More Academic Resources on Pre-Islamic Use of Allah

Rejoinder – Allah is Not a Personal Name: More Evidence Needed, Not Mere Assertions

Again in response to some comments on the article “ Allah is not a Personal Name LINK
I have decided to post my own rejoinder as a full post:
Further comments on use of allah
I am not concerned with how Muslims understand Allah (whether personal or generic; that is their personal liberty that I have no wish to interfere). But the thrust of the argument of my articles is that the Christian use of allah is consistent with the centuries of usage among the various Semitic languages/dialects. This argument has not been addressed, much less challenged.

There is no such thing as proprietary rights by earlier linguistic users over later users. Such a claim would render most 21 century language speakers unable to use much of their own languages (apart from some barely surviving Phoenicians, marginalized non-Muslims tribes in the Middle East, some Indo-Aryan tribes and the Han Chinese) since every language is somehow influenced by its unavoidable interactions with the languages of neighboring and longer existing societies. The outcome of universal linguistic restriction is patently so absurd that it is not much worth the effort to refute the claim of proprietary linguistic right

But for the sake of argument, and working from the premise of the right of prior user, I may first point again to the wide spread use of el, eloah and allah in Hebrew, Syraic and Nabataea (proto/paleo-Arab) dialects. From this historical observation, I can offer the following argument:

1) The earlier user has more rights to use a word than later user
2) Christians use the word allah (in related semitic dialects) before Muslims
3) Conclusion: Christians have more right to use the word allah than Muslims

Note that Muslims would reject the proposition (2) since they assume there was such a thing as a pure Arabic language that does not draw any influence from other earlier Semitic dialects. Of course there have to maintain dogmatically a pure linguistic system since any concession to proposition (2) will undermine their arrogation of propriety right to the word allah. Worse still, on their (debatable) premises, they might then have to concede greater rights to use allah to other people who could demonstrate any linguistic continuity with any Semitic dialect that is earlier than Quranic Arabic.

I doubt there is a linguist who accepts the myth of a pure linguistic system without any influence from earlier neighboring languages. As to Quranic language, I refer to the book by Arthur Jefferey, Professor of Semitic Languages. School of Oriental Studies, Cairo, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Quran (Oriental Institute Baroda, 1938) who listed and discussed hundreds of foreign words in the Quran. In particular, read his discussion on the word allah and allahumma (pp. 66-67).

I shall for the moment only point to some academic sources for anyone interested to pursue further research in the area of the use of allah in pre-Islamic Arabia. Further tapping into the expertise of people from the United Bible Society also confirms the following historical reality:

1. The Arabs used the word Allah for the supreme being before the time of Muhammad.

See H.A.R. Gibb & J.H. Kramers, Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam (Ithaca, NY: Cornell  University Press, 1974), 33. Even Muhammad’s father was named Abd Allah, God’s  servant;
See also Philip Hitti, History of the Arabs: From the Earliest Times to the Present,Tenth Edition (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1970), p. 101.

2. Inscriptions with Allah have been discovered in Northern and Southern Arabia from  as early as the fifth century B.C.

See René Dussaud, Les Arabes en Syrie avant l’Islam (Paris, Ernest Leroux, 1907),  pp. 141f., and Hitti, loc. cit., pp. 100f., citing the work of F. V. Winnett, A Study of the  Lihyanite and Thamudic Inscriptions (Toronto: 1937), p. 30.

In the old days when I was able to read Gothic German, I found citations of pre-Islamic references in Julius Wellhausen’s book Reste arabischen Heidenthums (Berlin, 1897)

3. Christians have used the word Allah from pre-Islamic times, and Allah has been used continuously in Arabic translations of the Bible from the earliest known versions  in the eighth century to this day. One Arabic translation of the New Testament using  the word may even be pre-Islamic.

One existing manuscript may be pre-Islamic. See A. Baumstark, “Das problem eines  vorislamischen christlichen-kirchlichen Schrifttums in Arabischer Sprache,” Islamica 4  (1929/1930): 562-567, in Kenneth Bailey, “Early Arabic New Testaments of Mt. Sinai  and the Task of Exegesis (with special focus on Sinai Ar.72 and Luke 15),”  Theological Review, XII/2 (1991): 49. See also Meira Polliack, The Karaite Tradition of  Arabic Bible Translation (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997), p. 6.

The field is open to further research.  Let’s demonstrate academic integrity by offering historical evidence rather than pronouncing dogmatic assertions and threatening legal sanctions over alleged violation of proprietary rights to the word allah

Postscript – Beware of people who comment boldly behind pseudo-names:

A quick technical check shows that Cosmic Boy and Ego Eimi is the same person – how interesting.

By the way, anyone who uses the name ego eimi as a self-designation commits blasphemy. Exodus 3:14 and some verses from Isaiah, like 45:22 show how stupendous Jesus Christ’s claim was in John 8:58. The hostile Jews would not believe that Jesus was God. For them, Jesus was committing blasphemy when he used the word ego eimi. They naturally sought to stone Jesus. You can see the connection clearly from the Greek text of the Septuagint. Is Cosmic Boy etc acting out of sheer ignorance or deliberate blasphemy? I can tolerate provocative rudeness, but blasphemy?…

17 thoughts on “More Academic Resources on Pre-Islamic Use of Allah”

  1. Hello Kam weng,

    I doubt that you are doctrate……… Your writing shows that you are fool enough. Christians are really got time to use ‘Allah’ as the name of God, but why after Muhammad unveil the truth (the right name of God) then you start to claim like this:

    “1) The earlier user has more rights to use a word than later user
    2) Christians use the word allah (in related semitic dialects) before Muslims
    3) Conclusion: Christians have more right to use the word allah than Muslims

    WHERE IS YOUR PRIDE?

    ok that enough to answer everything about ‘Allah’, this is about ‘EGO EIMI’….(I have right too to use this word, right?)

    So many people in the Bible are using the word ‘I am’ (”EGO EIMI” in koine Greek), for example Sarah, she says, ‘Shall I indeed bear a child, when I am so old?’ (Genesis 18:13), question, did she commits blasphemy?

    How about Abraham? Read this:

    [ The Offering of Isaac ] Now it came about after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, ” Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” (Genesis 22:1)

    Abraham too commits blasphemy?????

    Beside these 2 figures, there are so many others are using the same word, ‘EGO EIMI’ and Kam Weng said they are committed blasphemies:

    Esau (Genesis 25:32), Jacob (Genesis 27:11), Isaac (Genesis 27:32), Joseph (Genesis 45:3), Moses (Exodus 3:11, 6:12), they are blasphermous?

    And if ‘EGO EIMI’ reflects God, so you have to take Pontius Pilate as ‘God’ as well when he said ‘EGO EIMI’ in (Matthew 27:24)?

    Remember this! Exodus never use the word ‘EGO EIMI’ as “I AM” but Greek word “hO ON”, (pls refer to LXX), therefore the word “EGO EIMI” in John 8:58 does not have any connection with “I AM” in Exodus, otherwise the scribe/grammarian will use the same word to reflect the same saying, but no! Christians are bias on this, they will try everything to upgare Jesus as God…..start from the council of Nicea onward you are creating your own God…….would you be saved?

    I challange you not to take out my message if you are truthfull…

    BTW, “EGO EIMI OU COSMICBOY” (in Greek – translate “I AM not a COSMICBOY”), once again you make fool of yourself!

  2. You can doubt my doctorate (you got the spelling wrong). You have the same right to doubt my doctorate as to hold on to your belief of your allah.

    Regarding ego eimi, I am afraid you got all the verses wrong (in the Greek text) except for Gen 45: 3. The rest of the verses use eimi or ego and not ego eimi.

    Gen 45:3 context shows Joseph’s brothers doubting his identity. Joseph therefore uses the emphatic pronoun ego eimi – the only exception that could be explained by the context. In exegesis we always emphasize the immediate semantic context, context and context

    Of course this discussion presumes familiarity with the different syntactical emphasis between ego, eimi and ego eimi depending on the context

    You misread or mistranslated Exodus 6:12. Here ego and eimi are separated by several words. They each serve a different semantic function. kai pws eisakousetai mou Pharao ego de alogos eimi; This is not the case of the emphatic pronoun ego eimi. A first year student of Greek would have seen how these words are to be translated – If not just refer to the English translation.

    Regarding Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 – I knew you will bring the matter up about the Greek ho on in the (LXX). I am fully aware of the different choice of words. Obviously we are in complex discussion of terms involving the Hebrew original, Greek OT LXX and English. We have debated with the Jehovah Witnesses for decades on the best way to translate these verses and I will not be surprised if your little remark is dependent on their truncated view of Greek. Concisely put, except for the minority group of Jehovah Witnesses, all the major Greek scholars have no problem linking these texts.

    I will go into further discussion of Greek grammar if your comments display more competence in Greek or Hebrew. So far, judging from the tone of your comments – you seem more interested in polemics rather than technical analysis.

    Why don’t you go elsewhere and spill your anger and scorn there? There are plenty of people all over the internet eager to quarrel and fight people like you, but I am not one of them.

    No need to be personal if I delete your comments in the event I find them irrelevant or irreverent. I will delete any comment (not just yours) that is distracting or rude. This is my blog and I have proprietary rights to do with it as I please

  3. I find Ego Eimi’s comments rather vindictive and lacks respect or decorum.

    There are a number of errors in the comments. Correcting spelling and grammatical errors (using Spell Check in Word, including within the comment box) is fairly simple these days. I hope that Ego Eimi will pay attention to his grammatical errors properly.

    Ego has (conveniently?) neglected to read the statement “But for the sake of argument..”

    It’s plain to see that this is a personal.. with the words “fool” repeated twice within his response.

    There is a saying “How you do one thing reflects on the way how you do everything” .. it is an inherent behaviour trait that would even reflect on your research skills and thought processing skills.

    I am but a simple person, but I find Ego’s irreverent comments disturbing and I find that it lacks respect for the author of this blog. And why hide behind a pseudonym? Are you hiding something?

    Dr Ng Kam Weng,
    I wish to thank you for continuing your endeavor to educate the greater body of Christ in things we are unaware of and really digging into the “nitty-gritty” details in the Word Of God.

    It is true the enlightenment of the mind will bring revelation to the heart, spirit and soul to be in touch with the Divine.

    Thank you and may the Lord bless you abundantly.

  4. Hi Kam Weng,

    You have said:

    “Regarding ego eimi, I am afraid you got all the verses wrong (in the Greek text) except for Gen 45: 3. The rest of the verses use eimi and not ego eimi.”

    I’m agree on this, but this Gen 45:3 is plaintly using ‘EGO EIMI’, so you can’t simply ignore this verse just like that, but this time you said it is not refer to God……so who is actually decided which ‘EGO EIMI’ is refer to God and which does’t? This is what I mean by BIAS on my previous comment.

    Even Moses was using ‘EGO EIMI’ while communicates to God in Exodus 4:10 and 6:30. If just by using ‘EGO EIMI’ will make somebody to blaspheme, Moses should know first right? but is was still using that word?

    Actually ‘EGO EIMI’ is a free word using by every Tom, Dick and Harry…..in 2 Samuel 7:18, even King David also was using ‘EGO EIMI’ while communicates with God……..why God didn’t stop Moses and David at that time if it is blasphormous to using that word?

    This is very important question that you will never be answer, show me the biblical proof, stated that only by using ‘EGO EIMI’ making somebody to plaspheme?

    Again you have wrote:

    “Regarding Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 – I knew you will bring the matter up about the Greek ho on in the (LXX). I am fully aware of the different choice of words. Obviously we are in complex discussion of terms involving the Hebrew original, Greek OT LXX and English. We have debated with the Jehovah Witnesses for decades on the best way to translate these verses and I will not be surprised if your little remark is dependent on their truncated view of Greek. Concisely put, except for the minority group of Jehovah Witnesses, all the major Greek scholars have no problem linking these texts.”

    So again learned Christians are bias on the issue of ‘EGO EIMI’ versus ‘HO ON’. Clearly there is no linking between Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58 so that Jesus never claimed to be God whatsoever. If the word “I AM’ was so important, John will use “HO ON” instead of ‘EGO EIMI” to make it tally with Exodus 8:58 but he didn’t do that. So like I said, Christians are creating God themself. Jews they are ignorance, Christians can’t judge everything that they did are right, including try to stone Jesus for nothing. There are many obidience men been killed by them before Jesus and after Jesus for nothing………

    If “I AM” will make somebody to be God, Peter should know but he himself was using that word in Acts. 10:21, didn’t Peter know it was blasphemy?

  5. You got Exod 6:30 wrong in citing an instance of ego eimi
    Exod 6:30 is is ego ischnophoonos eimi .

    It is not surprising that there are occurrences of ego eimi in a few places that do not directly refer echo Exod 3:14. Greek, with its various grammatical declensions gives much more freedom in composition than English in word order and the choice of word order reflects the writer’s emphasis among various connotations of a word, again depending on the context. After all, in Greek, unlike English one may use individually ego, eimi and ego eimi depending on emphasis. Hence I use the phrase self-designation and emphatic pronoun with ego eimi referrence to Exo 3:14.

    More importantly, one should distinguish between ego eimi used with a predicate and ego eimi used without the predicate as in John 8:58 (what is called an absolute in Greek grammar). If you can’t see the difference here, there is no point for me to go further with you on matters of handling Greek grammar

    So far you recurrent mistakes in using these phrases suggest that you may not have awareness of these distinctions and I really don’t care to take time to explain to you the various grammatical nuances of Greek.
    It is easy for you to just throw a verse here or there without offering your own constructive grammatical explanation of the linguistic phenomenon cited -without which I have no obligation to respond to your distractions. I got better ways to occupy my time.

    Words are never used in abstractions. They are linguistic codes. Anyone who uses ego eimi (without a predicate) should be sensitive the grammatical history of this word. Be rest assured, for Christians over the last 2000 years, this absolute usage of ego eimi points to Jesus’ words in John 8:58.

    I give an example how words are always coded. Fuhrer is a simple word that means leader or guide for every Tom, Dick and Harry. But after Hitler, it will be insensitive (to put it very mildly) for someone to raise his hand and then shout I am Fuhrer to a European crowd.

    You decide how you want to conduct your self as an uninvited guest. I have better thing to do.

    One last comment, simply to contrast ego eimi and ho on without saying much else also says a lot about your fragmentary grasp of Greek grammar. The actual phrase of Exod 3: 14 is ego eimi ho on – The two phrases are juxtapoxed and not simply contrasted.
    For those interested in more nuanced analysis of ego eimi, look up Isa 43:25 – ego eimi ego eimi exaleiphoon tas anomias.

    It is said, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. How true in matters of Greek grammar, we end up more likely to misread the finer grammatical nuances rather than read them correctly.

    I rest my case

  6. EGO EMI

    Please brush up your English first before you even try to understand Greek. Trust me. English is much more simpler than Greek. Don’t try to run before you know how to crawl.

    (Friendly advice from a part-time theological student who is struggling with elementary Greek)

  7. Sincerely, I thanks to Dr. Ng Kam Weng and anybody who is care to contribute on the issue of “ego eimi”, it’s so interesting. I know soon or later all my comments will be deleted by this Web Master as usual. I thanks again to Dr. for not deleted them until to this extand.

    Yes! my English is too bad, but if I don’t use it as what I’m doing now it will becoming more worst, I’m learning. And About Koine Greek, (not just Greek as splim said), I praise God, my teacher is not discourage me from learning the elementary of this koine eventhough my English need to be brush up (as says Splim), we are based on ‘Learn New Testament Greek (3rd Edition),’ by John H. Dobson. The book is specially design for the student like me – English as a second language. It is quite good book as you start to read and do excercise on it you feel like you don’t want to stop it, try it splim………and feel it!

    Ok lets get back to the business…….

    Since several times Dr. Kam Weng try to escape from answering the verses which ‘EGO EIMI’ is using by somebody else not only Jesus is indirectly proved that the word ‘EGO EIMI’ has nothing to do with Jesus claiming to be God, it is a free word using by every Tom, Dick and Harry. So here I’ll give in Koine that David himself was using it while communicates with God, read from the 1st of Chronicles, chapter 21, verse17:

    “And David said unto God, [Is it] not I [that] commanded the people to be numbered? even I it is that have sinned and done evil indeed; but [as for] these sheep, what have they done? let…..”

    In Koine the word “..I it is that have sinned..” is “Kai ego eimi ho hamarton”

    Verse Exodus 4:10, where Moses said to God “…O my Lord, I am not eloquent…”, again “I am” here is using “ego eimi”, did Moses was also claimed to be God?….give me a break!.

    Pls read also 2 Samuel 7:18, again “ego eimi” is using by King David. So once again I stress here that…”EGO EIMI” is a free word using by every Tom, Dick and Harry AND by using that you are not commiting blasphemy as what David and Moses did (they are also using this word “ego eimi”). Your comment about Isaiah, yes Almighty God also using “ego eimi” for himself and He not restricted the mention word only for Himself, otherwise pls. give the biblical proofs for that!

    Dr. Kam weng said, “The actual phrase of Exod 3: 14 is ego eimi ho on – The two phrases are juxtapoxed and not simply contrasted.”

    Ego eimi translated to Hebrew is “ani hu” or “I am he” and this “ego eimi” not only used by Jesus (John 8:58) in NT but also by Peter in Acts 10:21. But in Exodus 3:14 is using “ego eimi Ho On” instead of only “ego eimi”. As far as I’m concern “Ego Eimi Ho On” means not only “I Am” but “I Am The Being” which not been used by Jesus in John 5:58.

    This “Ho On”n appears five times in the book of Revalation (Revelation 1:4, 8; 4:8; 11:17; 16:5). Significantly, in each instance, it is used as a title or designation applied to god, not Jesus. So Dr. where Jesus ever used the word “Ego eimi Ho On” or “Ho On” so that he is qualified to be god?

    Learned Christians not always translated John 5:58 as what you want it to be translated (biasly), there are many proofs shown that John 5:58 been translated differently not using this “I Am”, this indirectly says that there is no linking between John 5:58 and Exodus 3:14, read a parts of them:

    “Before Abraham was, I have been“……….Syriac Edition: A Translated of Four Gospels From the Syriac of the Sinaitic Palimpset, by Agnes Amith Lewis, London 1894.

    “Before ever Abraham came to be, I was“….Curetonian Syriac Edition: The Curetonian Version of Four Gospels, by F. Crawford Burkitt, Vol. 1, Cambridge, England, 1904.

    and the last one….

    “Before Abraham was born, I was“….Ethiopic Edition: Novum Testamentum Aethiopic (The NT in Ethiopic), by Thomas Pell Platt, revised by F. Praetorius, Leipzig, 1899.

    So I still do not see any linking in John 5:58 and Exodus 3:14….not only you but also some of your learned men….

  8. It is certainly correct that “ho on” (literally, “the one who is”) in Rev 1:4,8; etc., refers to God. For in 1:8 it is applied to “the Lord God … the Almighty”. Actually the complete designation “the one who is and who was and who is to come” parallels the Hebrew ‘ehyeh asher ‘ehyeh (I Am who I Am) in Exodus 3:14. The Hebrew phrase could be read as “I am who He is” (thus the LXX ego eimi ho on) or even “I will be who I will be” and hence, “I am who He is/was/will be”.

    But it is an obvious error to claim that this designation cannot refer to Jesus. One who does not know enough about the New Testament may be misled by 1:4, which distinguishes “the one who is and who was and who is to come” from Jesus Christ. But there is no excuse if one would just read through the whole first chapter of Revelation. For in 1:8, the Lord God, the one who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty, says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega.” In 1:18, the one who again says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” also says, “I died, and behold I am alive forever more.” Who else could this be, especially in the context of a book that begins with, “the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1:1)? Whether this phrase means the revelation by Jesus Christ or the revelation about Jesus Christ makes no difference. There is no doubt, except in the minds of those who for whatever reason refuse to see the truth, that Jesus here claims to be God.

    Yes, scholars who translate ego eimi in John 8:58 as “I Am” and understand that Jesus here claims to be God are biased. No one interprets a text like this with a blank (unbiased) mind. The question is whether he is biased towards the truth or not. Besides sound hermeneutical principles, our interpretation of ego eimi must be influenced (or biased) by the immediate and larger contexts.

    In the immediate context, when Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, ego eimi,” the Jews took up stones to stone (kill) him. Why did they respond this way? In John 5:18 we are told that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus because he not only broke the sabbath but “also called God his Father, making himself equal with God”. The Jews knew Jesus claimed to be God and so wanted to stone him for blaspheme. Whether John 8:58 is rendered, “Before Abraham was, I have been/was/am,” Jesus is claiming to have existed before Abraham was born. What could that mean, especially given the hostile response?

    People today who read the Gospels and deny that Jesus claimed to be God think they understand what Jesus said about himself better than the Jews who heard him in the flesh. How ridiculous this is, given the linguistic and cultural distance we face today. Relatively speaking, it makes better sense to deny the reliability of the Gospels.

    In the larger context, we have just seen that in Revelation, Jesus not only claimed to be God but also the one “who is and who was and who is to come,” or, simply, “I am who He is/was/is to come”. How then could any honest scholar, whether he personally believes that Jesus is God or not, deny that in John 8:58 Jesus was claiming to be God? Linking this verse (and Rev 1:4, 8; etc.) to Exod 3:14 is most natural.

    It is obvious to me that the real contention here is whether, according to the New Testament, Jesus claimed to be God. To anyone not already biased against this claim, it is unmistakable, without even considering John 8:58. So it does not matter whether the ego eimi in John 8:58 echoes the ego eimi or ho on of Exod 3:14 (LXX), though I see no reason to discredit the link. To persist in denying the link is barking up the wrong tree.

    I am a just fellow guest who has just dropped by for a visit. I do not intend to get into a debate (no energy for that). So this will be my only post here. Also, I think Kam Weng wants the case closed.

  9. Just a quick correction. In Rev 1:17, the exact statement is not “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” but “I am the First and the Last.” However it is not wrong to use the two interchangeably. For in Rev 22:13 we read: “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” And the one speaking is the one who says, “Behold, I am coming soon …”(22:12). Rev 22:20 makes it unmistakable that it is the “Lord Jesus” who is saying this.

  10. The word of God clearly states that the Gospel is foolishness to those who do not believe, but the truth unto salvation to those who believe.

    Let’s not get into foolish arguments about words, but let us in love correct and admonish those who disagree with us.

    It is not our place to judge, but to state our beliefs clearly and without reservation. If someone else chooses to believe differently to us, then it is their God given right to do so.

    I affirm that Jesus is indeed the Son of God, according to His word, but not just merely by His written Word, but indeed the Word of Life that flows from His throne of Glory into my life.

    Hold on to the faith that God has indeed sent Jesus His one and only begotten Son to die on a cross for our immortal souls. It is indeed only God who is able to forgive our sins.

    We are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. Let us resolve to pray for our friend that God Himself will reveal the Truth to Him.

    Is it not the Holy Spirit who convicts us of our sins, and our need for salvation?

    So let us be wise and not argue like foolish people would, but in gentleness and kindness rebuke and correct.

    No one can deny you your beliefs, regardless of who you are, or what you choose to believe in.

    Let us rather pray for the outpouring of the Spirit of God on all flesh as He has promised in His Holy Word. So that all men may come to know Him in the power of His resurrection!

    In all things let us esteem Love, for love is of God and everyone who knows it is born of God and knows God. Let us love our brother who is arguing with us, and not condemn him. Did not even Jesus when He was being crucified cry out to God,” Father forgive them for they know not what they do.”

    We all were once ignorant of the truth, but God by His Grace still loved us enough to die not only for us, but for the sins of the entire world.

    Every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the Glory of God the Father.

  11. Το Ισλάμ δεν είναι νέα θρησκεία. Πρόκειται για την ίδια αλήθεια που ο Θεός αποκάλυψε σε όλους τους προφήτες Του μέσα στην Ιστορία. Το Ισλάμ είναι θρησκεία και ταυτόχρονα ένα ολοκληρωμένος τρόπος ζωής. Οι Μουσουλμάνοι ακολουθούν μία θρησκεία ειρήνης, ελέους και συγχώρεσης, που δεν θα έπρεπε να συνδέεται με πράξεις βίας εναντίων αθώων.

    Comment from kam weng
    posted at 1330 hr 26 Nov 2009
    This guy is up to mischief again in putting up a text in Greek (for whatever reasons). As it stands it is useless to all readers. Maybe he wants to give an exaggerated and wrong impression about his ability.

    His comment has absolutely no relevance to the post. When translated it merely talks about Islam as God’s revelation to the prophets, complete way of life. Irony is that it ends with claim of peace, forgiveness non violence etc – I refuse to give the exact translation, but give only enough to indicate how irrelevant the comment is.

    His provocation is certainly not peaceable and is violence against other people’s blog. It does not reflect well on his faith if he is supposed to be one its more educated representatives.

    One more such comment from this guy and I will henceforth delete all his comments without further explanation and without apology.

  12. Hi Kam Weng,

    Yes, just press the ‘Delete’ button. As you’ve said, it’s the proper response to bullshits.

    I moderate the comments posted on my blog too. I am not as gracious as you. I don’t apologize whenever I delete remarks of which I find contribute nothing to the post they commented. Time is too precious to spent on bullshits.

    Having that said, I am very excited to see yours and Tien Fock’s responses. Give the impression that there are still vocal and intelligible voices to be heard in our context.

    Appreciate your work here.

  13. @ HP,

    Just quote a few,

    Deuteronomy 10:17, For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe.
    Ulangan 10:17, Sebab YAMTUAN, Tuhanmulah Tuhan segala tuhan dan Yamtuan segala yamtuan, Tuhan yang besar, kuat dan dahsyat, yang tidak memandang bulu atau pun menerima suap.

    Revelation 17:14 (also 19:16), …for He is Lord of lords and King of kings…
    Wahyu 17:14 (19:16), …karena Ia adalah Yamtuan segala yamtuan dan Raja segala raja…

    YAMTUAN for YHWH/ADUNAY/KYRIOS?

    Elohim for Tuhan?

    How stupid?

    How pathetic?

    As a Malaysian who spoke Malay as the 1st language, I never heard of YAMTUAN. YAMTUAN is only use among Negeri Sembilan Malay, oh yes, aristocrat Malay, not common among the majority Malay least the Christian!

    We need to be careful with what we read. Some article were written to please the moslem such as this, I quote,

    Penggunaan perkataan-perkataan ini akan dapat mengatasi perasaan tidak senang dikalangan kelompok Kristen tertentu di Indonesia, dan meredakan kegelisahan orang Muslim di Malaysia.

    Penggunaan kalimat “Allah’ tidak pernah membuat saya gelisah. So this is just to please the moslem! So, beware. I doubt the intelectual capasities of that outhor.

    JBU.

  14. @ Kam Weng,

    Yes, ego eimi is a bit confuse.

    He was saying that the frase, ‘ego eimi’, a title use by Jesus in the Gospel is not referring to YHWH of the Exodus.

    Mr Ego Eimi fail to read the contexts.

    If Mr Ego say that, we must believe ‘Rasulullah’, who he meant? There are more that 20 ‘rasulullah’ according to moslem theologies, so who? Simple, look at the contexts of the discussion. Like wise, if Mr Ego deny who is this so called ‘Ego Eimi’ look at the contexts in John 8, why do the Jews what to killed Jesus? Because the Jews knews who is Jesus referring to (verse 59)?

    JBU.

Comments are closed.