What the Hell is Wrong with Sonoma County, California?

[Anmar]

There are no inaccuracies in the kjv.  it is a word for word translation of the greek and hebrew.  Can't be any inaccuracies if its a word for word translation of the originals.

It can't be, the first manuscript wasnt discovered until after the KJV was written.

[Sarah]

It can't be, the first manuscript wasnt discovered until after the KJV was written.

Are we talking about the OT or the NT?

[srkruzich]

It can't be, the first manuscript wasnt discovered until after the KJV was written.

Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is the name subsequently given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible, for the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, and for most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe.

[twirldoggy]

I am really impressed with the specificity and detail of the posts.  Makes for interesting reading.  Indepth knowlege of the topics discussed.

[Anmar]

Are we talking about the OT or the NT?

both, the first discovery was made in 1628.  KJV was finished in 1611.

[redcliffsw]

What's the name of the manuscript(s) discovered?

[Anmar]

Also, i was looking at this moon god myth.  It appears that Steve has been borrowing from Robert Morey.  Morey's book has been refuted and proven to be poor scholarship.  He manipulates quotes, a muslim scholar took the time to refute his book.  It's quite long, so i'll just copy/paste some of the stuff and provide a link.  Warning, if visiting a muslim website makes you cry, you shouldn't click the link.

How Morey Quotes Professor Goon

Let us now discuss these deceptive methods in some detail. I quote below from Morey's book to see how he argues that Allah was the Moon-god. After we read this I will point out with the help of Allah several of Morey's deceptive methods working together:

   According to numerous inscriptions, while the name of the Moon-god was Sin, his title was al-ilah, i.e. "the deity," meaning that he was the chief or high god among the gods. As Goon pointed out, "The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon God." The Moon-god was called al-ilah, i.e. the god, which was shortened to Allah in pre-Islamic times. The pagan Arabs even used Allah in the names they gave to their children. For example, both Muhammad's father and uncle had Allah as part of their names. The fact that they were given such names by their pagan parents proves that Allah was the title for the Moon-god even in Muhammad's day. Professor Goon goes on to say, "Similarly, under Mohammed's tutelage, the relatively anonymous Ilah, became Al-Ilah, The God, or Allah, the Supreme Being" (Morey, pp. 10-11).

There are several problems in this short passage from Morey's book.

The first problem is that Morey has so misquoted Professor Goon that he makes the quotations say the opposite of what Goon actually said. Notice that he quoted Goon twice. According to Morey's footnote, both quotes come from Carleton S. Goon, Southern Arabia, (Washington, D.C. Smithsonian, 1944) p. 399. Very impressive! But I was able to locate these quotes in Professor Goon's book and I found that Morey clipped them out of a larger paragraph. He deceptively left out a crucial part, and separated the other two parts as though they were two unrelated quotes. Here is what Goon actually said:

   The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon God, but early in Arabian history the name became a general term for god, and it was this name that the Hebrews used prominently in their personal names, such as Emanu-el, Isra- el, etc., rather than the Ba'al of the northern semites proper, which was the sun. Similarly, under Mohammed's tutelage, the relatively anonymous Ilah became Al-Ilah, The God, or Allah, the Supreme Being (Carleton S. Goon, Southern Arabia, (Washington, D.G. Smithsonian, 1944) p. 399).

This quote from Professor Goon does not say what Dr. Morey wants to use it for, so he applied the following methods to bend it out of shape: a) He quoted the first sentence to show that the name Il or Ilah was the Moon-god of Arabia up to the time of Islam's revelation. Read Goon's statement:

   "The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon God, but early in Arabian history the name became a general term for god .... "

Now read Morey's quotation of that statement:

   "The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the Moon god."

Morey uses this quote to support his case that up to the time of Muhammad (pbuh) the name Allah was the title for the Moon-god. To accomplish his sin, Morey chopped the sentence in half to exclude the word "but" and everything that follows that conjunction. He did not even bother to place three dots to indicate that he has left out some words.

A second problem with Dr. Morey's approach here is that he left out of ProfessorGoon's statement what would disprove Morey's most important argument against the God of Islam. Morey is proud of repeating that Allah is not the God of the Bible but the Moon-god of pre-Islamic Arabia. It would have been inconvenient for him to repeat what Goon had said as follows: ... "and it was this name that the Hebrews used prominently in their personal names, such as Emanu-el, Isra-el, etc..." Morey would not let his readers understand that according to Professor Goon the same name which in South Arabia was used for the Moon-god was also used in Hebrew names like Emanu-el which Morey considers a name for Jesus.

A third problem is that Morey so separated two clipped pieces from Goon's writing and so interwove them with his own words that Professor Goon's meaning is lost and Morey's own meaning dominates the text. This way it appears that Goon is supporting Morey while he is not. Whereas, for example, Professor Goon's last statement is supportive of the fact that Allah is not a Moon-god but rather "the Supreme Being," Morey's placement of it within his own text will convince a less than careful reader that Goon agrees with Morey's Moon-god-in-Islam theory.

A fourth problem is that Morey does not expect his readers to spot logical fallacies in his writings. When he claimed that the title of the Moon-god was "al-ilah" he quoted Goon in his support as saying that "Il or Ilah" was originally a phase of the Moon God. Morey did not expect his readers to notice that "al-ilah" is not the same as "Il or Ilah." But even readers who are unfamiliar with the Arabic language can notice two things:

  1. the words are spelt very differently, and
  2. Morey's second quote from Goon exposes the error. There, Goon says that "Ilah became Al-Ilah" in Muhammad's teachings. Obviously, then, al-ilah was not the Moon-god according to Goon but only according to Morey. Goon would be shocked to see his writing misquoted in Morey's fashion.

How Morey Quotes Caesar Farah

Let's look at another passage from page 13 of Morey's book where he quotes, this time from Caesar Farah:

   Islamic scholar Caesar Farah concluded "There is no reason, therefore, to accept the idea that Allah passed on to the Muslims from the Christians and Jews." (Parah p. 28).

Please compare this quote with the entire paragraph where Morey said he quoted it from. Here it is reproduced from Caesar Farah's book:

   Allah, the paramount deity of pagan Arabia, was the target of worship in varying degrees of intensity from the southernmost tip of Arabia to the Mediterranean. To the Babylonians he was "IL" (god); to the Canaanites, and later the Israelites, he was "El"; the South Arabians worshipped him as "llah, " and the Bedouins as "al-llah" (the deity). With Muhammad he becomes Allah, God of the Worlds, of all believers, the one and only who admits no associates or consorts in the worship of Him. Judaic and Christian concepts of God abetted the transformation of Allah from a pagan deity to the God of all monotheists. There is no reason, therefore, to accept the idea that "Allah" passed to the Muslims from Christians and Jews. (Farah p. 28).

The first problem with Morey's quote is that he so separated the last sentence from the rest of the paragraph, that he made it say something different from what it used to say in the context of that paragraph. Such out-of-context quotations is a common ploy of Morey.

A second problem is that Morey referred to Caesar Farah as an "Islamic Scholar." Morey tries to bolster the authority of his quoted authorities by giving them adjectives as above. If by "Islamic" readers think that Caesar Farah is a Muslim, Morey has no motive to correct such a misunderstanding. And if challenged, he could say he meant "scholar of Islam." Then he should say what he means.

A third problem is that Morey left out the important discussion from Farah's book. That passage was saying that the God who was called Ilah in South Arabia was called El by the Israelites. This fact would have ruined Morey's entire Moon-god-in-Islam theory, so Morey conveniently concealed it. Why should Morey let his readers know that according to two of the gospels, Jesus was on the cross calling out to El who, if Morey is right, is the Moon- god of Islam?

Concealed Evidence

Morey makes much of archaeological findings in South Arabia at Qataban, Timna, and Marib. So he speaks of

   "thousands of Sabean, Minean,and Qatabanian inscriptions which were subsequently translated" (Morey, p. 7).

Wow! Except that I noticed he did not bother to quote from these inscriptions or tell us what they say. Instead, he immediately moved on to describe findings in other areas. Hmn. This is quite unlike Morey. I am sure that if he has some solid evidence he would jump on it. Why so quiet about the translated inscriptions?

One possible reason is that Morey heard about these but knows not what they say. Another possibility is that Morey found them inconvenient. I much prefer the first possibility, but in any case the findings are inconvenient for Morey. The inscriptions just do not gel with Morey's Moon-god-in-Islam theory. The translated inscriptions are compiled in the book we already referred to: The Ancient Near East, vol. 2, by James Pritchard. These inscriptions show that the Moon-god was not Allah, but Anbay,'Amm,'lyn, and Waddum. Sabaean inscriptions from Mareb show that they worshipped Attarand Waddum (see Pritchard, vol. 2, p. 230). Minaean Inscriptions mention Wadd, Waddum and Attar. Although their lunar god was Waddum, they also sacrificed to Attar (Pritchard, vol. 2 p. 235). Hadrami inscriptions, as we have already learnt from Morey's book, reveal that the name of the Moon-god in that region was Sin. Pritchard's collection of inscriptions confirms this, Sin was "the principal Hadrami lunar god" (Pritchard, vol. 2, p. 238). Here, however, we catch a glimpse of the identity of the god Attar we heard about from the Sabaean and

   Minaean inscriptions. One inscription here reads: ... to Sin, He of'Ilum, and to Attar, his father" (Pritchard, vol. 2, p. 238).

Quite revealing! This shows that the Moon-god Sin had a father Attar who was also a god. So for these people the Moon-god was not the high god. This again disproves Morey. Morey kept telling us that the Moon-god was the high god among the pagans. Now we know that he was not only different in name from the high God Allah but that he also had a father. Allah, of course, was never believed to have a father. A Qatabanian inscription from Timna recognizes the god `Anbay (Pritchard, vol. 2, p. 238). And this `Anbay is "the moon divinity `Anbay" (Pritchard vol. 2, p. 236). Another god `Amm is also mentioned (p. 237). One Qatabanian rock inscription is quite revealing. It shows the name of a previously unknown god written as `lyn, consonants only. What vowels should complete that word? Pritchard and his contributors observe that `lyn may be graphically compared with the divine epitheton in the Old Testament, `elyon (`lywn; e.g., Dt 32:; (Pritchard, vol. 2, p. 239).

So the God of the Bible was worshipped here too. Would Morey make this clear?

As promised, the link:  http://www.beautifulislam.net/christianity/robert_moreys_moon_god_myth.htm

[srkruzich]

I have no idea who this fella is.  
Just going by some simple facts of lineage.  
The simple fact is that Allah is NOT the same god as Christian and Jewish God.   Lets start with the fact that when Jesus came to us, the NT is a continuation of the OT.  It is the OT fulfilled as all parts of the NT agree with the OT.  

With the Koran, it does not agree with the OT whatsoever.  There is no salvation for man in it.
Another thing in the Koran that makes absolutely no sense, is it is a sin to have orgies, drink wine ect but if you kill infidels and die, you get to go to heaven and have all the sex orgies you want and get drunk.
SO if its a sin here why isn't it a sin there.  Go figure.
Mohammeds life itself is that of a tyrant and a pedophile, as well as a murderer and thief.  God only sent his righteous men to give his word in the OT.  In Islam, allah sent the worst of the worst.  

Do a one on one comparison of God vs Allah and you will find they can't be the same god.

One thing that the judaeo/christian God has that the Allah god doesn't have is that EL has been around since the beginning of time and Allah is only 1400 years old according to you.

[Sarah]

both, the first discovery was made in 1628.  KJV was finished in 1611.

Well, the NT Steve already gave an answer for, but the OT was copied and kept with the Jews on scrolls.  You would have to understand something about Jews to understand the significance of God choosing them to keep His word.  When they copy something they are EXACT.  When a Jew sat down to re-write a scroll, every single letter, every symbol, and every punctuation had to be exact.  If even one letter of the scroll was off, then the whole thing was considered useless and tossed out.  It took a considerable amount of time to write and check a scroll.  Everything had to be exact.  Even now, from some of the first scrolls that they've found, they match word for word.  That's pretty amazing.  No one copies scrolls like the Jews do. 

[redcliffsw]

Good one on the NIV. 

Correction or Corruption?
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:4qiroYgZ6OYJ:www.tbaptist.com/aab/correctioncorruption.htm+niv+corruption&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us