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

The tetragrammaton (In English YHWH) is translated I am that I am. "Jehovah" is merely the English transliteration as you say. The meaning is what matters, not the mere letters in ANY language. That's just obsessionalizing superstitious nitpicking. (And since nobody really knows what the transliteration should be how can you just flatly assert that it's inaccurate anyway?) "Jehovah" refers to the tetragrammaton so it refers to the meaning "I Am that I Am." "Allah" was originally the name of the Arab Moon God, but now it's the generic "God." In any case it doesn't refer to "I Am that I Am." "Jehovah" does.{AbE: So somebody from, say, Mongolia, has trouble pronouncing your name, and writes it in such a way that they can recognize it in their own language though it's a sad mangling of the name in your language. I guess you are going to insist that their word is meaningless, doesn't really mean anything, because it's an inaccurate transliteration due to their inability to process English sounds? No, unless you're really as rude all the time as you are so often at EvC, I think if they called you by that name you'd answer.}This message has been edited by Faith, 12-22-2005 06:49 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 12-22-2005 06:50 PM

Transliterations are more important than translations - you will note that most names in any Bible you choose are transliterated rather than translated. And we can certainly point out that the consonant that starts "Yahweh" is better represented by a "Y" than a "J" in English.More importantly, this "Arabic Moon God" business is just bunk - it's been dealt with here before. "Allah" is simply the Arabic equivalent of "God" - it is not a name.And if you know anything about Islam you know that it is part of Islamic doctrine that the Moses, Jesus and Muhammad were prophets of the same God. If you do not know that then you simply have no business trying to discuss the subject.s

It all depends how personal God is to you. If you quite honestly assert that you met Him rather than merely praying to Him, the question becomes "Who did you meet?"Anyone can claim to meet someone.
Fred met an alien.
Joyce met Harvey the Rabbit.(she was off her meds)
Phat met Jesus. (How does anyone know except Phat?)

So somebody from, say, Mongolia, has trouble pronouncing your name, and writes it in such a way that they can recognize it in their own language though it's a sad mangling of the name in your language. I guess you are going to insist that their word is meaningless, doesn't really mean anything, because it's an inaccurate transliteration due to their inability to process English sounds? No, unless you're really as rude all the time as you are so often at EvC, I think if they called you by that name you'd answer.Yes I know all the lore about Islam. Your denial of the source of Allah is what is bunk. In any case Allah is not the same God because he doesn't have a Son. The true God does, and His Name is I Am that I Am.

You change your arguments. I call you on it and I am the bad guy?Faith you cant have it both ways. Either the bible is the word of god or it isn't. You can't continue your lines of argument if you are going to selectively decide what is important in the bible and what isn't.Oh yeah. That is how christianity works.

If anyone chooses to use a faulty transliteration when a better one is available then they are certainly being rude. An inaccurate transliteration may truthfully be said to be meaningless since it is neither the original word nor even a good attempt at representing it in another.

quote:

---

Yes I know all the lore about Islam. Your denial of the source of Allah is what is bunk. In any case Allah is not the same God because he doesn't have a Son. The true God does, and His Name is I Am that I Am.

---

The God of the Jews does not have a literal Son, therefore if that is relevant it is Christians who worship a differnet God.As for your suppoert for the alleged derivation of the title Allah I ahve already sown it to be bubk in an eralier thread. You may well regard the truth as inferior to bigotry and falsehood but in doing so you only expose the real nature of your religion.

I have not selectively decided anything. You are having some problem of your own. The Bible is the word of God and nothing I have said contradicts that. That is something of your own imagination. You don't seem to know what you are talking about but you don't mind saying it in the most aggressive nasty way nevertheless.

Let me try this one more time. You insult me by accusing me of changing my arguments, but the fact is that you are assuming this in your own head about what the argument is instead of caring what I think about any of it. I am not changing my argument and if you have misunderstood something or think I seem to be contradicting myself, the polite thing to do would be to assume I have a different understanding than you have rather than that I'm contradicting myself. Most people don't contradict themselves that casually, and the polite thing to do is to realize that and assume it's your own error instead. Ask me what I mean -- tell me what you think I meant before and what I seem to be saying now so I can correct your misimpression. Just bashing me with this accusation, which is false, is extremely rude. Listen to yourself go on in this rude way. This apparently comes out of your own misunderstanding of what it means to say the Bible is the word of God. You can't expect to treat people like this and have a real conversation. How rudely certain you are, and about what? Who knows?

no, faith. it's history. it's basic knowledge of the religion. you're saying to me that what the bible actually SAYS is not important. it's silly. you're saying what god's name is, is silly.and it's not a neccessary change from one language into another. it's a misunderstanding of a hebrew custom. i hate to be "nitpicky" but "i am" in biblical hebrew is אהיה as in אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה, which is what god tells moses his name is. notice that it's not יְהוָה which god uses in the next verse as his name "for all generations." no. it's not. there is one god, and his name is yahweh. this is a very important point, don't you think? who god is? which god we believe in? yes, but it DOES mean what elohym means, and it's spelled remarkably similar.

---

אָרַח

surely if the bible is the word of god, and you really believe that, you'd be willing to give it the respect of accuracy that it deserves.

---

אָרַח

look up the etymology of elohym. i think you'd be suprised where it comes from.see, אלהים is the plural אלוה which is the expanded אל. "el" is the name of a god in hebrew, ugaritic, akkadian, phoenician, aramaic, and you guessed it, arabic. el was a god to babylonians, the assyrians, the ugarits, amorites, and just about every canaanite tribe.the closest related word for something else in hebrew is איל which means "ram"several other relations have been made. el appears often related to bulls (think golden calves in the bible), and some have suggested relation to wind and mountain gods consistent with the ugaritic texts."allah" and "elowah" are quite directly related. elowah, btw, it job's favourite word for god. neither does elohym, elokym, el shadday, el elyon, elowah, el, eloi, adonay, or ha-shem.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-22-2005 09:10 PM

---

אָרַח

The supposed derivation from elohim is totally bogus, made up after the fact. No surprises there. Those are generic terms for God, just as I said Allah is. Jehovah is based on the actual NAME of God, and the Name is His attributes and character, and those are not the same for Allah.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-22-2005 09:22 PM

So what your saying after arachnophilia is "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up"There is no sense debating you. No matter what evidence is presented you will just deny or use an argument that completely goes against arguments you have used in other threads.Evidently, "It doesn't matter" pertains to anything not within your belief system.

what supposed derivation from elohym? i was talking about what elohym was derived from, not what was derived from elohym.do you honestly think that el, elowah, and elohym are unrelated? do you honestly not know that "el" is the generic semitic word for god, and a name of god in just about every language in that area of the world? do you not see how titles have replaced names in hebrew tradition? do you honestly not know that hebrews do not speak the name of god, only his title, which they use like a name?are you really not interested in your own religion's roots?This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-22-2005 09:36 PM

---

אָרַח

No, that appears to be what YOU are saying though.Arach just repeated the common rationalization that Allah is derived from the same source as Elohim, the Hebrew generic for "God" or "gods."The fact is that Muslims don't treat "Allah" as a generic word for "God" but as the actual name of God. This is evidenced for instance by their using that name even when they speak other languages, such as English. They speak English just fine until it comes to "Allah," and then they don't say "God" they say "Allah." So obviously they regard "Allah" as a name, not a generic for God. "Elohim" is the Hebrew generic for God. "Allah" is not although they say it is.No, "Allah" is their name for God, and leaving aside its derivation, it is not the same name for God that God Himself in the Bible gives for Himself. Therefore they are not the same God.One can accept in a general sense, to be polite, although it is not accurate to do so, that "Allah" simply means "God" and that Muslims mean by the term the one true God who runs the universe, but even so Allah does not have the same characteristics as the God of the Bible, so they are not the same God. They deny that God has a Son and that makes him definitely not the God of the New Testament.{AbE: Here's a reference}This message has been edited by Faith, 12-22-2005 09:52 PM