cruci(fiction) Deedat vs. Douglas, brilliant-- Must watch!

[B_M]

and let me ask the question, what is the EARLIEST "evidence" that you have for the "murder" of Jesus, PBUH? we shall then "evaluate" your "evidence," fair enough?

You could argue the earliest evidence was of the prophecies from The Nevi'im. i.e. The Book of Isaiah, written a century before Jesus.. which says... a son will be given who would be wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, brought as a lamb to the slaughter, would make his soul an offering for sin, who would be numbered with the transgressors.. all imply a murder.. a murder of man who was to be born of a virgin.

I don't know, I still can't see why God would play us.

Thank you, Woodrow though, for answering a question.

 

[YusufNoor]

You could argue

why would i make this misguided argument? i would rather stick with the truth.

the earliest evidence was of the prophecies from The Nevi'im. i.e. The Book of Isaiah, written a century before Jesus.. which says... a son will be given who would be wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, brought as a lamb to the slaughter, would make his soul an offering for sin, who would be numbered with the transgressors..

you must be imbibing some..."holy water," NO SON is mentioned in "the Nevi'iim" let's see:

5 But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1053.htm

according to Jewish exegesis, the "he" is Israel and is showing the punishment from "Hashem" was deserved.

all imply a murder.. a murder of man who was to be born of a virgin.

NO virgin is mentioned either!

I don't know, I still can't see why God would play us.

if you seek misguidance, your prayers may be answered as well! so be careful what you ask for

Thank you, Woodrow though, for answering a question.

we are looking for evidence that fits the "Hugo model" as applied to the Qur'an. i'm pretty sure that eliminates rewriting Isaiah to suit your purposes.

chow

 

[B_M]

we are looking for evidence that fits the "Hugo model" as applied to the Qur'an. i'm pretty sure that eliminates rewriting Isaiah to suit your purposes.

chow

So you believe The Jews lied too? I even went and pulled those quotes from The Hebrew Bible, not The Old Testament. And I did that, so I could say that. Since we all know, Judaism didn't believe in Jesus.. why would they rewrite scripture for? If they had the chance, I'm sure it'd be to sway the prophecies far away from Jesus being the prophesied Messiah as possible...

 

[B_M]

Sorry I didn't see you respond inside the quote.


Thank you for the link.


Of course according to Jewish exegesis, the "he" is Israel..

He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was crushed because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed.

Therefore will I divide him a portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty; because he bared his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Hmmm.



But wait you believe this translation? The Jews don't like Jesus, they are biased too.

 

[YusufNoor]

So you believe The Jews lied too? I even went and pulled those quotes from The Hebrew Bible, not The Old Testament.

i posted from the online Tanakh, and left a link. i have a room filled with MANY Jewish works containing Rashi and Rambam to name a few of the Jewish Sages. NONE are now waiting or were waiting for, as you wrote, "a son will be given who would be wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, brought as a lamb to the slaughter, would make his soul an offering for sin, who would be numbered with the transgressors." NONE!


And I did that, so I could say that. Since we all know, Judaism didn't believe in Jesus.. why would they rewrite scripture for? If they had the chance, I'm sure it'd be to sway the prophecies far away from Jesus being the prophesied Messiah as possible...

the items i posted from Isaiah are PAST TENSE, ergo NOT PROPHECIES!

as i stated before, i want, "the "Hugo model" as applied to the Qur'an"

do you have:

the decree signed by Pilate authorizing the death of Jesus?

the body of Jesus?

the nails used to put him up?

the cross?

the sign put on the cross?

ANY CONTEMPORANEOUS EYEWITNESS DOCUMENTATION?

IF NOT, then according to Hugo, you have "tradition, NOT history!"

capiche?

 

[Woodrow]

So you believe The Jews lied too? I even went and pulled those quotes from The Hebrew Bible, not The Old Testament. And I did that, so I could say that. Since we all know, Judaism didn't believe in Jesus.. why would they rewrite scripture for? If they had the chance, I'm sure it'd be to sway the prophecies far away from Jesus being the prophesied Messiah as possible...

Which Hebrew Bible may I ask? I ask because I am unaware of any Hebrew Bible except for those translated into Hebrew from English.

 

[Ramadhan]

regarding what Ehrman ACTUALLY says, he talks about the child's game where you "whisper in one's ear." is the Qur'an "whispered in one's ear?" go to a Sunni Masjid at either Fajr, Maghrib, Isha or at Taraweeh during Ramadhan and tell me what you hear! the Qur'an is recited ALOUD! IF the Imam makes a mistake, he is corrected and ANYONE may correct him!

to sum, portions of the Qur'an are recited ALOUD in CONGREGATIONAL PRAYER 3 times a day, EVERY DAY, for the last 1400 years and during Ramadhan the ENTIRE Qur'an is recited ALOUD in CONGREGATIONAL PRAYER over a period of 27-29 evenings and ALSO ALOUD in CONGREGATIONAL PRAYER in the mornings during the last 10 days of Ramadhan!

Absolutely right.
Equating the preservation of the Qur'an to chinese whispers is so unbelievably dumb.

in chinese whispers, whenever the main/original line branches out to multiple lines, each of the end of the lines are guaranteed to convey different news/messages than the original.

Meanwhile, the qur'an recited or memorised by a person in beijing (china), birmingham (england), bandung (indonesia), Baghdad (oraq) is EXACTLY the same, and this is after 1400 years of the alleged "chinese whispers".

You just have to look at the fate of bible(s) to see which one is actually "preserved" through chinese whispers.

 

[Hugo]

Which Hebrew Bible may I ask? I ask because I am unaware of any Hebrew Bible except for those translated into Hebrew from English.

This is a rather odd thing to say as one must ask how it got to be in English in the first place? The term Hebrew bible is generally understood to mean the OT but of course Jews would never use that term.

 

[Woodrow]

This is a rather odd thing to say as one must ask how it got to be in English in the first place? The term Hebrew bible is generally understood to mean the OT but of course Jews would never use that term.

Not as odd as it seems. Beginning about in the mid 1800s Hebrew translations of the KJV began being published and continue being published. I have found more than a few people presenting them as being the Jewish Bible, and re-translate them back into English as proof of the original Hebrew and the KJV being the same.

If the person was referring to the OT as being the Jewish Bible, I understand that. However if they are using the KJV translated into Hebrew and especially if they call the NT as being in the Jewish Bible I do not see that as being the Jewish Bible

 

[Hugo]

Not as odd as it seems. Beginning about in the mid 1800s Hebrew translations of the KJV began being published and continue being published. I have found more than a few people presenting them as being the Jewish Bible, and re-translate them back into English as proof of the original Hebrew and the KJV being the same.
If the person was referring to the OT as being the Jewish Bible, I understand that. However if they are using the KJV translated into Hebrew and especially if they call the NT as being in the Jewish Bible I do not see that as being the Jewish Bible

I have no idea where you get this information from as I don't know of any such translations. Surely it is obvious that to do such work one would have to be a Hebrew scholar in which case the whole enterprise is entirely and obviously pointless. There is a kind of conspiracy theory that claims as many as a 1,000 translations have been made from the KJV but as far as I know it is a total fiction. If you contact authors who make these claims then I have not found one who can tell us the source of the information - unless you can evidence your claim?

 

[Woodrow]

I have no idea where you get this information from as I don't know of any such translations. Surely it is obvious that to do such work one would have to be a Hebrew scholar in which case the whole enterprise is entirely and obviously pointless. There is a kind of conspiracy theory that claims as many as a 1,000 translations have been made from the KJV but as far as I know it is a total fiction. If you contact authors who make these claims then I have not found one who can tell us the source of the information - unless you can evidence your claim?

Just one example:

The Hebrew New Testament

In order better to reach Jews with the whole Word of God, the Society is pleased to be producing with its Ginsburg Old Testament an edition of the Hebrew New Testament which is based upon the Greek Received Text.

Christians throughout the ages have sought to bring the Jews to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, and one major way of doing this has been through the production of the New Testament in Hebrew. The New Testament, unlike the Old Testament, was originally written in Greek. Therefore, for Jewish readers to have a New Testament in Hebrew, it would need to be translated from the Greek. This task was undertaken on various occasions. The first printed portion of the New Testament in Hebrew was an imperfect edition of Matthew's Gospel in 1537, with the first complete New Testament, translated by Hutter, being printed in 1599.

A variety of other editions of the Hebrew New Testament appeared in print through the next three centuries. In 1886 the Society published an edition of the Hebrew New Testament which was begun by Isaac Salkinson and completed by C. D. Ginsburg. This edition, in an idiomatic type of Hebrew and prepared from a critical form of Greek text, continued to be circulated by the Society until the 1960s.

The British and Foreign Bible Society in 1873 commissioned Franz Delitzsch to prepare a translation of the New Testament in Hebrew. This translation, completed in 1877, was in a more literal style and was also made from the critical text of the Greek New Testament. The next year, at the request of the BFBS, Delitzsch revised this translation in order to bring it into conformity to the Textus Receptus.

In the Society's desire to see the Scriptures produced in faithful and accurate editions, in 1963 the Rev. Terence Brown, then Secretary of the Society, advised the Committee of the Society that the currently-circulated Ginsburg-Salkinson Hebrew New Testament was still in conformity to the critical text, whereas the Delitzsch Hebrew was Textus Receptus based. Thus, it was decided that the Society would cease publication of the Ginsburg-Salkinson and begin publication of the Delitzsch. We continue to do so to this day, and it is this Delitzsch New Testament which will complete our Hebrew Bible.

SOURCE

 

[Hugo]

Just one example:

This one can accept so you original claim of translation from the KJB for the Hebrew bible was a fiction or you muddled up your facts as no one denies that one needs a Hebrew edition of the NT

 

[Woodrow]

This one can accept so you original claim of translation from the KJB for the Hebrew bible was a fiction or you muddled up your facts as no one denies that one needs a Hebrew edition of the NT

If I muddled it or was not clear. I was indicating that some people call these translations of the bible in Hebrew the Hebrew Bible. Which is why I asked which Hebrew Bible. I agreed with you that the OT was the Hebrew Bible, although no Jew would call it such.


While there are Hebrew speaking Christians I believe the primary purpose for translating the bible into Hebrew is for converting Jews. Apparently some Evangelical groups feel that there is a need for a Hebrew Language Bible.