The Arabic Bible!!!

[Muslimah]

Bismillah


reepi, this is an approach of the weak. You didnt have enough courage and honesty to answer the question.


Can you simply answer my question.


What do you think of Ezekiel 23:20, how do you rate, do you see it a divine revelation??

[wel_mel_2]

Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum.


<b>'reepicheep' </b>

I thought it was almost universally agreed, amongst Islamic scholars, that<b> the book Song of Songs is about Mohammad</b>. See, for example:

This is your lie... We have never said that THE BOOK OF SONG OF SONGS IS ABOUT MUHAMMAD, we said tha there is <b>A VERSE </b>in that book which mentioned Muhammad pbuh by name.


Now try to answer our questions as sister Muslimah suggested


Salam


Wael.

[Muslimah]

Bismillah


as salam alykom Wael,


Actually both reepi and Shamms made my objective so easy. Anyone who comes to read will easily realise what we want to say, simply reepi loosing temper and trying, as usual, to divert the discussion and make irrelevant remarks rather than facing the truth and saying yes this is totally an inappropriate writing style that can never be from a divine source. I m not talking about the content. The content can be easily introduced using proper language, if we are talking that Allah Is the source. Allah Is more than capable of producing the utmost incomparable clear and accurate texts using proper language fit to Allah's Majesty.


But reepi's attitude is enough evidence of what we wanted to say.


Shamms and reepi, believe me, i have nothing againt both of u, nor do I enjoy rediculing your book, I know how you feel. You want to try as hard as possible to tell yourselves, no we are not decieved. But better to be honest to yourselves and think logically rather than continue decivine. I m not quite finished yet. Insh a Allah I have more to discuss on those two texts in particular. So stay tuned. :)

[AlShamms]

Bismillah
I m sorry Shamms, but I think you are getting my point but trying to evade it. The problem is not the metaphore, the problem is the explicit language, such as the part, I really dont want to type this here. But enough to use one example of the woman recalling her lovers in Egypt whose.. like donkeys and .... like horses. This is not metaphore, this is porno, sorry to say.


When I discussed this same point with my Jewish co worker at that time, she honestly said, I understand your point that is why we dont call it a divine book but rather legends of the ealier generations. At least she was honest and logical about it.

Peace.....


Muslimah, no one is trying to evade you...there's no need to. While you feel the language is inappropriate, that is your opinion based on your understanding. And you are welcome to it. If the language used in this book of scripture, or if the word begotten does not sit well with you then you, as a none believer, are well within your rights to not read the book, simple as that.


Shamms

[AlShamms]

Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum.
<b>Shamms</b>


Yes they were clear of choosing Monogenes to describe Jesus, however, the Bible translators were <b>NOT</b> that clear or were not properly inspired by the Holy Ghost to translate the word as BEGOTTEN!!!!, what does it mean to you when almost <b>ALL available Bibles today does not have the word begotten?</b>

Peace.....


Actually for the believer who understands, using the term "begotten" with reference to Jesus Christ was very clear. Wael, Im not getting into a discussion about Bible translations with you. The fact of the matter is, Monogenes is in the original manuscripts and can be translated begotten.

<b>Who told you in the first place that we have started a new school to ‘teach’ Christians their religion?</b>

I never mentioned anything about a school and don't understand why this comment was made.

We do not teach them, what actually I am doing is analyzing the Christian Bible and presenting my own understanding of the text, you either provide a logical explanation, refutable argument or you can just say as you said earlier to me “<b>OBJECT ALL YOU LIKE, DISAGREE ALL YOU LIKE</b>” which shows how complicated the matter for you to explain.

Wael, the Bible is spiritually discerned, meaning you cannot analyze it and come to your own understanding. The Bible itself says no part of Scripture is of any private interpretation (2nd Peter 1:20). Again, it's it a complicated matter to explain, question is, will you accept the explanation provided or will you continue to argue?

I guess you did misunderstand the question of sister Muslimah, we do not object the <i>MESSAGE</i> of that chapter, <b>we are against the use of inappropriate language and terms which can never be inspired by God the Creator.</b>

It is not for you to judge what is and is not appropriate in a book you don't believe in.

As regards to “<i>reading these materials to your children with guidance</i>”… do you mean that you might also rent some pornographic magazines and video tapes to show them to your children to teach them the evil of unlawful sexual intercourse? and while watching with them for "<b>guidance</b>"you may say: “<i>Hey kids, do not commit fornication or adultery, this is wrong, God does not like that what you see and read</i>” ???? What guidance are you talking about? Would any sane person do such thing? <b>These types of stories will definitely leave an impact on the children’s minds!!!</b>

This was an immature statement and will not be addressed. I expect better from you in the future Wael.

And for your information, this chapter was banned by South African Government years ago and they recognized it as pornography book.

Am I really supposed to care what a government of this world thinks? That's like me telling you that a certain country banned a surah of Qur'an...would that really move you? Of course it wouldn't. All it would mean to you is that they were unbelievers...period.

Ok then could you please answer why the word begotten was removed by your scholars from almost all Bibles? because for every translation you may provide where the word begotten is mentioned in John 3:16, I can show you <b>10 different versions of your Bible where the word begotten is not used at all</b>.

Wael, this is the last time I'll address this "scholar" issue. Like I said before, the word Monogenes is indeed in the greek manuscripts, so what would be their motivation for removing begotten from the text? A more accurate understanding? I think not. You cannot get more accurate than divine inspiration. The Word of God is under attack, now more so than ever. You have many so-called scholars of theology who don't believe much of what the Bible teaches, so attempting to use them in your argument doesn't sway me one inch.
Shamms

[AlShamms]

Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum.
we said tha there is <b>A VERSE </b>in that book which mentioned Muhammad pbuh by name.


Salam


Wael.

Peace.....


Question: If the language of the book is inappropriate as you seem to believe. Why would your god associate your prophet with a book that by your understanding is full of inappropriate language? Would you accept it if Muhammad's name was mentioned in the Indian sex guide Karma Sutra?


Shamms

[AlShamms]

Shamms and reepi, believe me, i have nothing againt both of u, nor do I enjoy rediculing your book, I know how you feel. You want to try as hard as possible to tell yourselves, no we are not decieved. But better to be honest to yourselves and think logically rather than continue decivine. I m not quite finished yet. Insh a Allah I have more to discuss on those two texts in particular. So stay tuned. :)

Peace.....


Muslimah, how can you ridicule something you don't understand? It isn't a "hard try" to say I'm not deceived, I know I'm not. I see the truth of the Bible and can feel the Son of God at work in my life. Question for you Muslimah: Why is a book that, as you believe, is full of inappropriate sexual language of such interest to you?

[wel_mel_2]

Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum.


<b>'AlShamms' </b>

Actually for the believer who understands, using the term "begotten" with reference to Jesus Christ was very clear. Wael, Im not getting into a discussion about Bible translations with you. The fact of the matter is, Monogenes is in the original manuscripts and can be translated begotten.

I don’t know why Christians have got that ‘<i>cold feet</i>’ when discussing BibleS? But anyway if you don’t like talking with me about that subject, then it is your choice…


Now for the benefits of other viewers let us show them a list of Biblical versions where the word Monogones was translated as ‘<i>only son</i>’ or just ‘<i>son</i>’ without bringing begotten at all into the pictures… now whether this is the correct translation or that they've made a mistake in <b>ALL </b>those versions, we leave it to you to decide.


<b>*** The word begotten of (John 3:16) not to be found in the following versions of the Bible:</b>



<b>1- New International version (<i>best selling</i>)</b>


2- The Bible in basic English.


3- The complete Jewish Bible.


4- Holman Christian Standard Bible.


5- English standard version.


6- Good News Translation.


7- Good News Translation w/Apocrypha.


8- God's word translation.


9- Hebrew Names version.


10- The Message.


11- The Century version.


12- New International reader's version.


13- New International version.


14- New Living Translation.


15- New Revised Standard.


16- New Revised Standard w/Apocrypha.


17- Revised Standard Version (<i>Most accurate Bible according to 50 cooperating denominations of Christianity</i>).


18- Revised Standard Version w/Apocrypha.


19- Today's New international version.


20- World English Bible.


21- Weymouth New Testament.


And the list can go like forever....

I never mentioned anything about a school and don't understand why this comment was made.

It was just a figure of speech in response to your words that we are teaching you about your religion.

Wael, the Bible is spiritually discerned, meaning you cannot analyze it and come to your own understanding. The Bible itself says no part of Scripture is of any private interpretation (2nd Peter 1:20). Again, it's it a complicated matter to explain, question is, will you accept the explanation provided or will you continue to argue?

Of course I am prepared to listen to your interpretation of the Bible and accept it as well if it does make sense, and for that reason let me ask you this question:


Paul says:


"<b>All</b> scripture <i>IS</i> given by inspiration of God, and <i>IS</i> profitable for <b>doctrine</b>, for <b>reproof</b>, for <b>correction</b>, for <b>instruction in righteousness</b>." 2 Timothy 3:16


Now according to my understanding of the above verse, Paul is trying to tell us that whatever God has given man whether through revelation or inspiration, it should serve at least one of four purposes:


1. To teach us <b>DOCTRINE</b>;


2. <b>REPROOF</b> us for our error;


3. Offer us <b>CORRECTION</b>;


4. Guide us into <b>RIGHTEOUSNESS</b>.


If my understanding is correct please confirm with me…


To clarify further with you my understanding I’ve done the following exercise; if you open Genesis chapter 38 we read:


"BUT ER, JUDAH'S FIRST-BORN <b>WAS WICKED</b> IN THE SIGHT OF THE LORD; <b>AND THE LORD SLEW HIM</b>.'' (Genesis 38:7).


And so according the principles of 2 Timothy 3:16 I would say that the above is classified as <b>REPROOF</b> (<i>i.e. Er was wicked and so God killed him</i>)... That’s the lesson, <b>God might destroy us for our wickedness</b>.


Now my question is, using the principles of 2 Timothy 3:16, <b>where will you place the story of Judah and his daughter in law as found in Genesis 38:16-18</b> ???


What about <b>Genesis 19:30 "Lot and his 2 daughters to the end of story"</b>??? Was it teaching us a doctrine, reproof, correction or guidance into righteousness???


How about <b>Ezekiel 23</b>?


Song of Solomon and the ‘<i>making love stories</i>’ how will you classify them according to 2 Timothy?

It is not for you to judge what is and is not appropriate in a book you don't believe in.

Of course I can do judgment, He has given me a brain to think and decide, He, the unique God can never talk like how we “<i>filthy people</i>” talks.

<b>As regards to “reading these materials to your children with guidance”… do you mean that you might also rent some pornographic magazines and video tapes to show them to your children to teach them the evil of unlawful sexual intercourse? and while watching with them for "guidance"you may say: “Hey kids, do not commit fornication or adultery, this is wrong, God does not like that what you see and read” ???? What guidance are you talking about? Would any sane person do such thing? These types of stories will definitely leave an impact on the children’s minds!!!</b>

This was an immature statement and will not be addressed. I expect better from you in the future Wael.

I guess you are just ashamed of answering such a question… <i>let us drop this issue as well??</i> It is all up to you.

Am I really supposed to care what a government of this world thinks? That's like me telling you that a certain country banned a surah of Qur'an...would that really move you? Of course it wouldn't. All it would mean to you is that they were unbelievers...period.

The fact is that no one banned anything from the Qur’an, as compare to this Christian nation who did expunge verses from the book which is considered by them to be "<i>god's word</i>".... we know that you don’t really care, you are going to teach your children "<i>with guidance</i>" the lessons of sexual stories in your "<i>book of god</i>", so who really cares!!!!

Question: If the language of the book is inappropriate as you seem to believe. Why would your god associate your prophet with a book that by your understanding is full of inappropriate language? Would you accept it if Muhammad's name was mentioned in the Indian sex guide Karma Sutra?

Very good question, I never said that the entire Bible is full of inappropriate stories etc… I did said that the Bible contains portion of God’s word, portion of prophets’ words, portion of historians words, as well as pornographic materials and absurdities which no body could attribute to God Almighty, and so we should not feel so it is just normal for our Prophet pbuh to be mentioned in the Bible because <b>parts of that Bible we may consider as God’s word</b>, <b>but not entirely.</b>


Salam


Wael.

[Muslimah]

Bismillah

Peace.....
Muslimah, how can you ridicule something you don't understand? It isn't a "hard try" to say I'm not deceived, I know I'm not. I see the truth of the Bible and can feel the Son of God at work in my life. Question for you Muslimah: Why is a book that, as you believe, is full of inappropriate sexual language of such interest to you?

Shamms I m surprised of your question, you are on a Muslim board, when non Muslims come here, they certainly have different objectives. Of them to learn if Quran is the true word of Allah, to verify if other books, in their current status are or not..etc. This thread happened to be related to the bible, it originally started when Wael wanted an Arabic language version. Both you and reepi on you side tried to find out why would a native Arabic speaker Nazarine would not want us to look at it. I asked you a question, not because I m interested in the book, but because I always wanted to know how present time Nazarines really view this type of language and how they place it in terms of being in a divine book to them.


If you dont want to discuss with me, that is fine.


Regarding the word begotten, Shamms, again I m not putting words in Wael's mouth, but I think what he wants to tell you and what I helped by explaining how Eassa blessing and peace be upon him birth was clearly described in Quran, is that the word begotten sends cerain connotation that must not be sent, not because this was the case, but we are talking about the writing style. I hope the point is clear. Again I d use the same explanation, a God Should have a more precise way in expressing the situation.

[AlShamms]

Now my question is, using the principles of 2 Timothy 3:16, <b>where will you place the story of Judah and his daughter in law as found in Genesis 38:16-18</b> ???

Peace.....


Another story about sexual immorality? I'm beginning to wonder about yall. Yes, we know these stories are in the Bible, nothing new. Do we become obsessed with them? No, we don't. So why are you? To answer your question, this story would fall under reproof as we know incest is a sin. (Lev. 20:12) And instruct us how to be righteous by not engaging in such a sinful act.

What about <b>Genesis 19:30 "Lot and his 2 daughters to the end of story"</b>???

Same catagory

How about <b>Ezekiel 23</b>?

I've already answered questions relating to this chapter. But for clarity I'll answer again. Ezekiel 23 is a reproof, a correction, a guidance and instructions on how to be righteous before God.

Song of Solomon and the ‘<i>making love stories</i>’ how will you classify them according to 2 Timothy?

Again, if you can't understand the metaphoric language then you'll always see it as "making love stories". This book would be classified as doctrine.

Of course I can do judgment, He has given me a brain to think and decide, He, the unique God can never talk like how we “<i>filthy people</i>” talks.

Wael, again, this statement is based on your understanding of your god. It is not based on understanding of the Bible. So no, you cannot judge what you do not understand. If you had understood it, you would have known where to place the above verses you asked me about.

Very good question, I never said that the entire Bible is full of inappropriate stories etc… I did said that the Bible contains portion of God’s word, portion of prophets’ words, portion of historians words, as well as pornographic materials and absurdities which no body could attribute to God Almighty, and so we should not feel so it is just normal for our Prophet pbuh to be mentioned in the Bible because <b>parts of that Bible we may consider as God’s word</b>, <b>but not entirely.</b>

Nor did I say the "entire" book. I'm speaking specifically about the Song of Solomon which you seem to have such an issue with the language used. Allow me to restate my question:


If, as you say, this particular book is filled with, as you say, filthy language, then why would your god place the name of your prophet among such "filthy language"? And why would you, as a muslim, look to that verse, in that book (song of solomon) filled with filthy language as validation that the Bible mentions your prophet? Let's look at this particular verse:


Song of Solomon 5:16


(16) His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.


According to the excerpt that Reepi provided the words "altogether lovely" are where your prophet's name is mentioned and should be translated:


"His language is most sweet, and he is Muhammad."


Wael, is it your opinion that this verse is speaking about your prophet?


Shamms