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 Abdallah is 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

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 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.

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:
September 7, 2009 11:40 AM

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.

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 TRIED TO USE PSALM 91 TO TEMPT JESUS INTO TRYING TO KILL HIMSELF, BY JUMPING OFF THE CANYON OR MOUNTAIN, 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 WON'T EVEN ALLOW HIS FOOT TO 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 PROMISES.

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

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

My response to Osama:
September 8, 2009 3:36 AM

Osama, I will not go to your website since it is virus invested.² But I would like to see you doing 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.

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?

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 AGAIN identified and rebukes the spirit that made Peter say this:

Notice that Peter made the same argument that YOU are making here when the Messiah told him 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 had nothing 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.

My response to Osama:
September 9, 2009 4:07 AM

Since Osama Abdallah didn’t bother to give us examples of mistranslations in Isaiah 53, I took the trouble and the risk to visit his website and have a look at the reported mistranslations myself. Here is my answer to the points he raises about the mistranslations.

First of all, Isaiah is describing the status of the servant in his suffering. In the case of Yeshua that 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 the servant being despised by “all” men. Can you tell me where the Hebrew word for “all” 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 “all” isn’t even in the text and therefore point 1 is moot!

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 “cut off from the land of the living”,
Verse 9 speaks of his grave and his death
Verse 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 shot yourself 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!

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 “He was oppressed”. He was oppressed by whom? His accusers. It then goes on to say “like 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. Point 3 is also moot!

A lot of points here:

FIRST: you look at the definition of the word “mawet” and then highlight the “figurative” 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 “his” in the “in 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 “mawet” has to be figuratively and cannot in any way shape or 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 “mawet” being translated as “death”, yet you subsequently run to other translations that don’t even translate the word “mawet” 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 “bemotaaw” to understood as “bamotaaw”. But this reading is untenable, since “bamot” (high places) are places where idol worship is being practiced. This is NOT what Isaiah is saying about the servant.

SEVENTH: The word “bemotaaw” DOES mean “in HIS deaths”. The suffix “-aaw” is third person singular in the masculine form denoting a plurality of possession.³

Then you go on to say:

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. In addition, 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 just making this up in order to be able to raise objections. And with that said, point 4 is moot!

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’t embarrassing 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 (zero) but that he would see seed (zera). It says nothing about the seed being that of the servant.

2. Just as in other places the word “zera” 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’t talking about a person that would live “happily 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!

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 the reading 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 “indisputably” about the Messiah, please provide the evidence to stop this dispute.

7. You wrote: “Christ 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 it is), 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: “because 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 he intercede for? How did he bare the sins of many? WHY did he bare the sins of many? Who were the “many” 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 that work 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

Osama’s response to me:
September 10, 2009 2:24 AM

All,

Nakdimon's points are now thoroughly refuted and debunked using ample analysis from the lexicon, 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,
Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

My response to Osama:
September 10, 2009 3:36 PM

Osama, I have read your “rebuttal 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.

Osama’s response to me:
September 10, 2009 4:15 PM

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 WORD MEANS PRISON! 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 MADE 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 FABRICATIONS WERE EXPOSED in my rebuttal. May be it's time for you and every Christian here to get real and serious.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

My response to Osama:
September 10, 2009 8:23 PM

Ok Osama, you just have persuaded me to respond. Since your rebuttal was 19 pages long, I will have my response up on Saturday.

My response to Osama:
September 13, 2009 11:57 AM

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 whistled myself 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 you don’t address the points I’m raising at all, I will attempt to end every rebuttal section with questions so we can get straight

Which is exactly my point. You claim that Psalm 91 is about the Messiah but there is nothing in 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 text and claim your reading is correct, when the Messiah rebukes Satan for misapplying the text?

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?

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?

Oh the blustering of Osama Abdallah. The text says that he was despised from men. It doesn’t say “all” men. It doesn’t say that it was a specific group. It doesn’t identify the “men” 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?

Osama, what indication do you have that the term wounded means spiritual hurt? This way you 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 “by 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?

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. I don’t think you have to understand Hebrew to see this one, just using logic will help. The phrase “from arrest” is referring to the first word of the verse, namely “me’otser”, which means “from oppression”. THAT word can be read as “from 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 to you to show that the cutting off is not talking about cutting off from life.

Oh my, is this the reasoning that is supposed to prove your case and debunk mine? Of course his 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 supposedly taken up by Allah, right? About verse 10 you wrote:

Osama, I would advice you to stop making bombastic statements like “You are sadly a victim of the false interpretations and lies” and start coming up with real substantial arguments? The word “tasim” (you will make) can refer to either God or to the servant. It can go either way. The word “tasim” is both 2^nd person 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.

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 harm as you claim about Psalm 91? If this is the quality of your “sound refutations” then responding to you has no meaning. You are doing enough damage to yourself. Where do you get the idea from that the bruises are “minor and not fatal” when the text says that he was “CRUSHED because of our iniquities”? How is crushing someone a “minor” injury?

How do you get from someone being exposed to death or being poured out unto death, like the text says, to “he 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 about Yeshua, when He Himself repudiated the link to that Psalm from His own mouth?

Then by that token, I challenge you to show us where the word “tawheed” 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 blatantly clear that the text is talking about his accusers and NOT God. He didn’t object to his ACCUSERS who are referenced to in the text. Can you even think logically? The verse starts out “He was oppressed”. He was oppressed by whom? His accusers. It then goes on to say “like 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 but that 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 they killed the Messiah. NOTHING on the ROMANS doing the killing. It merely says “but they [i.e. the JEWS] killed him not for certain”. So we can easily say that the Quran denies the JEWS 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 no certain knowledge and follow nothing but conjecture. But reality is that those that AGREE with Allah have no clue what actually happened at the crucifixion.

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 “y’careth Mashiach we’ein lo” (Messiah will be cut off and will have nothing). So much for your bogus claims.

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 it comes 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?

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.

That is actually false! The lexicon does NOT scratch the “his” in the phrase “in his death”. YOU have done it for a specific reason. Why have you done that? In addition, where have you proven that “death” 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.

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 “symbolic”. 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.

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 “deaths” it goes on to say:

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 actual word 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 “bamot”, which is exactly what I wrote about the YLT misunderstanding “bemotaaw” (in his deaths) for “bamotaaw” (his high places). Then it goes on to say:

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.

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.

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?

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 about the Messiah in which case the other half of your article covering Psalm 91 is nonsense! What will it be, Osama?

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 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 to the 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?

The Philistines have nothing to do with Palestinians. The name “Palestina” 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 last sovereignly ruled the country before the name was changed to Palestina by the Roman authority. Had the Roman emperor decided to call the region “Vomit” the Palestinians of today would be referred to as “Vomitans” 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.

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 been altered 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? This is 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.

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?

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?

No, you are again, reading things that aren’t there. It doesn’t say “he 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?

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:

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

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

• Quran claims we believe in the Trinity of Father MOTHER and Son, when no Christian in the history of mankind has believed this.

• Quran appeals to apocryphal and heretical Christian writings and tells them as they are historical events.

• Quran appeals to uninspired Jewish writings and mistakes them for scripture and claims Allah inspired them.

• Quran thinks that we believe that Yeshua being the Son of God means that God had sex with Mary in order to have Yeshua.

• 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 object that you can’t have a son because you don’t have a wife?

And I could go on and on. The only “miracle” 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:

Man Osama, how do you know that “it is falsely claimed that Jesus appeared to Paul”? Were you 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 have anything 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 shown repeatedly that those two are completely different people and STILL doesn’t accept the correction. Who am I kidding, right?

Nakdimon

Osama’s response to me:
September 14, 2009 5:43 PM

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/External/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.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

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 several websites 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 community in 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 Islam BUT ITS LOST
The Injeel used to teach Islam BUT 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 actually 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:

“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 Ezra was the messiah. For Muhammad, Ezra, 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 “proof” 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,

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.

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 AD 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 Ezra about 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 Ezra 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 rebuttal 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.

Osama Abdallah
www.answering-christianity.com

My response to Osama:
September 16, 2009 4:14 AM

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 “it 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 “oh 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 that futile 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 the Tenach 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 and this is what the angel says to Ezra:

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 this gross 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 have found in it many a discrepancy.

And to think that Allah claims that Jews lied about him makes Allah an “omniscient” hypocrite, an “omnipotent” 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:
September 17, 2009 2:45 AM

Osama, you are totally being dishonest. You claimed to have proof that Ezra was being considered 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 without dying. 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 into heaven 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 the Quran, 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.

Yes, you have claimed that those sources are long gone. But which sources are you referring to? What “original and authentic sources” that are “long 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.

And because Ezra was a “big 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 “big deal” you automatically assume that he was regarded the Son of God. Again, despair drives you to make this leap.

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 “refuted” 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 his accusations 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.