Monday, November 10, 2014

William Lane Craig vs. Jamal Badawi: "The Concept of God in Islam and Christianity"

William Lane Craig is, in my opinion, the best Christian debater in history. Though he often faces off against the world's most respected atheist scholars (when, unlike Richard Dawkins, they don't run from him), he occasionally debates Muslims as well. Here's his classic exchange with Jamal Badawi on the concept of God in Islam and Christianity. I watched this debate many years ago at Mike Licona's house with my friend Nabeel Qureshi (when Nabeel was still a Muslim).


Unknown said...

Allah revealed all three (Torah, Gospel & koran)

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’
[here allah's first word given to the “Children of Israel”]

44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

[Jesus/Isa or is it ALLAH abrogates it and demands that one should love the enemy. Fine no problem. ]

45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?
47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. [end qoute]
(quote taken from Matt. 5:43-48 NIV )

Yet in the koran the LOVE YOUR enemy is ABROGETED once more, and allah shows further that he is a god behaving similar to the PAGANS, who are NICE to those treating them nicely...

Of course this passage contains the concept of God as the “Father” of the hearers.

Most likely these references to God as “Father” are the corruptions sneaked in.. So why not “LOVE YOUR enemy”?

If LOVE your enemy is a “human invention” and if followed people can build some sort of peaceful society would it not mean that this human idea is much better than the instructions that allah came up with. After all allah's society can only be build when the enemy submits to Islam/Allah. Allah can NOT forgive humans (NON-MUSLIMS) who do not submit to him.

Unknown said...

Brother David , William L. Craig is indeed the best
but also I want to add that you are not too far off brother. all these threats you are receiving is real proof of that , and brother David please remember this .. you are no one till you have and enemy, so be proud. God bless

Unknown said...

Jamal Badwari’s concept of God in Islam is so irrational, unreasonable, idiotic that it is good for dummy, criminals like underwear Nigerian bomber Umar Farouk, Shoe Bomber Richard Reid, whose father was a career criminal, Canadian recent shooter Zehaf Bipean a prominent drug trafficker and robber. Islam is good for converting those people who are block headed, hot temper, criminals and find it difficult to understand logic, parable, context clue, miraculous signs like Resurrection etc. to find truth about unseen God, who is Truth and Spirit.

Badwari’s reply to concept of God was Muhammad’s irrational reply to a question of existence of God. Muhammad proved existence of God by a counter question, was God ever absence that God need to prove? This is Islam’s concept of God. Similarly Muhammad proved Quran his Allah’s book by saying to write a book like Quran, a stupid logic. Who can write a book like Shakespeare’s Macbeth?

Badwari failed to understand Muhammad’s spirituality by marrying his son’s wife and a 9 year old girl. He failed to understand that Jesus’ miraculous sings like virgin birth, giving life to 3 day old dead man, resurrection and many more that proves His deity as Son of God as well as human. Muhammad’s death by poison proves that he was not a prophet, but an ordinary evil man like us. Today’s bloody world in Muslims countries is fruits of seeds Muhammad sown in Quran in 1,400 years ago. May Almighty God help opening inner eyes of Muslims to see Muhammad’s black magic!

Thanks David revealing truth about Islam and saving many souls from destruction. Those who have inner eyes and ears let them hear and see truth about Almighty God thru Jesus Christ and be saved from eternal destruction by God’s grace.

Dacritic said...

I do in my humble opinion feel perhaps in these debates the audience be allowed to vote for who they think provided a stronger argument. I haven't' watched many debates maybe but I remember the "Is Islam a religion of peace" debate involving Ayaan H. Ali and Maajid Nawaz where there were more people who voted against the Islamic position after the debate than before it. Now of course, the territory where the debate is staged could have an effect on the voting too I can understand.

I wouldn't know how many converts did Dr Craig and Dr Badawi respectively won over with this encounter, but I did notice one thing. At around 1:10 left on the debate, Badawi in his conclusion said Islam teaches that Jesus "ascended" to heaven, and that Islam is open to the possibility of "some form of crucifixion and resurrection".

Hmm... What other forms of resurrection can there be I wonder? If he was resurrected, then he must have died first. But I thought the Quran *CLEARLY* teaches that "they killed him not nor crucified him"?

So did he die or not??

If he did, to quote Estelle Costanza from Seinfeld, "THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING!"

Unknown said...

I laughed at Jamal's double standard when he said it's ok for him to quote a book from a Christian aspostate. I guarantee he wouldn't accept it if it was the other way around

akairey said...

As I watched this AFTER watching Shadid Lewis, it seems as though Shadid mimicked Badawi's weak talking points or am I wrong?

Anonymous said...

A few gems:

Badawi said that it would be illogical to go around saying "I am God" because people would just walk away.

- So why do Muslims ask for statements of Jesus saying "I am God, worship Me" ?

Badawi also said that Muslims follow pure monotheism, believing that Allah is one in person and attributes.

- What does he mean by one? Does he mean absolute one in every sense? If that's the case, then Allah would be one person with one attribute. If on the other hand he is using the term in the sense of unity, then that would agree with Christian Monotheism wherein three persons are united, having one nature or essence.

Badawi also said that it is of no consequence whether Jesus was crucified or not.

- Actually it does matter, because it determines whether Allah is a liar or not.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that Badawi's style was atrocious. His opening statement was not an opening statement. He went into rebuttal mode. That is clearly against debate etiquette where the first speaker had no chance to rebut the second in their opening. He also completely failed to provide a compelling argument for Islamic monotheism.

David Wood said...

Royal Son said: "Does he mean absolute one in every sense? If that's the case, then Allah would be one person with one attribute."

Actually, one person with one attribute would allow a distinction, so we might need to do away with the one attribute in order to preserve the absolute unity!

Dacritic said...

Royal Son: "Badawi also said that it is of no consequence whether Jesus was crucified or not."

Yea, I was wondering why did he say that too. Did he not know his own Quran? Isn't this actually one of the main differences between Christian and Muslim beliefs regarding Jesus?

Anonymous said...

Correct David. I think I was being overly charitable.

Perhaps nothing is like Allah because Allah is essentially nothing.

Unknown said...

[Allahthe Kuffr]"Allah revealed all three (Torah, Gospel & koran)"

Don't forget the Wisdom (Proverbs? Sirach? Ecclesiastes?) and the Psalms and the Scripture/Book (the Old Testament, minus the Torah i.e. minus the first five books of the OT?).

Sura 3.048
Y: "And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel,"
P: And He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel,
S: And He will teach him the Book and the wisdom and the Tavrat and the Injeel.

P: And thy Lord is Best Aware of all who are in the heavens and the
earth. And we preferred some of the prophets above others, and unto David We gave the Psalms.

BTW, "Quran" means "lectionary."

"43 'You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’
[here allah's first word given to the 'Children of Israel']"

Citation from the Old Testament? Perhaps when the prophet Jesus said "'You have heard that it was said, ‘…hate your enemy,’" he was referring to a man-made innovation.
I did a search for the phrase "hate your enemy" at
and only came up with the quotation from Matthew. The first part, namely "Love your neighbor[a]," had a reference to Lev. 19:18.

Leviticus 19:18 (NIV)
“‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

"in the koran the LOVE YOUR enemy is ABROGETED"

Yet the Quran supposedly _confirmed_ the prior revelations, e.g.:

Y: And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
S: And We sent after them in their footsteps Isa, son of Marium, verifying what was before him of the Taurat and We gave him the Injeel in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard (against evil).

Unknown said...

[Dacritic]"At around 1:10 left on the debate, Badawi in his conclusion said Islam teaches that Jesus 'ascended' to heaven, and that Islam is open to the possibility of 'some form of crucifixion and resurrection'.
Hmm... What other forms of resurrection can there be I wonder? If he was resurrected, then he must have died first. But I thought the Quran *CLEARLY* teaches that 'they killed him not nor crucified him'?"

The Quran doesn't clearly teach that at all.
Approach 1 of 2:

Sawma, Gabriel. 2006. _The Qur'an: Misinterpreted, Mistranslated, and Misread: The Aramaic Language of the Qur'an_ (USA:, 435pp. On 222-3, two paragraphs, with the 3rd bracket being his:
Contrary to the Hadith interpretation of the Qur'anic verse [4:158], and contrary to the [M. Sher Ali] translation mentioned above, and to the erroneous interpretation rendered by Abdullah Yussuf Ali, the Qur'an does not deny the death and Crucifixion of Jesus, the Messiah. In fact the Aramaic language of the Qur'an is identical to the story of Crucifixion mentioned in the New Testament.
The Qur'anic conjugation "w" in the word "[w]ama" is similar to Aramaic "w" meaning 'so, then, and'; Akkadian "u". The Qur'anic word "wama" has been interpreted erroneously as 'did not'. Syriac "wmo, or wma" is an interrogative pronoun means [sic] 'what'. For example: Syriac "wmo li wlokh" or "wma li wlokh" means 'and what have I to do with you'. The Qur'anic verse, "wama qataluhu" is identical to Aramaic "wm qtlhu", Syriac "wmo qatluuy, or wma qatluuy" means 'what they slew'. The Qur'anic verse "wama salabuuhu" is identical to Syriac "wmo salbuuy or wma salbuuy" meaning 'what they crucified'. In other words, the Qur'an is saying: 'what they slew and what they crucified', a confirmation of the death and crucifixion of Jesus, the Messiah.

Unknown said...

Approach 2 of 2:

In another video, Craig mentioned the 2 natures of al-Nabia Isa: his human nature, and his divine nature. Here are a couple quotes from the Injil about al-Nabia Isa's human nature:

Philippians 2:7
….he [the Messiah Isa] made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
Romans 8:3
For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering….

Craig's remark reminds me of this observation by al-Nabia Isa:
"And do not have fear of
those who kill the body,
but are not able to kill the soul.
Rather, have fear more so of
Him [i.e. God] who is able to destroy the soul
and the body in Gehenna."(Matthew 10:28)

Sura 4:157, Arberry translation
….their saying, 'We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God' — yet they did not
slay him, neither crucified him, only a likeness of that was shown to them. Those who are at
variance concerning him surely are in doubt regarding him; they have no knowledge of him,
except the following of surmise; and they slew him not of a certainty — no indeed; God raised
him up to Him; God is All-mighty, All-wise.

About 4:157's expression "Shubbiha Lahum," Abdul-Haqq notes that that expression [Abdul-Haqq on 138]"is very close to the Biblical statement, 'the likeness of sinful flesh and the likeness of men.'" He goes on to [Abdul-Haqq on 138]"make a free translation of the verse in the Koran as follows:
'They slew Him not nor crucified Him but only His likeness of men (or sinful flesh).'

The individuals that had al-Nabia Isa crucified only succeeded in killing his human nature i.e. the temple of his human body, but they did not kill his divine nature. Compare verse 19:

John 2
18. But the Yehudeans answered and said to him [al-Nabia Isa],
"What ata [sign] do you show us (so) that you do these things?"
[idiomatic expression for: Prove to us you have authority to do these things]
19. Yeshua answered and amer [said] to them,
"Tear down this temple,
and after three yomin [days] I will raise it."
20. The Yehudeans said to him, "For forty and six years this temple was built, and you will raise it in three yomin?!" 22. But he was amer [speaking] concerning the temple of his body. 22. And when he rose from the grave, his talmida [students] remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Kitaba [Scriptures] and the miltha [word] that Yeshua had said.

Abdul-Haqq, Abdiyah Akbar. 1980. _Sharing Your Faith With A Muslim_ (MN: Bethany House Publishers), 189pp.
This is an excellent philosophical analysis of Islamic thought by a learned follower of al-Nabia Isa, and is authoritative and very deep/ rich, with many quotes and citations. It does though need a bibliography and index.

Unknown said...

For a different perspective on approach 1 of 2, here is material from an online review of Sawma's book:
The author goes on to argue that Muslim commentators misinterpreted Q. 4: 158 because they thought the Quranic conjunction "wama" meant "did not" whereas it actually meant "so, then" in Aramaic. What the author fails to state is that both Arabic and Aramaic share the same two conjunctions "wa" which means "so, then" and "ma" which has two meanings in both dialects - "ma" the interrogative pronoun meaning "what" and "ma" the negative morpheme meaning "not". It is the context of the sentence that distinguishes the meaning. So the word "wama" is a compound conjunction meaning "and not" in the context of the verse since it is coordinated syntactically to the conjunction walaken "but". The whole verse reads as follows: "...and their saying, we did kill the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah; whereas they slew him not nor crucified him, but he was made to appear to them (like the one crucified)" "Waqawlihim inna qatalna al Massih Issa ibn Maryam rasul Allah, WAMA qataluhu WAMA salabuhu WALAKEN shubbiha lahum". If we substitute the interrogative pronoun "ma" instead of the negative morpheme "ma", as the author wants us to, the sentence would be grammatically and semantically nonsensical, an anomaly.

Regarding [reviewer]"conjunctions 'wa' which means 'so, then' and 'ma' which has two meanings in both dialects - 'ma' the interrogative pronoun meaning 'what' and 'ma' the negative morpheme meaning 'not'. It is the context of the sentence that distinguishes the meaning," compare:

about _A 'Perfect' Qur'an_
We note admissions that the scholars differ as the whether the Qur'anic texts say 'NO' when they should say 'YES' - and that this varies from text to text. We observe Mr Deedat 'switching' texts - and some 'no's for 'yes's.

Dacritic said...

Mr Ford, so you're showing that the Quran now ACTUALLY says Jesus was crucified and died in agreement with the Bible? I wonder what the repercussions are to the Muslims. Any Muslims wanna deny this?

Anonymous said...

That opening statement by Dr. Craig is impressive. How did this debate impact or influence Nabeel's journey from islam to Christiany?

Ken said...

WLC did a good job of defending the Bible and Christianity against Islam.

Though I would disagree with his Molinism and the way he puts aside the doctrine of inerrancy and the doctrine of original sin; and other inter-denominational disputes we have (Free will, Calvinism); overall, he did a good job; and I appreciate his defense of the Bible and the Christian concept of God.

The other debate that WLC did with Shabir Ally on the same subject was good also; even better than this one.

I am not a Reformed blogger looking for ways to cut down WLC every chance I get. I am Reformed in my theology like Dr. White, but I have also dealt with Muslims for 31 years now, one on one and in overseas contexts, and in another langugage. (I have never done formal debates; so I am no where close to your or Dr. White or Sam Shamoun or Samuel Green in that area of debates.) I admire your courage and wit in debates and your blog, and you are very good at answering Muslims; So, please don't "go ballistic" on me, for I am asking with all sincerity. I am sincerely asking this on how to deal with the next 2 set of issues:

1. Shabir brought up the verses, for example in Psalm 5:5 - "God hates all evildoers". WLC said it was "poetic and hyperbole". How would you answer Shabir?

I am just asking because smart Muslims who are studying the Bible more are countering with those verses on that subject, that "God loves everybody equally".

2. They also counter with verses in the Bible that seem to say the God deceives when I use Surah 3:54; 8:30, etc. - "Allah is the very best deceiver."

I don't think the God of the Bible can deceive, as Titus 1:2 says that God is not able to lie; and 1 John 1:5 and other passages speak of God as so holy and light and in Him there is no darkness at all, etc.

I think all of those passages have to be understood as God allowed others to do the actual deception (the lying spirit in 1 Kings 22:22, Ezekiel 14:9-10; 2 Thess. 2:11; etc.) The passages that Jeremiah says "you decieved me" are Jeremiah's wrong perception of what God has done and allowed.

I am also interested to know how you would deal with 2 issues.

David Wood said...

Ken said: "So, please don't 'go ballistic' on me, for I am asking with all sincerity."

You've never seen me go ballistic. You've never even seen me mildly upset. You have, however, seen me respond to people whose behavior I find disturbing (e.g., Truth Defenders, who calls Muslims "scumbags"). So, when people go around the internet condemning one of Christianity's top apologists by quoting a couple of Bible verses, condemning his theology, warning of the dangerous consequences of his theology, and saying that his view leads to relativism and idolatry, I'm going to quote a couple of Bible verses, condemn their theology, warn of the dangerous consequences of their theology, and say that their view leads to relativism and idolatry. Then, when they storm off, I will storm off. Funny how upset people get when I take the opposing view and parody their behavior.

Then I refuse to talk to them anymore, because if they're seeking division, they should get what they're looking for. If people can watch ISIS chopping off heads and college kids getting their faith ridiculed and still think that their time is best spent attacking Christian apologists, I'm not going to pretend that we're on the same page. Perhaps if we all just divide up like certain people want, they will eventually realize that it's folly to spend their time causing division, and we might some day be able to focus on more important things.

But now that it's started, I'll have to continue. I have a debate and a conference next week, so I'll have to focus on those for now. When I get back, I'll start poking at reformed theology (even though if I were forced to come down on a side, I would side with the reformed guys on at least four of the five points). The bottom line is that when I post a clip of Piper, or Oliphant, or White, it's extraordinarily rare to see a complaint from the non-reformed camp. But the moment I post a clip from someone who's non-reformed, we all have to get sidetracked and bogged down in theological discussions. I can't simply sit here and let this continue unchallenged. And the way I protect someone (in this case, Craig) is by giving people another target to shoot at. So I'm going to make myself a target for people who want to complain. Catch up with me next weekend and you'll see what I mean.

As for OT verses saying that God hates, it's never occurred to me that there's any contradiction between saying, "God loves X in one sense," and "God hates X in another sense" (any more than it's a contradiction to say "God is one" in one sense, and "God is three" in another sense). If my sons became axe-murderers, I would still love them in one sense (they are my children), but one could say that I hate them in another sense (they are axe-murderers).

But apart from that, there's a more fundamental methodological consideration at work. I simply consider a clear command from Christ when he is explaining God's nature to be more theologically foundational than someone crying out against sinners in the Psalms. All Bible passages are the Word of God, but not all passages are the Word of God in the same sense. So any interpretation of the Psalms will have to line up with the clear claims of Christ. There are multiple ways of harmonizing passages while keeping the words of Christ central (Craig's interpretation is one example).

David Wood said...

As for God deceiving, I usually point out when I address Allah's deception that I have no objections to God somehow giving people a delusion or something similar, provided there is some just cause. But that's not what we find in Islam. Allah ended up deceiving not only the Jews, but also Jesus' own followers (people who had converted to Islam), convincing everyone that Jesus had died by crucifixion, and accidentally starting the largest false religion in the world. Notice also that the true God, after sending the deceitful spirit, also sent a true prophet to declare what he had done. Compare this with Allah, who deceives countless people but doesn't send the correction until six centuries later (when it's taken as historical fact that Jesus died). Beyond this, the impact is quite different. Abu Bakr was so terrified of Allah's deception that he declared, "If I had one foot in paradise, I would still fear Allah's deception." I can't imagine any Christian saying that about the God of scripture.

Hope that helps. But now that you know I have a debate next week and websites to run, I hope you're not going to keep pressing the theological questions, adding more fuel to the inevitable flames of division.

Ken said...

Thanks David!
I totally agree that some Reformed folks go overboard in their zeal on the internet and too harsh against WLC, Arminians, and Muslims, etc.

And it is wrong to call Muslims "scumbags". I did not know that about "Truth Defenders"

I appreciate your answer and have no intention of pressing the issue any further.

ImmersionHomeschool said...

Would you be able to provide details as to when and where your debate will be, if it is not invitation only? Also, will it be streamed or post it to YouTube?

David Wood said...

It's in Huntington Beach, CA, this coming Tuesday. I'll post an announcement in the next day or two.

Unknown said...

[Dacritic]"so you're showing that the Quran now ACTUALLY says Jesus was crucified and died in agreement with the Bible?"

I'm showing that the Quran could very well actually say that "Jesus was crucified and died in agreement with the" Injeel/ New Testament scriptures of the followers of the prophet Jesus.
That the Quran might actually say this ought not be surprising, given that Quran allegedly confirmed what's in the Injeel:

Sura 3.003
Y: It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book,
confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and
the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent
down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).
S: He has revealed to you the Book with truth, verifying that which is
before it, and He revealed the Tavrat and the Injeel aforetime, a
guidance for the people, and He sent the Furqan.

That last word is mis-marked for pronunciation in current Qurans. I assume the word actually means "commandments"-- see:

Donner, Fred M. Autumn 2007. "Quranic Furqan" _Journal of Semitic Studies_ 52(2)
The article proposes a new etymology of the word 'furqan' in the Qur'an, arguing that in some cases it is derived from the Aramaic/Syriac word 'purqana', 'salvation', as long assumed by many Western scholars, while in some other cases it goes back to the Syriac 'puqdana', 'commandment'. The implication is that some passages of the Qur'an text must have been transmitted, at some point, only in written form without the benefit of a secure tradition of oral recitation, otherwise the misreading of Syriac 'puqdana' as 'furqan' could not have occurred.

Unknown said...

The Quran is roughly 70% Aramaic. Consequently, having a good understanding of Aramaic/Syriac is a prerequisite for translating the Quran well.

Mick Jagger Gathers No Mosque said...

It is fascinating to see such certitude being expressed about a non-existent Q source; in fact, the longer it remains undiscoverable the stronger the faith in it grows

Unknown said...

When the New Testament was translated from its original Aramaic into Greek, some information was lost, including the presence of many instances of "I AM" statements. In the Aramaic it is two instances of "ana"-- "I"-- back to back. The letters are "ana ana," pronounced "ena na," and can be translated as "It is I" or "I AM." One translator says that 97% of the time in the Old Testament, "ENA-NA" is said by YHWH. It is a similar situation in the New Testament, where the overwhelming percent of the time, "ena-na" appears to be al-Nabia Isa hinting at his being YHWH. Rarely, it is someone else making an appeal to being God, or someone apparently suggesting that the Meshikha/ Messiah is YHWH, or someone merely saying "It is I"/ "It's me." To illustrate the very last category, see Lk 1:19 (when the angelic messenger Gabriel speaks), and Jn 9:9 (when a blind man who al-Nabia Isa healed speaks). I invite you to pull out your New Testaments and look at each of these instances, and if you have questions, examine the interlinear translation at

ENA-NA's and ena-na's in Mt - Acts 16, in the Aramaic Peshitta
Mt 14:27, 22:32, 24:5
Mk 6:50, 12:26, 13:6, 14:62
Lk 1:19, 8:9, 21:8, 22:70, 24:36
Jn 1:20, 4:26;
6:20, 35, 41, 48, 51;
8:12, 24, 28, 58;
10:7, 9, 11, 14;
11:25; 13:19; 14:6;
15:1, 5;
18:5, 6, 8, 37
Acts 7:32, 8:9, 9:5

4 biographies about al-Nabia Isa ibn Maryam

Unknown said...

I also find it interesting you imply 5th Bible original in aramaic to greek. Being most of it was written by a Greek Jew. And Greg not Aramaic was most common at time.

Unknown said...

Well David again I see you make Allah's Identity so clear for true believers. Meaning those who know who the Father of deception is. I was muslim. For a time. Until God really showed me truth. Truth I had known and gave up for a lie. I realized the Web of lies told in Islam. Also all the truths it uses to conceal them. The things you say may sound good to those that don't know the true heart of islam. Like for instance Islam states we are all born muslim or in a state of Islam. Which means everyone is born in a state of submission to allah. I find that in my bible. Just slightly different. We are all born slaves to the Father of sin. We are submitted to him until Christ blood sets use free. Again it shows who allah is. I pray that you receive truth. You are trying to twist lies. Muslims would kill you for a lot of what you say. Jesus was killed. Even what you wrote made no sense. Aramaic is not even a factor in the Quran. You try try to correct the sound Hadith. The Sahid. The good chain. Your not even muslim. Your worse. Your a justifier. Find a lope hole guy. Maybe I am wrong maybe you come across wrong. If you really are deceived by the deceiver I pray God Jesus set you free.

Unknown said...

So let me get this taught one more time. A Roman Greek writing to Greeks. Where greek was the common language of the Roman Empire at time. Which much of new testament was Paul to greek people. Wrote instead in Aramaic. To maybe confuse the people he was writing to. You know this cause without anyone else knowing the original letters were found.
Then in an area were most were illiterate Muhammad being 9 need of them they changed Muhammad's words to Aramaic when they wrote them for him. From they Arabic he spoke them in. But only 70% they changed. They did this translation while writing the verses on leafs and what ever else they could find. Or did they change it when it was assembled after his death. So I suppose old testament was written in the language as well even though during most of old testament times it didn't exist yet. Just wondering if I am seeing what fairytails this is coming from.

Unknown said...

The presence of the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew "YHWH" was lost during the translation of the New Testament (NT) from its original Aramaic into Greek. Below is a list of the instances of Mar-Ya i.e. Master YHWH appearing in the Aramaic NT preserved by the Church of the East, the Peshitta. Note that this doesn’t cover any instances of "Master YHWH" that might be in the "Western Five" books (II Peter, II John, III John, Jude and Revelation). The Church of the East reveres those 5 books and encourages their study, but they don't read from them during their church services-- unlike the other 22 NT books.

Mt 1:20, 1:22, 1:24, 2:13, 2:15, 2:19, 3:3, 4:7, 4:10, 5:33, 12:4, 21:9, 21:42, 22:37, 22:43, 22:44, 22:45, 23:39, 27:10, 28:2

Mk 1:3, 2:26, 5:19, 11:9, 12:11, 12:29, 12:29, 12:30, 12:36, 13:20

Lk 1:6, 1:9, 1:11, 1:15, 1:16, 1:17, 1:25, 1:32, 1:38, 1:45, 1:46, 1:66, 1:68, 1:76, 2:9, 2:11, 2:15, 2:22, 2:23, 2:23, 2:24, 2:26, 2:38, 2:39, 3:4, 4:8, 4:12, 4:18, 4:19, 5:17, 6:4, 10:27, 13:35, 17:29, 19:38, 20:37, 20:42

Jn 1:23, 12:13, 12:38

Acts 1:24, 2:20, 2:21, 2:34, 2:36, 2:38, 3:19, 3:22, 4:24, 4:26, 4:29, 5:9, 5:14, 5:19, 6:3, 7:30, 7:31, 7:33, 7:37, 7:49, 8:26, 8:39, 9:10, 9:15, 9:27, 10:36, 11:21, 11:21, 12:7, 12:11, 12:17, 12:23, 13:10, 13:11, 13:12, 13:49, 14:3, 14:25, 14:26, 15:17, 15:17, 16:32, 18:9, 18:25, 18:26, 19:10

Romans 9:28, 9:29, 10:12, 10:13, 11:34, 14:9, 14:11, 14:14, 15:11, 16:6

1Cor 1:31, 2:16, 3:5, 3:20, 4:4, 4:5, 4:17, 4:19, 7:17, 8:6, 10:26, 11:27, 11:27, 11:29, 12:3, 12:5, 14:21, 15:47, 15:58, 15:58, 16:10

2Cor 2:12, 3:16, 3:17, 3:17, 3:18, 3:18, 6:17, 6:18, 10:17, 10:18

Eph 2:21, 4:5, 4:17, 5:19, 6:9

Philippians 2:11, 2:29

Colossians 3:22, 3:24, 4:1, 4:7

2Thess 3:3

1Timothy 6:2

2Timothy 2:19, 2:19

Hebrews 6:3, 7:21, 8:8, 8:9, 8:10, 8:11, 10:16, 10:30, 12:5, 12:6, 13:5

James 1:7, 3:9, 4:10, 4:15, 5:4, 5:7, 5:10, 5:11, 5:11

1 Peter 2:3, 3:12, 3:12, 3:15, 5:3

4 biographies about al-Nabia Isa ibn Maryam

transcription of the Khabouris Codex

Aramaic Lexicon and Concordance