By Morganite
The divde is artificial, man made and can be crossed by man, if he so desires.

I can't give you reputation, so have to comment this way. The Bible is not a 'good' histery book in all cases. Discrete accounts of the same events differs in some important particulars, and the actual day of the Last Supper as recorded in the Synoptic gospels is disputed by John's account. It was not written as a history book, so we must not look for reliable records of what happened. it is written mostly as salvation history in which the what it means is of greater importance than what actually happened.

Someone wrote that the Bible and al Qur'an recorded the same historical events. This is patently not so, as even a cursory reading will reveal.

M:)

Man made, very likely, but how do you believe it can be bridged without loss to all parties?

That people stop the BS and accept each other does not have to come as a loss. We have proven as humans we can be different and still revel in our sameness.

To hadi88-

I spent about an hour reading the LINK you provided. From what I know so far and what I determined (considering your link) Muslim suicide bombers DO take the Qur'an's verses out of context. It must be poverty and lack of freedoms that make a young Muslim vulnerable to such brainwashing so as to say that they interpret the meaning and circumstances of the word "JIHAD"and become religious fundamentalists.
It isn't any other religion subscribing to the Qur'an, so I am just reading what I see.
So is it that these thousands of militants turn into just people who hate- and not because people who hate Islam - that some chapters or verses in the Qur'an get scutinized about?
Doesn't this hate stem from their confusion and desperation, aided by a leader, AND the Qur'an?

Jihad Watch: "The Koran says it is the duty of Muslims to bring terror to the enemy, so being a terrorist makes me a good Muslim"

IRAN: MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT TRY TO IMPEACH AHMADINEJAD

If I recall correctly what I read after 9/11 Most of the terrorist involved where middle class oddly enough.
Just in from work so to tired and lazy to Google it up and check though -- Savage

This has become really wild! There are just too many posts to quote from, as there are so many aspects touched upon, so I offer the following in support of my original thought:

Exod 32:1-4
1 And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we what not what is become of him.
2 And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me.
3 And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron.
4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
(KJV)

The molten calf was certainly not Yaweh, but if you will read the complete account you will find that they CALLED it Yaweh. It is not a question of "god is god is god". The Scriptures teach that there are many that are called god, but only one Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent God. (Please, let's not get into the Trinity discussion here.)

No one has yet taken Satan into account here. (You do believe he exists, don't you?)
2 Cor 11:14
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
(KJV)

Deception is his method of operation.

In the Old Covenant, Yaweh did everything necessary to keep His promise to Eve.

Gen 3:15
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
(KJV)

Jesus brought a New Covenant. He had come, so there could be no further threat to His lineage, so destruction of certain populaces was no longer necessary. Under this New Covenant we are to love our enemies, pray for those that despitefully use us.

There has always been a difference in the commands to government and to individuals.
The nation that turns the other cheek will not last long.

Finally, (for now), please give me a list of those countries that are predominantly Moslem where other faiths are not oppressed in some manner. I would like to know if there are any. I am not interested in some slick web site designed for PR purposes.

Actually from what I've seen the Islamic faith has as many branches as Christianity, so another X in the similar file.

Islam doesn't have branches. It is only to following the Quran and the teachings Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), all others such as shaitii, sofi, marzai .etc were created after the death of Prophet. (This is just to the best of my knowledge, which to me make sense, that when Prophet died, then who are we to make our own believes(branches), after what he had already taught).

You mean like the lutheran, protestant, baptists, and methodists? Seems to me this is another similarity between Islam and Christianity and Judaism. When one church(mosque)(synagogue) disagrees on policy or whatever, they form another group and change the name, but still hold the same book dear.Hmmmmmmmmmmmm!! Honestly the more I learn the less that separates them.

Salaam a' leikum,

Whatever name you choose to apply, it is obvious that there are different schools of thought and interpretation within Islam, and it is to these divisions that the term 'branches' was applied.

How a person interprets the Qur'an and chooses to enfold those teaching in their lives is a cause of divisions within Islam. The idea that Islam is one monolithic religion is a fiction, for the divisions are deep and ancient, and the same condition exists in Judaism and Christianity. Were it not so, there would be no Suni, Shiite, or Amadiyahs, etc, no Orthodox, Liberal or Reform, etc, no Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Methodist, etc. etc. etc.

Although Christianity gets the trophy for the largest number of discrete cults, Judaism and Islam also have fundamental divisions, and to deny it is disingenuous.


M:)RGANITE

The idea that poverty produces fundamentalist militant terrorists has been exploded by the social and educational status of mnay of the terrorists already known and apprehended. They are, with few exceptions, middle class, educated, and a long way from poor.

Poverty tends to create people aware of social inequalities who strive to make the playing field of economic life more level for the poor, but unless such a person's crtitical thinking is severely damaged they will not resort to violence in pursuit of their aims.

For a person to deliberately take the lives of innocent strangers in pursuit of their political or religious goals requires a pathological ideological basis that is severely out of kilter with the thinking, aims, and purposes of the mass of humanity.

Revolutionaries are either impatient for change, or else believe that change can come about through no other means. Karl Marx believed that social revolution was the natural outcome of the suppression, oppression, and exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeousie that would 'inevitably' result in revolution with the proletarians seizing the means of production and casting aside their capitalist masters.

This not only did not happen, and when social revolution by workers was even mooted as in the case, for example, of the Tolpuddle Martyrs, it was crushed by heavy legal hands. This kind of hopelessness led Lenin and other like-minded to institute the revolution without waiting for 'historical inevitability' to cough up Marx's predicted results.

The second point you mention as the cause of making terrorists is lack of 'freedoms.' But if that were really the case, then their efforts would be directed against the regimes in which they live that are autocratic, plutocratic, or oligocratic and therefore deny their freedoms rather than directed against innocent people in democratic countries?

Many terrorist leaders have given their reasons for their murderous militancy: it is because they see all non-Muslims as the devil, and hence they are their enemies, and they seek total destruction and the establishment of shariah law in every country in the world and death to the infidel (you and me)! This despite the fact that the Qur'an nominates Jews and Christians as 'People of the Book' and able to worship and live free without attack from Muslim armies.

Fortunately, the vast majority of Muslims and Muslim scholars argue against their twisted perspective (which is redolent of the twisted logic of certain fundamentalist Christians who use the same or similar invective and justify their actions from scripture).


M:)RGANITE

I think good humans who want to live in peace far outnumber the nut jobs of the world. The nut jobs get more press cause more fear and kill more people. And you better believe they pay those nut jobs GOOD money to make all that chaos, and mayhem.

Yes, Many people who want to live in peace far outnumber the nut jobs.

Excellent way of wording it. Peace should be with each other no matter what. There are

People who are out to cause barriers and strife and differences, but in reality.

None of it is different at all.

Joe

Hello Galveston,

Here is what I really feel:

Could God’s name be “Allah”? No. As a good dictionary will show you, “Allah” is a shortened form of the Arabic term meaning “the god.” Obviously, this is not a name.

The name “Jehovah” is found in numerous writings and in many places. But the principal source of the name is in ancient Hebrew writings contained in the Bible.

Here is the pronounciiation of God’s name in just some other languages:

Forms of the divine name in different languages, indicating international acceptance of the form Jehovah
Awabakal – Yehóa
Bugotu - Jihova
Cantonese - Yehwowah
Danish - Jehova
Dutch - Jehovah
Efik - Jehovah
English - Jehovah
Fijian - Jiova
Finnish - Jehova
French - Jéhovah
Futuna - Ihova
German - Jehova
Hungarian - Jehova
Igbo - Jehova
Italian - Geova
Japanese - Ehoba
Maori - Ihowa
Motu - Iehova
Mwala-Malu - Jihova
Narrinyeri - Jehovah
Nembe - Jihova
Petats - Jihouva
Polish - Jehowa
Portuguese - Jeová
Romanian - Iehova
Samoan - Ieova
Sotho - Jehova
Spanish - Jehová
Swahili - Yehova
Swedish - Jehova
Tahitian - Iehova
Tagalog - Jehova
Tongan - Jihova
Venda - Yehova
Xhosa - uYehova
Yoruba - Jehofah
Zulu – uJehova
The Name Jehovah’s Witnesses throughout the world”
Arabic هﻮﻬﻳ دﻮﻬ
English Jehovah’s Witnesses
French Témoins de Jéhovah
Greek Μαρτυρες του Ιεχωβα
Greenlandic Jehovap Nalunaajaasui
Italian Testimoni di Geova
Papiamento Testigonan di Jehova
Polish Świadkowie Jehowy
Portuguese Testemunhas de Jeová
Samoan Molimau a Ieova
Spanish Testigos de Jehová
Sranantongo Jehovah Kotoigi
Tagalog Mga Saksi ni Jehova
Vietnamese Nhân-chứng Giê-hô-va
The Name Jehovah’s Witnesses in The Orient and Islands of the Pacific
Bicol, Cebuano, Hiligaynon,
Samar-Leyte, Tagalog Mga Saksi ni Jehova
Bislama Ol Wetnes blong Jeova
English Jehovah’s Witnesses
Fijian Vakadinadina I Jiova
Hiri Motu Iehova ena Witness Taudia
Iloko Dagiti Saksi ni Jehova
Indonesian Saksi-Saksi Yehuwa
Marshallese Dri Kennan ro an Jeova
New Guinea Pidgin Ol Witnes Bilong Jehova
Niuean Tau Fakamoli a Iehova
Palauan reSioning er a Jehovah
Pangasinan Saray Tasi nen Jehova
Ponapean Sounkadehde kan en Siohwa
Rarotongan Au Kite o Iehova
Russian Свидетели Иеговы
Samoan, Tuvaluan Molimau a Ieova
Solomon Islands Pidgin all’gether Jehovah’s Witness
Tahitian Ite no Iehova
Tongan Fakamo‘oni ‘a Sihova
Trukese Ekkewe Chon Pwarata Jiowa
Vietnamese Nhân-chứng Giê-hô-va
Yapese Pi Mich Rok Jehovah
The Name Jehovah’s Witnesses in Africa
Afrikaans Jehovah se Getuies
Arabic هﻮﻬﻳ دﻮﻬﺷ
Chicheŵa Mboni za Yehova
Cibemba Inte sha kwa Yehova
Efịk Mme Ntiense Jehovah
English Jehovah’s Witnesses
Ewe Yehowa Ðasefowo
French Témoins de Jéhovah
Ga Yehowa Odasefoi
Gun Kunnudetọ Jehovah tọn lẹ
Hausa Shaidun Jehovah
Igbo Ndịàmà Jehova
Kiluba Ba Tumoni twa Yehova
Kinyarwanda Abahamya ba Yehova
Kirundi Ivyabona vya Yehova
Kisi Seiyaa J?howaa
Kwanyama Eendombwedi daJehova
Lingala Batemwe you Jéhovah
Luganda Abajulirwa ba Yakuwa
Malagasy Vavolombelon’i Jehovah
Moore A Zeova Kaset rãmba
Ndonga Oonzapo dhaJehova
Portuguese Testemunhas de Jeová
Sango A-Témoin ti Jéhovah
Sepedi Dihlatse tša Jehofa
Sesotho Lipaki tsa Jehova
Shona Zvapupu zvaJehovha
Silozi Lipaki za Jehova
Swahili Mashahidi wa Yehova
Tshiluba Bantemu ba Yehowa
Tsonga Timbhoni ta Yehova
Tswana Basupi ba ga Jehofa
Twi Yehowa Adansefo
Venda Ṱhanzi dza Yehova
Xhosa amaNgqina kaYehova
Yoruba Ẹlẹ́rìí Jehofa
Zulu oFakazi BakaJehova
The Name Jehovah’s Witnesses in Europe and the Middle East
Albanian Dëshmitarët e Jehovait
Arabic هﻮﻬﻳ دﻮﻬﺷ
Bulgarian Свидетелите на Йехова
Croatian Jehovini svjedoci
Czech svĕdkové Jehovovi
Danish Jehovas Vidner
Dutch Jehovah’s Getuigen
English Jehovah’s Witnesses
Estonian Jehoova tunnistajad
Finnish Jehovan todistajat
French Témoins de Jéhovah
German Jehovas Zeugen
Greek Μαρτυρες του Ιεχωβα
Hebrew הוהי־ידע
Hungarian Jehova Tanúi
Icelandic Vottar Jehóva
Italian Testimoni di Geova
Macedonian, Serbian Јеховини сведоци
Maltese Xhieda ta’ Jehovah
Norwegian Jehovas vitner
Polish Świadkowie Jehowy
Portuguese Testemunhas de Jeová
Romanian Martorii lui Iehova
Russian Свидетели Иеговы
Slovak Jehovovi svedkovia
Slovenian Jehovove priče
Spanish Testigos de Jehová
Swedish Jehovas vittnen
Turkish Yehova’nın Şahitleri
Ukrainian Свідки Єгови

“Jehovah” has become widely known as the name of God even in non-Biblical contexts.

Franz Schubert composed the music for the lyric entitled “The Almightiness,” written by Johann Ladislav Pyrker, in which the name Jehovah appears twice. It is also used at the end of the last scene of Verdi’s opera “Nabucco.”

Additionally, French composer Arthur Honegger’s oratorio “King David” gives prominence to the name Jehovah, and renowned French author Victor Hugo used it in over 30 of his works. Both he and Lamartine wrote poems entitled “Jehovah.”

In the book Deutsche Taler (The German Taler), published in 1967 by Germany’s Federal Bank, there is a picture of what is one of the oldest coins bearing the name “Jehovah,” a 1634 Reichstaler from the Duchy of Silesia. Regarding the picture on the coin’s reverse side, it says: “Under the radiant name JEHOVAH, rising up out of the midst of clouds, is a crowned shield with the Silesian coat of arms.”

In a museum in Rudolstadt, East Germany, you can see on the collar of the suit of armor once worn by Gustavus II Adolph, a 17th-century king of Sweden, the name JEHOVAH in capital letters.

Thus, for centuries the form Jehovah has been the internationally recognized way to pronounce God’s name, and people who hear it instantly recognize who is being spoken about. As Professor Oehler said, “This name has now become more naturalized in our vocabulary, and cannot be supplanted.”—Theologie des Alten Testaments (Theology of the Old Testament).

Detail of an angel with God’s name, found on the tomb of Pope Clement XIII in St. Peter’s Basilica, the Vatican

Many coins were minted bearing God’s name. This one, dated 1661, is from Nuremberg, Germany. The Latin text reads: “Under the shadow of your wings”

In times past, God’s name in the form of the Tetragrammaton was made part of the decoration of many religious buildings
Fourvière Catholic Basilica, Lyons, France
Bourges Cathedral, France
Church in La Celle Dunoise, France
Church in Digne, southern France
Church in São Paulo, Brazil
Strasbourg Cathedral, France
Saint Mark’s Cathedral, Venice, Italy
Jehovah’s name as it appears in a monastery in Bordesholm, Germany;
on a German coin dated 1635;
over a church door in Fehmarn, Germany;
and on an 1845 gravestone in Harmannschlag, Lower Austria
Comments??

Take care,
Hope12

An interesting collection of names and titles to do with yhvh, but they really do not settle the problem the questioner raises. Whikle it is true that the tetragrammaton has appeared in many places as decoration, or ascription to God, that does not change the fact that God has also been called by different names and titles that are just as relevant.

One dictionary defines 'Allah' as God, from the Arabic, 'Al·lah' a compound word form from "al" meaning "the" and "'ilh" meaning God. The Hebrew equivalent would be ha-el, meaning "the God." Attempts to make allah distinct from "God" are nothing but semantic acrobatics performed by those who cannot stand anything Islamic, not even when it translates into "God."

The tetragrammaton yhvh is used of God in the Bible, but as no one is certain how it is to be pronounced because it is held to be ineffable on account of its sacredness by Isralites and Jews, who use circomlocutions in its place, either in speech or when reading from the Hebrew scriptures. God is written G-d by kashrut Jews, and God is referred to as ha-shem, meaning "the name," or as "the Holy One of Israel" or by several other well known and time worn substitutes.

Yhvh has been rendered as "Jehovah" by biblical scholars who did not know any better, but there is no "J' sound in Hebrew, and the 'yod' that ought to have been rendred as 'y' in English was mistransliterated by inept scholars as a 'j' and through customs and usage has stuck, except where scholastic rigour has reverted to the proper value for 'yod.'

The tetragrammaton is capable of being translated into something much more meaningful than Jehovah, or even yhvh, yahowah,or yahveh, etc. The transliteration of the second consonant depends on whether Ashkenazi or Shephardic pronounciation is used, for one will say 'waw' and the other will say 'vav.'

The simple Hebrew verb to be, is yh(y). yhvh (properly hvhy) could mean "the existing One" or "He who is," when applied to deity, but would not necessarily be a proper name but rather a description or descriptive appellation, from which the term or title 'the living God' is a natural derivation, meaning the true God rather than any of the gods or Gods worshipped by Israel's neighbours thought and said to be false gods or Gods, and held to be dead gods or Gods - and sometimes worshipped by Israelites themselves during their periods of apostasy which were frequent and lenghty according to the scriptures.

Whether it is right to capitalise names from the Hebrew that are transliterated into English is questionable, because there are no capital forms in Hebrew. However, it is frequently done as a theological statement to inferiorize the gods of those who are neither Jewish or Christian. A strange form of behaviour for religious people!

What is important is not the name or any name or names by which god or God is called, but being able to define his characteristics from what sacred scripture says about him. As this characterisation changes with the passing of time (I hear the faggots crackling round the stake already!), it is difficult to pin God down to being precisely this or that in the narrow sense that sopme theological (and Christological) commentators try to do so that they rigidly define their own god or God in order to exclude the god or God who is worshipped by others not of their mindset.

Thus, it is my contention that the name of God (that the scriptures choose to change according to the whim of the writer) is not the important or central issue when answering this question. As the Bard said, "What's in a name?" What is important is "Who is God and what is he like, etc?" rather than "What is he called?"

The name of God is not a key to open the doors of heaven to the cogniscenti, nor the pass that grants access to him or his kingdom. Arabs who pray to Allah, or allah, will be heard just as surely as those who pray to elohim or Elohim, or to any other of the many names and titles that have been applied to him (or Him).

M:)RGANITE

<br><br><br>Oehler said, <i>“This name has now become more naturalized in our vocabulary, and cannot be supplanted.”</i>—Theologie des Alten Testaments.

<br><br>Oehler was wrong. It has beens upplanted in modern times with forms of yhvh that are considered to more accurately represent the hebrew text. No one should be tied to old forms of anything merely because they were once almost universally accepted or believed.

God did not give humanity a mind to have him slip it into the track of a trolley car heading for the wrong destination.

<br><br>As Saint Paul said so forcibly, <i>"Test everything, and hold on to what is true." </i><br><br>The corollary to that is to abandon everything found not to be as it was once thought to be. It takes intellectual honesty and some courage to swim against the stream.

<br><br>For example, why should we applaud the 'heretic' Galileo for his holding onto his helocentirc theory against the deadly stream of the geocentirc absolute that had been taught as a dogma for centuries, yet fail to make our own journeys out of the darkness and into the light when it shines plainly before us?

<br><br>There comes time in all our lives when it is right to challenge received wisdom.

<br><br>The old order changes giving place to new,
<br>And God fulfills himself in many ways
<br>Lest one good custom should corrupt the world.

<br><br>Does it make sense to call God by a name nearer to what his name is or was rather than to call him by a name that came about through misinterpretation?&nbsp; It is amistake to attemopt biblical exegesis with an English text.&nbsp; It can only be done in a satisfactory way in the original biblical languages by someone who knows the language, and the background to the biblical books.<br><br><br>M:)<br>

Wa'alaikum Asalaam (Peace be upon to you too).

I guess it's my fault i did not expliand my post clear enough, sorry for that.

No, i am not denying the facts, yes there are different groups of people in Islam, but those braches are created by the people after the death of Prophet, the newest branch (as far as i know) is the nation of Islam (developed during the civil war), where probably you know better then me the exact story behind the Nation of Islam and the reason Malcolm X (was suspended first) left the organization when he found out what the real Islam is.
Where, can say the second main branch is Islam is Shiite, which was developed after the death of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), that group of people wanted Ali (the cousin and son in law of Prophet) to be the next leader, where when the Prophet was very sick he told Abu-Baker to lead the prayer, which was clearned enough message that He wanted Abu-Baker to be the leader (Caliph), so after Abut-baker there was Omer then Uthman and then Ali (there must be more info about that). Conflicts begin there and created another goupd. I think there is difference between the Shahda also for Shiite it is as "I testity that there is no god but God, Mohammad(PBUH) is the Messanger of God and Ali is the Friend of God" which make a huge difference. Where sunnis group it is " I testity that there is no god but God, Mohammad(PBUH) is the Messanger of God" and it is the same as Prophed Muhammed used to say.

I think i slipped out of track. Anyway there was no branch when the Prophet was alive so there should be any but yet there are many.

My mind (which won't make different to anybody) says, when Prophet did not had anything like that then why we created them by ourselves and fighting with each for no reason.

I think it's same thing with other religions one or another way.

Hadi88

Morganite, I have a question for you. Do you believe that a good person, Moslem, Buddhist, Jewish, etc. has everlasting life in Heaven, Paradise, or elsewhere? You testify to being a Christian, right?

It is my belief that each person will be judged against whatever light is in him. So, yes, I do believe that God will reward good persons for the good they do in this world irrespective of whether they are one thing or another.

It is easy for some in their theological phantasising to forget that God is the father of us all and that all humanity are descended from a pair of common parents, each of whom is created by God is his image and who he desires to save.

M:)

Peace,

Whatever the history, the divisions are there and have to be taken into account. You mention Sheik Uthman, who had (almost all) all variants of al Qur'an collected and burned to establish what he considered to be the single authentic text.

As is well known, slight variations in sacred texts when followed to their logical conclusions can lead people far apart, which is one of the main difficulties facing Bible scholars, and I do not doubt that Qur'anic scholars are similarly exercised.

Who is able to say with any degree of scientific certaintly (as opposed to the certainty of religious faith) that the Qur'an in Arabic as widely accepted throughout Islam today is exactly the same as when it left the lips of the Prophet? Because the original text has either perished or been lost, it is not possible to refer to it as an authority in modern discussions by discrete groups of Muslims, which is precisely the problem that faces both Jew and Christian. There exists no original monograph of any part of the Bible, Hebrew or Greek, although there are variants. In the case of the Gospel of Mark there are over 2,400 variant readings. Even if the differences are not great, the fact that they exist at all makes reference to an authoritative version impossible.

Yet each Torah and Bible scholar has his or her preferences, prejudices, personal interpretations, translations, and understandings, and that is where they begin to separate in some way or other. How can anyone be sure that the words out of the mouth of Moshe are the words he actually uttered? How can anyone be sure that the words of Jesus recorded in the Greek scriptures are his ipissima verba? How can anyone be sure that the words written in al Qur'an are as they were when they were delivered to Mohammed?

Faith can supply the answers to these questions, but seldom with universal agreement, and that is where we came in - almost. We actually came in on the subject of the name of God, but you already have my feelings on that.

M:)RGANITE

Thank you for clarifying your position. However, if your theology is correct, then the crucifixion of Jesus Christ was pointless, and the original Apostles and Paul were fools to lay down their lives for the Gospel. I do apologize for pulling this thread away from its original intent.