Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Re: -

Post  seraphim on Tue 09 Mar 2010, 07:58

Goodness, some folks wouldn't know the truth even if it was right in front of them. That sums up Mr. Heiser of the above websites. He's a disaster, where do I start!

Whether or not this man is genuine, he needs to realize that everything he is studying is what is allowed to be studied.
Does he know that a lot of history was changed and most likely on purpose. If he doesn't at least know that then he can never begin
to find the truth. Besides, Mr. Heiser, Ph.D recently recieved that degree so what would he know.

If he had a life long interest in UFOS and such, could it be possible he is prone to suggestion and whatever other
conspiracies are out there. Perhaps he thinks he is doing something good, but then finds out it was all made up. Like
what he studies, perhaps. He is going to have a very rude awakening one of these days.

From his website:
. Can you explain why you did not include the comparative linguistic material from the Amarna texts that shows the Akkadian language also uses the plural word for "gods" to refer to a single deity or person (which of course undermines your argument that elohim must refer to a plurality of gods)?
Well can Mr. Heiser answer why everyone believed in Gods, plural and were polytheistic back then? And that some tribes still do to this day. So it would make every sense to believe there were Gods back then. And that possibly the authors in the bible and the koran forgot to edit. What a huge mistake, I'm sure those authors burned in hell for that. For a book as important as the koran and bible to have the 'We' versus 'I' God in it is very confusing and a newcomber wouldn't take the book seriously. That is how it was for me when I first read the Koran as well as others, I was amazed how such an important book would have it's God called "we".

If a person writes a book as important as those two, there is no way they would us "we" and "I" together. It would be either one or the other, with no confusions or mistakes. Apparently the only excuse Mr. Heiser could come up, and without any backing, that the Koran stems from old Akkadian.

EVERYONE who reads the "We" quotes in the Koran for the first time would ALL think okay they are talking of Gods plural and believe that. So why would the God in the Koran say "We", because everyone would think of it as Gods.
But unfortunately people can't think for themselves and say it doesn't matter, ALLAH is ONE. Or when ALLAH speaks of "We" he means his prophets. His prophets must have been Gods too in order to create like Allah. Regular people are saying the koran also has a trinity God, like the bible, but the muslims and their scholars dislike that very much and say that is impossible, there is only ONE ALLAH.

And then you have Muslim scholars saying that using the plural "We" was a phrase used by the elite, to address their individual selves, which is what Mr. Heiser claims, when he says the Koran is derived from the old Akkadian language.
But then you have those people who have studied linguistics for a long time say neither. Here is an example.

From other scholars and Dr. Gleason Archer, professor of Semitic Languages and Old Testament, holds a degree from Princton, Suffolk University and Ph.D from Harvard has this to say:

First God is one in essence and in person. This excludes the presence of equal divine persons in the same Godhead. Neither tritheism or trinity, however explained is compatible with the pure Islamic monotheism.
In verse 26 of Genesis 1, we read in connection with God's creation of man, "Let us make man in our image."
Now this could not possibly refer to angels joining with God in the manner of furnishing a model for man. It does seem to imply a plurality on the part of the one God. Now, of course, it is true that in later times, certainly in Koran times, the first person plural pronoun "we" was frequently used in a majestic way. Allah is quoted very often in this fashion. But the thing that is important to observe is that in no ancient language of the B.C. period do you find such usage. If a person says I, he means I, he does not say we. Therefore, on historic linguistic grounds we are forced to say that there is an implication of plurality in the Godhead in this account of man's creation

But one goes on saying in Greek, Hebrew and Arabic, there is a plural of respect.
But if the Koran wasn't based on those languages as Mr. Heiser claims and that the plural respect usage of "We" came after the Koran was written, then there must have been more than one God, as Archer tries to tell these other people again.
I apparently did not communicate successfully to these gentlemen the fact that there is no recorded use in any ancient language in the B.C. period or in the classical Roman or Greek period, where the pronoun "we" is ever equivalent to "I". Therefore, the only honest thing you can do in the interpretation of language is to recognize the fact that when the Hebrew used 'let us make', it was talking about more than one.

Posts : 1180
Join date : 2009-11-18

Back to top Go down

Re: -

Post  seraphim on Tue 09 Mar 2010, 08:22

It's amazing that in these people's blind devotion, they don't question.

And for all you folks out there, no, I'm not supporting anyone, just doing the research, you will find the same conclusions doing that yourself.

Some more websites and interesting quotes from people who are using their minds to question the use of "We" versus "I".........

Why would God identify Himself/Herself in the plural form? One of the ways these Muslim scholars escaped the clear suggestion of the plurality of persons in the Godhead, as found in the word Elohim, was to claim that this expression was simply an example of the "royal plural form" used by kings and queens to express their royal nature. The famous Rabbi Aben Ezra, writing around a.d. 1100, suggested this as a solution. The "royal plural" is an unusual plural form of speech used by such royalty as Queen Victoria when she uttered her famous line, "We are not amused."

That is really scary folks. If the God in the bible associated thereself with an elite royalty.

However, all of the leaders and kings in the Scriptures speak in the singular form, never in the plural form of address. The normal mode of royal speech in biblical times was always the same singular form used by King Nebuchadnezzar in the book of Daniel: "Therefore I make a decree . . ." (Daniel 3:29). Therefore, the plural name for God Elohim Myhla must refer to the mystery of the plurality and unity of God in the Trinity.

When the QUEEN said "we are not amused" it means, the entire royalty is not amused which means the entire clan of royal people were not amused!! "Royal plural" is a colloquial aspect and is usually not accepted. Somehow or the other, the royal plural is just an invention and i don't think it takes a significant place in standard accepted English. There is no ROYAL PLURAL in Arabic. If Zakir Naik is sure enough to justify that the English grammar is applicable to Arabic grammar then he or any Muslim should not say QURAN CANNOT BE TRANSLATED EXACTLY. This shows that ISLAM either actually has a group of GODS and together they are called as ALLAH, an entity or, muslim scholars lie for justifying the individuality of Allah. Somehow or the other Muslims lie!! Muslims should refrain from justifying the flaws and rather look forward to rectify the blemish in their religion.
Well that blows away the theory above that arabic used the plural "We" as a sign of majesty .

I should put this in the bible thread???

And unto thee We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which God has revealed, and follow not their desires apart from the truth which has come unto thee. For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had God willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He has given you, He made you as you are.

I do not quite understand how the apostles were seen as Muslims unless the word "Muslim" in Arabic means apostle or perhaps it was the belief of the time (600 A.D.) that those who followed Jesus were actually Muslims, but simply had not the chance to experience the next prophet Muhammed. In any case, it seems that the Koran views the family of Abraham as Muslims:

Abraham was neither Jew nor Christian; but he was sound in the faith, a Muslim; and not of those who add gods to God. (Sura 3)

This seems to be one of the breaks from the Christians, however, that one should not "add gods to God." The Koran seems to suggest a common history of Christians, Jews, and Arabs, yet call for a break in the future:

O believers! take not the Jews or Christians as friends. They are but one another's friend. If any one of you taketh them for his friends, he surely is one of them! God will not guide the evil doers. (Sura 5)
Throughout the Koran as in the above quote, the first person plural "we" is used to refer to God, the speaker. This use seems ironic in that one strong message of the Koran is that there is indeed only one God, yet the "we" makes it read as if there were a type of committee which brought down the laws. Perhaps this is a translation issue, or perhaps the "we" is used as a royal "we". I have been told that this use of plural self reference by God can also be found in the Old Testament.

One important aspect of the Koran is that it was written in Arabic. It was mentioned many times that the Koran is a word of God sent down in Arabic so that it can be read by the people who only understood Arabic:

But before the Koran was the Book of Moses, a rule and a mercy; and this Book confirmeth it (the Pentateuch)--in the Arabic tongue--that those who are guilty of that wrong may be warned, and as glad tidings to the doers of good. (Sura 46)

Above all , the Koran is a warning. It is a warning that if you do not believe in God, the only God (strange that my English copy based on the translation by J.M. Rodwell did not mention the word Allah), you will go to hell. The main themes seemed to revolve around "fear me if ye are believers," "God beholdeth your actions," "do not add Gods to God," certain laws pertaining to the community: marriage, divorce, general behavior ("kill no game while ye are on pilgrimage"), and quite a bit regarding the end of world. I was surprised by the lack of parables in the Koran. You have the story of Joseph and a parable here and there such as the spider:

Yet the Koran has as its direct goal to deliver to the reader a direct message:

WE have not taught him (Muhammad) poetry, nor would it beseem him. This Book is no other than a warning and a clear Koran,
To warn whoever liveth; and, that against the infidels sentence may be justly given. (Sura 36)

You have to remember that the Koran was written in Arabic and was meant to be recited (Koran means recital) as a warning to the people. In its recited form in its original language, I am sure it is a powerful work, in fact I read that those who become Moslems usually also learn Arabic so that they can read the Koran in its original.

Reading the Koran has set off many questions in my head about the text and its relationship to the Islamic religion. What is the Moslems' relation to the Koran? How to the various demoninations of Islam view and use the Koran?

Verily We have made this Koran easy and in their own tongue, that thou mayest announce glad tiding by it to the God-fearing, and that thou mayest warn the contentious by it.

A Book whose verses (signs) are made plain--an Arabic Koran, for men of knowledge; Announcer of glad tidings and charged with warnings!

Now have We set before man in this Koran every kind of parable for their warning:

An Arabic Koran, free from tortuous wording, to the intent that they may fear God.


Mr. Heiser writes:
1. Can you please provide transcripts of your academic language work, or an address to which I could write to obtain proof of your training in the ancient languages in which you claim expertise? I would like to post this information on my website, and would gladly do so.

That's ridiculous when he can't give evidence himself, as a matter of fact NO ONE can explain the mystery of the "WE" and "I" in the bible and in the Koran. So far from research that one does for themselves, they come up with the conclusion that there is more than one God/Creator. Just as everyone used to believe.
Stitchen's sources remain a mystery. Everyone would like to know the whys and where the truths went. Is Mr. Heiser aware that a lot of knowledge was taken from us.

And finally a stunning quote!
2 Corinthians 4:4 Paul states that the Devil is the God (should be Hotheos in Greek but the translators translate it with a small g instead of capital) of the world.

Posts : 1180
Join date : 2009-11-18

Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message

Re: -

Post  seraphim on Wed 10 Mar 2010, 03:36

Oh no thank you! You are most welcome!

The Gods RA and EL!!!??

Posts : 1180
Join date : 2009-11-18

Back to top Go down

Re: -

Post  quicksilvercrescendo on Wed 10 Mar 2010, 12:52

Satanic Banker Rabbi Jew Force...

Posts : 1868
Join date : 2009-12-01
Location : The Here & Now

Back to top Go down

The author of this message was banned from the forum - See the message