Exchange About Alleged Mistranslations of Isaiah 53 and the Quranic Error About Ezra in Surah 9:30 - By Nakdimon

8/6/2019 Exchange About Alleged Mistranslations of Isaiah 53 and the Quranic Error About Ezra in Surah 9:30 - By Nakdimon

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/exchange-about-alleged-mistranslations-of-isaiah-53-and-the-quranic-error-about 1/26

Exchange about alleged mistranslations of Isaiah 53

and the Quranic error about Ezra in Surah 9:30

By Nakdimon

This is an exchange between me and Osama Abdallah of the Answering-Christianity website,

which took place on the blog of Nabeel Qureshi and David Wood, answeringmuslims.com.1

It all started when Osama Abdallah made the claim that Christians have mistranslated Isaiah

53. Ironically he doesn¶t know that the very things that he objects to in the Christian

translations are also translated as such in the Jewish translations. Add to that the fact that

Osama Abdallah doesn¶t know any Hebrew it is quite a claim that he makes about the

translations of the text of Isaiah 53. But his inability to read even the lexicons and the

commentaries correctly that he uses, as shown below, will demonstrate that Osama Abdallahis not to be taken seriously on his claims and that engaging in dialogue for his sake is nothing

but a waste of time, since he refuses be corrected.

Note: I have slightly edited the exchange for clarity and easy reading. Osama´s words

are in italics. The caps in my posts are not shouts at Osama, but just for emphasis.

My response to Osama:

September 7, 2009 5:12 AM

O sama: You know well that if Psalm 91 is talking about Jesus, then your entire faith

crumbles into devistation. Yet, we do have a direct link between Jesus and Psalm 91 in the

New Testament by, IRO NICALLY, JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF! Along also with satan as well.

Satan tried to use Psalm 91 to tempt Jesus into testing GOD Almighty to try to kill himself to see if GOD Almighty will truly send down the ANGELS T O LIFT JESUS UP FRO M D EATH

AN D HARM as Psalm 91 precisely predicted. Psalm 91 further delcares that Christ will call upon GOD Almighty for help to protect him from death, and GOD Almighty will H O N O R

HIM AN D PROTECT HIM FRO M D EATH! This is what Psalm 91 explicitly says.

Oh my, you have just moved into my area of expertise.

Here are some responses to some more sophisticated arguments against the reading that

Isaiah 53 is about Yeshua:

Rebuttal to Jewish anti-missionary claims against the Messianic interpretations of Isaiah 53.

Part ONE

Rebuttal to Jewish anti-missionary claims against the Messianic interpretations of Isaiah 53.

Part TWO



Now to your objections.

Osama, I noticed that you keep on harping on Psalm 91 as a refutation of our reading onIsaiah 53. Your argument is totally based on hot air . What you have to do is prove that Psalm

91 is either Messianic or has anything to do with Yeshua. If you can¶t do that, your entire

argument is just totally baseless and you have nothing to stand on.

Second, you have to prove that Isaiah 53 is NOT Messianic and cannot apply to Yeshua. If

you can¶t do that, your argument is totally baseless and you have nothing to stand on .

Third, you keep pointing out that Satan quotes scripture, but you fail to take heed to the

refutation of the Messiah. It is illustrative of your position that you take Satan¶s word over

that of the Messiah when it comes to the application of Scripture to salvage your utterly

untenable position.

Fourth, where did you get the utterly foolish idea from that Yeshua¶s faith crumbled? Can

you point us to the text that says this, please?

Thanks, Nakdimon

Osama¶s response to me:


"Osama, I noticed that you keep on harping on Psalm 91 as a refutation of our reading on

Isaiah 53. Your argument is totally based on hot air . What you have to do is prove that Psalm

91 is either Messianic or has anything to do with Yeshua. If you can¶t do that, your entire

argument is just totally baseless and you have nothing to stand on .

Second, you have to prove that Isaiah 53 is NOT Messianic and cannot apply to Yeshua. If you can¶t do that, your argument is totally baseless and you have nothing to stand on ."

In the link above, I already proved that Isaiah 53 is deliberately mistranslated, and it doesn't

say the things that you read in it in English.

Also, it is funny that you mentioned your points above, because in the New Testament, it is

Psalm 91 that is directly linked to Jesus Christ and not Isaiah 53. In fact, the Jews strongly

believe that Isaiah 53 had been fulfilled centuries before Christ. But in either case, Isaiah 53

doesn't disprove Psalm 91.

"Third, you keep pointing out that Satan quotes scripture, but you fail to take heed to therefutation of the Messiah. It is illustrative of your position that you take Satan¶s word over

that of the Messiah when it comes to the application of Scripture to salvage your utterlyuntenable position."

This dumb argument that I keep getting from Christians is getting too old and too ridiculous.

It further convinces me of how blind and shallow-minded you are.



No one here is taking satans words over anyone else's words. I said above that satan TRIE D T O USE PSALM 91 T O TEMPT JESUS INT O TRYING T O KILL HIMSELF, BY JUMPING

O FF THE CANY O N O R M OUNTAIN, to see if GOD Almighty will be True to His Word and Promise of sending the Angels down to lift Jesus up so that he would neither get harmed or

die. THEY W O N'T EVEN ALLOW HIS F OOT T O STRIKE A ROCK. This is by the way a

symbolic expression of saying that they will cover him with protection from harm and death,

as PSALM 91 FURTHER PRO MISES.

"Fourth, where did you get the utterly foolish idea from that Yeshua¶s faith crumbled? Can

you point us to the text that says this, please?"

What Jesus' faith crumbling? Go and re-read what I wrote. I said that if we establish that

Psalm 91 is about Jesus Christ, WHICH IT CLEARLY IS, then your entire faith would

crumble into devistation.

To the reader, please visit: http://www.answering-christianity.com/isaiah_53.htm

O sama Abdallah

www.answering-christianity.com



In the link above, I already proved that Isaiah 53 is deliberately mistranslated, and it doesn't

say the things that you read in it in English.

Osama, I will not go to your website since it is virus invested.2

But I would like to see youdoing some translating of the Hebrew, a language that I speak and you don¶t. Btw, I deal with

all the so-called mistranslations that Jewish rabbis bring up on my website . Please give me a

couple of examples of how Isaiah 53 is mistranslated.

Also, it is funny that you mentioned your points above, because in the New Testament, it is

Psalm 91 that is directly linked to Jesus Christ and not Isaiah 53. In fact, the Jews strongly

believe that Isaiah 53 had been fulfilled centuries before Christ. But in either case, Isaiah 53

doesn't disprove Psalm 91.

I¶m Jewish and have engaged with Jewish anti-missionaries for years. I have read a good

portion of traditional Jewish commentaries on Isaiah 53 and I cannot remember ever reading

or hearing something about Isaiah 53 being fulfilled before the Messiah. Can you actually

back up what you¶re saying here? What source are you referring to when you say this?

Second, can you point us to where Psalm 91 is directly linked to Yeshua in the NT?

Third, since I can build a strong case for Isaiah 53 being either about the Messiah or

specifically about Yeshua and you can¶t build any case for Psalm 91 is either about the

Messiah or specifically about Yeshua, how does Isaiah 53 not disprove your reading of Psalm

91?



This dumb argument that I keep getting from Christians is getting too old and too ridiculous. It further convinces me of how blind and shallow-minded you are.

No one here is taking satans words over anyone else's words. I said above that satan TRIE D

T O USE PSALM 91 T O TEMPT JESUS INT O TRYING T O KILL HIMSELF, BY JUMPING

O FF THE CANY O N O R M OUNTAIN, to see if GOD Almighty will be True to His Word and

Promise of sending the Angels down to lift Jesus up so that he would neither get harmed or die. THEY W O N'T EVEN ALLOW HIS F OOT T O STRIKE A ROCK. This is by the way a

symbolic expression of saying that they will cover him with protection from harm and death,

as PSALM 91 FURTHER PRO MISES.

Talk about stupid arguments. You don¶t even see that no matter how you slice it, you take

SATAN¶S APPLICATION, or rather MISAPPLICATION, of scripture and build your case

on SATAN¶S UNDERSTANDING, or rather MISUNDERSTANDING, while the Messiah

COUNTERS that quote from Psalm 91 and debunks the application! So my argument still

stands. You build your case on SATAN¶S reading, but totally ignore the Messiah¶s correction

of Satan¶s MISAPPLICATION of the verse.

Let me point you to the fact that Peter also tried this. And notice how the Messiah AGAINidentified and rebukes the spirit that made Peter say this:

21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and

SUFFER many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be KILLE D and on the third day be RAISE D T O LIFE. 22 Peter took him aside

and began to rebuke him. "NEVER, LO R D!" he said. "THIS SHALL NEVER HAPPEN T O Y OU!" 23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, "GET BEHIN D ME, SATAN! Y OU ARE A

STUMBLING BLOCK T O ME; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of

men." (Matthew 16)

Notice that Peter made the same argument that YOU are making here when the Messiah toldhim that he was to suffer and die. He says that the Messiah will never be hurt . Yeshua

rebukes him and tells him that he is a stumbling block to Him. Clearly the Messiah hadnothing to do with Psalm 91. He Himself totally rejects it when people try to apply it to Him

and He rebukes those that try to tell Him that God will not let Him suffer . But seeing your position I understand why you would rely on Satan in support of it.



Since Osama Abdallah didn¶t bother to give us examples of mistranslations in Isaiah 53, Itook the trouble and the risk to visit his website and have a look at the reportedmistranslations myself . Here is my answer to the points he raises about the mistranslations.

1 - Isaiah 53:3 says that "Jesus" is despised by all men. In Luke 10:1, Jesus has at least 70

followers, and in other verses we're told that he fed and healed thousands (John 6:9-11, Luke17:11-19 and other verses).



First of all, Isaiah is describing the status of the servant in his suffering. In the case of Yeshuathat would be during his trial and his death. He carried the suffering alone, with no one to aid

or assist him. Second, I¶m looking at the Hebrew of Isaiah 53:3 and I see nothing about theservant being despised by ³all´ men. Can you tell me where the Hebrew word for ³all´ is in

the text? Seeing you made the claim that Isaiah 53 is mistranslated, I take it your

understanding of the text must be in accordance with what actually is written in the Hebrew

text. As far as I¶m concerned, the word ³all´ isn¶t even in the text and therefore point 1 ismoot!

2 - In Isaiah 53:5 it says he was wounded for our transgressions. Now right away one might

assume this is the death of Jesus. However it says he was W OUN D E D not killed. But let us go

with killed for your arguments sake. This is not what this verse is saying. It is saying that they

made a mistake so he is paying for it. They plotted or accused against him. This is exactly

what happened. And again, the verse says wounded, which further proves that Christ was

never killed .

And in typical Muslim fashion you read the verse and don¶t bother to read on what is said

about the same servant:

Verse 8 says he was ³cut off from the land of the living´,

Verse 9 speaks of his grave and his deathVerse 10 speaks about giving his soul as an asham (guilt offering)

Verse 12 says he bore his soul unto death

But none of this seems to face you, doesn¶t it? And you don¶t even realise that you have shotyourself in the foot. You applied this verse to Yeshua and said that this proves that he was

never killed, but only wounded. Herewith you have undercut everything you have said in

your article regarding Psalm 91. You can¶t have it both ways. Either Isaiah 53:5 is about

Yeshua and he was wounded, according to your reading, or Psalm 91 is about Yeshua and he

was NOT wounded, also according to your reading. So, what will it be? As far as I¶m

concerned point 2 is moot!

3 - Isaiah 53:7 states that "he did not open his mouth". There are two possible interpretations

and answers to this:

Jesus never literally spoke a single word during the crucifixion trial. This is obviously wrong because Jesus spoke during his trial with both Pontius Pilot and the Jews. And we all know

Jesus' famous and final cry to GOD Almighty when he said: "Eloi Eloi lama sabachtani!",

which translates: "My GOD my GOD , why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46) So

wrong. He did open his mouth.

Jesus did not object to GOD Almighty's Will. This is also wrong, because again, Jesus cried during the crucifixion "My GOD my GOD why have you forsaken me?", and he also prayed

EN D LESSLY to GOD Almighty on the night of the crucifixion to not get crucified! (Matthew

16:39, Matthew 26:36-44, Luke 6:12) He even bowed down his face to Allah Almighty in

worship endless times begging Him for a change in Decision. So yes, Jesus did object.

How about a third: He never objected to his accusers. Which is the exact understanding that

becomes obvious to anyone who has any regard for the context and even for the verse itself .

The verse starts out ³He was oppressed´. He was oppressed by whom? His accusers. It then



goes on to say ³like a lamb that is led to the slaughter´ . He was led to his execution bywhom? His accusers. He didn¶t say a word to defend himself before them. Point 3 is also

moot!

4 - Isaiah 53:9 says that he made his grave with the wicked and the rich. According to

scripturetext.com/isaiah/53-9.htm:

in his death" is also a false translation to the Hebrew Mawth. At the worst, it should be

translated as "in death", making the word a symbolic one as further confirmed in the Hebrew

lexicon:

in his death

maveth (maw'-veth)

death (natural or violent) [notice not "his death". It only says "death"]; concretely, the dead,

their place or state (hades); figuratively, pestilence, ruin -- (be) dead(-ly), death, die(-d)."

A lot of points here:

FIRST: you look at the definition of the word ³mawet´ and then highlight the ³figurative´sense in your article. But you don¶t even regard all the other definition that your source put

for you to read.

SECOND: is there a particular reason why you have scratched ³his´ in the ³in his death´

phrase in your article?

THIRD: all the lexicon says about death being figuratively is that it can ALSO be understood

to be figuratively. But its foremost meaning is literal death.

FOURTH: Since you insist that ³mawet´ has to be figuratively and cannot in any way shapeor form be literally death, can you tell us what the Hebrew word for literal death is that Isaiah

should have used to give us the impression that this is a physical death and not a mere

figurative death?

FIFTH: you then go to translations that aren¶t translations at all. The NLT and the CEV are

NOT translations, but paraphrases. You object to the word ³mawet´ being translated as

³death´, yet you subsequently run to other translations that don¶t even translate the word

³mawet´ at all!

SIXTH: Even the YLT translates it incorrectly, since the YLT has an improper understanding

of the word at hand. The YLT reads the word ³bemotaaw´ to understood as ³bamotaaw´. But

this reading is untenable, since ³bamot´ (high places) are places where idol worship is being

practiced. This is NOT what Isaiah is saying about the servant.

SEVENTH: The word ³bemotaaw´ DOES mean ³in HIS deaths´. The suffix ³-aaw´ is third

person singular in the masculine form denoting a plurality of possession.3

Then you go on to say:

1. Jesus was never buried (Matthew 27:59-66, Matthew 28)! He was temporarily placed in a

tomb and then his body disappeared after that. But he never O NCE was buried under ground



as our dead get buried.

2. Jesus, who was never buried from the first place, was also NEVER BURIE D with thewicked and the rich. His tomb was placed in an isolated area as recorded in the gospels.

The sheer ignorance you display is astounding. And I read someone praising you for your

scholarship earlier in this thread. Burial in ancient days took place in tombs. There were two burials: stage one was that the body was placed in a tomb to decay so that only the bones

were left and then stage two would follow, where the bones were collected out of the tomb

and piled up in a small coffin and were buried. So, no, Yeshua was never buried as our dead

get buried, because that was never the method that people got buried.

As for your second point, since the Hebrew in Isaiah 53 is very poetic, the words of Isaiah are

open to interpretation. The words are just as probable to read, that he was buried between the

wicked, referring to those surrounding graves with their dead. It can also be referring to his

burial by Yosef of Arimathea and all those that were with him, since the servant is described

as the Righteous One that suffers for and bares the iniquities of the unrighteous multitude. Inaddition, you don¶t know that the grave was in an isolated area since the Gospels don¶t give

us that information. All the Gospels say is that the grave was new and unused . You are justmaking this up in order to be able to raise objections. And with that said, point 4 is moot!

5 - In Isaiah 53:10-11, GOD Almighty will prolong Jesus' life and Jesus will live to even see

his offspring (his children)! And Christ will see the Light and be satisfied after the suffering of his soul. The suffering of his soul here is referring to the overwhelming fear that Jesus had

and the countless cries and Prayers that he made to Allah Almighty to save him. Psalm 91 further speaks clearly on this. Also, Jesus' life was never made long or extended. He only

lived for 33 years, so we're told in the gospels, and he certainly never married any woman

nor had any child from any woman. Yet, Isaiah 53:10 clearly says that he will live and he will

have and see his children.

Here you go again shooting yourself in the other foot. Psalm 91 says that he will not be

harmed, Isaiah 53 says he will be harmed. WHAT WILL IT BE???? And then, if that wasn¶tembarrassing enough, you go on to make the following mistakes:

1. You were the one that claim others mistranslate verses . Verse 10 doesn¶t say that the

servant will see HIS seed (zer o) but that he would see seed (zer a). It says nothing about theseed being that of the servant.

2. Just as in other places the word ³zera´ can be metaphorical and not referring to physical

offspring of the subject. Such as Psalm 22:31 where YHWH is the subject, yet no one will

say that the seed is His. And in Isaiah 57:4 where falsehood is the subject, yet no one will say

that the seed is the physical product of falsehood.

3. If you had any regard for the context of the verse, you would see that the prolonging of his

days is AFTER HE DIED, which clearly points to a resurrection from the dead. So this isn¶ttalking about a person that would live ³happily ever after´ and become old. This is talking

about a person living after he had died.

So I repeat that your objection point 5 is moot!



6 - In Isaiah 53:12, we are told that Jesus' life or soul will be poured unto death. To me, given the Islamic position about Christ never got crucified, and given the symbolic speech in

Isaiah 53 chapter that most of it conflicts with what really took place with Christ in the gospels, and given the fact that many early writings in Palestine and elsewhere stated clearly

that Jesus never got crucified such as in the Apocalypse of Peter and other ancient texts, then

my interpretation of this verse about Jesus' life being poured unto death means to me that

Jesus' life will overpower death! This is indisputably proven in Psalm 91 where it states that not only Jesus will not get crucified, but GOD Almighty will also hear his cries and will send

down the Angels to PROTECT HIM and SAVE HIM. And Psalm 91 also says that Christ will

call upon GOD Almighty and GOD Almighty will HEAR him and H O N O R him. Christ would

not have been honored if he have died the humiliating death of the cross. And certainly, he

would not have been "saved" either by the Angels.

Oh my, where to start:

1. There was no Palestine in the first century, the land was Israel. Palestine was not invented

until well into the second century.

2. The Apocalypse of Peter is NOT an early authentic text, it is a later apocryphal book!

3. When properly understood, Isaiah 53 ONLY makes sense when applied to the description

of the Messiah in the Gospels

4. You erroneously start with the a-chronological position that is the lens of the Quran and

then look at what the text of Scripture allows for . It never even occurs to you that the Quran

is a false book to begin with and that you have to look at how IT relates to the previous

revelations and NOT the other way around.

5. Your understanding of the servant overpowering death is a correct one. But not as you put

it. The chapter speaks of the rejection of the servant, his suffering, his death and his

resurrection, which is how he conquers death! But you don¶t allow that clear reading because

of your illogical position that you have to look at what the Quran allows for and adjust thereading of the text of Isaiah to that.

6. You still haven¶t shown us why we should even entertain the thought that Psalm 91 is

specifically about Yeshua or even generally Messianic at all. I have challenged you about that

reading to prove your point. You haven¶t done so to this day. If Psalm is really ³indisputably´

about the Messiah, please provide the evidence to stop this dispute.

7. You wrote: ³Christ would not have been honoured if he had died the humiliating death of

the cross. And certainly, he would not have been "saved" either by the Angels´. Which is

exactly why your reading is flawed. You, again, start with the illogical position that your reading of Psalm 91 is correct (without ANYTHING that remotely looks like evidence that itis), and then judge the Gospels¶ claims about the Messiah based on your flawed

understanding of ONE unambiguously non-Messianic Psalm.

8. As for Christ not being honoured if he died. What greater honour is there to be falsely

accused of wrongdoing, then put to death by your accusers and then completely vindicated by

God through resurrection and exaltation above the heavens? If you have an answer to that,

I¶m eager to see it.



9. You completely miss the purpose for all this suffering of the servant . The verse says:³because he bared his soul unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore

the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors´. Question: What did heintercede for? How did he bare the sins of many? WHY did he bare the sins of many? Who

were the ³many´ and the transgressors? How did he intercede for the transgressors? This

verse sums it all up perfectly: Through the suffering and the death of the Righteous Servant,

the sins of many transgressors will be interceded for . But, of course, you will not allow for this clear reading, because the Quran doesn¶t allow you to go there.

Your point 6 is moot!

It then seems to me that Muslims will turn facts into fables to keep the truth claims of the

Quran alive. And they will subsequently turn fables into facts to keep the Quran from being

falsified.

Conclusion: Osama, your article on Isaiah 53 is grossly erroneous, contradictory, disordered,

incoherent, childishly written, poorly edited and a scholarly disaster . In other words, all thatwork was a total waste of time. It didn¶t take any effort from my part to dismantle your silly

accusations of mistranslations. Take it off and give it another go.

Nakdimon



All,

Nakdimon's points are now thoroughly refuted and debunked using ample analysis from thelexicon, commentaries and other sources in the article: http://www.answering-

christianity.com/isaiah_53.htm .

Nakdimon, I added all of your points to my article and refuted them all one by one for you.You have helped me very much to further prove that your entire faith is indeed standing on

hoaxes and lies.

The rebuttal is far too large to post here. Please visit the link above and see my detailed

rebuttals to Nakdimon in the "Rebuttals" section.

Nakdimon, I really look forward to further exchanges with you on Isaiah 53, because I know

that your entire faith is based on it, and without it, you have no faith. I look forward to further prove to you that Christianity is really standing on false pillars and hoaxes.

Take care,

O sama Abdallah





September 10, 2009 3:36 PM

Osama, I have read your ³rebuttal and refutation´ and I hesitate to even respond . Do you

really think that not addressing the points I raise, contradicting yourself constantly and

repeating your erroneous assertions is gonna help you anything at all? I¶ll see if I will

respond.



Nakdimon,

Please get serious! Now you seem to wanna resort to childish attritudes and games. I have shredded much of your points into pieces, through Allah Almighty's Divine Mercy! One

example is "he was cut off from the land of the living." EVEN THE NIV BIBLE SAYS THAT

THE HEBREW W O R D MEANS PRIS O N! It is talking about Jesus being imprisoned and not dying! Even during my debate with David Wood, he used this point.

To put it simply: Your English translations are full of lies, blasphemous agendas, and ample

twisting of meanings and deceptions! I really and honestly look forward to your response to

my rebuttal. If not, then too bad for you.

"he was cut off from the land of the living" IS A LIE MA D E BY LIARS! It doesn't say that

Jesus will die and be taken out form the land of the living. All it said in Hebrew is that he will

be imprisoned! Again, ironically, the NIV Bible's commentary says so.

AMPLE OTHER FABRICATI O NS WERE EXP OSE D in my rebuttal. May be it's time for youand every Christian here to get real and serious.

O sama Abdallah




Ok Osama, you just have persuaded me to respond. Since your rebuttal was 19 pages long, I

will have my response up on Saturday.



Osama, I decided to make this my final response to you, since it is blatantly obvious that you

can¶t even think logically and reason properly. I copied and pasted your rebuttal to MS Word



and printed it on paper . 19 pages long. I started seriously reading till page 3 and then whistledmyself through the rest of the rebuttals since it was obvious that you don¶t know the subject

you are dealing with. Since you obviously have no desire to interact with me because youdon¶t address the points I¶m raising at all, I will attempt to end every rebuttal section with

questions so we can get straight

O sama: Before I start thoroughly refuting your points, I must make this important point:

In the New Testament, P salm 91 is directly linked to Jesus Christ, in the New Testament, by

Jesus Christ himself , while Isaiah 53 isn't linked to Jesus by anyone. Psalm 91 said many

Prophecies, and they are listed above in this article. Satan, in the New Testament, even tried

to use Psalm 91 to tempt Jesus into testing GOD Almighty to try to kill himself by throwing

himself off of the canyon or mountain to see if GOD Almighty will be True to His Word and

Promise and send down the Angels to lift Jesus up from death and harm as precisely

mentioned in Psalm 91. Psalm 91 further declares that Christ will call upon GOD Almighty

for help to protect him from death, and GOD Almighty will honor him and protect him from

death.

Which is exactly my point. You claim that Psalm 91 is about the Messiah but there is nothingin there that even looks Messianic. I have asked you time and again to prove that Psalm 91 is

about the Messiah in general and Yeshua in particular . You still haven¶t shown us anything

that identifies it as such. So therefore your assumption that a non-Messianic Psalm is talking

about the Messiah is erroneous to begin with and totally invalid and thus irrelevant. What

evidence do you have that Psalm 91 is Messianic?

Secondly, you claim that Psalm 91 is directly linked to Yeshua. WHERE do we find that

link? Satan makes that link! And the Messiah dismisses Satan¶s application. Again, Osama,

you are using a Satanic understanding of the biblical text and claim that you have support for

your position. We have the Messianic understanding of the biblical text and you claim that

we understand the scriptures wrong. Osama, why do you use Satan¶s interpretation of the textand claim your reading is correct, when the Messiah rebukes Satan for misapplying the text?

Again, Isaiah 53 is no where linked to Jesus Christ in the New Testament.

Romans 15:21, Romans 10:16, John 12:38, Matthew 8:17, Romans 4:25, 1 Peter 2:24-25,

Acts 8:32-33, Luke 22:37, Mark 15:28 all refer to Isaiah 53 and link it directly to Yeshua. So

you are wrong. Osama, why did you say that Isaiah 53 isn¶t attested in the NT, when I was

able to post verse after verse showing that it is?

It is Psalm 91 that is clearly linked. Not only that, but Isaiah 53 has deliberate

mistranslations and misinterpretations in it that we will see below, insha'Allah (if Allah

Almighty is Willing).

That is how this whole thing started right? The accusation of mistranslations. Where are the

mistranslations, Osama? Where are the misinterpretations? And where is the clear reference

to Psalm 91, outside of Satan¶s trivial attempt to apply it to the Messiah?

The English translations say "all". And even if we don't put "all" in the translation, it will

still mean that since "some" does not exist in the text. Now, "all" here would mean most or

many. But yet, Jesus was very popular by many, and he supposedly performed his Miracles



in front of thousands of eye witnesses, which would've exploded his popularity among the people in no time.

So in either case, you are refuted.

Oh the blustering of Osama Abdallah. The text says that he was despised from men. It

doesn¶t say ³all´ men. It doesn¶t say that it was a specific group. It doesn¶t identify the ³men´so it¶s open for interpretation. But it was YOU that insisted that he was forsaken by ALL

men. You are inserting the word in there to make it fit your position. WHY do you do that

and then bring it up as an objection knowing full well that the verse doesn¶t even say that?

Again, as I mentioned above in the article, "wounded" here could easily mean felt hurt spiritually , and not necessarily got physically hurt. Also, Psalm 91 doesn't mean that not a

scratch will be upon Jesus. GOD Almighty's Protection to Jesus from both harm and deathcould easily be referring to serious wounds and not minor ones. But in either way,

"wounded" here could easily refer to a spiritual one, because Jesus was probably upset because his people were about to be doomed to Hell for Eternity for rejecting his Message.

Osama, what indication do you have that the term wounded means spiritual hurt? This wayyou can spiritualise anything you like because it doesn¶t fit your agenda if you don¶t . Fact is

that this isn¶t spiritual wounds. The text says ³by his wounds, WE WERE HEALED´. This

is not about something that the servant TRIED to do, but what he actually accomplished.

How do spiritual wounds heal people?

Now as to him being cut off from the land of the living, here are what your NIV and YLT

Bibles and many others say:

«

It's talking about Jesus' imprisonment!

It seems quite clear to me that this quotation is referring to Jesus' arrest and him being

imprisoned! He was taken away from the people and put into isolation. That's how I clearly

see it. In fact, the NIV Bible in its (a) foot note above, explicitly says"F rom arrest " . It is

clearly and indisputably speaking about Jesus' arrest, which doesn't really prove anything.

No Osama, you are making claims about a language you don¶t even begin to understand.

Because if you did, you would see that you are reading the commentary completely wrong. Idon¶t think you have to understand Hebrew to see this one, just using logic will help. The

phrase ³from arrest´ is referring to the first word of the verse, namely ³me¶otser´, whichmeans ³from oppression´. THAT word can be read as ³from arrest´. It has NOTHING to do

with the servant being cut off from the land of the living. So the point remains and it is up toyou to show that the cutting off is not talking about cutting off from life.

Verse 9 speaks about the servant being assigned a grave, which is true. Jesus today has a

grave and it is empty. Nothing refutes Islam here. As to "his death" my detailed refutation to

this lie is further down.

Oh my, is this the reasoning that is supposed to prove your case and debunk mine? Of coursehis grave is empty, because he was raised from the dead! And Jesus TODAY has a grave?



Where? Not according to the NT and not according to Islam because he was supposedlytaken up by Allah, right? About verse 10 you wrote:

You are sadly a victim of the false interpretations and lies that are given to you. Here is what the NIV Bible comments:

1- From http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah 53&version=NIV :

10 Yet it was the LO R D's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,

and though the LORD makes [ c ]

his life a guilt offering,

he will see his offspring and prolong his days,

and the will of the LO R D will prosper in his hand.

c. Isaiah 53:10 Hebrew though you make

The Hebrew doesn't say "the LO R D makes". It says " you make" ! It is talking about people

and not GOD Almighty.

Osama, I would advice you to stop making bombastic statements like ³You are sadly a victim

of the false interpretations and lies´ and start coming up with real substantial arguments? The

word ³tasim´ (you will make) can refer to either God or to the servant.

It can go either way. The word ³tasim´ is both 2

ndperson masculine as well as third person feminine (as the word

nephesh/soul is feminine). So again you are making things up. It doesn¶t matter what it refers

to, the meaning is the same. His soul would be made an asham (guilt offering). So my point

still stands since you have shown nothing but misunderstanding of what either the text says or

what the commentaries say about the text.

Furthermore, here is what the YLT Bible says:

2- From http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2053&version=YLT :10 And Jehovah hath delighted to bruise him, He hath made him sick , If his soul doth make

an offering for guilt, He seeth seed -- he prolongeth days, And the pleasure of Jehovah in his

hand doth prosper. Do you see any crucifixion in here? It's talking about Jesus getting bruised by his enemies

(again minor injuries that are not fatal), and that it caused to get sick. And then it says that if

his soul were to be a guilt offering, which proves that it wasn't make a guilt offering.

Your point is again soundly refuted!

More assertions without backup. Osama you are again contradicting yourself . Is Yeshua

bruised by his enemies according to this verse, or is God going to protect him from any harmas you claim about Psalm 91? If this is the quality of your ³sound refutations´ then



responding to you has no meaning. You are doing enough damage to yourself . Where do youget the idea from that the bruises are ³minor and not fatal´ when the text says that he was

³CRUSHED because of our iniquities´? How is crushing someone a ³minor´ injury?

He poured his soul unto death means that he overpowered death! He killed death. He

defeated death. Sure, he was saved and lifted by GOD Almighty from the cross. He was

victorious over death.1- From http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah 53&version=YLT 12Therefore I give a portion to him among the many, And with the mighty he apportioneth

spoil, Because that he exposed to death his soul , And with transgressors he was numbered,

And he the sin of many hath borne, And for transgressors he intercedeth.

Here we see that Jesus faced death. But he never died! Isaiah 53 doesn't claim it at all, and

Psalm 91 clearly declares that Jesus will cry out to GOD Almighty to protect him from

death , and GOD Almighty will save him and honor him!

How do you get from someone being exposed to death or being poured out unto death, like

the text says, to ³he never died´ as you claim? And again, why do you link Psalm 91 to the

Messiah when it is not a Messianic Psalm? Can you finally answer that question? Why

should we believe that Psalm 91 is Messianic at all and why should we believe it is aboutYeshua, when He Himself repudiated the link to that Psalm from His own mouth?

But Jesus in the New Testament did object to the crucifixion. He did beg GOD Almighty to

save him, and according to Psalm 91, GOD Almighty did save him. But either way, your

point here doesn't disprove anything.

As to him being led like a lamb to the slaughter, sure, they wanted to kill him through

crucifixion, but he was never crucified nor killed:

« (The Noble Quran, 4:156-159)"

Now compare the Noble Verses to Isaiah 52:13 " ...he will be raised and lifted up...." .

Notice that Isaiah 52:13 did not say "....he will be RESURRECTE D and lifted up...." Not

even once, did the Old Testament predict for the foretold Servant to be raised to GOD Almighty after death. There absolutely no mention of any sort of resurrection in the Bible's

Old Testament what so ever. And again, Psalm 91 clearly says that GOD Almighty will protect him and save him from

death, and He will honor him.

Then by that token, I challenge you to show us where the word ³tawheed´ is in the Quran . Since that word isn¶t explicitly mentioned in the Quran, Muslims have fabricated the teaching

of Tawheed! If you are going to demand explicit words and will not allow for description of a

concept, then Tawheed is a hoax, a later Muslim invention that has nothing to do with Allah

or the Quran.

Second, you are repeating a point that I have already refuted. The context makes it blatantlyclear that the text is talking about his accusers and NOT God. He didn¶t object to hisACCUSERS who are referenced to in the text. Can you even think logically? The verse starts

out ³He was oppressed´. He was oppressed by whom? His accusers. It then goes on to say³like a lamb that is led to the slaughter´. He was led to his execution by whom? His accusers.

He didn¶t say a word to defend himself before them.

Lastly, Surah 4:157 is itself ambiguous. Some Muslims claim that there was a crucifixion butthat the Messiah didn¶t die. You claim that the Messiah was not crucified at all. Furthermore,



the text allows for a crucifixion and a death. The objection is to the JEWS claiming that theykilled the Messiah. NOTHING on the ROMANS doing the killing. It merely says ³but they

[i.e. the JEWS] killed him not for certain´. So we can easily say that the Quran denies theJEWS killing the Messiah but doesn¶t object to the ROMANS executing him and therefore he

DID die at the hands of the ROMANS and was after that raised up to Heaven, which is

exactly what happened according to our beliefs. Yes the text of 4:157 is that obscure! And

then Allah goes on to claim that those that differ with him are full of doubt and have nocertain knowledge and follow nothing but conjecture. But reality is that those that AGREE

with Allah have no clue what actually happened at the crucifixion.

This is because no where in the entire Old Testament does it say that the Messiah will

actually die! All you have is figurative expressions about him:

1- Facing death, or getting exposed to death.

2- Having a grave assigned to him.

3- And now, "in death" or "in his death" doesn't at all mean that he will die.

WOW, so

1 he is EXPOSED TO DEATH, which means he died,2 then he is assigned to A GRAVE, which means he died,

3 and when the text says that he is IN HIS DEATH, which means he died,

Your conclusion: he DIDN¶T die.

Sorry Osama, but how on earth can anyone take you seriously? So when Allah says

1 I am ALONE.

2 I have NO PARTNERS

3 and I have NO SON´

we can conclude that Allah has eternally existed with his Son at his side?

This is exactly how you reason with this text! And this is the reason why I didn¶t even want

to waste my time addressing you.

And as for your claim that nowhere does it say that the Messiah will actually die . I suggest

you read Daniel 9:26 that says ³y¶careth Mashiach we¶ein lo´ (Messiah will be cut off and

will have nothing). So much for your bogus claims.

Here is what the NIV Bible says:

From http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah 53&version=NIV 9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,

and with the rich in his death ,though he had done no violence,

nor was any deceit in his mouth.10

Yet it was the LO R D's will to crush him [1] and cause him to suffer,

and though the LO R D makes[ c ]

his life a guilt offering,

he will see his offspring and prolong his days ,

and the will of the LO R D will prosper in his hand.

c. Isaiah 53:10 Hebrew though you make

[1]. This note is mine. In the Arabic it says:



, which literally translates as: And despite this, it delighted Allah to crush him with (ample) grieve!

Here is how I read these verses: The servant was assigned a grave to die in despite the fact that he has done no violence.

I don¶t care what the Arabic says. Just as you don¶t allow translations when it comes to the

Quran and insist on the original Arabic text, I will hold you to that same standard when itcomes to the original Hebrew text of the Bible. Besides, this destroys your reading of Psalm

91, which you keep contradicting at every turn. Will he be crushed or will no harm befall him

at all, as you have said over and over again?

The servant will have ample grieve in him due to the doom of his people. Remember! Psalm

91:8 says that he will see the punishment of the wicked with his eyes!

Why should I entertain the thought that Psalm 91 is about the Messiah and particularly about

Yeshua? I am asking for the one hundredth time.

I only quoted what the lexicon said as you also quoted me above. But in either case, I have

proven that the " death" here is definitely symbolic.

That is actually false! The lexicon does NOT scratch the ³his´ in the phrase ³in his death´.

YOU have done it for a specific reason. Why have you done that? In addition, where have

you proven that ³death´ is symbolic? You have insisted that it does because you need it to be,

to salvage your untenable position that the servant didn¶t die. I have asked you what word

should be used to denote actual death. You haven¶t answered. Please entertain us with that

word that denotes literal death.

False! Death throughout the Bible is many times symbolic. It is so symbolic that you can't

even know for sure, from your Bible, whether Hell is an actual Fire or a place of completedeath and cease of existence. This confusion is caused primarily by the too much use of

symbolic speeches for death, grave and other key words.

And therefore you conclude that it MUST be symbolic here? What an illogical conclusion!

The overwhelming number of occurrences, if not all, of the word mawet is literal death .

Please do tell me where in the Tenach death is ³symbolic´. And please show how the word

here is supposed to be figuratively, since the chapter talks about the literal suffering through

agony and eventual death of the servant.

Also, according to the Lexicon , maweth meant "high places" in other Biblical verses:

in his death-Hebrew, " deaths." Lowth translates, "His tomb"; bamoth, from a different root,

meaning " high places," and so mounds for sepulture (Eze 43:7). But all the versions opposethis, and the Hebrew hardly admits it. Rather translate, "after His death" [Hengstenberg]; as

we say, "at His death." The plural, "deaths," intensifies the force; as Adam by sin "dying

died" (Ge 2:17 , Margin); that is, incurred death, physical and spiritual. So Messiah, His

substitute, endured death in both senses; spiritual, during His temporary abandonment by the

Father; physical, when He gave up the ghost.



because-rather, as the sense demands (so in Job 16:17 ), "although He had done no," &c.[Hengstenberg], (1Pe 2:20-22; 1Jo 3:5).

violence-that is, wrong.

Notice that Adam did not literally die. The "death" here is symbolic.

This is why you should not engage in apologetics. You use a source to try to refute others, but because you don¶t understand a word that the scholars of the source are actually saying, you

end up placing references in your article that debunk the very point you try to prove and

support the very point you object to. And your audience reads your sources just as bad as you

do. Read the reference again. After it tells you that maweth means ³deaths´ it goes on to say:

³Lowth translates, "His tomb"; BAMOTH, F ROM A DI FFE R E NT ROOT , meaning ³high

places,´ and so mounds for sepulture [sic] (Eze 43:7). BUT ALL TH E V E RSIONS O PP OS E THIS , and the Hebrew HARDLY ADMITS IT .´(Caps and boldface type my

emphasis)

Do you now see what the commentary is saying? It says that the word that Lowth

mistranslates comes from a DIFFERENT ROOT. In other words, it MISREADS the actualword in the text, therefore MISTRANSLATES THE TEXT and attributes an incorrect

meaning to it. Furthermore, your reference says that this reading is opposed by all other

references and that the Hebrew doesn¶t admit the reading ³bamot´, which is exactly what I

wrote about the YLT misunderstanding ³bemotaaw´ (in his deaths) for ³bamotaaw´ (his high

places). Then it goes on to say:

³Rather translate, "after His death" [Hengstenberg]; as we say, "at His death." TH E

P LURAL , "deaths," INT E NSI F I E S TH E F ORC E ; as Adam by sin ³dying died´ (Ge 2:17 ,

Margin); that is, INCURR E D D E ATH, P HYSICAL AND S P IRITUAL. So Messiah, His

substitute, E NDUR E D D E ATH IN BOTH S E NS E S; S P IRITUAL , during His temporary

abandonment by the Father; P HYSICAL , when He gave up the ghost.´ (Caps and boldface

type my emphasis)

Did you see what is said here? The word is in plural because it covers both areas, physical

and spiritual. Your source supports a physical death! It would be wise if you would actually

read and thoroughly study your sources before you actually use them.

Your points above are all refuted above, and you're only left with desperation and confusion.

Wow, are you familiar with the saying about the pot and the kettle? Because I¶m actually not

the one that is dependant on lexicons and translations, you are. If anyone is caught confused

and desperate it is you, not me. You are the one that constantly contradicts yourself .

You're trying to force a certain meaning of a word upon a verse, and this meaning is not

supported at all throughout the chapter!

I¶M forcing meanings upon verses? You mean like interpreting constant references to the

servant¶s death to mean that he didn¶t die, right?



Also, as I demonstrated amply and thoroughly above, both Psalm 91 and Isaiah 53 and 52and other chapters clearly state that the Messiah will be lifted up and honored and

protected from death and harm.

Actually Isaiah 52:13-15 doesn¶t support your position at all, just like the other references by

the way. It says that the Messiah will prosper and be high and lifted up. The loftiest language

is used in Hebrew: hineh yaskeel avdee YARUM, weNISA weGAVAH ME¶OD. (behold,my servant will deal wisely, he will be exalted and lifted up, exceedingly high. Compare this

with Isaiah 6:1) And then in the very next verses (14 and 15) it says what he will go through

before his exaltation: that he will be marred beyond human form and that nations will look to

him and be dumbfounded. So, you are in a dilemma, since both Isaiah 53 backed up by Isaiah

52:13-15 stand in direct conflict with Psalm 91. Yet you want them all to relate to the same

person. This position is untenable! You have Isaiah 52 and 53 in one corner and Psalm 91 in

another . Either Psalm 91 is about the Messiah or Isaiah 52 and 53 are about the Messiah. You

can¶t have it both ways since both are mutually exclusive. Which one is about the Messiah,

Osama? Either Psalm 91 is about the Messiah (which you have yet to demonstrate that it is)

and half of your article covering Isaiah 52 and 53 is nonsense or Isaiah 52 and 53 are aboutthe Messiah in which case the other half of your article covering Psalm 91 is nonsense! What

will it be, Osama?

But regardless, I don't think this point is that relevant. Defining what burial is, and whether or not placing Jesus in the tomb is considered burial is irrelevant here. The main point is

whether or not he actually was crucified and whether or not he actually died.

Well if that point isn¶t relevant then why did you even bring it up at all? Obviously because

you did think it was relevant, since you want to throw everything, including the Kitchen sink,

at whatever we believe.

And as to the prolonging his life is after he dies, this is a perfect example of the type of hog

wash and absurdities that Christians invent and call faith and theology. All of your pointshad been based upon speculations and ridiculous absurdities. My refutations to you, on the

other hand, are based on solid proofs that prove that Jesus was never prophesied to actuallydie. It just talked about him facing death, but never actually to die.

And that solid proof is a Psalm of which you cannot prove that it is at all Messianic?

That solid proof is claiming that Psalm 91 is directly linked to Yeshua in the NT but you fail

to address the fact that SATAN applied, actually misapplied, the Psalm to the Messiah?

That solid proof is Psalm 91 of which the Messiah himself says he has nothing to do with?

That solid proof is claiming that the servant never died, when there are multiple references tothe servant¶s death, burial and atoning for the sins of others by being sacrificed?

That solid proof is posting references in your article that totally oppose your viewpoint when

read properly?

That is the solid proof you have for your position?



1- The Philistines, and the people of Palestine , existed long before Moses and his followersever migrated to Palestine. But this is a seperate topic altogether and is irrelevant to us here.

The Philistines have nothing to do with Palestinians. The name ³Palestina´ was given to the

region by the Roman emperor after the Jewish revolt in 135 AD. After that it remained a

region under autonomy of different countries until 1948 when the state of Israel was

established once again, giving it back the name that it had and under the people that lastsovereignly ruled the country before the name was changed to Palestina by the Roman

authority. Had the Roman emperor decided to call the region ³Vomit´ the Palestinians of

today would be referred to as ³Vomitans´ or something like that . The name of the place

doesn¶t link the people of today that are called by that name to the people of ancient times.

4- Another blasphemous and worthless opinion from you.

Osama, the point is that my claim is just as valid as your claim, if I would invent my own

religion, claim that my religion confirms your religion, but tell you that your book has beenaltered in order for my religion to look deviant. In other words, I use my books to judge if

your books are true, without proving that my book is true. Don¶t you think that I have to

judge MY religion by YOUR book, since your book comes before me and I appeal to it? Thisis exactly my point and there is nothing blasphemous or worthless about it. In fact you would

raise the exact points that I am raising now, if the shoe was on the other foot.

5- "Your understanding of the servant overpowering death is a correct one. But not as you

put it." Thank you for openly admitting that my interpretation is correct and is quite

possible! I already demonstrated why my interpretation is the right one above. But thank

you for demonstrating how confusing and ridiculous your Bible's use of the words.

Of course I admitted that the servant conquered death through his resurrection. Because verse

12 comes after the other verses that say he was bruised, crushed, and killed. So logically if

someone undergoes death and after that is alive, you may conclude that he was raised from

the dead. Or am I making no sense here?

6 through 9- I already covered all of this in the article above. But in regards to Jesus

interceding for the transgressors, it could be as little as a simple request or prayer for them.

Did not Jesus, in the New Testament, pray to GOD Almighty and say: "F ather forgive them

for they know not " ?

Wow, and WHERE did he say this?? ON THE CROSS! But he was never crucified, right?

See how you just keep shooting yourself in your own foot? Either he was on the cross and he

said this, which refutes your argument, or he didn¶t say this since he was never on the cross,

which refutes your argument. Either way your argument is worthless. Osama, what will it be?

As to Jesus bearing the sins of many , it is referring to him being burdened by the sins and

the wickedness of his people. This is why the second half of the sentence says "and he made

intercession for the wicked," because he loved them so much that he wanted to seek a second

chance for them with GOD Almighty. He carried their sins for them before GOD Almighty to

seek intercession for them. This is what the verse is exactly saying.

No, you are again, reading things that aren¶t there. It doesn¶t say ³he wanted to seek a second

chance´. It says he interceded for their transgressions. The intercession was made and



completed. The text says he was bruised because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities, led like a lamb to the slaughter, but you claim that no harm was done. It says

that by his wounds we were healed and you claim that he merely was burdened by their sins?What wounds is spoken about here?

I invite you and the reader to visit: The Overwhelming Scientific Miracles of the Noble

Quran to see how our Holy Book is indeed a Divine and True Miracle from GOD Almighty,and is His True and Living Word.

All these nonsensical claims of science in the Quran are amply addressed and proven false on

numerous other websites and even in the debate you had with David Wood.4 You see

something about dust in a verse and claim that this is about the Big Bang . Those arguments

are just so farfetched it¶s ridiculous to even claim science in that book . The Quran makes a lot

of claims and can¶t back it up:

y Quran claims to be detailed, but it leaves out a lot of details so that it is incoherent ona lot of points without the Hadith.

y Quran claims that Jews believed in Ezra as the son of God when no Jew ever believedthat.

y Quran claims we believe in the Trinity of Father MOTHER and Son, when no

Christian in the history of mankind has believed this.

y Quran appeals to apocryphal and heretical Christian writings and tells them as theyare historical events.

y Quran appeals to uninspired Jewish writings and mistakes them for scripture and

claims Allah inspired them.

y Quran thinks that we believe that Yeshua being the Son of God means that God hadsex with Mary in order to have Yeshua.

y Allah refutes himself by claiming that he cannot have a Son since he doesn¶t have a

wife, but when Mary asks how she possible can have a son when she doesn¶t have a

husband, Allah claims it¶s perfectly fine and that it¶s easy for him. Then why objectthat you can¶t have a son because you don¶t have a wife?

And I could go on and on. The only ³miracle´ the Quran has is that so many people still

believe in that book .

And then you go on a rant about the Bible. My favourite part is this one:

Paul never even met Jesus Christ in person while the latter was on earth. It is falsely claimed

that Jesus appeared to Paul while Paul was on his way to Damascus after the "crucifixion"

( Acts 9:2-4. Note: P aul's name used to be Saul. Yet, Paul admittedly wasn't even sure

whether the Holy Spirit was inspirning him or not ).

Man Osama, how do you know that ³it is falsely claimed that Jesus appeared to Paul´? Wereyou there? NO! Was anyone you know there? NO! What source do you base this on? You



claim this on no other basis than that you don¶t like Paul. And what does his name haveanything to do with it? Just total irrelevant points. Oh well, I¶m talking to a guy that doesn¶t

know the difference between John the Apostle and John the Baptist after having shownrepeatedly that those two are completely different people and STILL doesn¶t accept the

correction. Who am I kidding, right?

Nakdimon



Nakdimon,

Give me one day and I will have all of your points all refuted, again, insha'Allah (if Allah

Almighty is Willing).

In regards to my debate with David Wood, I invite every single reader to watch it at:

http://www.answering-

christianity.com/quran_miracles_debate_osama_abdallah_vs_david_wood.wmv to see how

Islam was proven to be the Divine and True Religion of Allah Almighty.

As to Ezra being called the son of GOD by the Jews, yes they did, and you are ignorant. Visit:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/ E xternal/ezra.html . I also have more

proofs on this which I will provide, insha'Allah.

As to the rest of your points, like I said, give me one day, and I'll washed it all away for you

insha'Allah, again.

O sama Abdallah




Osama, that article of the Islamic Awareness website on Ezra is nothing but a hoax and a

desperate attempt to salvage the Quran from this blatant error that it contains. The only credit

that we should give the Islamic Awareness is that they actually tried. When I address this

error in the Quran with Muslims, they give me this link EVERY TIME. They actually think

that this link solves their problem. However, it has been taken apart several people on severalwebsites such as this one: http://www.sillyallah.com/2008/01/ezra-uzair-and-next-quran-

error.html

The verse says:

SHAKIR: And THE JEWS say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and THE CHRISTIANS say:

The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the

saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned

away!



You see what they do on the Islamic Awareness website? They take a verse from the Quran

that speaks of the Jews universally and then apply that verse to a small imaginary communityin Yemen. But NO ONE really knows if that group actually existed at all since there is not a

trace of that tribe. That seems to be the hallmark of all Islam¶s claims:

The Torah used to teach IslamBUT ITS LOST The Injeel used to teach IslamBUT ITS LOST

There used to be evidence for Islam BUT ITS LOST

There was a tribe in Yemen that substantiate Islam¶s claims on the Jews believing that Ezra is

the son of God BUT THEY¶RE LOST

Everything that is supposed to support Islam seems to conveniently get lost! Truth of the

matter is that that tribe is just totally made up for the sole purpose of making Allah look

good, but until Muslims actua lly come with the proof that substantiate their claims, this

argument completely fails.

The article appeals to this from the Encyclopaedia Judaica, which is actually the strongest

piece of evidence in the entire article:

³ H. Z. Hirschberg proposed another assumption, based on the words of Ibn Hazm, namely,

that the 'righteous who live in Yemen believed that 'Uzayr was indeed the son of Allah.'

According to other Muslim sources, there were some Yemenite Jews who had converted to

Islam who believed that E zra was the messiah. F or Muhammad, E zra, the apostle (!) of

messiah, can be seen in the same light as the Christian saw Jesus, the messiah, the son of

Allah.´

Did you see that? This is the best that Islam has to offer as ³proof´ that Jews view Ezra as the

son of God. It says that someone proposed another ASSUMPTION. And what is this

ASSUMPTION based on? The words of Ibn Hazm. Who is Ibn Hazm? Where does he get his

information from? No one knows, but Ibn Hazm lived almost half a millennium after this

verse was supposedly revealed. Obviously he noticed the incorrect statement here, probably

got his nose rubbed into it by a Jew or Christian, and needed to reconcile the verse with

reality. But in all seriousness, taking a claim from an Islamic apologist and bombard it into

evidence to substantiate your claim, is a BIG stretch and can be qualified as nothing more or

less than begging the question.

Nakdimon

Osama¶s response to me:September 15, 2009 4:36 PM

Nakdimon,

F irst of all, much of your history and manuscript are long gone. You can't disprove Islam

by pointing out that an Islamic claim does not exist in your sources.

Second, read what your sources say about Ezra:



From: wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/summaries/2esdras-notes.htm

"The Second Book of Esdras is an apocalypse that attempts to explain why God allowed the

Jewish Temple in Jerusalem to be destroyed by Gentiles in A D 70. The book claims to report

seven visions of Ezra the Scribe concerning ethical issues and the problem of evil and

suffering. The first three revelations (3:1-9:25) concern the angel Uriel's instructions to Ezraabout the spiritual-moral realm. In the fourth revelation ( 9:26-10:59 ), Ezra witnesses a

mourning woman change into the heavenly Jerusalem. The fifth and sixth revelations (11-13)

condemn the Roman Empire and forecast its destruction along with other evil Gentile nations

by a messiah. The seventh revelation (14) describes Ezra's role in producing the books

included in the canonical Scriptures (the 22 books in the Hebrew Bible) and the (70)

apocryphal books. This revelation closes with E zra being taken into heaven without dying.

Chapters 1 and 2 and 15 and 16 are generally recognized as subsequent Christian

interpolations."

The reader can also visit my article on Ezra at: http://www.answering-

christianity.com/quran/qb005.htm

More will be put forth in my r ebuttal to you, insha'Allah.

As to your other points above, I don't know if you even read all of my article that I gave you

at: http://www.answering-christianity.com/isaiah_53.htm , because most of the things you said are already thoroughly refuted in there.

O sama Abdallah




First of all, much of your history and manuscript are long gone. You can't disprove Islam by pointing out that an Islamic claim does not exist in your sources.

Osama, the problem is that you don¶t have anything from the Jewish and Christian history to

support your claim, but you have nothing from the secular history to support it either . Not a

SCRAP! You can try to hide behind the ³it is lost´-tree as long as you want, but as I have

said in my previous post, that is all that Islam has! All Islam can say is ³oh our claims are

nothing but true, but the evidence for each and every claim that we make is lost!´

Sorry, Osama, but considering the strong claims that Islam makes for itself, that just will not

do. It is hilarious to think that Allah claims that everything that he wants comes to pass, but

then lets everything to substantiate his claims go LOST but it so happens to be that

everything that contradicts his claims is PRESERVED. You have to have an amazing amount

of chutzpah to support the massive imaginary evidences of Allah and present them as clear

proof and then on the other hand brush aside the enormous amount of clear evidence that is at

our disposal to the contrary of Allah¶s claims and present them as lies.



As for your attempt to support the Ezra error in the Quran. Again, Osama, what does thatfutile piece of evidence, if you at all can call that, prove? It says that Ezra is taken up into

heaven without dying.5

Does this prove that he is the Son of God in Esdras? NO! In theTenach Eliyahu (Elijah) is taken into heaven without dying. Does this make Eliyahu the Son

of God? NO! So what does it prove? NOTHING! So again, you have absolutely NOTHING

in Esdras that supports Allah¶s claim that Jews believe that Ezra is the Son of God. In fact, in

the book of 2 Esdras, Ezra has a vision about someone standing in the midst of a crowd andthis is what the angel says to Ezra:

So I asked the angel, and said, Sir, what are these?

He answered and said unto me, These be they that have put off the mortal clothing, and put

on the immortal, and have confessed the name of God: now are they crowned, and receive

palms.

Then said I unto the angel, WHAT YOUNG PE RSON IS IT THAT CROWN E TH TH E M ,

and giveth them palms in their hands?

So he answered and said unto me, IT IS TH E SON OF GOD , whom they have confessed in

the world. Then began I greatly to commend them that stood so stiffly for the name of the Lord. (Chapter 2:46-48)

So Ezra is NOT the son of God even in the book of 2 Esdras! He sees some one else who is

identified as the Son of God. So I repeat, you have NOTHING to salvage Allah from thisgross error and grievous lie that he uttered against the Jews. According to your own book you

should throw it out and regard it as profane:

[Surah 4:82] And if it [the Qur¶an] were from any other than Allah, they would havefound in it many a discrepancy.

And to think that Allah claims that Jews lied about him makes Allah an ³omniscient´

hypocrite, an ³omnipotent´ liar and the biggest deceiver of all times, dragging over a billion

people today to their doom.

Nakdimon

My response to Osama in another thread6

related to the Ezra error in the Quran:


1- I never embraced the book that I quoted about Ezra ascended to Heaven without ever

dying. S O THEREF O RE, THIS HAS N OTHING T O DO WITH CHRIST BEING THE S O N

O F GOD!

Osama, you are totally being dishonest. You claimed to have proof that Ezra was beingconsidered the Son of God by Jews and provided that quote to prove just that . Now you say

you don¶t believe what that article says. THEN WHY DID YOU BRING IT UP? Even if you bring it up to show what OTHERS believe, you still use it as proof for your position . But that

quote said nothing to that regard. All it said was that Ezra was taken up into heaven withoutdying. This was your major emphasis as proof that he was considered the Son of God . So

therefore, David correctly pointed out that since you believe that someone being taken up intoheaven without dying is equivalent to being the Son of God, you have just stated, without



even knowing it, that Yeshua, who was taken up into heaven without dying according to theQuran, is the Son of God. David hasn¶t twisted anything, you have shot yourself in the foot in

your desperate attempts to salvage Allah from his gross error and lie about the Jews.

3- I did state absolutely clearly to Nakdimon that much of the Jewish and Christian original

and authentic sources ARE LO NG GO NE and hence he could not disprove Islam by showing

that a certain Islamic Claim does not exist in the Bible.

Yes, you have claimed that those sources are long gone. But which sources are you referring

to? What ³original and authentic sources´ that are ³long gone´ use to prove that Jews

believed that Ezra is the Son of God? NAME ONE SUCH SOURCE! If you can¶t, then you

have just demonstrated that you are making your arguments up as you go along.

4- MY reference to the book about Ezra ascending to Heaven without ever dying was further prove to Nakdimon that Ezra was not an ordinary person to the Jews. Whether the book itself

is right or wrong is irrelevant to me, because in either way it remains as a proof that Ezrawas a big deal, and hence, it shouldn't be of any surprise for him to be called the son of

GOD.

And because Ezra was a ³big deal´ that means that Ezra was regarded to be the Son of God,

right? WRONG! In fact, in Jewish history Ezra was one of the least of the prophets! Moses

was the highest. In fact, it is held by Judaism that there is no prophet that can supersede

Moses in revelation and exaltation with the exception of the Messiah, Son of David. Since

Ezra couldn¶t be considered as the Messiah, since he was from the tribe of LEVI and NOT

from JUDAH, Ezra can¶t even stand in Moses¶ shadow, according to Judaism. It amazes me

that you would think that because Ezra is a ³big deal´ you automatically assume that he was

regarded the Son of God. Again, despair drives you to make this leap.

5- You are also not taking into account the historical record in the Glorious Quran! The

Noble Quran's claim about the Jews did call Ezra the son of Allah Almighty proves that Ezra

was indeed called as such. The Glorious Quran can be used here as a historical record for

this claim regardless of whether you believe in the Holy Book or not.

Osama, Judaism is notorious for its rich tradition. Everything in Judaism is based on tradition

and every tradition is preserved in some way through history. Whether true or false. It is

either mentioned by rabbis as a side note that people used to hold to a certain tradition but got

excluded from Jewish tradition or it is mentioned as a point of refutation by some rabbi. Yet

there is not a stitch of evidence or reference to any tradition among Jews that Ezra was ever

held to such high esteem. That makes the Quran UNTRUSTWOTRHY, rather than a reliable

historical book . It has history against it. Sorry, but we are not willing to throw out history

instead of the Quran, because the history contradicts the Quran. The Quran has to give way

whenever it contradicts historical facts.

Nakdimon



Note:

To my knowledge Osama never responded to my last post on the Isaiah 53 issue of mistranslations. Osama made a reference to his website that he already addressed most of my

points there and ³refuted´ them, but any reader can see that Osama doesn¶t know what he is

talking about and that he is just rehashing the same erroneous points that he raised before .

Conclusion of this entire affair is that Osama was unable to provide the proof for hisaccusations about Christian translators deliberately mistranslating the Hebrew text of Isaiah

53. Also, Osama was unable to answer simple questions about the supposed link between

Psalm 91 and Isaiah 53. Osama was also unable to explain why he preferred the Satanic

reading of Psalm 91 over the Messianic rebuke of that reading.

Footnotes1

You can find our exchange here. 2 Update notice from Nakdimon: Osama Abdallah¶s website should not have the virus

problem anymore. 3 Hebrew: be-moth-aaw. The prefix ³be´ means in. The word ³moth´ means death. The suffix³-aaw´ stands for third person singular masculine possessive form. 4

Debate David Wood vs Osama Abdallah ± Was Muhamamd a true prophet? (can be viewed

here)5

See the logical consequence of Osama Abdallah¶s appeal to Ezra being taken up into heaven

without dying here. 6 Here is the particular post. Osama never responded to it.

© Answering Islam, 1999 - 2011. All rights reserved.

Documents

Exchange About Alleged Mistranslations of Isaiah 53 and the Quranic Error About Ezra in Surah 9:30 - By Nakdimon