I must admit, I do not read Arabic, but I learned from an Arabic scholar that there are several places in the Arabic translation of the Bible that Allah is used where the English version would read God. Are you saying that he didn't know what he was talking about?
This is not about transliteration (word for word for word) but about context. Let's say you describe your brother, Jay for example, as a humbe man who wouldn't hurt a fly and have many witnesses to this fact. Then years later, someone writes a book about Jay, that describes him as a party-going womanizer. What would you think? Probably;
a. These people can't possibly be talking about the same Jay.
b. These people never met Jay.
c. These people are lying about Jay.
The Koran's description of God and his Son are opposite and different from what we read in the OT/NT. The name and places may be the same but the story is different. It seems rather evident that;
a. the writers of the Koran were not talking about YHWH and Christ,
b. that they never had a personal relationship with them and
c. they were lying about the angels who visited Mohammed.
Especially since many people believed that in his youth, Mohammed was demon posessed.
This is an interesting belief. I agree that God's word is always true and will always resurface after a period of rejection by man. This happened before and during Christ's ministry. The prophet Amos prophesied,“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord"(Amos 8:11-12). So we know that there have been times when God's true gospel was lost and not available to man, especially with specific groups. When you talk about his original message surviving somehow, I would like to know where that idea comes from. It seems to contradict what Amos taught.
It should be obvious that before Christ came into the world to spread the Good News of the gospel that those who existed prior to that time were under the Law of God. Fortunately, after Christ was crucified, he descended first to preach the gospel to those who were not alive to hear his message and by this act was able to spread the message to everyone. The gospel was not lost to the generations that came before Christ.
What Amos is speaking about is a future event that occurs in the Day of the Lord.
Amos 8
...2Then the Lord said, “Like this fruit, Israel is ripe for punishment! I will not delay their punishment again. 3 In that day the singing in the Temple will turn to wailing. Dead bodies will be scattered everywhere. They will be carried out of the city in silence. I, the Sovereign Lord, have spoken!”
...7 Now the Lord has sworn this oath
by his own name, the Pride of Israel:
“I will never forget
the wicked things you have done!
8 The earth will tremble for your deeds,
and everyone will mourn.
The ground will rise like the Nile River at floodtime;
it will heave up, then sink again.
9 “In that day,” says the Sovereign Lord,
“I will make the sun go down at noon
and darken the earth while it is still day.
10 I will turn your celebrations into times of mourning
and your singing into weeping.
You will wear funeral clothes
and shave your heads to show your sorrow—
as if your only son had died.
How very bitter that day will be! 11 “The time is surely coming,” says the Sovereign Lord,
“when I will send a famine on the land—
not a famine of bread or water
but of hearing the words of the Lord.
12 People will stagger from sea to sea
and wander from border to border
searching for the word of the Lord,
but they will not find it.
13 Beautiful girls and strong young men
will grow faint in that day,
thirsting for the Lord’s word.
The Day of the Lord, also referred to as "that day" is not a 24 hr day but a day that begins with the Lord unleashing his anger on Israel. They are attacked and ravished by the nations surrounding her. Since the DOTL begins after the rapture there are no allies left for Israel to call on and she is utterly defeated. However, God will then turn on he nations that attacked Israel and bring his complete wrath upon the world. It will be a dark and dreary day as described in scriptures. It is a future event.
Again, all we have recorded about Mohammed is what we got from fanatic followers after his death. How do we know his message was not corrupted and what we read from the Koran is a corruption of what he originally taught? That might be an explanation for the contradictions.
I guess my question to you is, if you are unsure of the Koran's authenticity and think it might have been corrupted, why argue that it is a valid piece of work to begin with? Why trust a book and author if you are not sure of the original message? A lot of the Koran is an agruement against Jews and Christians. Why not just read the Torah and the bible, which has been validated and consistent throughout the ages?
Blessings,
Dee
