Asalamu aliakaum wa rahmat Allah wa barkatoo and HellOOo!

GRRRRRR! Blogger isn't letting me comment on your comments :P So, I had to make it as a new post :D

15 comments! AWESOME! I was worried that not many people would be interested in a Muslim’s thoughts on the New Testament and that I was just writing to myself—but yaaaay! I wasn’t!

Okay, first things first, Joni and Carmen! What would you like to drink (non-alcoholic, LOL.) Orange juice? Chocolate milk? I’m an Arab, you know. This is how we treat our guests, hehehe. Seriously welcome! I’m very glad you guys could come and answer these questions. (Thank you, Susanne). Oh and I think it’s great that y’all met online. I’ve got many great online ‘sisters’, friends I’ve met and had for 5 years or so. (I met a few of them in person this year!)

Naz, I really love your comments. Man, I always ask myself, “was I that mature at 17?” Ma’shaAllah. As for your question about ‘everybody going to heaven’ since “Jesus already atoned’ for mankind’s sins, a similar question was asked on Susanne’s blog by another Muslim. You can see Susanne’s answer in her post called “Christianity Q&A.

Rebecca, thank you so much for your suggestion about reading the Apologetics. I bet that would help clarify things just as we always recommend reading ‘tafisr’ or scholarly explanation of the verses of the Qur’an (context of verses/etc.). It’s just right now my time is a bit limited, but we’ll see how it goes!

Anon, hope you had a good weekend too and of course, as a Muslim I noticed the '3rd person pronoun' as well ;)

Moonsmile! I was also pleasantly surprised to see many similarities! In fact, I left out a number of other similarities because I thought I had written too much but now, I’m going to share them with you as they might surprise you (like they surprised me!).

1.Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[c]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell (Matthew 5: 22)

It reminded me of this: O you who have believed, let not a people ridicule [another] people; perhaps they may be better than them; nor let women ridicule [other] women; perhaps they may be better than them. And do not insult one another and do not call each other by [offensive] nicknames. Wretched is the name of disobedience after [one's] faith. And whoever does not repent - then it is those who are the wrongdoers. (Surat Al Hujurat 11)

2.The titles in chapter 6: Giving to the needy, Praying, Fasting- doesn’t it sound familiar? Like 3 out of the 5 pillars of Islam! SubhanAllah.

3.Also, about praying- they have this: But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Of course, we have that it is recommended to pray the 5 obligatory prayers in a congregation( in a Masjid). This helps foster ‘a sense of unity and brotherhood/sisterhood in the community’ and allows people of different nations, ages, social classes, economic classes to all meet each other and stand united. Blacks, whites, Pakistani, American, Egyptian, Chinese, rich, poor, a janitor, a Prince, whatever—all stand together, acknowledging that no one else is worthy of worship but the Lord, and together bowing down to Him.

However, we are also warned of praying just for others to notice us, and thus, besides the 5 obligatory prayers, we have the ‘voluntary night prayers’. Qiyam al Layl- ‘the standing up at night’. WE are advised to get up in the middle of the night and pray secretly- this is a true testament of faith (why else would anyone get up at 2:00 at night for example and pray when no one else can see him/not even his parents/etc.) and it is also has been described as having the ‘sweetest, most delicious taste’. When everyone else is sleeping, it’s just you and God :D

4. For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15

Reminded me of : …and let them be clement and let them pardon . Do you not love that Allah should forgive you? And Allah is Ever-Forgiving, Ever-Merciful” (Surat Nur: 22) (There’s even a specific story regarding this verse but my point here is just to say that were still lots of other similarities that I didn’t get to touch upon.)

There were more, but I want to start commenting on all these answers, explanation and questions! My ‘answers’ will be a bit jumbled- sorry about that :P I am trying to connect relevant points together. I also won’t be able to get to ‘everything’ today but I have read all of the comments and appreciate every sentence! 

Before I begin though, I want to say I sincerely apologize if I had written (or am going to write) anything ‘scandalous’, or ‘very blasphemous’ to you. I try my best to avoid saying anything that may offend you. Also, I know that ‘online’ things can be interpreted differently/you may hear my tone differently than the way I am writing…:D I trust you know that I am not coming here to insult or defame Christianity and that I would never insult (who we consider to be one of the greatest) Prophets, Jesus.

Okay, so first of all, Carmen (and Susanne), thanks for pointing out that Mary was married to Joseph, the carpenter. That’s what happens when you’ve got a migraine and you try reading something new! Hehe!

Second, about “the Virgin Birth”. I in NO way, meant to imply that she had consummated her marriage before Jesus’ birth or that she was pregnant as in had a relationship with God. I know that, of course! We have it that Jesus’ birth was miraculous as well. WE believe that God created Jesus without a father and that his birth was a divine proof of God’s power and Jesus’s prophethood.

(Actually, while we’re on the subject, we believe that there were 4 kinds of ‘births/coming to life’. One- Adam was created with neither a mother nor a father. Hawa was created from a man, without a woman (rib of Adam). Isa (our name for Jesus- Joni, I wrote since you noticed Hawa) was created from a woman, Mariam/Mary, without a man. And finally, me and you- we were created with moms and dads, hehe. Taken together, these 4 'births' testify to God's Absolute Power.) 

So definitely, I knew that and I understood that she had not consummated the marriage- the betrothal sorta thing- but what I was commenting on was that from the version I was reading, she did consummate the marriage after Jesus’ birth, which we don’t have in our traditions:

When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

Actually, lol, we don’t have anything about her being married- so it was interesting to me. Also, now I understand that the ‘siblings’ may not necessarily be Jesus’ siblings- but say his step siblings, etc.

Perhaps it's like some people I've known who have Islamically married yet not consummated the marriage, yet when they broke up they had to be divorced. Also Susanne: bout divorce -- Of course there are reasons for it, but divorce isn't something we should enter into just because the wife burned dinner or stop looking attractive.

Oh yes, Susanne, first of all, we have this concept and I understood it when I read that part about Mary. We have that first you ‘give the marriage vows/sign the contract’ but that there is usually a period between that and consummating the marriage. However, as you said, if you do not consummate the marriage and choose to end it- then, it is a divorce. For your info, though, the difference though is that is not a ‘regular divorce’. In a regular divorce scenario, one who had consummated the marriage, a divorce does not take place instantly. What happens is say a man tells his wife that she is divorced, they do not leave and go on their own ways- they MUST remain together for another 3 months (3 period cycles/known as the Iddah, or if she is pregnant, until the baby is born! Which could be 9 months, lol), to see if they can reconcile their differences, if they’ll change their mind and decide to go back together, etc. During these 3 (or 9)months in fact, the man still has to provide for the ‘wife’, her food, clothes, etc. (Now, let’s say, he does change his mind- and decides that ‘yeah, what the hell was I thinking, this woman is a gem’. That ‘divorce’ is canceled. Ultimately, he can only do this 2 times- the 3rd time for example a man tells his wife that she is divorced, that’s it…he can never marry her again. This is sorta like protecting women’s rights as you were saying. You can’t just divorce your wife as you said because she burnt the bread. 3 times and you’re out buddy.) But on the other hand, in the case of those who have not consummated marriage, divorce takes place instantly. The only thing is that a man can ask back for half the mahr (wedding gift that a groom must give the bridge, which unfortunately, contrary to our teachings, today costs thousands and thousands), but he is told in the Qur’an that it is better to leave it entirely to her... (And you were referring to MR. Handsome, right? Wasim? May Allah bless him and his ex with good partners :D)

Now about my question about the birth- He always was, but there was a point at which he took on the form of man, was born and died and then was resurrected (how do you keep someone with no beginning or end, dead?)

Oh, thank you, Joni for explaining that. That is why I said I must not have understood what was meant with ‘birth’- so what is meant is the ‘birth of the human form’ but not the birth of God- just a birth of a form. And since you brought death up, I was wondering about something.

This is what Carmen said: (thanks Carmen, btw) Jesus began His life on earth as a little baby and was fully God, and fully man. He experienced everything we has humans experience although He was still Jesus, perfect in every way.

Since Jesus was fully human and fully God, does this mean that Jesus, who was both human, and “God” at the same time, was “God” at the same time he was being crucified or was it ‘only’ the human form on the cross? I mean was Jesus ever only in the human form or was he at all times thought to be “still God”?

I ask because it wasn’t only the birth that confused me, hehe, but the idea of death. See, I had been thinking, if Jesus is God and Jesus died on the cross, what does that mean happened to God? I mean how could “God” die, right… It doesn’t help that I got even more confused because I had been told before that the reason the crucifixion all works out is’ because it was “God, himself, ‘sacrificing himself”, and not just a ‘sinless person’ taking our blame/shouldering mankind’s sins’ (Jesus as a human). Again, I could not understand how God could die? But what it sounds like to me you are saying is that it wasn’t actually “God dying”-not real death, anyways- but it was just the human form, right (Jesus as a sinless person)?

Is that correct? Or am I again totally confused? I didn’t want o ask this until I reached that part, but since my blog is only supposed to be 50 days anyways..;)

While we are on this topic, Regarding the trinity, consider as a weak analogy an egg: it has three parts - the shell, the white, the yolk.

Thank you so much for taking the time to write this analogy out to me. The thing is that I always understood it before kinda like that- I think I had understood it as 3 separate parts that together are supposed to make up one, sorta like the analogy implies. It’s sorta like I have 5 fingers which make up my hand. But my recent discussions with Susanne have led me to finally understand that the idea is a bit more complicated, right, because each part, individually, in itself, is considered the whole. What I mean is that you consider Jesus as God, right? So it’s like saying that the yolk by itself is the whole egg in itself, or God completely? Right? Like one finger is by itself like a whole hand and at the same time, all together, they are one? Or is the Son not by himself the Father? Is the Son different from the Father or equal to and is the Father ?

While it is confusing for me, I understand that many Christians take it as a leap of faith and not that we ‘should try and grasp who God is’ with our finite mortal minds, right? In any way, I know that it is also similar (at least to me) to what the Hindus also believe. From what I read about Hinduism at least, Hindus believe that Brahma, Vishnu and Siva are not three independent and separate deities, but three different aspects of the same Supreme God, with each part in charge of a certain purpose=the creation, sustenance and destruction of the universe. Is the similarity that I see clear? Or totally off? (I remember some websites even explain it by calling it the Trinity of Hinduism.)

And while we’re on this topic, I appreciate, Joni, your honesty in saying that you cannot answer my question regarding if the 3 themselves see each other as separate entities since they converse with each other and ‘see’ each other, ‘hear each other’. We always say the best answer when someone asks you a question and you do not know is to say “God knows best and I do not know”- that way we avoid saying anything blasphemous. So I really respect your answer.

As for my point about the genealogy, Joni, I can’t take full credit for that! Hehe! See, before I started reading the Book of Matthew, I started reading about Jesus and I stumbled on this website which was trying to explain what his name means/should be pronounced/etc.

The website turned out not to be a Christian one, but Jewish. It said (or claimed, at least) that the word Jesus in Hebrew was Yeshua and that the first one to be called that was Joshua (the successor of Moses) who was known as (Yeshua ben Nun- Jesus of the Fish- by the way, ‘nun’ is used in classical Arabic to refer to fish). Anyways, it then said that Jesus was originally a title and that there were several Jesus’ in history and even a few that were his contemporaries.

I can’t remember the specific contemporaries it listed, but one that stuck in my mind was: Jesus ben Damneus, (It reminded me of Damascus, lol); if you check Wikipedia, it actually states that he became high priest after the original high priest ‘killed James the ‘brother of Jesus Christ’. So he was living at the same time. Okay, I know that was probably boring to you, but it was all very interesting to me! Hehe!

But about this most Christian theologians say that the author's intent with the genealogy was to establish that Jesus was the heir of Abraham - this sets him up to be the fulfill-er of the Abrahamic covenant.

The funny thing is that our genealogy of Prophet Mohammed traces back to Prophet Abraham as well, for the same reason. I don’t know if you guys know this or not but we believe that Prophet Abraham built the Kabah in Mecca with his son; we even have ‘his footprint’, and actually much of the Hajj, the pilgrimage every able bodied and financially able Muslim must perform, commemorates Abraham and his family. Oh and I also thought it was interesting that Jesus’s ministry began at the age of 30! Alyhee as as salat wa salam (Blessings and peace be upon him :D)

Okay, now I’m REALLY going to jump around, lol.

Satan tried to prey on the face that Jesus faced emotion, fatigue, hunger, thirst, and much more while here

Oh, okay! Now I don’t think that is that ‘funny’ anymore, lol. Basically, he was trying to tempt the ‘human form’, right, that Joni was talking about? But not that he actually thought he could trick God.

I once heard it said, the best's enemy is not bad, but the good. Meaning, We often lose out what's best because we accept mere good.

I know what you mean. In Islam, we say that Paradise is promised to those who pardon others- so obviously you are ‘missing out/losing’ when you don’t go that extra mile and forgive.

But here’s the thing. The general day to day rule in Islam is :

Nor can goodness and Evil be equal. Repel (Evil) with what is better: Then will he between whom and thee was hatred become as it were thy friend and intimate! (41:34)

So definitely, someone backbites against you, someone starts a nasty nasty rumor about you or your kid even accusing you of adultery (as in the famous Ifk incident that happened during the Prophet’s time), you should forgive the person. Just overlook it, just like you want God to overlook your own sin.

But when it comes to murder- things are a bit different and as I said before it is perfectly acceptable to ‘ask for exact retribution’. Let me explain the thinking a bit better this time. We believe that God is Merciful not only to those who have ‘committed crimes’ (e.g. murderer) but to the victims and He does not make them ‘shoulder a burden greater than they can bear’. Sometimes, they just cannot find it in themselves to reach the point of forgiveness. Since they are the innocent ones, it seems a bit unfair to burden them with more than they can handle.

See, the thing is that that we believe in the necessity of following the Commandments. Not following them means that we are sinning, so if it was a Commandment to HAVE to forgive a murderer, one who didn’t would be sinning - do you see how that would be a bit difficult and harsh? God is Merciful and Just, but He is Merciful and Just to all.

Also, at the end of the day, this system also acts a ‘deterrent’ to crime and protects not just individuals (the criminals/etc.) but all of society at large. Islam is a religion that promotes not only the individuals’ rights but society’s rights. A murderer chooses to jeopardize society- by killing one individual, s/he kills all of these: a mother/sister/daughter/wife/employee/aunt/niece/etc.

I guess you can think of it as how some states employ the death penalty- why? As protection of the whole society. For us, Islam is not merely a religion but also includes a judicial system, set in place to protect all of society, just like how laws are made in any country. I hope that makes it a bit more clear :D

And Jesus isn't saying "don't pay all you owe" - rather he is saying for us to be honest and humble rather than stubborn. The two ideas are the person who pays back willingly and the person who refuses to pay and whose "money" is taken from him by force. Jesus wants us to be the willing one

Right!! I knew that there was no way I could have understood that right. Thanks for explaining that. I get it, now!

- Jesus is saying, there will people on Judgement day that say "but, but, but....and fumble over their words, calling out Jesus' name but not truly having lived here on earth as He and His Father have said. Even Satan knows that Jesus is God's Son. Jesus is saying, it's not enough to know -who- I am but to follow God's laws. By God's laws, Jesus is not trying to be legalistic but saying, IF you love Me and My Father you will desire to follow His will (what he instructs us) AND you will try with all of your heart to do so. Also: 
Jesus didn't speak about his resurrection because it hadn't happened yet.;) But more than that, he's definitely talking about the spirit of the law which he later sums up as "Love the Lord your God and Love your neighbor as yourself".

Oooo, okay, yeah, I understand now how you interpret it. Funny thing is that this is what I was telling Susanne the other day! Heheeh! I said that even Satan (or Shaytan as we call him) has complete belief in God. Satan does not deny God’s existence nor does he deny that God is Mighty and Powerful (he happens to swear by God’s Might in the Qur’an.) So I was saying that is not enough to ‘just believe’. I’ll discuss more of the Islamic concept of this but in a Islam 101 post, later, God’s willing.

As for the ‘God’s laws’, I understand that you all take it as not ‘being the legalistic laws’, but I was wondering if Jesus anywhere explicitly says that those laws are not needed at all? And that he wasn’t referring to those when he said that verse? Because I had understood it that those 2 laws, that you mentioned, the summary, were ‘the greatest’ but not the only laws. I guess I sorta don’t understand why would God ‘tells us certain rules/Commandments’ if they’re not important to Him? I don’t mean to imply that they are the most important thing to Him- purifying our hearts and turning to Him, Loving Him is more important- but do we really love Him when we won’t obey His laws?

See, we have a similar concept to “Love God with all your heart, mind and body” as you said –but for example, I believe that loving God with my heart= faith, loving Him with my mind equals knowledge (learning about Him and His Wonderful and Perfect Attributes, His 99 names, living with these names, seeing them in my day to day life, like “Al Ghani” that I shared with you guys, and reading His Divine Words, etc.), and loving Him with my body= loving Him enough to put His (legalistic) commandments over my own desires. Having faith actually show on my appendages so to speak- my hands giving charity, my feet standing up in prayer, etc.

One verse that is often called the ‘summary of Islam is this:

It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces Towards east or West; but it is righteousness- to believe in Allah and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Messengers; to spend of your substance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans, for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and for the ransom of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and practice regular charity; to fulfill the contracts which ye have made; and to be firm and patient, in pain (or suffering) and adversity, and throughout all periods of panic. Such are the people of truth, the Allah-fearing (2:177)

One hadith which is similar to the neighbor one says: None of you is a believer until you love for your brother (obviously not real brother) what you love for yourself.

About Jesus not having talked about the Resurrection because it hadn't happened yet, but isn't God above 'Time'? Doesn't He know what will happen? What I mean is that if the Resurrection is the single most important event in all of mankind's history and that believing in it the key to salvation and if God actually came all the way down to Earth, why would He not have told us that 'the great in heaven' would be those who believed in it? Do you understand why I was confused about it? 

Probably this is because when the Bible was first translated into English they used the word "apple" which at that time (1600s) meant any fruit of any tree "As late as 17c. a generic term for all fruit other than berries but including nuts. Hence its grafting onto the unnamed "fruit of the forbidden tree" in Genesis."

Oh my gosh, that was so interesting, Joni. Thanks for sharing that!

Thanks also for explaining the baptism question I had.

Okay, guys, I know there were more points I just don't have the time right now. I hope to get to them soon, as well as to your questions regarding Islam, inshAllah. Once again, thank you for sharing your explanations~ I know I didn't comment on everything but I want you to know that I have read every single comment and appreciate every single sentence. :)

Sarira Reading the Bible? An Intro...

Asalamu aliakuam wa rahmat Allah wa barkatoo and Hello Everybody!

How is everyone? The title of this post may have surprised some of you. Reading the Bible? What has Sarira gotten into her mind?

Let me start from the ….middle (lol, it’s because this post is really long enough as it is!)

Basically, I decided to read the Bible. My intention is only to understand Christianity better and to understand it truly within its context (and not from say, what people say Christians believe).

Now, not to offend my Christian readers, though, but I just want to clarify that I am in no way reading it because I believe in the Christian creed or have a single doubt about the Islamic one- Alhamdillah, I am more than satisfied as a Muslim. And I believe in Islam 100%, Praise be to Allah.

 I would like to point out though that we, Muslims, know that the Bible was Divinely Inspired and therefore, I know that there are beautiful passages in it. Yes, for those who do not know, we Muslims believe that it was Inspired by God but that it was altered (meaning Jesus, who is a Prophet in Islam, was Divinely Inspired, but when the individual books of the Bible were collected together as one book, all those years later, way after his death, the words were altered. Thus for us, the Qur’an is the only final complete perfect scripture.)  

However, it would be misleading though to say that I am reading the entire “Bible”.   I originally intended to start from the Old Testament (as some of you may remember), but I ended up changing my mind and I began with the New Testament- specifically, I started reading Matthew.  

So in a bit of time, I post up my ‘first thoughts’ on what I’ve read so far and every other while, I’ll continue to post, inshaAllah, unless it bores you all too much (the thoughts of a Muslim on the Bible, that is- I would never be as offensive to my readers as to refer to the Bible as boring!)

The idea of this post then is just to let you know how I am doing  it and to share some really interesting facts I found before I started reading the Bible.

Before I get ahead of myself:

Part I: The Method-

 I want to clarify that I am reading it from online –I decided on this so that I could compare translations as I go along and so that I could also ‘quickly’ search for verse explanations if I had any major questions. So basically, I’m using a website called Bible Gateway and it has more than 100 translations (of course not all English ones). I’ve been reading it in English and also comparing it in Arabic (originally I intended to read it in Arabic but then when I found this website and the information I’ll be putting below later, I changed my mind :D)

Part II: Some Interesting Things about the Translations Available

Now, before starting to read the Bible, I thought it would enrich my reading of the Bible if I understood a little bit more about it- the original language it was written in it, who translated it, who wrote what, who Matthew is, who John is, etc, so I searched a bit on google books  (hey, it’s like having a library in your HOME :P) on ‘the history of the Bible’. (Remember, I’m a literature student and that’s one of the first things we used to do when reading a piece- work on understanding its context.) Anyways, for this part, I’ll share the interesting things I learned regarding the translations. :

The book that I leafed through for this is: 

ETA- the computer has gone crazy. The formatting of this post is entirely not readable! Everytime I try to edit this post, it doesn't work. I've given up and I'm uploading my notes to a site. I'll be back with the link :)

Click here to read all that I found out!

[Trying again to paste it into the post]

The book that I leafed through for this is: History of the Bible in English. The author Frederick Bruce certainly grabbed my attention when he put this nice Italian quote that says that ‘all translators are traitors’, hehe!

So the first thing I found interesting in the book was how the book immediately demonstrated ‘the importance of translation’.

Take a look at this (I typed it up for you- I hope this isn’t considered copyright infringement.)

“

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was towards the God, and God was the Word. This was in beginning towards the God. Everything through him became, and part-from him became not-even one-thing.

What is wrong with that? It is a word-for-word rendering of the Greet text of the 1959 edition published by the British and Foreign Bible Society. There is obviously one thing wrong with it: it is not English. And there is something else wrong with it: it does not faithfully represent the writers’ meaning

(page xi).”

Pretty, interesting, huh? This was in the beginning and it was one of the reasons I continued reading (I’ll tell you later what I found when I decided to research this verse later, after putting this book away…)

But for now, let’s talk about the two most interesting thing I read in that book.

The first one was on page 143. It features a bit the discussion on the translation of the verse 1 John 5:7-v8.

First, let’s read it from the King James Version:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Now, let’s see it from the New International Version…

For there are three that testify: 8the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

So rather than mentioning ‘the trinity explicitly’, this version only writes this as a footnote: “Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century)”

So that the footnote makes a little more sense to you, I print screened the book’s explanation (the RV refers to the Revised Version- and yeah, I was that lazy :P)

The thing though that I really thought was interesting that the King James Version, when I checked that translation on the online website’ I am reading, failed to include any footnote or any mention that the ‘verse’ may these have been altered/added.

The second most interesting part of the book, for me, was this tiny little footnote, hehe (Excuse the overly capitalized words. I was trying to remain faithful to how it was written in the book.)

On page 247: “Dr. Paisley also issued an eight-page folder (The New English Bible- A Corruption of the Word of God) which lists ‘222 passages in which the Scriptures of Truth are corrupted through the ALTERNATIONS-ADDITIONS-DELETIONS by the translators of the New English Bible.” The standard by which alternations, additions, and deletions are detected in the AV,: the majority of the criticisms are basically criticisms of the Greek text, not the translations.

(I tried to find out a bit about this person and apparently he is what is basically a “Biblical literalist”. Quite the character, though…I mean calling the Pope the “Anti-Christ?!):

Anyways, back to point 1 where it was addressing “The Word was ‘towards’ God”. As you probably noticed, the author of the book pointed out, that the word to word translation didn’t make much sense in English- I find that interesting because it means to me that in order to make it make sense, in English, at least, the ‘authors’ had to write their ‘interpretations’, ‘filling in the blanks’, so to speak.

So that today, we have:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”.

But is that really what was intended by the ‘authors’? Frederick Bruce had piqued my curosity! I thought I would look to see what other translations there were available. I meant only to find some other translations but instead, to my shock, I stumbled on so much information/misinformation out there on this single verse! There are major controversies- I mean I sat down for hours reading about this verse! You can blame Bruce” for the next few pages of info :P)

First, the other versions:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine"

(The New World Translation)

Similarly, in "The New Testament, An American Translation" this verse is translated as:

"In the beginning the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine."

The New Testament, An American Translation, Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, The University of Chicago Press, p. 173

What’s the big deal about using ‘divine’ or God? I honeslty didn't think it mattered! But apparently it does. The idea is that this verse relates fundamentally to the Christian creed. No one wants to interpret it in a way that might just be blasphemous:

As David A. Reed states:

“The text of John 1:1 has a sordid past and a myriad of interpretations. With the Greek alone, we can create empathic, orthodox, creed-like statements, or we can commit pure and unadulterated heresy. From the point of view of early church history, heresy develops when a misunderstanding arises concerning Greek articles, the predicate nominative, and grammatical word order. The early church heresy of Sabellianism understood John 1:1c to read, "and the Word was the God." The early church heresy of Arianism understood it to read, "and the word was a God.”

The theological difference is this: The two competing beliefs which cause great controversy over this scripture center on whether Jesus was the one and only God, or was a god, lesser than and completely distinct from God, a subordinate to God as his Chief agent.

Now, everytime I read about the translations, the Coptics would come up. I wondered why! (Yup, I am going to share this- as an Egyptian, I have to, LOOOL:)

[First, why it matters what the Coptics think]“ The distinguished grammarian and Coptic scholar John Martin Plumley, former professor of Egyptology at Cambridge University and author of Introductory Coptic Grammar, (London: Home & Van Thal, 1948), had this to say about the significance of the Sahidic Coptic version:

"While there are limitations to the use which can be made of the Coptic version as an aid to the recovery of the original Greek text of the New Testament . . . it should also be recognized that by and large the Coptic version can be a valuable aid to the scholar engaged in textual criticism, and because in certain passages it preserves very ancient traditions of interpretation, it ought to be of considerable interest to the scholar working on the history and development of Christian doctrine." -- Quoted in The Early Versions of the New Testament, by Dr. Bruce M. Metzger

Eisegesis refers to interpreting a text by reading into it one's own ideas, or other ideas foreign to the text itself. Some apologists continue in a futile attempt to do that with Coptic John 1:1c.

For example, it is claimed that the indefinite ou.noute of Coptic John 1:1c should be translated as 'the one and only God,' because the indefinite article denotes unity, not 'a god.' As a "proof," 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Ephesians 4:6 are quoted, where ou.noute n.ouwt is usually rendered as "one God."


But that is erroneous eisegesis. It is a blatant attempt to read philosophical dogma into Coptic grammar. The Coptic indefinite article ou does not of itself 'denote unity.' It simply means "a" when bound with a common or count Coptic noun like noute, "god." The Coptic text of the New Testament contains hundreds of examples that prove this. (For example, see Coptic Acts 28:6, where the anarthrous Greek theos is rendered by ou.noute in Sahidic (Sahidica) and ou.nouti in the Coptic Bohairic version. Horner and Greek-based English versions including the KJV render this as "a god.")

Further, it is not the Coptic indefinite article ou that means "one," but the bound idiom ou______n.ouwt. This idiom literally means "a single, an only," and is used in Coptic to denote "one," adjectivally: "one god," "one man," "one spirit," etc. (For example, see Coptic Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians 6:16, 17)

Therefore, ou.noute n.ouwt simply means "one god." It is the context, not the grammar, of 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Ephesians 4:6 that mandates the translation "one God" because the specific and definite reference in those verses is p.eiwt, "the Father," whom the Lord Jesus identifies as p.noute m.me m.mauaa.F , "the true God alone" (John 17:3 Horner), "the only true God."

Neither the grammar nor meaning of Coptic 1 Corinthians 8:6 or Ephesians 4:6 is the same as Coptic John 1:1c, so those verses cannot be used to exegete Coptic John 1:1c. Whereas ou.noute n.ouwt means a single god, i.e, "one god" or "one God" (in context, with reference to the Father), the fact remains that ou.noute means "a god." It does not mean some philosophical unity that calls for translating it as 'the one and only God.'


It would be far more honest to read Coptic John 1:1c for what it says, instead of trying to import foreign concepts into it.

[The conclusion- finally!] And what Coptic John 1:1c clearly says is "the Word was a god." Or, if you prefer, "the Word was divine." But definitely not, "the Word was God."

Am I finally done with this verse? Let me tell you something, that isn’t even the half of it. I swear there was so much info on the ‘translations’ of this verse, my brain felt like it was going to explode! (LOL!) I mean check this link out: (this time the ‘prepositions’ are translated differently). Remember, that is what sounded funny (the whole ‘towards’ thing) in English in the first place: How Prepositions Make all the Difference "towards God" or something else?

 Finally, good old Wikipedia!

On the other hand, some people seem to even think this verse doesn’t even belong in the Bible:

“The words of John 1:1 are acknowledged by most reputable Christian scholars of the Bible as the words of another Jew, Philo of Alexandria (20BC-50AD), who claimed no divine inspiration for them and who wrote them decades before the "gospel of John" was ever conceived. Groliers encyclopedia has the following to say under the heading "Logos"("the word"):

"Heraclitus was the earliest Greek thinker to make logos a central concept ...In the New Testament, the Gospel According to Saint John gives a central place to logos; the biblical author describes the Logos as God, the Creative Word, who took on flesh in the man Jesus Christ. Many have traced John's conception to Greek origins--perhaps through the intermediacy of eclectic texts like the writings of Philo of Alexandria."

T. W. Doane says:

"The works of Plato were extensively studied by the Church Fathers, one of whom joyfully recognizes in the great teacher, the schoolmaster who, in the fullness of time, was destined to educate the heathen for Christ, as Moses did the Jews. The celebrated passage : "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word Was God" is a fragment of some Pagan treatise on the Platonic philosophy, evidently written by Irenaeus. It is quoted by Amelius, a Pagan philosopher as strictly applicable to the Logos, or Mercury, the Word, apparently as an honorable testimony borne to the Pagan deity by a barbarian...We see then that the title "Word" or "Logos," being applied to Jesus, is another piece of Pagan amalgamation with Christianity. It did not receive its authorized Christian form until the middle of the second century after Christ. The ancient pagan Romans worshipped a Trinity. An oracle is said to have declared that there was 'First God, then the Word, and with them the Spirit'. Here we see the distinctly enumerated, God, the Logos, and the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost, in ancient Rome, where the most celebrated temple of this capital - that of Jupiter Capitolinus - was dedicated to three deities, which three deities were honored with joint worship."

From Bible Myths and their parallels in other religions, pp. 375-376.

Do I believe that this was entirely a myth or a pagan insertion? Not, exactly. Islamically, of course, we do have references to Jesus (or Isa, as we say, alyhee as salam), as being the Word (from) God, and ‘a Word of’ God (in one verse). We believe that Jesus had a miraculous birth- Allah created him by simply saying “Be” and he was- thus, he was literally ‘Allah’s word’, in that sense, but we also clearly believe, (unlike for the Qur’an, for example), he was created (if you want verse references, I can get them for ya :P). Thus, for us, he was a wonderful prophet to revere but not a physical part/attribute/etc. of God.

Sarira, are you done, yet?
NO, but the rest you can find in the document. If you can't download it, don't worry. I'll be putting it up tomorrow, inshaAllah!

*Hey my signature disappeared. All sad*

Manually then- love, Sarira.
P.s. I can't see the comments properly, yet. It says 7 but 5 appear. I'll wait till I can see them to respond, but I've edited my beginning, Susanne :D It did sound wrong! Thanks for being there to correct me :)