Edip Yuksel

THE NINETEEN QUESTIONS FOR CHRISTIAN CLERGY

by Edip Yuksel

ISNET Homepage | MEDIA Homepage | Program Kerja | Koleksi | Anggota
| Indeks Antar Agama | Indeks Artikel |

QUESTION 7 Can A "Human God" Be A Product of Translation Errors? "It is a miracle that the King James' translators were able to produce such a remarkable translation from sources available in this dark period of European history. Even fifty years ago, the knowledge of Western scholars relative to the Eastern Scriptures in Aramaic and the Christian Church in the East was conjectural. Moreover, these scholars knew very little of the Eastern customs and manners in which the Biblical literature was nurtured." (The Holy Bible From Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, George Lamsa, A.J. Holman Co, Philadelphia, 1957, Introduction). Anyone who is familiar with translation knows that sometimes the exact meaning of the text cannot be reflected, because every language has unique terms, idioms and combination of meanings ascribed to words. Sometimes a translation of a multiple meaning word obligates the translators to make personal comments. Sometimes an original word having one obvious meaning can be translated with a multiple meaning word. There are numerous cases which make every translation always subject to revisions and disputes. So, a translation without a loss is impossible. Translations of translations are less reliable, which is the case for the King James. If we add the problems related to the loss of original manuscripts, scribal errors such as homoioteleuton, transposition of letters and bias of the translators, the credibility of translations dramatically goes down. A wrong translation in key words may change the main theme of a book to the opposite. Lisa Spray, in her thought-provoking study, holds the translators responsible for important distortions: "A scholarly review of the various biblical translations unveils an extremely interesting phenomenon; one that contributed to the exaltation of Jesus to the status of "God." As pointed out in the previous chapter, such exaltation contradicts the very message of Jesus and runs totally contrary to the Jewish religious tradition he strongly upheld and preached" (Jesus: Myth & Message, Lisa Spray, Universal Unity, Fremont, CA, 1992, p. 17). Worship or pay homage? One important example of translational distortion in the King James version is the crucial word "worship." Here is the King James version of Matthew 2:2 and 2:8. "... Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him." (Matthew 2:2). "... and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also." (Matthew 2:8). But the New American Bible, which is "translated from the original languages with critical use of all the ancient sources by members of the Catholic Biblical Association of America" has translated it differently: "... Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We observed his star at its rising and have come to pay him homage (Matthew 2:2). Then he sent them to Bethlehem, after having instructed them: 'Go and get detailed information about the child. When you have found him, report your findings to me so that I may go and offer him homage." (Mat 2:8). Creating a male Jewish god Who do we worship? The Bible's answer to this question is God alone (Exodus 34:14; Deuteronomy 8:19) To whom do we give homage? To anyone we acknowledge loyalty. It is obvious that somebody is trying to create a Jewish god besides our Creator, by imposing his own faith on the translation. The same distortion can be found in John 9:38: And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. However, this verse is not only a distorted translation, it is entirely a fabrication as it is acknowledged by the New American Bible in the footnote: "This verse, omitted in important MSS, may be an addition from a baptismal liturgy." There is more. Just three verses earlier (John 9:35), Jesus is described as "Son of Man." Jesus is "Son of Man" in the New American Bible, in The New International Bible and in the footnote of The Living Bible, Paraphrased, etc ... Ironically, the King James version has altered this phrase to the "Son of God", to justify the distortion in the key word "worship". New American: 35 When Jesus heard of his expulsion, he sought him out and asked him, "Do you believe in the SON OF MAN?" New International: 35 Jesus Heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the SON OF MAN?" Living Bible: 35 When Jesus heard what had happened, he found the man and said, "Do you believe in the Messiah?" (c) (c) Literally, "the SON OF MAN." King James: 35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him. Dost thou believe on the SON OF GOD? Jesus was not the only "son of God" The idiomatic expression "Son of God", or "children of God" is frequently used in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. According to Hebrew language, "children of God" are those who follow God's law and are blessed by God. "The sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, ... (Genesis 6:2). So you shall say to Pharaoh: Thus says the Lord: Israel is my son, my first-born (Exodus 4:22). I will proclaim the decree of the Lord: The Lord said to me, 'You are my son; this day I have begotten you' (Psalms 2:7). Blessed too the peacemakers; they shall be called sons of God (Matthew 5:9). This will prove that you are sons of your heavenly Father ... (Matthew 5:45)... the son of Adam, which was the son of God (Luke 3:38). They become like angels and are no longer liable to death. Sons of the resurrection, they are sons of God." (Luke 20:36). You can find even more "sons of God" in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:4-7, Hosea 1:10; Psalms 89:7, Jeremiah 31:9; John 1:12, Romans 8:14-21 Additionally, Matthew 5:48; 6:1-16; 7:11 23:9, Luke 12:29-32, also show that the word "Father" does not have the meaning that the doctrine of Trinity ascribes to it. According to the Bible, God is the Father of every righteous believer. Matthew 23:9 is interesting: "Do not call anyone on earth your father. Only one is your father, the One in heaven." In fact, Jesus never called himself the "only" son of God. On the contrary, he almost invariably calls himself "Son of Man." Further, he calls God "my father and your father": "... I go back up to him who is my Father and your Father, my God and your God." (John 20:17). The Gospel of John: A mishmash John, by adding one or two words, creates chaos in the Bible: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him may not die but may have eternal life." (King James version, John 3:16). The original King James version had one more word to make it very special, that is "his only begotten Son". Yet, this crucial word "begotten" was removed by the Bible Revisers furtively. Ahmed Deedat, a Muhammadan scholar, condemns this action furiously: "They are as silent as church-mice and would not draw the reader's attention to their furtive excision. This blasphemous word "begotten" was another of the many such interpolations in the 'Holy Bible.' " (Is the Bible God's Word?, Ahmed Deedat, I.P.C.I., Durban, 1986, p. 15) Despite numerous verses --some of which are quoted above-- calling all righteous people "sons of God" and messengers "God's first-born sons", now we encounter John 3:16, which claims just the opposite. Which one shall we believe? Even John himself informed us that all the believers are "children of God" (John 1:12) and they all should be "begotten from above" (3:1-7). In other words, according to him, he was himself a "begotten son of God," as well as his hero Paul. It is significant that John is the only Gospel that calls Jesus the "only" son of God! Matthew, Mark, and Luke, altogether have omitted or forgotten this very crucial word that made John 3:16 the most popular verse in Paulinist Christendom. The attraction of "only" "Only" is a single word; it is short too. So, literally it is not significant. However, it can change the meaning of a text entirely. By omitting or adding this word the whole theology and practice of a religion can be changed. For instance, according to the Quran, it is the "only" source of religion (17:46), However, those who idolize Muhammad and follow volumes of fabrications (Hadith and Sunna) are disturbed by this fact. So, they omit or displace that crucial word in their translations. Thus, they distorted the original religion preached by Muhammad, beyond recognition. The same is true with addition. The difference between the following statements is plain: "I am a believer" or "I am the only believer"; "This is a reason" or "This is the only reason." Let us see an example of an inserted "only," as a result of bias: According to the Old Testament Hagar bore Ishmael to Abraham when he was eighty-six years old (Genesis 16:15-16), and fourteen years later when Abraham was a hundred years old, Sara bore Isaac to him (Genesis 21:2-5). The Old Testament mentions Isaac and Ishmael as Abrahams sons (Genesis 25:7-9). It is obvious from these verses that when Isaac was born he was not Abraham's "only" son; Abraham, then, had a fourteen year-old son, that is, Ishmael. However, the author of Genesis, because of racial bias, inserts the magic word "only" into the verse: "Then God said, 'Take your son Isaac, your only son, whom you love, ..." (Genesis 22:2). If we remember that Ishmael is the ancestor of the Arabs and the author of Genesis is a Jew, then we can easily understand the motivation behind this inserted "only." Obviously, the author of that particular verse wanted to bestow honor upon Isaac by disconnecting Ishmael from Abraham. So, our John does the same. He inserts "only" for Jesus to exclude other "sons of God." He wants to make him an incarnated God. However, this "only" does not work. Not only does it exclude other "sons of God;" it totally denies and dismisses them. Four kinds of translational errors: We see four main sources of error in existing scripture: I. Translation errors resulting from lack of understanding of linguistic rules such as grammar and idioms. II. Errors resulting from the translator's own bias in favor of their personal convictions, i.e., human bias. III.Innovations and additions to the scripture for prejudicial of political reasons. IV. Errors resulting from lack of original written manuscripts, since oral narrations are highly subject to distortion, delitions, addition, and human forgetfulness. Thus, we cannot rely on the Bible verbatim. The Bible should be studied in a critical way. We know that they are the translations of translations bearing deficiencies mentioned above. Questions: 1. How can we totally trust the translations which distort the most important words, the central concepts in the doctrine of any religion? 2. Which translation of Matthew 2:2,8 is correct: the one with "worship" or the one with "pay homage"? Why? 3. Is there any difference between "Son of Man" and "Son of God"? If there is, why does the King James version change "Son of Man" in John 9:35 to "Son of God"? 4. What is your evidence that John 9:38 is not an addition, as claimed by some Christian scholars? 5. Was Jesus the "only" son of God? What about other "sons of God" or "begotten" sons of God? Were they adopted?

Moslem Questions on Christianity Edip Yuksel P.O. Box 43476, Tucson, AZ 85733-3476 U.S.A. Tel/Fax: (520) 323-7636

| Indeks Antar Agama | Indeks Artikel |
| ISNET Homepage | MEDIA Homepage | Program Kerja | Koleksi | Anggota |

Please direct any suggestion to Media Team

	THE NINETEEN QUESTIONS FOR CHRISTIAN CLERGY by Edip Yuksel ISNET Homepage \| MEDIA Homepage \| Program Kerja \| Koleksi \| Anggota \| Indeks Antar Agama \| Indeks Artikel \|
	QUESTION 7 Can A "Human God" Be A Product of Translation Errors? "It is a miracle that the King James' translators were able to produce such a remarkable translation from sources available in this dark period of European history. Even fifty years ago, the knowledge of Western scholars relative to the Eastern Scriptures in Aramaic and the Christian Church in the East was conjectural. Moreover, these scholars knew very little of the Eastern customs and manners in which the Biblical literature was nurtured." (The Holy Bible From Ancient Eastern Manuscripts, George Lamsa, A.J. Holman Co, Philadelphia, 1957, Introduction). Anyone who is familiar with translation knows that sometimes the exact meaning of the text cannot be reflected, because every language has unique terms, idioms and combination of meanings ascribed to words. Sometimes a translation of a multiple meaning word obligates the translators to make personal comments. Sometimes an original word having one obvious meaning can be translated with a multiple meaning word. There are numerous cases which make every translation always subject to revisions and disputes. So, a translation without a loss is impossible. Translations of translations are less reliable, which is the case for the King James. If we add the problems related to the loss of original manuscripts, scribal errors such as homoioteleuton, transposition of letters and bias of the translators, the credibility of translations dramatically goes down. A wrong translation in key words may change the main theme of a book to the opposite. Lisa Spray, in her thought-provoking study, holds the translators responsible for important distortions: "A scholarly review of the various biblical translations unveils an extremely interesting phenomenon; one that contributed to the exaltation of Jesus to the status of "God." As pointed out in the previous chapter, such exaltation contradicts the very message of Jesus and runs totally contrary to the Jewish religious tradition he strongly upheld and preached" (Jesus: Myth & Message, Lisa Spray, Universal Unity, Fremont, CA, 1992, p. 17). Worship or pay homage? One important example of translational distortion in the King James version is the crucial word "worship." Here is the King James version of Matthew 2:2 and 2:8. "... Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him." (Matthew 2:2). "... and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also." (Matthew 2:8). But the New American Bible, which is "translated from the original languages with critical use of all the ancient sources by members of the Catholic Biblical Association of America" has translated it differently: "... Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We observed his star at its rising and have come to pay him homage (Matthew 2:2). Then he sent them to Bethlehem, after having instructed them: 'Go and get detailed information about the child. When you have found him, report your findings to me so that I may go and offer him homage." (Mat 2:8). Creating a male Jewish god Who do we worship? The Bible's answer to this question is God alone (Exodus 34:14; Deuteronomy 8:19) To whom do we give homage? To anyone we acknowledge loyalty. It is obvious that somebody is trying to create a Jewish god besides our Creator, by imposing his own faith on the translation. The same distortion can be found in John 9:38: And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him. However, this verse is not only a distorted translation, it is entirely a fabrication as it is acknowledged by the New American Bible in the footnote: "This verse, omitted in important MSS, may be an addition from a baptismal liturgy." There is more. Just three verses earlier (John 9:35), Jesus is described as "Son of Man." Jesus is "Son of Man" in the New American Bible, in The New International Bible and in the footnote of The Living Bible, Paraphrased, etc ... Ironically, the King James version has altered this phrase to the "Son of God", to justify the distortion in the key word "worship". New American: 35 When Jesus heard of his expulsion, he sought him out and asked him, "Do you believe in the SON OF MAN?" New International: 35 Jesus Heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, "Do you believe in the SON OF MAN?" Living Bible: 35 When Jesus heard what had happened, he found the man and said, "Do you believe in the Messiah?" (c) (c) Literally, "the SON OF MAN." King James: 35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him. Dost thou believe on the SON OF GOD? Jesus was not the only "son of God" The idiomatic expression "Son of God", or "children of God" is frequently used in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. According to Hebrew language, "children of God" are those who follow God's law and are blessed by God. "The sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, ... (Genesis 6:2). So you shall say to Pharaoh: Thus says the Lord: Israel is my son, my first-born (Exodus 4:22). I will proclaim the decree of the Lord: The Lord said to me, 'You are my son; this day I have begotten you' (Psalms 2:7). Blessed too the peacemakers; they shall be called sons of God (Matthew 5:9). This will prove that you are sons of your heavenly Father ... (Matthew 5:45)... the son of Adam, which was the son of God (Luke 3:38). They become like angels and are no longer liable to death. Sons of the resurrection, they are sons of God." (Luke 20:36). You can find even more "sons of God" in Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:4-7, Hosea 1:10; Psalms 89:7, Jeremiah 31:9; John 1:12, Romans 8:14-21 Additionally, Matthew 5:48; 6:1-16; 7:11 23:9, Luke 12:29-32, also show that the word "Father" does not have the meaning that the doctrine of Trinity ascribes to it. According to the Bible, God is the Father of every righteous believer. Matthew 23:9 is interesting: "Do not call anyone on earth your father. Only one is your father, the One in heaven." In fact, Jesus never called himself the "only" son of God. On the contrary, he almost invariably calls himself "Son of Man." Further, he calls God "my father and your father": "... I go back up to him who is my Father and your Father, my God and your God." (John 20:17). The Gospel of John: A mishmash John, by adding one or two words, creates chaos in the Bible: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him may not die but may have eternal life." (King James version, John 3:16). The original King James version had one more word to make it very special, that is "his only begotten Son". Yet, this crucial word "begotten" was removed by the Bible Revisers furtively. Ahmed Deedat, a Muhammadan scholar, condemns this action furiously: "They are as silent as church-mice and would not draw the reader's attention to their furtive excision. This blasphemous word "begotten" was another of the many such interpolations in the 'Holy Bible.' " (Is the Bible God's Word?, Ahmed Deedat, I.P.C.I., Durban, 1986, p. 15) Despite numerous verses --some of which are quoted above-- calling all righteous people "sons of God" and messengers "God's first-born sons", now we encounter John 3:16, which claims just the opposite. Which one shall we believe? Even John himself informed us that all the believers are "children of God" (John 1:12) and they all should be "begotten from above" (3:1-7). In other words, according to him, he was himself a "begotten son of God," as well as his hero Paul. It is significant that John is the only Gospel that calls Jesus the "only" son of God! Matthew, Mark, and Luke, altogether have omitted or forgotten this very crucial word that made John 3:16 the most popular verse in Paulinist Christendom. The attraction of "only" "Only" is a single word; it is short too. So, literally it is not significant. However, it can change the meaning of a text entirely. By omitting or adding this word the whole theology and practice of a religion can be changed. For instance, according to the Quran, it is the "only" source of religion (17:46), However, those who idolize Muhammad and follow volumes of fabrications (Hadith and Sunna) are disturbed by this fact. So, they omit or displace that crucial word in their translations. Thus, they distorted the original religion preached by Muhammad, beyond recognition. The same is true with addition. The difference between the following statements is plain: "I am a believer" or "I am the only believer"; "This is a reason" or "This is the only reason." Let us see an example of an inserted "only," as a result of bias: According to the Old Testament Hagar bore Ishmael to Abraham when he was eighty-six years old (Genesis 16:15-16), and fourteen years later when Abraham was a hundred years old, Sara bore Isaac to him (Genesis 21:2-5). The Old Testament mentions Isaac and Ishmael as Abrahams sons (Genesis 25:7-9). It is obvious from these verses that when Isaac was born he was not Abraham's "only" son; Abraham, then, had a fourteen year-old son, that is, Ishmael. However, the author of Genesis, because of racial bias, inserts the magic word "only" into the verse: "Then God said, 'Take your son Isaac, your only son, whom you love, ..." (Genesis 22:2). If we remember that Ishmael is the ancestor of the Arabs and the author of Genesis is a Jew, then we can easily understand the motivation behind this inserted "only." Obviously, the author of that particular verse wanted to bestow honor upon Isaac by disconnecting Ishmael from Abraham. So, our John does the same. He inserts "only" for Jesus to exclude other "sons of God." He wants to make him an incarnated God. However, this "only" does not work. Not only does it exclude other "sons of God;" it totally denies and dismisses them. Four kinds of translational errors: We see four main sources of error in existing scripture: I. Translation errors resulting from lack of understanding of linguistic rules such as grammar and idioms. II. Errors resulting from the translator's own bias in favor of their personal convictions, i.e., human bias. III.Innovations and additions to the scripture for prejudicial of political reasons. IV. Errors resulting from lack of original written manuscripts, since oral narrations are highly subject to distortion, delitions, addition, and human forgetfulness. Thus, we cannot rely on the Bible verbatim. The Bible should be studied in a critical way. We know that they are the translations of translations bearing deficiencies mentioned above. Questions: 1. How can we totally trust the translations which distort the most important words, the central concepts in the doctrine of any religion? 2. Which translation of Matthew 2:2,8 is correct: the one with "worship" or the one with "pay homage"? Why? 3. Is there any difference between "Son of Man" and "Son of God"? If there is, why does the King James version change "Son of Man" in John 9:35 to "Son of God"? 4. What is your evidence that John 9:38 is not an addition, as claimed by some Christian scholars? 5. Was Jesus the "only" son of God? What about other "sons of God" or "begotten" sons of God? Were they adopted?
	Moslem Questions on Christianity Edip Yuksel P.O. Box 43476, Tucson, AZ 85733-3476 U.S.A. Tel/Fax: (520) 323-7636
	\| Indeks Antar Agama \| Indeks Artikel \| \| ISNET Homepage \| MEDIA Homepage \| Program Kerja \| Koleksi \| Anggota \| Please direct any suggestion to Media Team