exegesis for the passage, you had to opportunity to either accept the truth in the passage or to acknowledge that you don't really consider the statement authoritative. That raises the question, if you don't believe the passage, why were you quoting it as an authority?
Amir posted:
"We both know that you don't believe a word of what you are quoting!"
I am using these verses to show my interpretation of them.My personal belief is not relevant.
Again, the question comes up, if you don't believe the passage, why did you quote it? I miss your point.
Because of the frequent logical lapses in Muslims' arguments, it would be easy to conclude that Muslims are deliberately trying to confuse people who are too intellectually challenged or too ignorant to detect the logical errors. These spurious arguments raises the question. If Islam is really true, then why must Muslims use circular arguments and erroneous "facts" to support their belief? For a religion which claims to contain God’s truth, it doesn't make much sense.
Your misuse of the Bible raises the question about whether it is ever appropriate to quote material which we don't believe as evidence? Obviously there is nothing wrong with using material from your opponent provided you are completely transparent about how you are using it. For instance, I have been quoting from the Koran because I am interested to discover what the Koran itself actually teaches when it is separated from Muslim traditions. Because of the terrible derogation, violence, and misogyny in modern Islamic societies, I have no doubt that modern Muslims are on the wrong track. Their beliefs must be deeply flawed to give those terrible results. However, I'm still keeping open the possibility that Mohammad has been misrepresented by modern Muslims. The hadiths were recorded so late in Islamic history, it is possible that they have gravely distorted Mohammad's image. The I have quoted to hadiths to demonstrate how much violence and how many unscientific claims they make, but I have carefully avoided leaving the impression that I believe them to be doctrinally authoritative.
Speaking of the Koran, I have yet to see is any intellectual value added by Mohammad. The Koran when properly interpreted probably does not support the level of violence demonstrated in modern Islamic societies, but it needs more. It needs a positive message which will uplift people and their societies. This is probably the biggest deficit if have discovered in postings by moderate Muslims. Where is the goodness in Islam?
Muslims give Mohammad so much importance, and yet in reading and discussing Islam with Muslims, I have never come across any advanced insights about God which I could not find for myself in my own faith. It seems that Muslims major in minors. For instance, bowing down 5 times a day and fasting once a year are mechanical activities which a trained animal could do. I have yet to discover a compelling explanation demonstrating how imposing those activities on people makes them more spiritually advanced.
Amir posted:
""In Abraham's encounter with God, the text is very plain that there were two angels and God Himself.""
"And the LORD (Yahweh) said to Abraham,..."
This is Yahweh speaking to Abraham, and it is the angel (singular) of Yahweh, whom Abraham recognized because prior in earlier chapters of Genesis the angel of Yahweh appeared to Abraham’s mistress and Sarah’s maidservant in Genesis 16:7, 9, 10, & 11 promising her she would bear children. Later this same singular angel of Yahweh came to Abraham to deliver Yahweh’s messages to him in Genesis 22:11, 15
I really don't get your point. The Bible says Jehovah appeared to Abraham. I'll use Youngs Literal translation:
Gen 18:1-11
18:1 And Jehovah appeareth unto him among the oaks of Mamre, and he is sitting at the opening of the tent, about the heat of the day;
2 and he lifteth up his eyes and looketh, and lo, three men standing by him, and he seeth, and runneth to meet them from the opening of the tent, and boweth himself towards the earth,
3 And he saith, 'My Lord, if, I pray thee, I have found grace in thine eyes, do not, I pray thee, pass on from thy servant;
4 let, I pray thee, a little water be accepted, and wash your feet, and recline under the tree;
5 and I bring a piece of bread, and support ye your heart; afterwards pass on, for therefore have ye passed over unto your servant;' and they say, 'So mayest thou do as thou has spoken.'
6 And Abraham hasteth towards the tent, unto Sarah, and saith, 'Hasten three measures of flour-meal, knead, and make cakes;'
7 and Abraham ran unto the herd, and taketh a son of the herd, tender and good, and giveth unto the young man, and he hasteth to prepare it;
8 and he taketh butter and milk, and the son of the herd which he hath prepared, and setteth before them; and he is standing by them under the tree, and they do eat.
9 And they say unto him, 'Where [is] Sarah thy wife?' and he saith, 'Lo — in the tent;'
10 and he saith, 'returning I return unto thee, about the time of life, and lo, to Sarah thy wife a son.'
11 And Sarah is hearkening at the opening of the tent, which is behind him;
YLT
This passage is very careful to separate Jehovah God from the two angels.
Amir posted:
""The being which Abraham saw, who Moses saw, and who John saw was Jesus!""
I'm sorry but that's only your interpretation and there's nothing to support it.
In your belief system, you are correct. Since your doctrines come strictly from the Koran and from the Muslim traditions, Biblical exegesis does not constitute evidence. I didn't expect you to accept it. However, since you asked me a question about New Testament exegesis, I gave you an answer.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread