A Message from Syed M (Part I)

    Syed is a blogger that i made the acquaintance with on Raja Petra Kamaruddin's 
    Blog Malaysia Today. He messaged me after some apologetics that i was involved
    in discussion on Raja's Blog. I had hoped, we could continue the conversation here.
    My apologies for the slow response. I did not notice his message earlier. Syed has
    mentioned that he wants to continue his responses off the Blog. Therefore, i will
    only reply to his initial message to me in these posts

        

       D Tan

       Sorry did not notice your message. Let's have a friendly conversation. I will post
       what you said on my blogspot http://waytruthnlife.blogspot.ca/ in a day or so with
       a reply. I'd like others to see what we have to say. You can keep messaging me or
       reply on the Blog.
       Awesome !!! ....

• 1/18, 12:18am

  Syed M

  
  

  
  

  hi don tan, christian don't have original hebrew gospel to begin with... if you
  study arabic qur'an,even if you are an atheist, you will end up in position to
  say its crucial to have the authentic word as evidence to begin with.. if not,
  there will always be new version of bible, which is not the same as past 
  bible, let alone the original gospel.. if i ask christian which is the word 
  of god that jesus knew about? christian have a lot of branches that follow 
  different book such as catholic, catholic bible is less number of pages and 
  different in translation, without authentic word give different meaning, 
  during those era, the word do not have depth like we have today to take 
  into consideration... this is why in Islam we say arabic word of qur'an is
  the word of god, translation is only to make us understand..because in 
  translation it can be done next week, or last week, so i can no longer say 
  this qur'an translation is 1400 years old book but only last week, 
  translation is not word of god but word of translator choice of word. 
  example in arabic which is ayyam, it mean days but what is the authentic 
  understanding of people in those era may not be the same, because they 
  don't have such word as minute,hour, so the more accurate is to say period 
  of time.. other example is Christ, today if i ask christian, they will say 
  resurrection of jesus and try to convert you..but the authentic meaning is
  anointed which mean chosen as successor... nothing to do with resurrection
  and muslim in 3:45 are made to belief that jesus is Christ in qur'an, arabic
  word Masihi, hebrew messiah.
  
  
  Syed, you certainly raised some important issues. I think understand what
  you are saying. If i am not mistaken. Arabic is very much like Malay of 
  which i am semi fluent. Arabic sentences are full of metaphors. A word 
  can mean many things depending on context and structure. Also, 
  historically the context may have change. A word like ayyam may have 
  meant something similar like 'time period' as apposed to 'days'.  Similarly, 
  Hebrew which i am rediscovering the Old Testament. What you really
   mean to say is that the Bible is really 'Lost in Translation'. We've never 
  had an Aramaic Bible (New Testament). Therefore who really knows what 
  the details are. As per your statement on Original Hebrew (Old Testament). 
  What do you mean ? Ancient Hebrew (950 B.C.E) basic forms or the even 
  the older Proto Canaanite (1500 B.C.E) pictograms ? I suggest you look at
   the Isaiah Scroll (~ 335BC) at the Israel Museum found in qumran 1947. 
  It looks very authentic to me.
  
  

  

                                            Great Isaiah Scroll (Ancient Hebrew devoid of vowels)
  
   I believe there are a lot of muslim apologists that want to descredit the Old 
  Testament. Take my advise, as far as, the Old Testament is concerned. 
  Islamic manuscripts have yet to undergo the same verification and scrutiny
  the Old Testament has gone through. You may want to look through my 
  blog entries.
  
  (to be continued)
  
  
  

Yo' N' ah (Za-Noon) the one with an `N' in his name

Just before the Destruction of Israel in 722 B.C the prophet Hosea made a profound
statement about the Israelites

 my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.

“Because you have rejected knowledge,
    I also reject you as my priests;
because you have ignored the law of your God,
    I also will ignore your children.

 ~ Hosea 4:6

Interestingly, he does not say, because of sin, disobedience, or lack of repentance. 
Why was the emphasis primarily on the 'lack of knowledge'. The rejection of 
knowledge and ignorance of the law. Led astray by priests who had deserted the 
LORD to worship other gods (foreign religions).  


It was the Pharisees who tried to corner Yeshua. When they pressed him for a Sign.
This was his reply.
  
³⁹ But Jesus replied, “Only an evil, adulterous generation would demand a 
miraculous sign; but the only sign I will give them is the sign of the prophet 
Jonah. ⁴⁰ For as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish for three days and 
three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth for three 
 days and three nights. 

~ Matthew 12: 39-40
 
Why Yo' N' ah (Za-Noon) the prophet Jonah ?  Jonah which means Dove.
Symbolically refering to Peace, Love, or Messenger. Islamists, and Secularists doubt
the validity of the Resurrected Christ, as did, the Pharisees. Perhaps, Yeshua pointed
out something else that was overlooked. The Idea of a Resurrection. Did Yahweh
perform one, once before ?

ג   וַיֹּאמֶר       , קָרָאתִי             מִצָּרָה    לִי                     אֶל-יְהוָה
el- yhwh(Elohim)      li   mi-sa-rah      qa-ra-ti,     va-yo-mer
  --וַיַּעֲנֵנִי         ; מִבֶּטֶן      שְׁאוֹל      שִׁוַּעְתִּי ,        שָׁמַעְתָּ   קוֹלִי. 2
        qo-li   sa-ma-ta  , si-va-ti    se-ol    mi-be-ten;  va-ya-ne-ni

 ~ יוֹנָה

                                                                        Yo-N-ah

And he said,  I cried,  by reason of my affliction,  unto,  Elohim, 
and He heard, from the depth;  Underworld, you cried, heard, my voice

~ Yonah 2:2
 

Martin Luther and the Reformation

     On the 31st October 1517 Martin Luther a Chatolic Monk nailed 95
Theses(or ideas) on the north door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg.
Therein, spurred the beginnings of the Protestant Reformation. There
are some misconceptions that have to be addressed.

    The idea that there was one Papacy in Rome that oversaw the
 Ecumenical Body of Christendom as a whole. This is a myth.
Christendom had two large bodies consisting of the Western Churches
(Roman Papal Body) and the Eastern Churches (Orthodox, Assyrian Body).
 Suffice to say, both bodies separated via mutual excommunication
 in 1054 (Filioque clause). Some refer to the Eastern Movement as the
(Early) Jesus Movement which should not be confused with the Jesus
Movement in the 60's ~ 70's i.e. Christian Revival in the US. Another
 myth, lays the blame on Martin Luther for the formation of a new
ecumenical protestant body.  

  
   Martin Luther did not advocate against Catholicism. He didn't say we
needed a new Biblical Canon, or a new Church. His 95 Theses (or ideas)
was his objection against the Papal Authority, of using indulgence money to
build a great church in Rome, and to the Pope's claim that he had power over
souls in purgatory. The Theses argued that religion was a personal matter
between God and man and that the Gospel of forgiveness in Jesus Christ was
 all-important. The Reformation happened as result of peasant uprisings
when Rome would not reconcile with this recalcitrant monk. He had the
backing of German Prince's. The Church was going to split anyway over small
 differences. There were other rising Theologians the likes of John Calvin,
 Michael Servetus, Huldrych Zwingli,.........etc etc etc (See Wikipedia
Reformation and Frederick Nohl's, Luther) Martin Luther himself a vehement
anti-semite was 'not a perfect man but an imperfect man'.

 What began as doctrinal differences, to me, is a non-issue. What is troubling
the Church today is compromise, and the acceptance of a foreign doctrine.

 

The Dialogue of Ipuwer and the 'Lord of All'

     Ktemoc Konsiders Blogspot, in his column, Why 'God' loved Isaac more than Ishmael
make's an interesting assertion. The writer picks apart the Old Testament by making
assertions, insinuations, and inferences. In looking for some evidence that the writer
might present to support his theories. I stumbled across, what would appear as
circumstantial proof that may support his arguments. While, i can't address, every detail
that he wrote. I don't consider insinuations to be proof.  Supernatural events in the Bible,
are supernatural, therefore i cannot present a logical argument based on a faith based
event. Eg.

  What did the Egyptians see in a 65 year old Hebrew woman 
that made them acclaim she was fair (beautiful)


He would have to ask the Lord how or why he renewed Sarah's youth. Miracles do
occur, doctors refer to them as Spontaneous Remissions, because they can't explain
why and how it happened. If you think a 60 plus mature woman can't look enchanting.
Checkout, Cheryl Tiegs, Christie Brinkley,........

However, there was one particular paragraph, that i picked out to be a valid argument.

Carrying on with other biblical mysteries, wakakaka:

The Israelis journeyed from Rameses to Succoth. There were 
about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and 
children ….. (Exodus 12:37)

The Book of Exodus narrates the preparation of the Hebraic 
exodus after the Pharaoh, cowered by the 10 plagues including
the death of his firstborn, gave Moses leave to lead 600,000 
male Jewish slaves plus their families, totalling some two million people, out of Egypt.

2,000,000 Hebrew slaves migrating out of Egypt!

Even allowing for some ancient exaggerations, yet there is not 
one single mention of this monumental migration in an ancient 
Egypt famed for its recording of anything and all things! No, 
not one!

Continuing:

Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 
430 years. At the end of the 430 years, to the very day, all the
Lords’ division left Egypt ….. (Exodus 12:40-41)

Nearly half a millennium of residence in Egypt by the hundreds 
of thousands (if not millions) of Hebrews – again there was not 
one ancient Egyptian record of them! Not one hieroglyphic, 
hieratic or demotic line anywhere!

As mentioned, this was a nation which recorded everything, 
about Pharaohs, their gods, floods, harvest, births, deaths, 
ownership of this and that, weather, social events, wars, etc, 
but not a skerrick of written line about 2,000,000 Hebrews 
living in their land for 430 years, let alone making a mass 
exodus.

This was an unexplained omission of amazing proportion by the Egyptian scribes. Or, was it?

Surely there must be something to explain the mysterious and
very monumental omission in ancient Egyptian records on the significant Hebraic presence there, unless of course there was 
no Hebrew ever in Egypt, and thus no Hebraic exodus took place.

The most puzzling mystery has been that in a land of such 
fastidious recording of events, not one single line of hieroglyph 
or hieratic or demotic in Egypt’s famed and vast repository of 
recording made any mention of this race, their or their mass 
exodus from Egypt.
The only account of the Hebrews living in Egypt and their exodus
out of Egypt is in the Tanakh, which coincidentally was written 
by their descendants, the Judeans while they were slaves in 
Babylon from 586 to 539 BC.

Consider then, the discovery of the Ipuwer Papyrus Manuscript which parallels the events
of the Exodus in the Tanakh. While secular historians dispute its correlation. It is clear, it
makes mention of one called the 'Lord of All'  Notable, Egyptologist Roland Enmarch

  'acknowledges that there are some textual parallels "particularly the striking statement 
that ‘the river is blood and one drinks from it’ (Ipuwer 2.10), and the frequent references
to servants abandoning their subordinate status (e.g. Ipuwer 3.14–4.1; 6.7–8; 10.2–3). 
On a literal reading, these are similar to aspects of the Exodus account." '

What is the Jesus doctrine ? Part III

 

         The conversation concludes with the assumption that the Bible therefore contradicts
itself, therefore it is not acceptable as a valid scriptural document. The Quran is superior,
even after, i raised the issues related to its creation. However, the Benchmark that i used
was the content of the writings, not who wrote it, and the apparent transmission errors. Is 
there any Truth in these manuscripts.  

 

Loopie San ·

Don Tan Sure.. we already knew that about the Quran.. the main point of it is there is no contradictions.. there is only 1 version.. could something that came from God contradicts itself? or there are multiple versions of it? Is God powerless to preserve His Revelations to His Prophets?

God is the All Powerfull.. it is just that only the Quran have the seal of guarantee, said by God in the Quran, He's the one that revealed it, and He's the one that will guard it from corruption.. and thus the lack of contradictions and multiple versions of the Quran.. if fact, it's challenged mankind to make even a surah / chapter like it if we are not sure about it's authencity..

Reply ·
· February 3 at 1:32am

Don Tan ·

Loopie San    Please don't take what i say in the wrong way. The Bible has seeming contradictions. The Gospels were written from the view point of the Disciples. Each one saw some differences in the events. The core message is still the same. Ask any police officer if witnesses describe a crime event identically ? 

Let's reduce the Gospels to one sentence. It was Jesus who said

' 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” ' ~ John 10

You can say, passages contradict each other. I think Muslims believe that Jesus had powers to Heal. In the middle east. A brilliant surgeon is usually referred to, as one, who has the 'Hands of Jesus'. Even a minor Prophet (Balaam) in the Old Testament, at the very least, spoke to a Donkey. So i am asking, and i take the Quran at its face value, that the surahs are perfect. Why did the author, did not have any evidence (miracles, prophecy etc etc) . The Quran itself does not prophecy anything that the Bible has said. Ezekiel 37 said the 'dry bones' holocaust survivors would be brought back to Israel as one example. I am highlighting the same verse again ,that i am taking at face value. My book talks about and reveals Supernatural Prophets and Events. The 'other book' says trust me because i am authentic but offers no proof that i am seeking.

[29:50] They said, "If only miracles could come down to him from his Lord!" Say, "All miracles come only from GOD; I am no more than a manifest warner."'

 
Please show me evidence from the Quran as verified by other (Jewish, Roman, Greek, Christian etc) witness accounts

What is the Jesus doctrine ? Part II

        It is interesting to note that the conversation continues with the tone of Christian
Scriptural Distortion, so closely, associated with a religious conspiracy tone. Alhaj
quotes experts that happen to agree with his view. I was hoping that he would establish
a benchmark, methodology, and personal insight. I am, well aware, of how a devout
Quranic believer would view Christianity and one's apparent bias. It is not enough just
to quote, experts that one like's. We are accountable for our own belief's on the Day of
Judgement, that is what i believe. Am i going to argue before the Lord on the Day of
Judgement. Dr. Bart Erhman said so, therefore,  i gave up my freewill to do my own
research or come to my own conclusions, using my own logical and spiritual mind ?
Alhaj engaged in plausible doubt, to which, i replied in plausible logic, and my
methodology to arrive at my conclusions. By the Way, i have seen a lot of debates,
and decided not to give up my own freewill, to come to my own conclusions. 

Alhaj Ibn Ibrahim Asysarawaky ·

Dear Don Tan

All the four gospels are not written by Mark, Matthew, Luke or John. They are written by 
other scribes, hence the term ‘the gospel according to’ Mark, Matthew, Luke or John and 
not said in certain term written by Mark, Matthew, Luke or John. The Gospel according to 
John is anti-Jew (anti-semitic) from the beginning contrary to John the disciple of Jesus 
who is as Jesus himself is a Jew. As you yourself found: the gospel evolved, layer by layer, 
changed from time to time.

You don’t have the original sayings of Jesus in Aramaic Hebrew in your gospels other than 
the single ‘Eli, Eli lama sabactani’. What could the real historical Jesus be and what was he 
actually teaching? Conveying a religion from a second language may create distortions, 
especially more if you don’t have as far as Christianity goes the originals in Aramaic to refer 
or resort to.

I read as many books as possible on Christianity. Facts are facts, interpretation are 
interpretations. The purpose of scholarship is to digest facts from interpretation or inclination
of what’s one wants to believe. The world of Christianity as a whole is not in full agreement 
that John of the Gospel according to John is the disciple of Jesus.

‘Who’s Who in The Age of Jesus’ written by an ex-Vatican priest, Dr. Geza Vermes, published
 by Penguin Reference Library is a good read (turn to page 145 on the topic John The 
Apostle).  Read also ‘Misquoting Jesus’ by Dr. Bart Ehrman. See his numerous debates in 
youtube to make sense with well-known Christian scholars like Prof. Craig Evans, 
Dr. William Craig, Dr. James White of the Alpha and Omega, to mention a few and plus 
Dr Daniel Wallace on bible manuscripts. None of them is saying that the other is lying or 
spreading lies.

Don Tan, I am a product of missionary school (Sacred Heart Secondary School of Roman 
Catholic denomination) in Sibu, Sarawak in the 60’s. My principal then was Brother Adrian. 
Taking Scriptures as a subject is a must in this school.

No offence intended.

Reply ·
· February 1 at 10:51pm

Don Tan ·

Alhaj Ibn Ibrahim Asysarawaky I am willing to take what you've said with a grain of salt.

We don't have an Aramaic compilation of the New Testament because Greek was the written and compiled language (lingua franca) of the Roman Conquerors. If you grant me Grace, i will explain why the gospels weren't written immediately or in Aramaic. Simply because, if you use common logic. Papyrus (Manuscripts) and scribing was an ultra expensive long process, and would have cost in the hundreds of millions of dollars to compile in those days. Secondly, who would you find to scribe it in Aramaic. Aramaic writings came from the Neo-Asyrian Empire (8 BCE). ‘Eli, Eli lama sabactani’ is transcribed using Greek letters. Think about it ?

So, it does not disturb me if they arrived later ~4AD (Codex Sinaiticus) in Greek. Transmission errors are also evident. Interpretation is what you want to make of it but because we have thousands of copies to compare. We have the advantage to see what the differences were. That is why we have textual criticism.

I've researched the Quran as well, and have listened to opinions from quranic researchers (not imam). Historical professors and one from the University of Al-Azhar. In my opinion, the old testament (Tanakh) is the most accurate because they implement parity checking (word counts). I saw for myself a transcriber in Masada Israel counting the words as he was writing the Tanakh onto a new scroll.

Parity checking is superior, when compared to the Hafiz Scribers. The Quran itself is a product of evolution from the Qureshi Dialect i.e. Uthmani Compilation. The Gospel Manuscripts are intact unlike the multiple copies of the (~ 200) Quran that were discarded. Most Muslims are not aware that the Quran they have is an interpretation of Qureyshi (Dialect) Versions that were discarded. However, they want to point out that the Quran is an original copy, and the Christian Bible is hap-hazard. There will always be historical doubt on ancient manuscripts, but i think it is the Christian Scholars who are more willing to be open, and honest about it. Again, most of the disciples were poor fisherman, they did not have loads of money to pay transcribers to pen the Gospels, and they did not have the technology (Guttenberg Press) to print out perfect copies. I Apologize for the less than acceptable accuracy that Anti-Christian Proponents seem to want to harp on, day and night.

Reply · 1 ·
· February 2 at 4:00pm

What is the Jesus doctrine ? Part I

      Raja Petra Kamarudin the Chief Editor on Malaysia Today wrote an article about the
Doctrine of Jesus.  See 'The doctrine of Jesus'

      The article highlights historical assumptions of the Biblical Christ which raised
doubt as to the True Nature of Christianity, and doubt as to the Divinity of Christ.
Essentially, does the historical record and events surrounding the Ecumenical Creation
of the Christian Church, base on a true interpretation of the Biblical Yeshua.

     What the article did, was spur an interesting discussion amongst the comments from
the readers. I would like to highlight some of the discussion beginning with a responce
from Alex Goh and forwarding replies  Note: There are multiple replies that lead down
different paths. I am just highlighting one trail.

 
Alex Goh ·


It is true the actual manuscripts of the New Testament authors are no longer in existence, but the same is true for the Old Testament and any of the major religions in the world. But biblical scholars employ a methodology to determine how accurate those Scriptures are-how soon were they written after the events and how many of them were around at the time. The New Testament copies or manuscripts numbered over 2,000 and any differences among them are minor and does not change the meaning of the Bibles in circulation today. So the alteration theory does not have strong evidence at all.Depending on which commentary is being referenced, the dating and authorship of the NT is likewise debatable- some claiming even earlier dates for the Gospel and Pauline manucripts.
Reply · 6 ·
· January 25 at 1:51am




Alhaj Ibn Ibrahim Asysarawaky ·


Dear Alex Goh

There are three Johns as regard to Jesus, two who lived in his time i.e. John The Baptist, John (the illiterate poor Jew fisherman) the disciple of Jesus and John (the educated, philosophical Greek or Roman) who “wrote” about a century later The Gospel of John. Read “Who’s Who in the Age of Jesus” by Dr Geza Vermes an ex-Vatican priest and for verification and “Misquoting Jesus” by Prof Dr Bart Ehrman the Distinguished James A Gray Professor of Religious Studies of North Carolina University, Chapel Hill, U.S. (an ex-pastor) and a leading authority of Christianity. You may also like watch his numerous debate against apologetic Christian scholars like Dr William Craig, Dr Craig Evans, Dr James White to mention a few, on youtube.

The illiterate Aramaic speaking John the disciple of Jesus could not have written The Gospel according to John (originally written in Greek). Only 3 % according to statistics the population of Palestine at the time of Jesus could read, more less able to write. And education at the time is the pleasure of the privileged rich few.
Reply · 1 ·

Don Tan · 

 
• Where did you come up with John the illiterate and John the educated. Where are you getting your facts from?
  
  'The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship,[7][8] the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it,[9][10][11][12][13][14] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90–100 AD.' ~ See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Apostle.
  
  If you want to comment on the Gospels, why don't you, speak to its content. Someone else himself was challenged by the Naserene's and Jew's for proof as to his authenticity. They asked for proof of miracles, prophecy etc. This was his reply ' [29:50] They said, "If only miracles could come down to him from his Lord!" Say, "All miracles come only from GOD; I am no more than a manifest warner."' Why do you need modern anti-christian scholars to support your view. Spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt are powerful tools especially when you can quote someone else i.e. expert inorder to support ones views.... hmmm My Spidey Sense is Tingling
  Reply · 1 ·
  
  · January 27 at 10:41pm