PDA

View Full Version : The word "Jew" in the Bible



Christian3
06-30-2017, 06:12 AM
I'm doing some research on the word "Jew" in the Bible.

I found this:

The word Jew did not exist until 1514 A.D. ...

"According to Jewish-born Historian Benjamin H. Freedman, author of Facts Are Facts:

“The best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition. The Rheims (Douai) translation of the New Testament into English was first printed in 1582 but the word ‘Jew’ did not appear in it.

“The King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English was begun in 1604 and first published in 1611. The word ‘Jew’ did not appear in it either. The word ‘Jew’ appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions for the first times."

Question: Does the word "Jew" appear in the early manuscripts?

Thanks.

Bill the Cat
06-30-2017, 06:39 AM
I'm doing some research on the word "Jew" in the Bible.

I found this:

The word Jew did not exist until 1514 A.D. ...

"According to Jewish-born Historian Benjamin H. Freedman, author of Facts Are Facts:

“The best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition. The Rheims (Douai) translation of the New Testament into English was first printed in 1582 but the word ‘Jew’ did not appear in it.

“The King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English was begun in 1604 and first published in 1611. The word ‘Jew’ did not appear in it either. The word ‘Jew’ appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions for the first times."

Question: Does the word "Jew" appear in the early manuscripts?

Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew_(word)

The term Jew passed into the English language from the Greek Ioudaios and Latin Iudaeus, from which the Old French giu was derived after dropping the letter "d", and later after a variety of forms found in early English (from about the year 1000) such as: Iudea, Gyu, Giu, Iuu, Iuw, Iew developed into the English word “Jew.” It thus ultimately originates in the Biblical Hebrew word Yehudi meaning "from the Tribe of Judah", "from the Kingdom of Judah", or "Jew". The Jewish ethnonym in Hebrew is יהודים‎, Yehudim (plural of יהודי‎, Yehudi).

Christian3
06-30-2017, 06:49 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew_(word)

The term Jew passed into the English language from the Greek Ioudaios and Latin Iudaeus, from which the Old French giu was derived after dropping the letter "d", and later after a variety of forms found in early English (from about the year 1000) such as: Iudea, Gyu, Giu, Iuu, Iuw, Iew developed into the English word “Jew.” It thus ultimately originates in the Biblical Hebrew word Yehudi meaning "from the Tribe of Judah", "from the Kingdom of Judah", or "Jew". The Jewish ethnonym in Hebrew is יהודים‎, Yehudim (plural of יהודי‎, Yehudi).

Why doesn't it appear in the King James Version?

Thanks.

Sparko
06-30-2017, 06:52 AM
what did they use instead of "jew"?

Adrift
06-30-2017, 07:04 AM
I'm doing some research on the word "Jew" in the Bible.

I found this:

The word Jew did not exist until 1514 A.D. ...

"According to Jewish-born Historian Benjamin H. Freedman, author of Facts Are Facts:

“The best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition. The Rheims (Douai) translation of the New Testament into English was first printed in 1582 but the word ‘Jew’ did not appear in it.

“The King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English was begun in 1604 and first published in 1611. The word ‘Jew’ did not appear in it either. The word ‘Jew’ appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions for the first times."

Question: Does the word "Jew" appear in the early manuscripts?

Thanks.

The word "Jew" is the modern English version of the Old English Iudeas which comes from the Latin word Iudaeus. Hebrew and Greek obviously don't use the same alphabet as Latin, so, the word "Jew" as it appears in English would not appear in any non-English manuscripts.

The Hebrew word for "Jew" is יְהוּדִ֔י. The Greek word for Jew is ιουδαῖος. Are you trying to figure out if either the Hebrew or Greek word show up in early manuscripts?

Adrift
06-30-2017, 07:11 AM
Why doesn't it appear in the King James Version?

Thanks.

It does. Here's is a scan of Esther 2:5 from an original 1611 copy of the King James from https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Ester_2_1611/

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible-KJV/Esther-Chapter-1-2.jpg

Christian3
06-30-2017, 07:20 AM
It does. Here's is a scan of Esther 2:5 from an original 1611 copy of the King James from https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Ester_2_1611/

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible-KJV/Esther-Chapter-1-2.jpg

Great!

Why is Jew spelled Iew?

Bill the Cat
06-30-2017, 07:45 AM
Why doesn't it appear in the King James Version?

Thanks.

It does appear there. It appears in multiple English versions from the 1500's

It appears as "Jewe" in the 1568 Bishop's Bible

http://www.bibles-online.net/1568/NewTestament/6-Romans/

Also as "Jewe" in the 1541 Great Bible

http://www.bibles-online.net/1541/NewTestament/6-Romans/

And as "Jew" in the 1611 King James bible

http://www.bibles-online.net/1611/NewTestament/6-Romans/

And it appears as "Iewe" in the 1390 Wycliffe Manuscript

http://www.bibles-online.net/1390/NewTestament/1thru50/

Adrift
06-30-2017, 08:01 AM
Great!

Why is Jew spelled Iew?

It isn't. The 1611 KJV printed verses in Gothic typeface. In that typeface both I's and J's have the same appearance. A visual distinction between the letter "I" and "J" in English didn't come along until 1633. If you notice, the words Jerusalem, Jeconiah, Jair, and Judah use the same font.

You can read more about these differences on the Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version),

The original printing was made before English spelling was standardized, and when printers, as a matter of course, expanded and contracted the spelling of the same words in different places, so as to achieve an even column of text.[69] They set v for initial u and v, and u for u and v everywhere else. They used long ſ for non-final s.[70] The glyph j occurs only after i, as in the final letter in a Roman numeral. Punctuation was relatively heavy, and differed from current practice. When space needed to be saved, the printers sometimes used ye for the, (replacing the Middle English thorn with the continental y), set ã for an or am (in the style of scribe's shorthand), and set & for and. On the contrary, on a few occasions, they appear to have inserted these words when they thought a line needed to be padded. Later printings regularized these spellings; the punctuation has also been standardized, but still varies from current usage norms.

The first printing used a black letter typeface instead of a roman typeface, which itself made a political and a religious statement. Like the Great Bible and the Bishops' Bible, the Authorized Version was "appointed to be read in churches". It was a large folio volume meant for public use, not private devotion; the weight of the type mirrored the weight of establishment authority behind it.[citation needed] However, smaller editions and roman-type editions followed rapidly, e.g. quarto roman-type editions of the Bible in 1612.[71] This contrasted with the Geneva Bible, which was the first English Bible printed in a roman typeface (although black-letter editions, particularly in folio format, were issued later).

If you don't mind me asking, what's this all about exactly?

Sparko
06-30-2017, 08:07 AM
Kind of like a capital "I" and lower case "l" in many fonts look the same?

Cow Poke
06-30-2017, 08:18 AM
Kind of like a capital "I" and lower case "l" in many fonts look the same?

Which, all conspiracy theories aside, is exactly why there is no J Street in DC.

Christian3
06-30-2017, 08:22 AM
It isn't. The 1611 KJV printed verses in Gothic typeface. In that typeface both I's and J's have the same appearance. A visual distinction between the letter "I" and "J" in English didn't come along until 1633. If you notice, the words Jerusalem, Jeconiah, Jair, and Judah use the same font.

You can read more about these differences on the Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version),

The original printing was made before English spelling was standardized, and when printers, as a matter of course, expanded and contracted the spelling of the same words in different places, so as to achieve an even column of text.[69] They set v for initial u and v, and u for u and v everywhere else. They used long ſ for non-final s.[70] The glyph j occurs only after i, as in the final letter in a Roman numeral. Punctuation was relatively heavy, and differed from current practice. When space needed to be saved, the printers sometimes used ye for the, (replacing the Middle English thorn with the continental y), set ã for an or am (in the style of scribe's shorthand), and set & for and. On the contrary, on a few occasions, they appear to have inserted these words when they thought a line needed to be padded. Later printings regularized these spellings; the punctuation has also been standardized, but still varies from current usage norms.

The first printing used a black letter typeface instead of a roman typeface, which itself made a political and a religious statement. Like the Great Bible and the Bishops' Bible, the Authorized Version was "appointed to be read in churches". It was a large folio volume meant for public use, not private devotion; the weight of the type mirrored the weight of establishment authority behind it.[citation needed] However, smaller editions and roman-type editions followed rapidly, e.g. quarto roman-type editions of the Bible in 1612.[71] This contrasted with the Geneva Bible, which was the first English Bible printed in a roman typeface (although black-letter editions, particularly in folio format, were issued later).

If you don't mind me asking, what's this all about exactly?

I'm asking because I am having a conversation with a Muslim, who posted this:

The word Jew did not exist until 1514 A.D. ...

"According to Jewish-born Historian Benjamin H. Freedman, author of Facts Are Facts:

“The best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition. The Rheims (Douai) translation of the New Testament into English was first printed in 1582 but the word ‘Jew’ did not appear in it.

“The King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English was begun in 1604 and first published in 1611. The word ‘Jew’ did not appear in it either. The word ‘Jew’ appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions for the first times."

He also said Jesus was not a Jew because He didn't have a human father. I am doing research on this too.

Thanks guys.

Adrift
06-30-2017, 08:27 AM
Kind of like a capital "I" and lower case "l" in many fonts look the same?

I think it's more the case that they simply used the same letter even if the word was pronounced differently. As this fantastic article (http://public.oed.com/aspects-of-english/english-in-time/early-modern-english-pronunciation-and-spelling/) points out, English was still in the process of being standardized between 1475 and c. 1630 as spelling was attempting to catch up with how people talked. The "I" "l" distinction may be a holdover from that, that never really got ironed out. :smile:

This video gives a pretty good example on how "J" would have been pronounced even when it looked like "I":


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeW1eV7Oc5A

Cow Poke
06-30-2017, 08:52 AM
I'm asking because I am having a conversation with a Muslim, who posted this:

The word Jew did not exist until 1514 A.D. ...

"According to Jewish-born Historian Benjamin H. Freedman, author of Facts Are Facts:

“The best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition. The Rheims (Douai) translation of the New Testament into English was first printed in 1582 but the word ‘Jew’ did not appear in it.

“The King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English was begun in 1604 and first published in 1611. The word ‘Jew’ did not appear in it either. The word ‘Jew’ appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions for the first times."

He also said Jesus was not a Jew because He didn't have a human father. I am doing research on this too.

Thanks guys.

Actually, it's kinda pointless to use "language" as a "proof" in a case like this. Abraham was a "Hebrew", which was עברי (pronounced "Ivri"). As I recall, that meant "the other side", and either "Moses stood on the 'other side' of religion, because he worshiped only One God", and/or he came from "the other side of the river". That they were not necessarily called "Jews" does not mean that they don't go all the way back to Abraham.

Adrift
06-30-2017, 08:55 AM
I'm asking because I am having a conversation with a Muslim, who posted this:

The word Jew did not exist until 1514 A.D. ...

"According to Jewish-born Historian Benjamin H. Freedman, author of Facts Are Facts:

“The best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition. The Rheims (Douai) translation of the New Testament into English was first printed in 1582 but the word ‘Jew’ did not appear in it.

“The King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English was begun in 1604 and first published in 1611. The word ‘Jew’ did not appear in it either. The word ‘Jew’ appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions for the first times."

He also said Jesus was not a Jew because He didn't have a human father. I am doing research on this too.

Thanks guys.

Oh brother. How silly. If he's seriously attempting to suggest that the word "Jew" didn't exist in English because "I" and "J" weren't standardized until later, he's a nutter and not worth bothering with. Here's a copy (https://archive.org/details/16371638TheKingJamesBibleCambridgeDarlowAndMouleNu mber402) of the same passage from a 1637/38 copy of the King James where the "I" and "J" have become standardized (notice the lower-case "s" still isn't standardized),

https://ia800405.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/26/items/16371638TheKingJamesBibleCambridgeDarlowAndMouleNu mber402/1637-1638-The%20King%20James%20Bible%2C%20Cambridge%2C%20Dar low%20and%20Moule%2C%20Number%20402_jp2.zip&file=1637-1638-The%20King%20James%20Bible%2C%20Cambridge%2C%20Dar low%20and%20Moule%2C%20Number%20402_jp2/1637-1638-The%20King%20James%20Bible%2C%20Cambridge%2C%20Dar low%20and%20Moule%2C%20Number%20402_0451.jp2&scale=7.953012048192771&rotate=0

Cow Poke
06-30-2017, 08:56 AM
He also said Jesus was not a Jew because He didn't have a human father. I am doing research on this too.

Ask him if it's OK if you make up the rules for who is a Muslim. :smile:

A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism.

Cow Poke
06-30-2017, 09:01 AM
Ask him if it's OK if you make up the rules for who is a Muslim. :smile:

A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism.

From Jewish Virtual Library. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/who-is-a-jew)..

According to Jewish law, a child born to a Jewish mother or an adult who has converted to Judaism is considered a Jew; one does not have to reaffirm their Jewishness or practice any of the laws of the Torah to be Jewish. According to Reform Judaism, a person is a Jew if they were born to either a Jewish mother or a Jewish father. Also, Reform Judaism stresses the importance of being raised Jewish; if a child is born to Jewish parents and was not raised Jewish then the child is not considered Jewish. According to the Orthodox movement, the father’s religion and whether the person practices is immaterial. No affirmation or upbringing is needed, as long as the mother was Jewish.

Cow Poke
06-30-2017, 09:04 AM
If Momma ain't Jewish, ain't NOBODY Jewish!

:outtie:

As an aside, I thought it was interesting the way our Jewish tour guide referred to her people, not as "Jews", but as "the Jewish". One of her favorite sayings was "If there is a difficult way to do something, 'the Jewish' will find it!"

Sparko
06-30-2017, 09:05 AM
I'm asking because I am having a conversation with a Muslim, who posted this:

The word Jew did not exist until 1514 A.D. ...

"According to Jewish-born Historian Benjamin H. Freedman, author of Facts Are Facts:

“The best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition. The Rheims (Douai) translation of the New Testament into English was first printed in 1582 but the word ‘Jew’ did not appear in it.

“The King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English was begun in 1604 and first published in 1611. The word ‘Jew’ did not appear in it either. The word ‘Jew’ appeared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions for the first times."

He also said Jesus was not a Jew because He didn't have a human father. I am doing research on this too.

Thanks guys.

"Jew" comes from "the tribe of Judah" one of the 12 hebrew tribes. so no matter what the word or how it was spelled the meaning is the same, someone from the tribe of judah (which if I recall was combined with benjamin) - so even if the ancient people called them something other than "jew" the meaning is exactly the same.

Adrift
06-30-2017, 09:16 AM
Ask him if it's OK if you make up the rules for who is a Muslim. :smile:

A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism.

If I remember correctly, strict matrilineality for determining Jewishness may have been a Talmudic convention. Modern Karaite Jews determine Jewishness through the father. It probably didn't really matter much in Jesus' period which parent was a Jew, but it's just more goofiness to assume that Jesus was not Jewish simply because of the virgin birth. I'm sure there's apologetics for dealing with Jews and Muslims who hold this opinion, but it never ceases to amaze me that distances people go to hold onto their pet theories.

Cow Poke
06-30-2017, 09:19 AM
"Jew" comes from "the tribe of Judah" one of the 12 hebrew tribes. so no matter what the word or how it was spelled the meaning is the same, someone from the tribe of judah (which if I recall was combined with benjamin) - so even if the ancient people called them something other than "jew" the meaning is exactly the same.

Yeah, Judah was one of the twelve tribes, and received a special blessing as far back as Genesis 49:1 and 8-10.

Adrift
06-30-2017, 09:26 AM
"Jew" comes from "the tribe of Judah" one of the 12 hebrew tribes. so no matter what the word or how it was spelled the meaning is the same, someone from the tribe of judah (which if I recall was combined with benjamin) - so even if the ancient people called them something other than "jew" the meaning is exactly the same.

Which raises the question, can those Israelites not from the tribe of Judah properly be called Jews? "Jew" and "Israelite" have since become synonymous, but technically probably not. The existence of modern Samaritans (which now only number in the hundreds) seems to indicate that while all Jews are ethnically Israelites, probably not all ethnic Israelites are Jews.

Sparko
06-30-2017, 09:27 AM
If I remember correctly, strict matrilineality for determining Jewishness may have been a Talmudic convention. Modern Karaite Jews determine Jewishness through the father. It probably didn't really matter much in Jesus' period which parent was a Jew, but it's just more goofiness to assume that Jesus was not Jewish simply because of the virgin birth. I'm sure there's apologetics for dealing with Jews and Muslims who hold this opinion, but it never ceases to amaze me that distances people go to hold onto their pet theories.

pretty much this probably has to do with the fact that Muslims hate Jews but consider Jesus a great prophet. They need to separate him from the Jews or they have a conflict of interest.

Christian3
06-30-2017, 09:34 AM
Oh brother. How silly. If he's seriously attempting to suggest that the word "Jew" didn't exist in English because "I" and "J" weren't standardized until later, he's a nutter and not worth bothering with. Here's a copy (https://archive.org/details/16371638TheKingJamesBibleCambridgeDarlowAndMouleNu mber402) of the same passage from a 1637/38 copy of the King James where the "I" and "J" have become standardized (notice the lower-case "s" still isn't standardized),

https://ia800405.us.archive.org/BookReader/BookReaderImages.php?zip=/26/items/16371638TheKingJamesBibleCambridgeDarlowAndMouleNu mber402/1637-1638-The%20King%20James%20Bible%2C%20Cambridge%2C%20Dar low%20and%20Moule%2C%20Number%20402_jp2.zip&file=1637-1638-The%20King%20James%20Bible%2C%20Cambridge%2C%20Dar low%20and%20Moule%2C%20Number%20402_jp2/1637-1638-The%20King%20James%20Bible%2C%20Cambridge%2C%20Dar low%20and%20Moule%2C%20Number%20402_0451.jp2&scale=7.953012048192771&rotate=0

He didn't know about the "I" and "J" but he does now thanks to the good folks here. :)

He is a nutter. I wasn't sure I could say what I really think of him here -- maybe the Mods wouldn't like it.

I have two reasons for wanting to bother with him.

One: I'd like to educate him.
Two: Research like this helps me understand the issue, so I get educated.

Christian3
06-30-2017, 09:37 AM
If Momma ain't Jewish, ain't NOBODY Jewish!



This is an interesting article recommended to me from a Jew:

http://www.beingjewish.com/identity/whoisajew.html

Teallaura
06-30-2017, 12:44 PM
If He wasn't Jewish because He didn't have a Jewish father, wouldn't that mean He also wasn't human?

Regardless of the English interpretation, Christ was unquestionably of the Hebrews.


Also, even if the word 'Jew' wasn't in the KJV, it wouldn't matter at all - the KJV was translated from the Latin Vulgate, not the extant documents. Going from Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew to English with a detour through Latin is bound to end up with a few quirks.

Christian3
07-01-2017, 06:10 AM
pretty much this probably has to do with the fact that Muslims hate Jews but consider Jesus a great prophet. They need to separate him from the Jews or they have a conflict of interest.

Muslims hate Jews for a variety of reasons. Some won't admit hating them.

One Muslim told me that it is partly because of Palestine, but more than that -- it is that "The Jews should have known that Muhammad was a prophet and they rejected him."

Others (most?) believe that the Jews stole Ishmael's birthright. The Jews changed their Scriptures in saying that it was Ishmael who God asked to sacrifice, so the Covenant should have gone through him rather than Isaac.

Muslims also believe all of God's promises went through Ishmael and not the Jews. They claim that Jesus gave the Kingdom to Muslims and use the following verse from Jesus as proof:

Matthew 21:

42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone.
This came from the Lord
and is wonderful in our eyes?

(The stone rejected is Muhammad.)

43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing its fruit."

(The nation is Islam.)

Cerebrum123
07-01-2017, 06:26 AM
Muslims hate Jews for a variety of reasons. Some won't admit hating them.

One Muslim told me that it is partly because of Palestine, but more than that -- it is that "The Jews should have known that Muhammad was a prophet and they rejected him."

Others (most?) believe that the Jews stole Ishmael's birthright. The Jews changed their Scriptures in saying that it was Ishmael who God asked to sacrifice, so the Covenant should have gone through him rather than Isaac.

Muslims also believe all of God's promises went through Ishmael and not the Jews. They claim that Jesus gave the Kingdom to Muslims and use the following verse from Jesus as proof:

Matthew 21:

42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone.
This came from the Lord
and is wonderful in our eyes?

(The stone rejected is Muhammad.)

43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing its fruit."

(The nation is Islam.)

Muslims always have been good at eisegesis. :yes:

Christian3
07-01-2017, 07:21 AM
Muslims always have been good at eisegesis. :yes:

Yes, they are. Just look at where they find Muhammad and Islam in the Bible: none of them work.

They also hate Apostle Paul and it is not hard to know why.

Cow Poke
07-01-2017, 07:51 AM
Yes, they are. Just look at where they find Muhammad and Islam in the Bible: none of them work.

They also hate Apostle Paul and it is not hard to know why.

Look how many times the Holy City of Jerusalem is mentioned in the Koran.

Christian3
07-01-2017, 08:00 AM
Look how many times the Holy City of Jerusalem is mentioned in the Koran.

Jerusalem is not mentioned at all.

Cow Poke
07-01-2017, 08:01 AM
Jerusalem is not mentioned at all.

EGGzackly!!!! :thumb:

Christian3
07-01-2017, 08:41 AM
Muslims always have been good at eisegesis. :yes:

It gets worse:

Muhammad is Shlioh:

http://www.islamicweb.com/bible/good4.htm

Muhammad is the son of Man:

http://www.islamicweb.com/bible/good6.htm

Muhammad is the root of Jesse:

http://www.islamawareness.net/Mib/ch6_9.html

rogue06
07-01-2017, 09:06 AM
Muslims always have been good at eisegesis. :yes:
Actually they aren't really that good at it but they sure do engage in it a lot.

Cerebrum123
07-01-2017, 01:54 PM
Actually they aren't really that good at it but they sure do engage in it a lot.

:lol:

Cerebrum123
07-01-2017, 01:56 PM
It gets worse:

Muhammad is Shlioh:

http://www.islamicweb.com/bible/good4.htm

Muhammad is the son of Man:

http://www.islamicweb.com/bible/good6.htm

Muhammad is the root of Jesse:

http://www.islamawareness.net/Mib/ch6_9.html

They need to admit to shirk at that point. Well, to be consistent anyway.

Adrift
07-01-2017, 09:26 PM
Muslims hate Jews for a variety of reasons. Some won't admit hating them.

One Muslim told me that it is partly because of Palestine, but more than that -- it is that "The Jews should have known that Muhammad was a prophet and they rejected him."

Others (most?) believe that the Jews stole Ishmael's birthright. The Jews changed their Scriptures in saying that it was Ishmael who God asked to sacrifice, so the Covenant should have gone through him rather than Isaac.

Muslims also believe all of God's promises went through Ishmael and not the Jews. They claim that Jesus gave the Kingdom to Muslims and use the following verse from Jesus as proof:

Matthew 21:

42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

The stone that the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone.
This came from the Lord
and is wonderful in our eyes?

(The stone rejected is Muhammad.)

43 Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing its fruit."

(The nation is Islam.)

So they believe that Jesus, a descendant of Issac (at least on his mother's side), was a great prophet, and also the Messiah, who will rule all the people of the book in the second coming, but they also believe Issac stole Ishmael's birthright? No wonder they're so quick to denounce Jesus as a Jew. What's all the more confounding is that they're willing to pick and choose what they will from the Bible when it suits their needs, and when it doesn't...it's because the scriptures were corrupted. Isn't that convenient.

So, if Muslims don't believe that Jesus was a Jew because of the virgin birth, then who do they claim is his father, if he's not the Son of God (If my memory's correct, they don't believe that Jesus is God, nor the Son of God)?

Christian3
07-02-2017, 08:36 AM
So they believe that Jesus, a descendant of Issac (at least on his mother's side), was a great prophet, and also the Messiah, who will rule all the people of the book in the second coming, but they also believe Issac stole Ishmael's birthright? No wonder they're so quick to denounce Jesus as a Jew. What's all the more confounding is that they're willing to pick and choose what they will from the Bible when it suits their needs, and when it doesn't...it's because the scriptures were corrupted. Isn't that convenient.

So, if Muslims don't believe that Jesus was a Jew because of the virgin birth, then who do they claim is his father, if he's not the Son of God (If my memory's correct, they don't believe that Jesus is God, nor the Son of God)?

Only one Muslim I know of said Jesus was not a Jew; I'm sure most Muslims believe He was a Jew; after all according to the Qur'an Jesus was sent to the Jews.

According to Islam, Jesus did not have a father.

According to the author of the Qur'an, Allah has no son and needs a wife in order to have one.

The Qur'an says that Jesus is the Messiah, but the author of the Qur'an does not seem to know what that meant.

Even though the Qur'an says it confirms past revelations and our manuscripts pre-date the Qur'an by several hundred years, Muslims claim that anything that contradicts the Qur'an is corrupted.

tabibito
07-02-2017, 09:18 AM
"Iew" is well and truly used in the Bishop's Bible too - about 40 or so years earlier than the King James

Adrift
07-02-2017, 05:58 PM
Only one Muslim I know of said Jesus was not a Jew; I'm sure most Muslims believe He was a Jew; after all according to the Qur'an Jesus was sent to the Jews.

According to Islam, Jesus did not have a father.

According to the author of the Qur'an, Allah has no son and needs a wife in order to have one.

The Qur'an says that Jesus is the Messiah, but the author of the Qur'an does not seem to know what that meant.

Even though the Qur'an says it confirms past revelations and our manuscripts pre-date the Qur'an by several hundred years, Muslims claim that anything that contradicts the Qur'an is corrupted.

Does this person you're talking to think that Mary was a Jew? Or did he think that no Jews existed at all before the 17th/18th century?

KingsGambit
07-02-2017, 06:08 PM
I'm trying to remember what one of my seminary professors said on the topic but he himself maintained that the concept of "Jew" as most people understood it was a modern invention and that all such biblical mentions should have been translated as "Judean". But this is too far back for me to remember any more than this.

Dr. May and I had a lot of fun disagreeing with each other on stuff.

Christian3
07-03-2017, 12:57 PM
I'm trying to remember what one of my seminary professors said on the topic but he himself maintained that the concept of "Jew" as most people understood it was a modern invention and that all such biblical mentions should have been translated as "Judean". But this is too far back for me to remember any more than this.

Dr. May and I had a lot of fun disagreeing with each other on stuff.

Don't they say that a rose by any other name is still a rose?

KingsGambit
07-03-2017, 05:29 PM
Don't they say that a rose by any other name is still a rose?

"Judean" refers to someone from a certain geographical region which isn't what people these days usually mean by the word "Jew".

Adrift
07-04-2017, 12:36 AM
"Judean" refers to someone from a certain geographical region which isn't what people these days usually mean by the word "Jew".

Yeah, but when the Bible refers to "Jews", it's clearly referring to more than the geographical location they were born.

For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision something that is outward in the flesh, but someone is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart by the Spirit and not by the written code. This person's praise is not from people but from God.

KingsGambit
07-08-2017, 08:52 AM
Yeah, but when the Bible refers to "Jews", it's clearly referring to more than the geographical location they were born.

For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision something that is outward in the flesh, but someone is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart by the Spirit and not by the written code. This person's praise is not from people but from God.

Right, which is a big reason I don't really agree with the proposition.