New World Translation: Bible Topics page criticism

The following are from the New World Translations of the Holy Scriptures, 1984, reprinted in 2006, from the section at the back called "Bible Topics for Discussion" p.1652 and on.

The following BLACK text is from the NWT, whereas the BLUE are my comments.

1. Ancestor Worship

• Ancestors are dead, unconscious.....   Ec 9:5, 10

Here is what the NWT says in the verses cited:

For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all, nor do they have any more reward, because all memory of them is forgotten--Ecclesiastes 9:5

 The JW's and the groups share an ancestry with like the Seventh Day Adventists like to point to this verse to "prove" the dead are not "conscious." However, they typically quote the verse as simply "the dead know nothing," however, just before it says that "the living know THAT THEY WILL DIE," this is the knowledge spoken about.  The "living know they will die" and because of this they can have some form of reward and perhaps even repent if needed, but the dead, since they are already dead, their fate is sealed and there is nothing they can do to change that, nothing they can prevent anymore. In fact, a famous Jewish Hebrew Bible commentator--Rashi on this writes:

 “For the living know that they will die” and perhaps their hearts will return on the day of death and they will repent of their ways, but after they die, they do not know anything, and they have no more reward for the actions that they do from their deaths and onwards, for whoever toils on the eve of the Sabbath will eat on the Sabbath.—chabad.org

Now verse 10 in the NWT,

Whatever your hand finds to do, do with all your might, for there is no work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the Grave, where you are going.--Ecclesiastes 9:10

Again, its simply telling people to work now, since there's nothing they can do once their dead and that now during life they can do works pleasuring to God like verse 7 has:

Go, eat your food with rejoicing, and drink your wine with a cheerful heart, for already the true God has found pleasure in your works.--Ecclesiastes 9:7

 Again, here is RaShI:

“for there is neither deed, etc. in the grave” for your merit after you die, and if you did so, you have no reckoning in the grave to worry about. The verse is transposed, [to be explained]: for there is neither deed nor knowledge nor wisdom in the grave for the wicked, nor reckoning for the righteous, when the wicked give their accounting. So is it expounded in the Midrash (unknown). And one who interprets it without transposing it, according to its apparent meaning, interprets חֶשְּׁבּוֹן as an expression of “thought,” what he can still do to free himself from judgment.—Chabad.org

Furthermore, the witch of Endor incident with King Saul is evidence always used against soul sleepers, because the Sacred Writers refers to the dead Samuel addressing the living Saul, though typically soul sleepers want to insist its actually a demon, despite the fact it says it is Samuels speaking.

3. Baptism

• A. A Christian requirement
•       Only for those old enough to be taught....................Mt 28:19, 20; Ac 2:41 

The Jehovah Witnesses are taking from the Baptists on this point, just as they did about Jesus being Michael. First, Matthew 28:19

Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the system of things.--Matthew 28:19-20 NWT

I assume the JW reasoning is that they must be taught before being baptized. First, in order to start a new religion, you first must get converts, and only adults can convert, so it would not be reasonable to see a mention of infants here. Second, this is no clear condemnation of infant baptism, so why is it used? Furthermore, this verse says to convert nations, not part of them, by excluding their children, and as mentioned before why shouldn't children excluded from a covenant?

The second proof text is:

So those who gladly accepted his word were baptized, and on that day about 3,000 people were added.--Acts 2:41 NWT

Again, this verse just shows that they gained converts from adults and that those adults were baptized. It is not making a law concerning baptism, just stating what happened, nor is it excluding that their children would also be baptized.

In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.--Colossians 2:10

We see here St Paul linking circumcision and baptism, circumcision was the sign of the covenant in the Old testament as in Genesis 17, and Baptism is a sign for the new, in the Old Covenant children could enter a Covenant, so what wouldn't they likewise be able to in the New Covenant? 

Immersion in water is proper way.................................................Ac 8:38,39; Joh 3:23

  Here is what the NWT says for Acts 8:38-39 that's used.

With that he commanded the chariot to halt, and both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. When they came up out of the water, Jehovah’s spirit quickly led Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him anymore, but he went on his way rejoicing.--Acts 8:38-9 NWT

Nothing in this verse talks or alludes to full immersion being a requirement. Its just simply stating an event. From this verse if we were to make facts into rules concerning baptism let us likewise make being an Ethiopian and eunuch a requirement for baptism, or that the person performing the baptism must be in the water too. As for the next proof text:

But John too was baptizing in Ae′non near Sa′lim, because there was a great quantity of water there, and people kept coming and were being baptized;--John 3:23 NWT

This proof text says even less than the first, it only says people came to John and were baptized! It makes no mention of age, or says immersion was REQUIRED. Furthermore, its much easier to baptize a large number of people in a river than with cups, or in bath tubs. Also, this was John's baptism, not Christ's since people that were baptized by John had to be rebaptized when they became Christian as seen in Acts 19:1-3, so what does this verse have to prove?

B. Does not wash sins away

• Jesus was not baptized to wash away sins............................1 Pe 2:22, 3:18

I have no idea why this section is here about Jesus' baptism since no one believes Jesus sinned, so I cannot understand their logic. Just because Jesus's baptism did not forgive sins, does not mean it does not forgive other peoples! Interesting though, is that 1 Peter 3:21 says "baptism saves you now."

Jesus' blood washes away sins..............................1 Jo 1:7

I have seen this logic before--from a Baptist once again (no surprise). Here is what the verse says:

However, if we are walking in the light as he himself is in the light, we do have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin--1 John 1:7

The reasoning is generally since BLOOD washes away sins, therefore baptism cannot! Why not apply this reasoning to faith, grace, repentance--would anyone say THOSE do not save, but the blood does, wouldn't that be a false dichotomy?  Furthermore, Christ said:

for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins.--Matthew 26:28 NWT

So Christ here says His blood is poured out for the forgiveness of sins, and then we see St Peter saying something similar....

Peter said to them: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of your sins--Acts 2:38 NWT

Interesting, both verses say "for the remission of sins" but one mentions blood and the other baptism, to the JW this is a dilemma, since ONLY the blood washes away sin. We also have St Paul's baptism mentioning baptism washing away sins

And now why are you delaying? Rise, get baptized, and wash your sins away by your calling on his name.--Acts 22:16 NWT

 

By the way, they added the "by" in at "by your calling on his name."

5. Blood

• A. Transfusions violate sacredness of blood

• Noah was told blood was sacred, was the life ..........Gen 9:4, 16 

Jehovah Witnesses are known for their foolish views of blood transfusions, sometimes they or their children will die as a consequence, they even have lawyers to prevent doctors from administering it, so only court orders can save the child's life, or driving 100s of miles to a facility that feels sorry for JWs and has artificial blood or some other means to save their lives. However, this verse forbids eating animal blood, eating it states, it was not concerned with anything else.  Here is what Genesis 9:4 says

 Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat.--Genesis 9:4 NWT

This is a strange translation, it almost makes it sound like the prohibition is more about not eating a living animal, or not mixing blood with meat.  The JW interpretation of this verse seems to go contrary to the spirit of the section which is about not killing people/saving lives, the JW interpretation makes this deadly, when the Bible is concerned with keeping life.  Here is what Genesis 9:16 says

 And the rainbow will occur in the cloud, and I will certainly see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of every kind on the earth.”--Genesis 9:16 NWT

This verse doesn't even mention blood, or eating, or transfusions, not sure why its cited, perhaps a typographical error? 

• Law covenant prohibited feeding on blood .................Lev 17:14; 7:26,27

These verses do forbid EATING it, but it that the same as getting a transfusion? No. Jehovah Witnesses want to take this verse well beyond its meaning. Jews do not read these verses as condemning blood transfusion, in fact Jews believe receiving a blood transfusion can be a commandment if its will save your life. If a Jehovah Witness dies as a result of needing a blood transfusion that they refuse--they consider them a martyr! Whereas, others would considers would consider someone killing you for your faith an act of martyrdom.

Mormonism: Joseph Smith's King Follet Sermon

Mormonism: Joseph Smith's King Follet Sermon

Two years before the Mormon "prophet" and founder--Joseph Smith died, he gave one of his most infamous and controversial sermons where he asserted God used to be a human and is not eternal, and that Genesis 1 teaches there are multiple Gods. Smith's sermon will be in black and my words in blue.

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.

Smith here shows that Mormons have a radically different idea of God than Christians, or even other Monotheistic faiths. Mormonism does not believe God is immutable, but rather had to BECOME God.  Going even further, he insists God still looks like a man, but chooses not to show it to us! He bases this on Adam being made in the "image and likeness of God." Like much of Mormon doctrine it seems to have an origin in Jewish mysticism, neo-Platonism, and old fashioned paganism, in this case the rabbinical writing Genesis Rabbah 8:10 does has a section where a rabbi insists Adam looked exactly like God.  However, the issue is we know what "image of God" means in the ancient world, as many Jewish commentaries like Etz Hayim mention, in the ancient Middle East kings were often called the "image of a god," so the Bible here is telling us all human beings are made in the image of God, and this is repeated in the Noachide laws of Genesis  9:6.  So rather that one person being the image of God, all men are, thus democraticizing it, and showing all humans were made to rule the earth and endowed with free will and intellect by God.  Joseph Smith, however, ignoring traditional understanding, or being ignorant of the expression interprets it literally. Furthermore, if God was a man, why doesn't Joseph Smith tell us where God when He was a man came from? Who created him?   

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.

He seems to be only concern with how a man became god and unconcerned with the much bigger question of where he came from.  Furthermore, Smith's statement about God not being God "from eternity" seems to contradict his own holy book: 

For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing.--Moroni 7:22

Perhaps Smith has his own ideas of what "everlasting" and "eternal" mean also?

These ideas are incomprehensible to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.

This analogy seems to imply Jesus was not God before hand since he went through the same process as the Father. We know this is not the case because John 1:1 said the "word WAS God" in regards to "the beginning."

Eternal Life to Know God and Jesus Christ

I wish I was in a suitable place to tell it, and that I had the trump of an archangel, so that I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon!) The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it.

Here we see the "prophet" cannot get the verse right, Mormons say Smith is paraphrasing John 5:26 which reads:

"For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself;--John 5:26

 The verse is nothing to do with the Father and Son having died once and needing to resurrect, otherwise someone would have have to have given the Father power to die and resurrect likewise!  Ofcourse, Smith does not want to provide or refer to this person.  Furthermore, Smith completely misunderstands the verse--its talking about the Father posessing life--that is "salvation" and giving the ability to save to the Son, and its not talking about themselves, the whole context of John 5:26 is the Son judgement and giving life to people, whether spiritual or physical, though spiritual life (salvation) is the one emphasized the most as in

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.--John 5:24

 those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.--John 5:29

Furthermore, we have a similar verse to John 5:26 only a few verses before, but about judgement--which Jesus contrasts with life

The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son,--John 5:22

The Father gave the Son JUDGEMENT and LIFE, refering to the ability to damn and save people, just as verse John 5:29 that I posted above shows!

 Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming His name, is not trifling with you or me.

Great advertising technique, tell your members they too can become Gods!  This is incredibly different from the historical Christian doctrine of Theosis, which is about becoming by grace what God is by nature, not about achieving some Divine powers and being transformed into a member of a pantheon! Interestingly, he says there are already gods

The Righteous to Dwell in Everlasting Burnings

These are the first principles of consolation. How consoling to the mourners when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child, or dear relative, to know that, although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more, but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ.

If we were to read this section by itself as it it were written by an ordinary, it does not sounds strange, pagan, or crazy, but nothing Joseph Smith his idea of "heirs" is very different.

What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a god, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence.

This is just a power trip, power is a common theme in new age religions like Wicca too and is part of its appeal to the weak.  Also, notice how Smith seems to invent a quote that vague resembles a real saying of Jesus, partly by combining sayings of Jesus and smashing quotes together--just as he did several times through out the book of Mormon (especially about baptism read 3 Nephi 11):

glory that I had with you before the world existed.--John 17:5

the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.--John 5:19

Mormons like John 5:19 especially, because they argue that Jesus can only ressurect because he was the Father ressurect himself once, however Jesus is talking again about life and judgement, about how the Father is at work, so the Son is likewise as in the verse prior

Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”-John 5:17

My Father worked out His kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to My Father, so that He may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt Him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take His place, and thereby become exalted myself. So that Jesus treads in the tracks of His Father, and inherits what God did before; and God is thus glorified and exalted in the salvation and exaltation of all His children. It is plain beyond disputation, and you thus learn some of the first principles of the gospel, about which so much hath been said.

"Fear and trembling" is a phrase found about 4 times in the New Testament and is only used about humans, not God, likewise the Book of Mormon uses it obviously in Mormon 9:27 taking from Philippians 2:12 about "working out your salvation with fear and trembling." Who does God have to fear and trembling over? is it himself? The implication is that there is someone he reports to, but of course Smith does not want to talk about that here either!  In this section Smith is still making God the Father and Jesus out to be self seeking for self exaltation and to glorify themselves and ascend up some ladder of godhood--much different than the Jesus of John 17:5 where Jesus asks to be RESTORED to His previous glory, rather than being GIVEN NEW GLORY:

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was--John 17:5

Furthermore, a Jesus wanting to exalt himself gives us a Jesus radically diffferent that the Biblical one that came in form of a servant as Phillippians 2:7 and was exalted by God the Father because of it, especially since the Mormon Jesus gets to take his father's place! This is an extremely selfish, motivated Jesus--he gets a huge personal payout by helping man kind, he gets to take his father's job!

When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave. I suppose I am not allowed to go into an investigation of anything that is not contained in the Bible. If I do, I think there are so many over-wise men here that they would cry “treason” and put me to death. So I will go to the old Bible and turn commentator today.

Joseph Smith is presenting his religion as a sort of 12 step program where a persons goal is to achieve greater and greater degrees of godhood by working their way up, perhaps even getting to take Jesus' spot?

I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible; I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of creation in the Bible—Berosheit. I want to analyze the word. Baith—in, by, through, and everything else. Rosh—the head, Sheit—grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the baith there. An old Jew without any authority added the word; he thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head!

There is no evidence whatsoever for this assertion that the "baith" or rather "beth" or "beit"--the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet was added to Genesis 1:1, in fact a Mormon apologist from FAIR on this point desperately tried to prove so with the following statement:

The idea that the Hebrew letter b (b) was a later addition was attested by some medieval Jewish commentators. Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra (born 1189), in his commentary on this verse, wrote, “Our scholars said that the bet in [bereshit] is superfluous.” Translator Michael Linetsky notes, “Apparently he refers to Rabbi Saadiah Gaon, followed by Ibn Janah (see Riqmah, p. 86, n. 3) and probably Ibn Balcam (commentary to Hos. 1:1), who rendered our verse as: The beginning of what (or the first thing) God created was the sky and the earth as though the bet had been discarded.”--FAIRMormon on the King Follet Discourse

However, here is what Ibn Ezra REALLY said:

Our sages have said that the [letter] bet was added, like the bet in barishonah (“in the beginning”) Bereshit 13:4, for you find “at the beginning (rishonah) they travelled” Bamidbar 2:9. But were that the meaning, the bet would have been vocalized with a kamatz gadol. And there are those who say that [the word] bereshit always [appears in] attached [form], where the meaning is “at the beginning of the evening, or the night, or the darkness”. But behold, they forgot “he saw a beginning reishit for himself” Devarim 33:21. And there are those who say that the bet is a subject without meaning. Their reason is that it is unthinkable that there is no beginning to the heavens and the earth. Therefore, it said “bereshit. But according to my opinion, it is indeed an attached form, like “At the beginning (bereshit) of the rule of Yehoyakim”. Now don’t wonder how can it be attached to a past tense verb [instead of a noun], for behold, thus: “At the beginning (techilat) spoke Hashem with Hoshea, and Hashem said to Hoshea” Hoshea 1:2, “The city (kiryat) where David camped” Yeshayahu 29:1. The meaning [of this usage] will be explained for you in the second verse.--Ibn Ezra Commentary on Genesis 1:1

The word נוסף is translated as "superfluous" in the work cited by the Mormon apologist, while the work is translated above as "added", which is truer to its real meaning! Translating it as "superfluous" makes no sense because Ibn Ezra is giving reasons why its used. Ibn Ezra is not saying someone added the Beit there--he is saying why the author of Genesis himself added beit to reshit. No matter how its spun, nothing supports Joseph Smith's claim of addition by an "old Jew." 

It read first, “The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods.” That is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the learned man of God. Learned men can teach you no more than what I have told you. Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council.

There is so much wrong with this claim. First of all, his rendering requires the reader to assume reshit is refering to the "head of the gods" where "gods" is absence in the Hebrew for "head of the gods." Furthermore, Genesis 1:1 continues on to say "the heavens and the earth"--Smith's claim only makes sense if you ignore the words immediately after. He would have to read "“The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods. The heaven and the earth." This would not make sense in Hebrew since there is a word that cannot be translated into English 'et' in Genesis 1:1 that tells us "heaven and earth" are the direct objects of the sentence, so they cannot be made part of another sentence! The Hebrew reads:

אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם, וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ--et hashshamayim v'et ha'aretz

Furthermore, Bara or as Smith seems to say it "baurau" NEVER in the Bible means "bring forth"--there are other words that can mean "bring forth." In fact, the Mormon translation of the bible available on the LDS site has "bring forth" several times in Genesis 1 (v 11,12,20, 21, 24; 3:16 etc) and the rest of Genesis and it is NEVER a translation of "bara."

I will transpose and simplify it in the English language. Oh, ye lawyers, ye doctors, and ye priests, who have persecuted me, I want to let you know that the Holy Ghost knows something as well as you do. The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were created at the time. When I say doctors and lawyers, I mean the doctors and lawyers of the scriptures. I have done so hitherto without explanation, to let the lawyers flutter and everybody laugh at them. Some learned doctors might take a notion to say the scriptures say thus and so; and we must believe the scriptures; they are not to be altered. But I am going to show you an error in them.

The scriptuers come no where near Smith's wild claims, he insists on believing the Scripture--I agree and the Scriptures show he is wrong, furthermore, he argues they cannot be altered--however, he accuses without merit Genesis 1:1 being altered by "an old Jew," which suggests Smith himself is altering Scripture.

I have an old edition of the New Testament in the Latin, Hebrew, German and Greek languages. I have been reading the German, and find it to be the most [nearly] correct translation, and to correspond nearest to the revelations which God has given to me for the last fourteen years. It tells about Jacobus, the son of Zebedee. It means Jacob. In the English New Testament it is translated James. Now, if Jacob had the keys, you might talk about James through all eternity and never get the keys. In the 21st [verse] of the fourth chapter of Matthew, my old German edition gives the word Jacob instead of James.The doctors (I mean doctors of law, not physic) say, “If you preach anything not according to the Bible, we will cry treason.” How can we escape the damnation of hell, except God be with us and reveal to us? Men bind us with chains. The Latin says Jacobus, which means Jacob; the Hebrew says Jacob, the Greek says Jacob and the German says Jacob, here we have the testimony of four against one. I thank God that I have got this old book; but I thank him more for the gift of the Holy Ghost. I have got the oldest book in the world; but I have got the oldest book in my heart, even the gift of the Holy Ghost. I have all the four Testaments. Come here, ye learned men, and read, if you can. I should not have introduced this testimony, were it not to back up the word rosh—the head, the Father of the Gods. I should not have brought it up, only to show that I am right.

This is a trivial point that people that read the Bible in other languages see--sometimes different names are used, does it prove anything really no, just that in English we've associated the New Testament people named Jacob (Yaakov) as being "James." It's silly that a person that is a great prophet should make a big deal about this. I seriously doubt Smith could really read German, Latin or Hebrew--the prophet just could see words. If he knew Hebrew--it was the very little he learned from a Hebrew professor the church paid to give lessons--who was not even Mormon.

A Council of the Gods

In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted [prepared] a plan to create the world and people it. When we begin to learn this way, we begin to learn the only true God, and what kind of a being we have got to worship. Having a knowledge of God, we begin to know how to approach Him, and how to ask so as to receive an answer.

When we understand the character of God, and know how to come to Him, he begins to unfold the heavens to us, and to tell us all about it. When we are ready to come to him, he is ready to come to us.

Now, I ask all who hear me, why the learned men who are preaching salvation, say that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing? The reason is, that they are unlearned in the things of God, and have not the gift of the Holy Ghost; they account it blasphemy in any one to contradict their idea. If you tell them that God made the world out of something, they will call you a fool. But I am learned, and know more than all the world put together. The Holy Ghost does, anyhow, and he is within me, and comprehends more than all the world; and I will associate myself with him.

This is neo-Platonism, a Greek Philosophy that some Jews accepted that teaches that the universe is made from eternal, uncreated elements. He humbly says he "knows more than all the world put together!" Yet, he makes very simply mistakes!

Meaning of the Word Create

You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing, and they will answer, “Doesn’t the Bible say he created the world?” And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the word baurau, which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos—chaotic matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time He had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end.

This contradicts what he said previously about the word "bara" or as he says "baurau" where he said it means "bring forth," yet now he says it means "to organize." Here Smith plainly shows his pagan thinking, in addition to teaching many gods, he is teaching the universe preexisted God himself, which is exactly what the pagan Greeks believed in their mythology until being enlightened by the Gospel of Christ! 

Are gay marriage and homosexuality okay because there are gay animals?

The argument by gay rights supporters for the acceptance of homosexuality and same sex marriage is the following:

Gay rights reasoning:

Premise: Humans have a conscience.

 Premise: Wild animals do not have a conscience.

Premise: Immorality only can exist if a person has a conscience.

Inference: Animals (or at least most) do not have a conscience, therefore their behavior is morally neutral.

Conclusion: Therefore, a human mimicking animal behavior cannot be immoral, since the same behavior is not considered immoral when done by a wild animal.

and/or:

Premise: Only humans can be immoral.

Premise: Behavior observed by animals in their natural habitat cannot be morally objectionable

Premise: Homosexuality occurs in nature in several species. 

• Evidence: It has been observed in animal species. http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx

Conclusion: Therefore, homosexuality among human beings is natural and gay marriage should likewise be accepted and legalized, since wild animals practice it and they cannot be immoral.

However, if these conclusions are to be accepted, likewise the following argument should be accepted.

Premise: Only humans can be immoral.

Premise: Behavior observed by animals in their natural habitat cannot be morally objectionable

Premise: Rape occurs in nature in several species. 

• Evidence: It has been observed in several animal species.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7379554.stm

Conclusion: Therefore, rape among human beings is natural and rape and rapists should likewise be accepted and legalized, since wild animals practice it and they cannot be immoral.

 The same argument and conclusion can be reached with infanticide, paedophilia (book by 'atheist' Richard Dawkins), war, kamikaze/suicide 'bombing', polygamy, cannibalism, and several other strange things.

Will supporters of homosexuality likewise support these behaviors? Of course not. The "because animals do it argument" falls on its face since they refuse to let the sword cut both ways.

However, they might rebut that you cannot compare them since homosexuality is between 2 consenting parties. To which it should be noted that incest, polygamy and sometimes suicide can also be done with consent. So, the argument should have nothing to do with animals what so ever.  Furthermore, why should more developed, more intelligent animals mimic behavior of lower animals? Isn't that NOT "forward thinking" and "backwards"?

NOTE: The video was TAKEN DOWN by youtube censors for 'hate speech' (several years later)! 

Eucharist and Statues

Protestants reject the Eucharist as being actually substantially Christ's body and blood and opt for a symbolic view on the basis that eating blood and flesh of man is forbidden by the laws of Moses, therefore it would be "unclean" for Christ to actually do this. 

However, Protestants generally make another argue that's unrelated about statues and images. They say the Laws of Moses forbid making statues and graven images in Exodus 20 in the 10 commandments, then say it does not matter that Exodus 25 has God ordering Moses to make a statue of angels on the ark, since its an exception and God specifically gave him orders to build it, so its ok for Moses.

Now, if we are to apply this reasoning to the Eucharistic debate their logic backfires on them.  They would have to admit that despite God prohibiting eating flesh and blood in the Law, that if God (in the person of Christ) instructs people to eat His flesh and Blood, then it is lawful and must be done, since orders were given to do precisely that. So the Protestant's symbolic view of the Eucharist on the basis of prohibition of blood backfires on them and shows they have a double standard.

Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath--Exodus 20:3

And thou shalt make two cherubim of gold; of beaten work shalt thou make them, at the two ends of the ark-cover. --Exodus 25:18

But be sure you do not eat the blood, because the blood is the life, and you must not eat the life with the meat.--Deuteronomy 12:23

 unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves.--John 6:53

Law                                                                                      God's "special instruction"
Don't drink blood (Deuteronomy 12:23)                             "Drink my blood" (John 6:53)
Don't make a graven images (Exodus 20:3)                        "make two cherubim of gold"(Exodus 25:18)

Furthermore, the law explains why not to "eat" the blood, because the "blood is the life" and Jesus said you must drink His blood to have life!

Also, some explain the commandment to drink His blood as a symbol that they are no longer bound to the laws of Moses but under a new covenant with new promises.

*Also Acts states:

avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood--Acts 15:20 (some debate if drinking blood is alluded to here at all, some believe its an expression for violence)

Regardless, if we are to accept the Protestant reasoning that a specific commandment may be an exception to a general rule, then even if Acts 15:20 addresses drinking blood, it does not matter since a specific command was given to do it in a special case with Christ.

Abba means "my father" and not "daddy' or "dad" or "papa"

Here is evidence Abba does not mean "daddy" we see Joseph addressing Pharoah talking about his father and brothers, and the accompanying Aramaic translation.  The Hebrew has avi  , the Aramaic has aba אַבָּא 

 

Then Joseph went in and told Pharaoh, and said: 'My father and my brethren, and their flocks, and their herds, and all that they have, are come out of the land of Canaan; and, behold, they are in the land of Goshen.' --Genesis 47:1

 

וַיָּבֹא יוֹסֵף, וַיַּגֵּד לְפַרְעֹה, וַיֹּאמֶר אָבִי וְאַחַי וְצֹאנָם וּבְקָרָם וְכָל-אֲשֶׁר לָהֶם, בָּאוּ מֵאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן; וְהִנָּם, בְּאֶרֶץ גֹּשֶׁן--Genesis 47:1 Masoretic Hebrew text
 

וַאֲתָא יוֹסֵף, וְחַוִּי לְפַרְעֹה, וַאֲמַר אַבָּא וְאַחַי וְעָנְהוֹן וְתוֹרֵיהוֹן וְכָל דִּילְהוֹן, אֲתוֹ מֵאַרְעָא דִּכְנָעַן; וְהָא אִנּוּן, בְּאַרְעָא דְּגֹשֶׁן. --Genesis 47:1 Onkelos Aramaic Translation using Hebrew font

The Hebrew text reads Avi אָבִי  , 'my father', the Aramaic reads אַבָּא aba, though another site has it as אַבָה --ava.
 

Now if Abba/Aba/a means "daddy" how silly would it be for Joseph--the prime minister of Egypt to address his boss concerning his father and brother using the word "daddy"? It would have been embarrassing! Granted Joseph probably did not use either Abba or Avi, since he would have been speaking Coptic to the Pharoah, however the Hebrew bible and the Aramaic translation of it use the ORDINARY word for "my father" which are avi and aba/ava.

 

Furthermore, Barabbas, has the word abba in it, yet no one supposes this means "son of daddy,"

ἦν δὲ ὁ λεγόμενος Βαραββᾶς μετὰ τῶν στασιαστῶν δεδεμένος οἵτινες ἐν τῇ στάσει φόνον πεποιήκεισαν.--Mark 15:7 Greek (almost every manuscript)

The man named Barabbas had been imprisoned with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the insurrection.--Mark 15:7 NASB

 ܘܐܣܝܪ ܗܘܐ ܓܒܪܐ ܥܒܕ ܒܝܫܐ ܕܡܬܩܪܐ ܒܪ ܐܒܐ ܘܐܝܬ ܗܘܐ ܓܒܪܐ ܕܥܒܕ ܒܝܫܬܐ ܘܩܛܠ ܩܛܠܐ--Mark 15:7, Old Syriac Sinaiticus

 ܘܐܝܬܼ ܗ̱ܘܐ ܚܕܼ ܕܿܡܬܼܩܪܐ܂ ܒܿܪ ܐܒܿܐ܂ ܕܿܐܣܝܪ ܗ̱ܘܐ ܥܡ ܥܒܼܕܿܝ̈ ܐܣܛܣܝܢ܂ ܗܢܘܼܢ ܕܿܩܛܠܐ ܒܿܐܣܛܣܝܢ ܥܒܼܕܼܘ--Mark 15:7 Peshitta Text

 We see the Aramaic texts (old Syriac and Peshitta) have Aba/Ava spelled the same as the Aramaic text of Genesis 47:1 "וַאֲתָא יוֹסֵף, וְחַוִּי לְפַרְעֹה, וַאֲמַר אַבָּא וְאַחַי " Here is how two popular Protestant lexicons explain the name "Bar Abbas"

Thayer

Barabbas = "son of a father or master"
1) the captive robber whom the Jews begged Pilate to release instead of Christ
Part of Speech: noun proper masculine

Strong

G912
Of Chaldee origin ([H1347] and G5 (Greek)); son of Abba; Bar-abbas, an Israelite: - Barabbas.

We see it is either a name, or just how to say "father", and if it is a name, its not likely a parent will name their son "daddy" (unless they're Hispanic, but even it would be a petname).
 

Now, let's go to the texts where the word "Abba" appears in Greek and English untranslated: 

And He was saying, “Abba! Father! All things are possible for You; remove this cup from Me; yet not what I will, but what You will.”--Mark 14:36 NASB

 

The Aramaic texts of this gospel read:

ܘܸܐܡܲܪ܂ ܐܲܒܼܵܐ   ܐܵܒܼܝ܃   ܟܿܽܠ ܡܸܕܸܿܡ ܡܸܫܟܿܲܚ ܐܲܢ̱ܬܿ܂ ܐܲܥܒܿܲܪ ܡܸܢܝ ܟܿܵܣܵܐ ܗܵܢܵܐ܂ ܐܸܠܵܐ ܠܵܐ ܨܸܒܼܝܵܢܝ ܕܼܿܝܠܝ܂ ܐܸܠܵܐ ܕܼܿܝܠܵܟܼ--Mark 14:36 Peshitta Text

And he said, Father, my Father, thou canst (do) every thing, cause to pass from me this cup: but not my will, but thine.--Mark 14:36, Dr. John W. Etheridge's English Peshitta translation  

ܘܐܡܪ ܐܒܝ ܟܘܠ ܡܕܡ ܒܐ̈ܝܕܝܟ ܡܛܐ ܐܥܒܪ ܡܢܝ ܟܣܐ ܗܢܐ ܐܠܐ ܠܐ ܨܒܝܢܝ ܕܝܠܝ ܢܗܘܐ ܐܠܐ ܕܝܠܟ--Mark 14:36 old Syriac Sinaiticus 

 "And He said, My Father, everything is in your hands, it has arrived. Make this cup pass from me, yet not according to my will, but according to your will."--Mark 14:36 translation of Old Syriac Sinaiticus page 364

 Elsewhere in the Peshitta text of Mark we see the SAME EXACT spelling of Aba being used

 ܥܢܵܐ ܝܸܫܘܼܥ܂ ܘܸܐܡܲܪ܂ ܐܲܡܼܝܢ ܐܵܡܲܪ ܐ̱ܢܵܐ ܠܟܼܘܼܢ܃ ܕܿܠܲܝܬܿ ܐ̱ܢܵܫ ܕܿܫܵܒܼܸܩ ܒܿܵܬܸܿܐ̈ ܐܲܘ ܐܲܚܸܐ̈ ܐܲܘ ܐܲܚܘܵܬܼܵܐ̈܃ ܐܲܘ   ܐܲܒܼܵܐ   ܐܲܘ ܐܸܡܵܐ܃ ܐܲܘ ܐܲܢ̱ܬܿܬܼܵܐ ܐܲܘ ܒܿܢܲܝܵܐ̈܃ ܐܲܘ ܩܘܼܪܝܵܐ̈܂ ܡܸܛܽܠܵܬܼܝ܂ ܘܡܸܛܽܠ ܣܒܼܲܪܬܼܝ--Mark 10:29

 Jeshu responded and said, Amen I say to you, There is no man who forsaketh houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or fields, on account of me, and on account of my gospel, --Mark 10:29 Dr. John W. Etheridge's English Peshitta translation

The Old Syriac has verses with the same spelling:

 ܢܫܠܡ ܓܝܪ ܐܚܐ ܠܐܚܘܗܝ ܠܡܘܬܐ   ܘܐܒܐ   ܠܒܪܗ ܘܢܩܘܡܘܢ ܒܢ̈ܝܐ ܥܠ ܐܒܗܬܐ ܘܢܡܝܬܘܢ ܐܢܘܢ--Mark 13:12 Old Syriac Sinaiticus

"For a brother will betray his brother to death, and a father [ܘܐܒܐ] his son, and children will rise up against their parents and kill them."--Mark 13:12 translation from The Old Syriac Gospels: Matthew and Mark

 Now for reference the other times Abba appears in the Greek texts of the New Testament untranslated:

 οὐ γὰρ ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα δουλείας πάλιν εἰς φόβον, ἀλλὰ ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας ἐν ᾧ κράζομεν· Αββα ὁ πατήρ·--Romans 8:15

For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, “Abba! Father!”--Romans 8:15 NASB

ὅτι δέ ἐστε υἱοί, ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν, κρᾶζον· Αββα ὁ πατήρ.--Galatians 4:6  

Because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”--Galatians 4:6 NASB

 Finally, let's looks how dictionaries, lexicons, concordances refer to it as:

Thayer:

Abba = "father"
1) father, customary title used of God in prayer. Whenever it occurs in the New Testament it has the Greek interpretation joined to it, that is apparently to be explained by the fact that the Chaldee "ABBA" through frequent use in prayer, gradually acquired the nature of a most sacred proper name, to which the Greek speaking Jews added the name from their own tongue.
Part of Speech: noun
Citing in TDNT: 1:5, 1

Strong:

G5
Of Chaldee origin [H2]; father (as a vocative): - Abba. 

Louw-Nida:

Gloss	Section
Father (a title for God)	12.12

From Hebrew Union College: 

 1 father Com. --(a) of humans Com. (a.1) honored senior, chief, master OfA-Egypt, JLAtg. (a.2) chief monk Syr. --(b) Heavenly, i.e. God (see also below s.v. ˀabbā) JLAtg, PTA, CPA, Syr. --(c) of animals: sire JBA.
  2 ancestor, forefather Com. --(a) pl. parents Qum, Syr, JBA. --(b) in particular, the three forefathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (also sg. for any one of them) Qum, JLAtg, Gal, PTA, JBA. --(c) progenitor, spiritual founder PTA. --(d) the fathers of the Church Syr.
  3 ˀabbā : my father! (vocative) JLAtg, Gal, PTA, CPA, Syr, JBAmb.
  4 fig. Qum, JBA. --(a) creator, source Qum. --(b) common factor JBA. --(c) 'source' as an architectural term JLAtg.
  5 byt ˀb, ܒܝܬ ܐܒ : family, clan OA, Qum, Syr.
  6 as a personal name Syr, JBA.
  7 in compounds with relational terms . --(a) ˀb ˀbwhy: grandfather or ancestor Palm. --(b) אב דאב : paternal grandfather PTA, JBA. --(c) אבא דאימא : maternal grandfather JBA. --(d) אחא דאבא٠ אח אב : paternal uncle : see s.v. ˀḥb JBA.

---

Notice all of these say its just a way of saying father, biological or not and make no mention of it being a way of how a small child says "daddy." Yet sites like "gotquestions.com" ignorantly spread this "fact" around.

The blame and origin of claim "abba" means daddy seems to generally be placed on German Lutheran scholar Joachim Jeremias who gave this impression.

 

Homosexuality and the Genetic Argument

Should the Genetic Argument--"born that way" be relevant in a moral discussion about homosexuality?

No. If we were to judge the morality of homosexuality on the basis of a person's genetic predisposition, it would only be logical to apply this reasoning towards all behaviors.  Some people are believed to be genetically predisposed to being more aggressive which in turn would cause them to be more likely to commit acts of violence.

IF homosexuality is arguably acceptable only the basis its genetic (if it is) then why is not violence likewise arguably acceptable on the basis on genetics? Double standard? I am not comparing homosexuality to violence as a lot of homosexual advocates might over simplify my argument to be, I am saying we must judge acts for themselves, and not look at genetics to justify them.  They might say homosexuality is consensual, violence is not, well if that is the case then how is the genetic argument relevant at all in the discussion of morality? It isn't.

Furthermore, if homosexuality should be tolerated or accepted on the basis its between consenting adult, then shouldn't it be acceptable for two consenting adults to give each other narcotics since its consensual, and doesn't harm others? By this reasoning it might be argued incest, self infliction, and suicide should be tolerated or accepted on the basis if a person if only harming himself and not others, or acting with free will and consent. 

Finally, why should a sexual act be recognized as acceptable by a society that is disproportionally linked to Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and has no real benefit to society as a whole, except PERHAPS as a sort of population control--removing a number of people from the breeding population.  Furthermore, if homosexuality is genetic, shouldn't the open homosexuality with homosexuals refraining from procreating decrease the future homosexual population? This may change though because of things like invitro fertilization.

KJV 1611 and its Popishness

I have recently run into a community of Seventh Day Adventists that are very anti-Catholic and very pro-KJV, insisting that the other Bibles are riddled with the fleas of Popery. Let's check out some of the Popish Romanism the KJV 1611 is logged full of.

In the KJV 1611 Kalendar under February

Popish Holyday the "Purification of Mary" aka Candlemas is on February 2!

Popish feast day of St Valentine is listed under its present date February 14!

Prayers listed under February 2 includes Wisd. 9 and Wisd 12 (a Catholic book omitted in modern edition of the KJV 1611)

Prayers listed under February 24 includes Wisd xix (the last chapter of this papist book!)

Next Page--March

This page exposes even grander examples of the KJV's popery!

The Popish feast day of St Edward the Martyr--A Romish English, Saint, King and Martyr is listed under March 18 the traditional papist date

The Romish feast day of the Annunciation of Mary is listed under March 25--9 months before the holyday Christmas.

The Popish feast of the founder of Western monasticism St Benedict of Nursia is celebrated on March 21, as some do.

Even worse, in its most blatant, unashamed example of Popery yet it lists a Romish Pope on its Kalendar!

Pope Gregorie aka Gregory the Great (reigned AD 590-604) is listed under its present day of March 12!

Conclusion: This and many more show the Catholic influence in the King James Version 1611 Bible. A good seventh day Adventist or good Baptist should either reject this so called translation for its obvious influence by Popery or become a miserable papist himself! As it must be asked if Adventists and Baptists insist the KJV 1611 is perfect because of its pure manuscripts from Textus receptus of the Antioch Line, then why is it no Baptist or Adventist makes a modern-updated version of the text into modern English, rather than spend all the time on the older English of the KJV--since after all the NKJV is corrupt? Could it be no Baptist or Adventist is qualified to do such a thing, or that they cannot trust their own people?!

ADDENDUM:

Per request, the KJV 1611 calendar for December-January:

December:

Notice it includes the "Conc. of Mary" ie the Feast of the Immaculate Conception on December 8,  feast day of St Nicholas on December 6, Luci virgin (St Lucy) on December 13, as well as Christmas on December 25, the feast of [Pope] St Sylvester on December 31

January:

Is the Hebrew Bible Anti-Semitic?

Counter-missionaries accuse the New Testament of being anti-Semitic for having content where some Jews call other Jews names along the likes of stubborn, heart hearted, sons of the Devil, harlots and so one, but does this make the New Testament anti-Semitic? Let's take a look at the Hebrew Bible and see the criticism and names it calls the Jewish people.

Anti-Semitic Moses? Moses calls some Levites Rebellious, Stubborn, Corrupt:

Moses commanded the Levites, that bore the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying:....For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck; behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death?....ye will in any wise deal corruptly--Deuteronomy 31:25,27,29

 Anti-Semitic God?

God calls Israel uncircumcised of heart and stubborn

Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.--Deuteronomy 10:16

God calls Israel and Judah whores and talks about divorce

And the LORD said unto me in the days of Josiah the king: 'Hast thou seen that which backsliding Israel  did? she went up upon every high mountain and under every leafy tree, and there played the harlot...And I saw, when, forasmuch as backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a bill of divorcement, that yet treacherous Judah her sister feared not; but she also went and played the harlot; --Jeremiah 3:6,8

God Calls Israel stiff-necked, threatens total annihilation except Moses' offspring 

 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people. Now therefore let Me alone, that My wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them; and I will make of thee [Moses] a great nation.'--Exodus 32:9-10  

There is much more which if it were not found in the Hebrew Bible, it would appear to be the most anti-Semitic literature around--what worse can be said than when God called the whole Jewish community in Jeremiah whores? or when God says in the Torah that perhaps He should kill ALL the Jews? 

Conclusion: If it should be conceded the New Testament is a work of anti-Semitism because of pejoratives used by Jews towards other Jews, then by that same standard it should be admitted that the Hebrew Bible and the Torah itself are by far more Anti-Semitic, and should be categorized as the foremost books on hatred of Jews. 

Aramaic Gospel uses word for Muslim!

Muslim theology believes that Islam did not start with their “prophet” Muhammad, but that it was the religion from the time of Adam, and that even Jesus was a Muslim! As evidence for this claim, some Islamic apologists make the following assertion:

Muslim argument from answering Christianity:

Let us look at Luke 6:40 from my N.I.V. Bible "A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher."

 The perfection here means a spiritual one.  What the verse is saying is that knowledge is not what matters!  The teacher or master is higher in knowledge than his student.  But the student can be as high as his teacher, or even higher, by being a true 'MUSHLAM' or Muslim, a spiritually perfect and well-disciplined person!

Let us look at what Jesus said in Luke 6:40 in the language of Aramaic translated into Hebrew as shown below 

אין תלמיד נעלה על רבו; שכן כל אדם שמשלם יהיה כרבו

"Ein talmeed na'leh 'al rabbo; shekken kal adam she'MUSHLAM yihyeh k'rabbo."

This absurd argument is not saying that Lord Jesus speaking in Greek, Aramaic, or even Hebrew, or St Luke in the translation of the Aramaic Peshitta text has Jesus using the word Muslim, but that a MODERN day translation of the verse into Modern Hebrew from Aramaic uses a word that is similar to Muslim! Biblical Hebrew in the Hebrew Bible never uses the word שמשלם [shemmushlam], and משלם is used 19 times in the Hebrew Bible and even then 17 [e.g. 2 Kings 22:3, 1 Chronicles 3:19, Ezra 10:29, Nehemiah 3:4,...etc] of those times refers to a person’s name: מְשֻׁלָּם M'shullam, whereas the other two appear in Isaiah 66:6 and Jeremiah 51:6 and appear as follows:

It is the sound of the LORD repaying [מְשַׁלֵּם,m’shallém] his enemies all they deserve—Isaiah 66:6 (NIV)

קוֹל יְה, מְשַׁלֵּם גְּמוּל לְאֹיְבָיו—Isaiah 66:6 Hebrew Text

Kol YHVH, m’shallem g’mul l’oyevav—Isaiah 66:6 transliteration

Let’s see Jeremiah 51:6

It is time for the Lord’s vengeance; he will repay [מְשַׁלֵּם, m’shallem] her what she deserves.—Jeremiah 51:6

כִּי עֵת נְקָמָה הִיא, לַיה--גְּמוּל, הוּא מְשַׁלֵּם לָהּ–Jeremiah 51:6 Hebrew Text

Ki et n’kamah hi, l’YHVH—g’mul m’shallem lah-- Jeremiah 51:6 transliteration

Here we see the word is m’shallem, not Mushlam, or Muslim, or anything like that. So the word Muslim is NEVER used in Biblical Hebrew, and the closest is a person’s name, and the only time otherwise it is used in context of God smiting His enemies! Certainly less than complimentary for Islam.

If we were to look at the same chapter the Muslim provides for the word Muslim ‘appearing’, we can see another verse in which the word for ‘Muslim’ is used in the Peshitta Aramaic Text of Luke 6:

ܘܝܗܘܼܕܼܐ ܒܿܪ ܝܥܩܘܼܒܼ܂ ܘܝܗܘܼܕܼܐ ܣܟܼܪܝܘܼܛܐ܂ ܗܘ ܕܿܗܘܐ ܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܵܐ—Luke 6:16 Peshitta Text

And Judas the son of James, and Judah of Iscariot, who became the traitor [ܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܵܐ , mushlamana   ] —Luke 6:16 Lamsa Translation from Aramaic

 The word is also used in Luke elsewhere at the last Supper:

 ܒܿܪܲܡ ܗܵܐ ܐܼܝܕܼܸܗ   ܕܿܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܝ   ܥܲܠ ܦܿܵܬܼܘܼܪܵܐ—Luke 22:21 Peshitta Text

"But behold, the hand of him who is to betray [ܕܿܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܝ   , domushlaman’ ] me is on the table—Luke 22:21 Lamsa Translation from Aramaic

We see here the Aramaic word for Muslim ܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܵܐ mushlamana is used in Luke 6 and it means “traitor”—not submission or peace like Muslims claim Muslim means!

If we were to move on the Peshitta text of Matthew's gospel we see the word appear more, with a word that is even closer to Muslim:

ܩܘܼܡܘ܂ ܢܼܐܙܲܠ܂ ܗܵܐ ܡܛܵܐ ܗܲܘ ܕܿܡܲܫܠܸܡ ܠܼܝ  ܘܥܲܕܼ ܗܘܼ ܡܡܲܠܸܠ܃ ܗܵܐ ܝܼܗܘܼܕܼܵܐ   ܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܵܐ܂--Matthew 26:46-47

 "Arise, let us go; behold he who is to deliver me [ ܕܿܡܲܫܠܸܡ , domashlema] has arrived. Whiel he was speaking, behold, Judas the traitor [ܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܵܐ , mashlmana ] ......"--Matthew 26:46-47

 The word domashlema--where do--who, which, and mashlema--transfer, hand over [in this case hand over in the sense of betrayal!]. Interestingly enough the domashlema seems to have shlama, or 'peace' or 'wholeness' as its root, similar to what SOME Muslims claim the word Muslim is related to, yet we see here that mashlema here means to BETRAY Jesus.

Now, going back to just the Aramaic word for Muslim--ܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܵܐ , mashlmana, we see it appearing in Matthew 4 times in: Matthew 26:25, 26:47, 26:48, and 27:3. All of these refer to Judas Iscariot when he BETRAYED Jesus. If we were to go to Mark's Gospel it appears once in Mark 14:44

 ܘܝܲܗ̱ܒܼ ܠܗܘܼܢ ܐܵܬܼܵܐ   ܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܵܐ   ܗܲܘ ܕܿܡܲܫܠܸܡ܂ ܘܸܐܡܲܪ܂ ܗܲܘ ܕܿܢܵܫܸܩ ܐ̱ܢܵܐ܂ ܗܘܼܝܘܼ܂ ܐܘܼܚܕܿܘܼܗ̱ܝ ܙܗܼܝܪܵܐܝܼܬܼ܂ ܘܲܐܘܒܿܠܘܼܗ̱ܝ--Mark 14:44 Peshitta Text

"And the traitor who was to do the delivering gave them a sign, and he said, He whom I kiss is the one; seize him carefully, and take him away"--Mark 14:44 Lamsa

Finally, St John's Gospel also uses the word ܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܵܐ , mashlmana twice:

ܝܵܕܼܲܥ ܗ̱ܘܵܐ ܕܸܿܝܢ ܐܵܦܼ ܝܼܗܘܼܕܼܵܐ   ܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܵܐ   ܠܕܼܘܼܟܿܬܼܵܐ ܗܵܝ܂ ܡܸܛܽܠ ܕܿܣܲܓܼܿܝ ܙܲܒܼܢܵܐ ܟܿܵܢܸܫ ܗ̱ܘܵܐ ܬܿܲܡܵܢ ܝܸܫܘܼܥ ܥܲܡ ܬܿܲܠܡܼܝܕܼܲܘܗ̱ܝ̈܂--John 18:2 Peshitta Text

 Judah the traitor also knew that place, for Jesus and his disciples frequently gathered there--John 18:2 Lamsa

 ܐܵܡܪܼܝܢ ܠܸܗ܂ ܠܝܸܫܘܼܥ ܢܵܨܪܵܝܵܐ܂ ܐܵܡܲܪ ܠܗܘܼܢ ܝܸܫܘܼܥ܂ ܐܸܢܵܐ ܐ̱ܢܵܐ܂ ܩܵܐܸܡ ܗ̱ܘܵܐ ܕܸܿܝܢ ܐܵܦܼ ܝܼܗܘܼܕܼܵܐ   ܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܵܐ   ܥܲܡܗܘܼܢ܂--John 18:5 Peshitta Text

They said to him, Jesus the Nazarene. Jesus said to them, I am he. Judah the traitor [ܡܲܫܠܡܵܢܵܐ , mashlmana]  was also standing with them.--John 18:5 Lamsa

 

Though the word mushlamana did not take up the Muslim meaning until the 7^th century, the same word was used long before it in Jewish and Christian writings, as we see in this definition:

mšlmn, mšlmnˀ   (mašləmān, mašləmānā)   nom.ag.C  betrayer; perfected

1. nom. ag. active:  Syr. (a) betrayer  Syr. 3Mac3:24ܘܢܗܘܘܢ ܡܢ ܡܫܠܡ̈ܢܝܢ ܘܒܥܠܕܒܒ̈ܝܢ  they might become some of our betrayers and our enemies.
2. nom. ag. passive  Syr. (a) perfected one  Palmyrene, CPA, Syr, JBA. JSB1 191:12 ܡܫܠܡܢܐ ܗܘܐ ܥܕܠܐ ܢܚܘܬ  He was perfect before he came down. BT San 7a(25) שבע בירי למשלמאנא וסליק٠ וחדא לדעבד ביש  there are seven pits for the perfect person, and then he arises, but one for the evildoer [cf. Prov. 24:16]. (b) muslim  Syr. BHMQ7 1.3.1 ܠܟܪ̈ܝܣܛܝܢܐ ܟܠܗܘܢ ܘܠܝܘ̈ܕܝܐ ܘܠܡܫ̈ܠܡܢܐ  all Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

Conclusion: The word for Muslim is used in Aramaic text of the New Testament—and it refers to the one that betrayed the Lord Jesus Christ, Judas Iscariot, the son of perdition! If Muslims wants to be in the New Testament let them be the TRAITORS they are, for the betrayed Christ’s own words of Divinity that He had Glory with His Father before the world was (John 17:3). Furthermore, it is insignificant that translating an old text in Aramaic into modern Hebrew produces a word that resembles Muslim.