Were The Prophets/Messiahs Jesus and Mohammed Inspired By The Same God?

you and buzzsaw can't spell the name of god right, and are defending a faulty translitation based on a misunderstanding of jewish tradition? i'm sorry fæth, but this arrogance just isn't working, especially when you don't understand the remedial stuff yourself.

---

אָרַח

What you are not understanding is that the Muslim god, ALLAH can be used generically, but to the Muslim it is always refered to as the proper name of the Muslim god and in fact is the only proper name of the Muslim god, just as Jehovah/Yahweh is the only proper name of the Biblical god/elohim. Thus if you wish to convert to Islam you MUST say ALLAH IS GOD AND MOHAMMED IS HIS PROPHET. Notice that in this sentence you have two words, one a proper name and the other the title, but both with the same meaning!With Jehovah/Yahweh, not so. For example, JEHOVAH/YHWH IS GOD/ELOHIM. In this statement you have also the proper name and title, but each with different meanings, Jehovah/YHWH meaning 'the existing one' and god/elohim meaning 'god or deity.' Savvy?

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

that would be me. and it's her.

isn't it your job as a christian to educate the lost in christian theology?slacker.seriously. it sounds to me like you're dodging. stop. listen. test it. then deny. but don't just dodge. it's dishonest.and it really is your job to educate us in christian theology. (emphasis mine)unless you don't like to do what jesus tells you to. but that's your business, i suppose.

Once upon a time I was in a room, talking to a pacific islander. It turned out that the pacific islander did not have our concept of dog. As part of his culture, all small mammals were considered in the same way, and the same word used to refer to them all.As we were talking, we noticed a dog outside the window. More correctly, I noticed a dog outside the window, and the islander noticed a small mammal outside the window. We were both looking at the same animal.My concept of dog was very different from the islander's concept of small mammal. Nevertheless, we could talk about the animal outside the window, and be sure that we were talking about the same animal. I used the word "dog" to talk about that animal, while the islander used his native word for "small mammal" to talk about it. Our concepts were different. Our meanings were different, since our meanings reflected our concepts. But our reference was to the same animal outside the window.End of fable.My point: Although Christians and Muslims may have different concepts of God, their reference can still be to the same God.As I see it, there are only two sensible answers to the question raised by buzsaw.A Christian (and Muslim) should both answer that they are referring to the same God.An atheist should assert that they are referring to different Gods, but that's because an atheist believes that man creates God in his (man's) image, and that different men therefore create different Gods.

Arach, Jehovah is the proper Modern English rendering of the Hebrew YHWH. The translators of all the translations would agree, leaving you the odd man out. The Y and the V being added later on as the English language progressed, you get pretty much what would sound like yahoah without them. Does that ring any bells for you?

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

The problem here, unlike your alleged analogy is that the animal looked and acted the same regardless of what you called him, but here you have two distinct beings/gods. One prophesies the coming of his messiah to earth with empirically verified fulfillment and the other who denies that the fulfillment is his son/messiah. You have one who's messiah/prophet has over a dozen wives, one which he bedded at age 9, the other who had none. You have one who's messiah advocates fighting and killing the infidel and who himself had many brutally beheaded, the other who advocates even doing good to the enemy, (AbE: even to the point of restoring the ear of a soldier who came to arrest him to be crucified.) On and on we could go. What is your response to that? Are you advocating that both messiah/prophets were inspired by the same god?This message has been edited by buzsaw, 12-22-2005 11:56 PM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

Hey, madear sister in Christ, thanks much for coming on. This is a luxury, doing a volitile thread like this with some solid support for truth. You make some good and sensible points, as above. God bless!

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

no, it is not the proper modern english rendering. and i've explained to you why. really? let's look. here's the first verse the name appears in, kjv:

quote:

---

Gen 2:4 These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

---

here's some other translationes, courtesy of Blue Letter Bible.

quote:

---

NLT - Gen 2:4 - This is the account of the creation of the heavens and the earth.

​

When the LORD God made the heavens and the earth,
New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust

​

NKJV - Gen 2:4 - This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,
New King James Version © 1982 Thomas Nelson

​

NASB - Gen 2:4 - This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.
New American Standard Bible © 1995 Lockman Foundation

​

RSV - Gen 2:4 - These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
Revised Standard Version © 1947, 1952.

​

Webster - Gen 2:4 - These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.
Noah Webster Version 1833 Info

​

Young - Gen 2:4 - These [are] births of the heavens and of the earth in their being prepared, in the day of Jehovah God's making earth and heavens;
Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898 Info

​

Darby - Gen 2:4 - These are the histories of the heavens and the earth, when they were created, in the day that Jehovah Elohim made earth and heavens,
J.N.Darby Translation 1890 Info

​

ASV - Gen 2:4 - These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.
American Standard Version 1901 Info

​

HNV - Gen 2:4 - This is the history of the generations of the heavens and of the eretz when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made eretz and the heavens.
Hebrew Names Version 2000 Info

​

Vulgate - Gen 2:4 - istae generationes caeli et terrae quando creatae sunt in die quo fecit Dominus Deus caelum et terram
Jerome's Latin Vulgate 405 A.D. Info

---

i see two jehovah's there, and both are from the 19th century. curious, hmm? i'm sure you have some bibles laying around your house. probably a few different versions, too. pick one, see how it renders it.why, pray tell, does every single modern english translation, and most of the older ones too, render "yhwh" as "LORD?" could it possibly have anything to do with the word "adonay?" "v" is quite old, as is "y." their usages have changed some, but so has the pronounciation of "j." jah- would be correct in german, because it's "yah." think of the german name "jan" which we would say "Yahn"we know where the j and the v came from. the issue is the vowels -- especially in the case of the vav. that's right, that "v" in the hebrew "YHVH" is A VOWEL. if a vav has a point above, it's "o" and to the left is "u". but i have never, ever seen a word with a o vowel point BEFORE a vav. it's not made like a real hebrew word.

---

אָרַח

Arach, Have you ever bothered to read ANYTHING about how the Bible translators work and what real theologians have to say about such things?

Your point is completely irrelevant to the actual argument. The argument is that "Allah" cannot refer to the Jewish God. However since "Allah" is a direct equivalent of "God". clearly "Allah" and "God" can refer to the same thing.

Most of us learned this a long time ago!Brian.

quote:

---

why, pray tell, does every single modern english translation, and most of the older ones too, render "yhwh" as "LORD?" could it possibly have anything to do with the word "adonay?"

---

I had understood that YHWH was rendered LORD (adonai) when reading the text so as not to say the proper name of God.I did notice this verse in which the word "lord" is the word adonai and "GOD" is the YHWH. So in this instance YHWH is rendered GOD. YHWH is supposedly the proper name of the Jewish God though, right or am I missing what you are saying?

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

I forgot to clarify the intent of my statement. The point that I meant to make is that in most of these translations there is the modern English JEHOVAH several times, the point being that these linguists do recognize that when properly translated, the JEHOVAH as being the ligitimate proper name of the Biblical God, i.e. YHWH/JEHOVAH. The KJV does have this usage in several places, but as Purpledawn points out the only reason it is substituted LORD, (Hebrew=ADONAI) is to evade the YHWH, due to later OT superstitious ideas about usage of the proper name of God. The RECEIVED text/manuscrips, from which the KJV was taken DOES HAVE YHWH in it thousands of times. Thus the more literal 1901 American Standard Version, my favorite and the most accurately literal translation existing, imo (ASV) uses it (Jehovah) properly thousands of times.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

yes faeth, i have. i turns out that a lot of translations are highly dependent on other translations, especially the kjv. but then, if you've read anything, you know that too. perhaps you're also aware of the ideological reasonings for different translations? we've seen a few on here -- the wt, the bom, etc. but no translation is without bias.seriously fayth, this is bible 101 stuff. i explained pages ago where this mis-transliteration comes from, and the jewish customs that caused the confusion. it's not my fault that you're more interested in defending dogma than making statements that are accurate. 9 out of 10 real theologians don't know what they're talking about. especially if they're defending this particular misnomer.

---

אָרַח