Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 18, “The Cave,” verses 1-59
posted at 8:00 am on March 9, 2008 by Robert Spencer
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Sura 18, “The Cave,” another Meccan sura, occupies a unique place in Muslim piety. Muhammad said that one who memorized the first ten verses of this chapter (or, in some versions, the last ten) would “be secure against the Dajjal” – the Islamic version of the anti-Christ. Another ahadith has him saying that if a Muslim recites Sura 18 on Friday, “it will illuminate him with light from one Friday to the next.” Another version says that one who does this will be “immune for 8 days from all fitnah [upheaval, sedition] that will happen.” It also contains, as we shall see, some key material for Islamic folklore and Sufi mysticism.
According to Ibn Ishaq, this chapter was revealed after the pagan Quraysh sent an emissary to the Jewish rabbis of Medina, asking them about Muhammad’s prophetic claims. The rabbis responded: “Ask him about three things which we will tell you to ask, and if he answers them then he is a Prophet who has been sent (by Allah); if he does not, then he is saying things that are not true, in which case how you will deal with him will be up to you. Ask him about some young men in ancient times, what was their story. For theirs is a strange and wondrous tale.” That story is in verses 9-26.
The rabbis continued: “Ask him about a man who travelled a great deal and reached the east and the west of the earth. What was his story?” That story is in verses 83-98. “And ask him about the Ruh (soul or spirit) — what is it? If he tells you about these things, then he is a Prophet, so follow him, but if he does not tell you, then he is a man who is making things up, so deal with him as you see fit.” So this sura is offered, at least in this view, as a validation of Muhammad’s claim to be a prophet.
Verses 1-8 serve as an introduction, praising the Qur’an, in which there is no “crookedness” (v. 1). Maulana Bulandshahri comments: “This means that there are neither iniquities nor muddling of words in the Qur’an. There is also no shortage of eloquence in it, nor any discrepancies.” Allah has made it clear in order to warn the unbelievers of his impending terrible punishment (v. 2), as well as to warn those who say Allah has begotten a Son (v. 4) – that is, the Christians, as well as the Jews who, according to 9:30, claimed that Ezra was the son of God.
Allah consoles Muhammad for his grief over the unbelievers’ obstinacy (v. 6), and reminds him that the attractions of this life are merely a test (v. 7).
Then verses 9-26 tell the story of the “companions of the Cave and of the Inscription” (Al-Kahf and Ar-Raqim, v. 9). Al-Kahf is the cave in which the young men slept for 300 or 309 years (v. 25, with the difference being the discrepancy between the solar and lunar calendars), miraculously protected by Allah. There is no agreement on the meaning of Al-Raqim; some say it refers to a nearby valley or mountain, while Anas and Sha‘bi contend it was the name of their dog, who was with them and is mentioned in verses 18 and 22. Sa‘id bin Jubayr said it was “a tablet of stone on which they wrote the story of the people of the Cave, then they placed it at the entrance to the Cave” – hence, “the Inscription.”
These were, according to Ibn Kathir, “boys or young men” who were “more accepting of the truth and more guided than the elders who had become stubbornly set in their ways and clung to the religion of falsehood.” They acknowledge the oneness of Allah and reject the idols of their people; Allah protects them from the idolaters by sheltering them in the cave (vv. 14-16).
Although the young men remained in the cave for three centuries, when they were asked how long they had been there, they answered: “We have stayed (perhaps) a day, or part of a day” (v. 19). Allah “turned them on their right and on their left sides” (v. 18) – presumably to preserve their bodies from decay while they slept, for, says Ibn Abbas, “If they did not turn over, the earth would have consumed them.” Their dog, meanwhile, was “stretching forth his two fore-legs on the threshold” (v. 18) – in other words, he wasn’t precisely inside the cave, so that he wouldn’t keep angels from entering it. “He was sitting outside the door,” explains Ibn Kathir, “because the angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog, as was reported in As-Sahih, nor do they enter a house in which there is an image, a person in a state of ritual impurity or a disbeliever, as was narrated in the Hasan Hadith.” Bukhari records that tradition, in which Muhammad says: “Angels do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or a picture of a living creature.” Nevertheless, continues Ibn Kathir: “The blessing they enjoyed extended to their dog, so the sleep that overtook them overtook him too. This is the benefit of accompanying good people, and so this dog attained fame and stature. It was said that he was the hunting dog of one of the people which is the more appropriate view, or that he was the dog of the king’s cook, who shared their religious views, and brought his dog with him.”
This is an adaptation of the Christian story of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus (although the Qur’an is less sure of their number – see v. 22), who are revered as saints in Byzantine Christianity. These are young men who sought refuge in a cave from the pagans in the pre-Christian Roman Empire, were miraculously protected, and who woke up after the Empire had been Christianized. (Ibn Kathir, however, thinks the story is pre-Christian, since the Jewish rabbis know of it and ask Muhammad about it as one of their tests of his prophethood.)
In verses 27-44, after a brief invocation of the gardens of Paradise (vv. 27-31), there comes an extended parable about a man who valued the things of this world more than obedience to Allah. The message is the same as that of Luke 12:15-21: “Fool! This night your soul is required of you; and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?”
Then verses 45-59 repeat warnings of the impending Day of Judgment (v. 49). Satan’s refusal to bow down to Adam is recalled again, and Allah warns people not to follow Satan in his disobedience (v. 50). Here Satan is identified as one of the jinns, as opposed to his identification as an angel elsewhere – see the discussion of 7:11-25. Those whom the unbelievers have associated as partners with Allah will be of no avail on that Day (v. 52). Allah has sent messengers, but the unbelievers scoff at them (v. 56). They will be destroyed (v. 59).
Next week: The astonishing story of Moses and Al-Khidr, “The Green Man.”
(Here you can find links to all the earlier “Blogging the Qur’an” segments. Here is a good Arabic/English Qur’an, here are two popular Muslim translations, those of Abdullah Yusuf Ali and Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, along with a third by M. H. Shakir. Here is another popular translation, that of Muhammad Asad. And here is an omnibus of ten Qur’an translations.)
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Allah protects them … by sheltering them in the cave.”
That’s why today we use bunker busters. No cave will protect the moonworshippers from that!
Tony737 on March 9, 2008 at 10:25 AM
“Angels do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or a picture of a living creature.”
This is why the taliban used to kill anybody who had a dog or a photo (or even a painting) of a loved one in their house.
Dogs are God’s special gift to mankind, but to the islamonazis, dogs are ‘unclean’. I’m sure the feeling is mutual.
Tony737 on March 9, 2008 at 10:34 AM
In the now-cancelled but great Sleeper Cell on Showtime the main character played by Oded Fehr gets in a fight with his daughter over her art. She gives it up to be a good Muslim.
Paris, Louvre, September 11, 20??…. “Angry youths…”
Some Muslims believe in the guard dog exception to the dog rules. There’s an ongoing debate, with the usually reliably medieval Ahmadinejad favoring expensive imported guard dogs.
Beagle on March 9, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Someone ought to write a novel or play about a 7th century ‘prophet’ being hauled before a court of divines to be tried for plagiarism. Salman Rushdie would be a good candidate as author since he is already buried under a mountain of fatwas and death threats so one more would hardly matter. If the book idea is retained some Danish illustrators could be commissioned.
Annar on March 9, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Sleeping for 300 years…kinda like Democrats, no?
flipflop on March 9, 2008 at 11:33 AM
The helmet guy?
Now that’s prophetic!
Shy Guy on March 9, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Hey Robert,
I finally was able to register and also finally able to say thanks for doing this! I read it every week! I have to tell you, I used your new book for a 15 page paper I did on Islam and my teacher asked me about you. He had never heard of you and one of his comments was that I needed someone a little less biased. HA! I think I’m going to give him a copy of your book for Christmas this year! God bless man!
brotherbell on March 9, 2008 at 12:16 PM
I got a B on the paper by the way ;)
brotherbell on March 9, 2008 at 12:16 PM
It appears that the story of Rip van Winkle (who slept through the American Revolution) has some ancient roots. (Scroll down to find the Seven Sleepers reference.)
Bigfoot on March 9, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Contrast the 7 Sleepers to the story of the Jewish Tana’ic sage Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai.
You have to read about halfway down to get to the cave-away.
Shy Guy on March 9, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Is there any explanation in the Qur’an for the angels’ antipathy to dogs?
If angels are unwilling to enter a house with a picture of a living creature, does that mean that Muslims are supposed to keep pictures out of their homes, and if so, does that prohibition include televisions and computers (since those contain pictures of living creatures)?
AZCoyote on March 9, 2008 at 1:08 PM
I am sitting here in my front room surrounded by my pack of dogs and admiring my numerous photos of loved ones and every other graven image I can currently muster. I have a simple answer for why those “angels” would despise dogs.
Dogs are loyal and protect their loved ones instinctively and without hesitation. They also have an amazing BS sniffer. People are blinded by emotional responses and deceitful words and deeds. Dogs know good from evil instinctively, and do not hesitate to show their reactions. In other words, these “angels” would be met with snarls and teeth, potentially alerting their deceived masters.
Thank you for all you do, Mr. Spencer.
valsgirl on March 9, 2008 at 1:59 PM
my dad just sent me a pretty funny joke~ If you put you’re wife and your dog in the trunk of a car for an hour, who do you think will be more excited to see you? Whose truly man’s best friend? HA!
brotherbell on March 9, 2008 at 2:03 PM
I am not as schooled in my Bible stories as I should be. Is this just a quirk of the culture, the anti-dog thing, or Mohammed himself simply didn’t like dogs, or what? Jesus (And stories of angels) routinely help non believers become Christians, believers in God. Did Jesus or his apostles ever say anything like this? It seems to me no.
Then where did this unclean dog thing come? Why are they man’s best friend in the West, and man’s enemy in the Middle East?
CrimsonFisted on March 9, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Whoops! Maybe I should have read ALL comments before posting. It seems many of us are a bit confused on the whole dog thing.
CrimsonFisted on March 9, 2008 at 3:21 PM
The Bible says that “a dog returns to his own vomit”. While I’ve thought of this as as coming from the New Testament (2nd Peter 2:22), the New actually quotes Old (Proverbs 26:11).
Dogs are unclean under the kosher laws, since they have no hooves, and thus cannot “part the hoof”. However, this type of uncleanliness doesn’t make an animal evil. (You don’t see Jews or Muslims holding horses and donkeys in such disdain.) It only means that they should not be eaten or sacrificed.
Bigfoot on March 9, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Thanks. And I was trying to find the passage where in a vision or dream one of the Apostles (Paul? Peter?) is shown that ALL living things were cleansed before God’s eyes. I cannot find it though. Therefore dogs and all other living things are clean and worthy.
Fact check me though, and correct me if I am wrong.
CrimsonFisted on March 9, 2008 at 4:08 PM
CrimsonFisted, I think you are talking about an episode from Acts 10. That vision belonged to Peter, and while Acts describes him as contemplating the meaning of the vision, it never says whether he figured it out or not, nor is an explanation of the vision ever given.
I guess it is under the ‘He who has ears, let him hear’ category.
HeIsSailing on March 9, 2008 at 4:19 PM
Beagle:
I don’t think there is really much debate on this. Muhammad said: “Whoever keeps a dog, one Qirat of the reward of his good deeds is deducted daily, unless the dog is used for guarding a farm or cattle.” This has generally been interpreted as allowing for guard dogs in general.
Robert Spencer on March 9, 2008 at 4:46 PM
brotherbell:
Sure. But in reality I am not biased. I am scrupulous to document everything I say from Islamic sources. The Q-Blog is based mainly on the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir and the Tafsir al-Jalalayn, which anyone will tell you are the two most repected and influential traditional commentaries on the Qur’an. The charge of bias has never been substantiated by any demonstration of any actual inaccuracy on my part.
Robert Spencer on March 9, 2008 at 4:50 PM
AZCoyote:
No, and the antipathy itself is recorded not in the Qur’an, but in the Hadith.
No, contemporary authorities such as Sheikh Al-Qaradawi have generally allowed for these. The argument is that the prohibition of representation is designed to keep human beings from imitating Allah’s creative act. But a photograph, and by extension television etc., does not involve imitating Allah’s creative act, but merely records Allah’s creative work. Thus they are OK.
Robert Spencer on March 9, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Robert,
Why did Muhammad want his followers to memorize the first ten verses of this chapter? Is it just that it contains the ideas that the Christians are wrong and the Qur’an is perfect?
TheBigOldDog on March 9, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Thank you once again, Mr. Spencer. If you charged tuition you could retire early.
dentalque on March 9, 2008 at 5:01 PM
TheBigOldDog:
It’s generally not explained in the commentaries, and, as I noted above, traditions differ as to whether it was the first ten, or the last, or some other section. But there’s no doubt that this chapter looms large in Muslim piety. In some places in Central Asia for a considerable period the entire sura was read out at Friday prayers. And there’s no doubt that it is quite beguiling and unique. Speaking for myself, it’s one of the ones I most enjoy reading.
Robert Spencer on March 9, 2008 at 5:17 PM
HeIsSailing:
Actually I believe that an explanation of the vision is given. The NT and all Christian traditions agree that the vision was designed to indicate that Christians were not to be bound by Mosaic food laws, a question definitively settled at the apostolic council in Acts 15.
Robert Spencer on March 9, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Ah, it was something that was poking at the back of my mind. Thanks!
CrimsonFisted on March 9, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Thanks again, I should learn to read ALL comments first.
CrimsonFisted on March 9, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Mr Spencer:
Yes, I also agree with this traditional interpretation - I think that is the point the author of Acts is trying to make with the vision. Rather than giving an explaination of the vision, I think it is just left up to the reader to figure it out - and by linking together with the council in chapter 15, that is not too tough.
HeIsSailing on March 9, 2008 at 6:15 PM
Not really. Immediately after recieving the vision, Peter is hailed from downstairs by visitors. They invite him to the house of a gentile–a no no under Mosaic law.
Peter goes, and if you read the story the Holy Spirit falls on the inhabitants of the house as he is preaching. Peter’s takeaway from this event is that they are clean, made holy. This was a revolutionary concept and he ended up having to defend this position to the rest of the apostles. The vision has to be understood in the context of what was happening to Peter at the time, and what happenend to him immediately afterward. I don’t think it was a bit hazy to him, nor was it to the Jews of the day.
TexasDan on March 9, 2008 at 7:02 PM
I can’t think of a truer friend than any of the dogs I’ve ever owned. Yet another reason why I could never be a Muslim.
irishspy on March 9, 2008 at 7:12 PM
I still miss them, lo these many years later. She would lay with me when I was sick, follow me anywhere, kept me company, and fended off intruders. The other was blond and beautiful and happy all the time.
CrimsonFisted on March 9, 2008 at 7:22 PM
hmmm.. I never thought about it that way - I mean with respect to the Gentile house he was visiting (House of Cornelius, I think? - going off memory here). That does make quite a bit of sense, but I’ll have to re-read those passages. Thanks for the insight!!
HeIsSailing on March 9, 2008 at 7:25 PM
Acts 10:28 is a baldfaced lie and its motivation is obvious. Verse 35 happens to be correct.
Shy Guy on March 9, 2008 at 11:06 PM
It is interesting in the discussion the connection to Rip Van Winkle and the seven sleepers. It was also Rip Van Winkle’s dog that recognized him after his long absence. I wonder if Washington Irving got the story from ancient sources, although it is said Irving wrote the story overnight.
After Irving became financially independent due to the publication of his short stories such as The Legend of Sleepy Hollow and Rip Van Winkle he traveled to Europe and Spain looking for fresh material. He wrote biographies of various notable people. In Madrid’s archives, which is rich in manuscripts and history of the Moorish influence, he did research on Muhammad and published a biography of Muhammad. He also published a book on the people who came after Muhammed.
I have a copy of the Muhammad biography written around 1850, and it appears to be a fair and balanced view of Muhammed discussing his strong and his weak points. Washington Irving had no ax to grind, but simple wanted to give an accurate account of the man based upon the information available at that time. It’s a fascinating account of Muhammed.
I’m sure all Islam would be grateful if a movie was made using this book as basis for a screenplay on the life of Muhammad - just as they appreciated the El Cid movie. A picture is worth a thousand words. Where is director Van Gogh when you need him? Hmmm, I guess it’s more aptly said RIP Van Gogh instead of Rip Van Winkle.
Texas Mike on March 10, 2008 at 1:02 AM
Few Questions:
A.
As someone studying the Eastern Roman Empire, I’m seeing a lot of cultural transfusion, assimilation, and exclusion. At the time of the Islamic conquests outside Arabia, was there a clear meaning of Islam?
What I mean is that for Judaism, one has to have a Jewish mother. For Christianity, one has to know and belief in the decrees of Christ. But for Islam, all that is needed is to state “One god, and Mohammad is his prophet”.
Judaism/Christianity having the “one god” part, couldn’t there be a mix with some Christians and Jews saying “hey, maybe Mohammad had some things going and was God’s prophet”, and some Muslims saying “Jesus was an ok guy, too”. Hence when Muslims invaded Syria, they were met with a population receptive (especially after the Constantinople declaring them heathens for not believing in the “correct” Christ) and lines began to blur.
B. If clerics were beginning to worry about a blurring of the faiths, and potentially Islam becoming a sub-sect of Christianity, how did they take steps to combat it?
C. I was listening to some Muslim students talk in the defense of the burqa, comparing it to the headscarf of Mary, and a rebuttal that the burqa concept probably came from Syriac Christians. Is there any historical evidence to support either claim, and that Muslims have assimilated something they liked.
TheEJS on March 10, 2008 at 1:22 AM
The EJS:
That’s not known for certain. The orthodox Islamic perspective is that yes, certainly there was: the Muslims came out of Arabia with the Qur’an and the traditions of Muhammad, albeit with the latter not yet codified, and thus they brought Islam with them.
However, the fact that the Al-Aqsa Mosque contains inscriptions that are not Qur’anic, plus other considerations including the inchoate state of the Qur’an’s earliest manuscripts, which do not separate the words or contain pointing (leading to a multiplicity of possibilities for the text and its meaning), has led some scholars (notably Christoph Luxenberg) to conclude that the Arabs did not have Islam at the time of the early conquests, but rather cobbled it together out of various available materials in order to justify the conquest and give the conquerors their own religion to compete with those of the Byzantines and Persians.
I think this is a fascinating possibility, well worth further investigation.
Lines like this always blur. There is some evidence that in the Qur’an there is an attempt to reconcile several competing theological positions by giving everyone a bit of what he wants: the Jewish prophets but also Jesus, albeit not Jesus as a Savior. Instead, Jesus not crucified (as per the Gnostics) and Jesus not divine (as per the Arians) — both heretical groups that had at least in some numbers left the Empire for Arabia.
I don’t think this was ever a worry. The earliest Islamic texts, from whatever standpoint, present themselves as a correction of and rebuke to Christianity.
Sure. The problem with this as a defense of the burqa, however, is that Syrian Christian women don’t wear it today (except when under Islamic pressure or influence), while Muslim women do. It is founded on the authority of Muhammad in the Hadith, not on the Syrian Christians’ example. Muslims assimilated many non-Muslim things they liked (most notably the Ka’aba) but this assimilation has to be ratified in all cases by Qur’anic word or the word of Muhammad.
Robert Spencer on March 10, 2008 at 7:31 AM
Ok, let me see what I can come up with.
In Acts 7, Jesus says that what makes a man unclean is not what goes into him, but what comes out of him. In verse 19, it says “Thus He declared all foods clean” or “purging all meats”, depending on the translation. However, there are no dreaming apostles in this passage.
In Acts 10, Peter goes into a trance, sees a vision of all kinds of creatures, and a voice tells him to eat. He refuses, saying that he has never eaten anything unclean. The voice replies “what God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” He then meets Cornelius, a Gentile who has sought him out. Peter realizes, in verse 28, that he must not call any man unclean. Thus, the vision is thought to be an analogy, the previously unclean animals representing non-Jews.
As for my own understanding, the kosher laws were part of the sacrificial system, since only clean animals could be sacrificed. Their true end would have come when Christ died on the cross, which abolished the sacrificial system.
Bigfoot on March 10, 2008 at 8:08 AM
Are they restricted from watching animations or cartoons, then?
This is a terrific series.
Cowboy is a compliment on March 10, 2008 at 11:10 AM
The only specific “prophesy” of Mohammad is in the Bukhari hadiths- 2; 26; 666.
Prophesying that “a thin-legged black man from Ethiopia will tear down the Ka’aba, stone by stone“.
Still waiting…
profitsbeard on March 10, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Just one problem with your theory. Explain why the kosher laws include fish and locusts as well, which are never brought as an offering. Same is true for numerous kosher species of bird and fowl, which are ineligible as offerings in the Temple.
Yes, whatever living birds and animals are legitmate for offerings are indeed kosher but kashrut laws are a prerequisite of animal and bird offering laws and not vice versa.
And we haven’t even begun to discuss atonement for poor people by bringing an offering of flour - no animal, no bird, no blood.
Yet sacrifices continued until the destruction of the Temple. And Hebrews 10:5 is a blatant mistranslation of Psalm 40:6. Paul never failed to misquote when it suited him.
Shy Guy on March 10, 2008 at 1:13 PM
We had a dog in Mehtar Lam, Afghanistan that would bight any and every Afghan it saw (even those who’d spent the last thirty years in America). All other nationalities were welcome to give her belly rubs.
srhoades on March 10, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Robert,
I have a question:
Why would Ibn-Kathir assume this was “pre-Christian” when Muhammed lived six centuries after Christ, and three after Constantine? Something that supposedly happened 300 years before could easily have passed into folklore so quickly.
Well, two questions, actually:
Also, why does the “perfect book,” the Quran, not have a definitive answer for the number of sleepers? If Muhammed was fuzzy on the number of people involved, clearly Allah wasn’t communicating with him very clearly or Allah was suffering from some form of memory disorder, or… Muhammed wasn’t a true prophet after all…
Beo on March 10, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Were any of the “tests” that Muhammad went through recorded elsewhere? It would seem rather dubious if every testing Muhammad went through was only recorded and verified by himself or his word alone.
This also seems like a real open ended test, perhaps there is more to the story than I am reading. As I don’t see how he passed any test if they said “have him tell you a story” and he tells them a story.
Boot Hill on March 10, 2008 at 5:57 PM
It was also a statement against any prejudice me might’ve held against gentiles, since shortly there after the emmisaries from Cornielius arrived to take him to Ceasarea.
srhoades on March 10, 2008 at 9:25 PM
Cowboy is a compliment:
Generally considered OK — or at least widely produced. See, for example, here.
Robert Spencer on March 11, 2008 at 3:37 AM
profitsbeard:
There are others. For example, he prophesied that Islam would conquer Constantinople and then Rome. And of course, he famously prophesied that the end times would be ushered in by a Muslim genocide of Jews. And there are still others.
Robert Spencer on March 11, 2008 at 3:46 AM
Beo:
Good question. I guess he was assuming that the two groups had no contact with each other.
Well, this is no problem from the standpoint of Muslim belief. Allah simply didn’t will to reveal the actual number. That’s all.
Robert Spencer on March 11, 2008 at 3:49 AM
Boot Hill:
No, there aren’t even any contemporary non-Muslim records of Muhammad.
Robert Spencer on March 11, 2008 at 3:51 AM
Shy Guy - just to settle this, from the Christian perspective - it is taken that Jesus fulfills the need for sacrifice, and thus the need for ritual cleanliness. Any food which was inedible due to the law, or even such acts as touching a dead body - because of the declaration that Jesus made (which was made clear to Peter) are no longer considered unclean. Or, to be more specific, the Christian must determine for himself what is good and bad for him to consume, touch, etc.
There is no lie in Acts, and I do not see why it should be considered so. If you are Jewish, its contents themselves are mostly of no concern to you, since Saint Peter and company broke off from what was mainstream Judaism anyway.
Robert, thank you again for your excellently researched and well-balanced account. As we say, May God grant you many years.
RiverCocytus on March 11, 2008 at 8:10 AM
To quote Acts 10:28, using the KJV:
There are no such prohibitions. Simply false, either out of malice or ignorance - but you can take your pick.
I care very little when someone wants to preach something I don’t believe in but if they conveniently twist my religion to achieve their goals, it becomes my concern and that of every Jew.
Must I remind you that the truth will set you free?
Shy Guy on March 11, 2008 at 8:30 AM
Shy Guy,
I’m very sorry this is late…I’m just catching up…and I’m disappointed that no one actually answered your assertion that Acts 10:28 is a boldfaced lie. If you would only look up the word “foreigner” in a searchable bible, and check out the many references…you might see that although there certainly is no prohibition against speaking with a foreigner, per se, there certainly were cultural prohibitions that were indeed recorded in the Septuagint (speaking of which, according to Biblegateway,
Psalm 40:6 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
6 Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but my ears you have pierced [a] , [b] ;
burnt offerings and sin offerings
you did not require.
Psalm 40:6 Hebrew; Septuagint but a body you have prepared for me (see also Symmachus and Theodotion)
Deuteronomy 14:21
” You shall not eat anything which dies of itself You may give it to the alien who is in your town, so that he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner, for you are a holy people to the LORD your God You shall not boil a young goat in its mother’s milk.”
Leviticus 22:25
“…nor shall you accept any such from the hand of a foreigner for offering as the food of your God; for their corruption is in them, they have a defect, they shall not be accepted for you.’”
The list goes on and on and on. There’s certainly evidence that Peter was not telling a boldfaced lie, by any stretch of the imagination–and certainly there is no attack upon Judaism here.
Auralae on April 15, 2008 at 10:00 PM