Islamic Archives

Home » Christianity » God can not become a Man

God can not become a Man


Many Christians claim that God can do EVERYTHING and ANYTHING he pleases. The Muslim obviously agrees with this statement. However, the Christian will then claim that God can become a man.

This is where the Muslim disagrees with the Christian and the Muslim has to clarify something which should be apparent to the Christian. God can do sensical things and can’t not do nonsensical things.

For example, can a square-triangle or a triangle-square exist? No. There is no such a thing as four-sided, three-sided figure or a three-sided, four-sided figure. It is a nonsensical statement.

Likewise,  is there such a thing as a man-god , or god-man? The answer is no, it is a nonsensical statement.

Now this is not a limitation on God , but this is a limitation on the claimant’s reasoning and intellect.



  1. Megan Stokes says:

    You say, “Islam is just the message of God throughout history. One God with no partners, a lineage of prophets, laws which make rational sense etc.”

    You’ve gotta be joking, right? Are you suggesting that down to the etymological verbal noun of “Islam,” all the way through Qur’anic revelation (its theology, etc.), that it’s derived from the ancient Near East? So, the Qur’an has Sumerian, Akkadian, and Ugaritic parallels (as does the Torah in actuality)? So, which god is Allah within the neolithic period? Heck, don’t even ask about the paleolithic period, because then that would be pathetically pseudo-historic on your end.

    In fact, you have a major problem with your Qur’an. Since we are speaking of prehistory (and apparently according to you, same God, same religion, same theology), I find it quite fascinating that your god doesn’t know the difference between Ugaritic (15th century b.c.) and 1st century Aramiac (well before your Qur’an was sent down in the 7th century). It’s in regards to the difference of meaning in the words: “Ur of the Chaldeans” (Genesis 11:28), with respect to translation. The word for “Ur” is not a Hebrew word (as indeed it is transliterated into our modern Masoretic text as אוּר). It is an Ugaritic cognate that means “a fortress,” or “a fortified city.” Ugaritic is a language that preexists modern Hebrew, but is similar to paleo-Hebrew.

    Now, this is where it gets hilarious to showcase your god’s lack of omniscience. Six times the Qur’an (6:74-84; 19:41-49; 21:51-72; 26:69-89; 37:83-98; 43:26-27) mentions that Allah saved Abraham from the FIRE of the Chaldeans. Not Ur. This is based on an Arabic myth / legend, via a FALSE targumic translation (Ugaritic -> Hebrew -> Targums) that says:

    “When Nimrod cast Abram into the fiery furnace because he would not worship his idol, there was no power for the fire to burn him. Then Haran’s heart became doubtful, and he said, ‘If Nimrod prevails, I shall be on his side, but if Abram prevails, I shall be on his side.’ And when all the people who were there saw that the fire had no power over Abram, they said in their hearts, ‘Is not Haran the brother of Abram full of divinations and charms, and has he not uttered spells over the fire that it should not burn his brother?’ Immediately fire fell from heaven above and consumed him. And Haran died in the sight of his father Terah, even where he was burned in the land of his birth, in the fiery furnace which the Chaldeans had made for Abram.” (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Genesis 11:28)

    The reason for this hilarious misconception was due to ONE misunderstanding of ONE word: Ur. If the scribes of the targums only knew that Ur was NOT a Hebrew word (in this case, the Hebrew equivalent does mean “fire” but that’s the modern Hebrew rendering of it, especially if you are transferring it over to Aramiac [the language of the Targums]), but rather a word from Ugaritic, then this legend would never have arisen.

    So, you have a dilemma, and a very clear one. If the Qur’an is indeed inspired by Allah, and since it is an eternal book sent down, that means for all eternity Allah did NOT know the difference between the Ugaritic cognate and what people would have thought (through pure ignorance of the ancient language) centuries later as “fire” instead of “a fortified city.” If Allah DID know the difference, HE WOULD NOT HAVE INCLUDED THIS FALSE LEGEND IN THE QUR’AN.



    The Biblical passage could very well be interpreted to be referring to the flame of the Chaldeans and not necessarily the city of the Chaldeans. The book of Genesis is originally written in Hebrew. Thus, why would it be wrong to understand “Ur” here according to the Hebrew language?You yourself admit that “Ur” in Hebrew, means “fire”.

    The Blue Letter Bible lexicon states.

    Ur = “flame” (Source)

    The Next Bible Study Dictionary states that Ur could also refer to:
    fire, light, a valley (Source)

    Abarim Publications state:
    Ur (of the Chaldeans)
    The name Ur occurs twice in the Bible. Most famously is Ur, the city in Babel from whence Abraham’s family came. Another Ur is the father of one of David’s mighty men (1 Chr 11:35).

    The name Ur is identical to (‘or 52) meaning to be or to become light, shine, give light. Some derivatives: (‘or 52a) means light, and (‘ur 52d) means flame. (‘ora 52b) is a feminine form of the word light (as such also used to mean joy) and also the name of a certain herb (‘ora as used in 2 Ki 4:39); possibly a very spicy or otherwise inflaming herb, or simply endowed with bright blossoms, etc. TWOTOT lists the Urim as 52e. The word for luminary, whether lamp or celestial body, is (ma’or 52f).

    Ur means Flame or Light. (Source)

    James L. Kugel in his book Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible as it was at the Start of the Common Era, page 267 states.
    As we have seen, “‘ur of the Chaldeans” can be taken to mean “the flame of the Chaldeans.” (Source)

    Now James L. Kugel is not certain whether this is true and probably does not even favor this position, however it is at least possible.

    In conclusion, the Biblical verses speaking about “Ur of the Chaldeans” is left open to interpretation. It appears to me that since Genesis was written in Hebrew and not in the Babylonian language it would make more sense to understand the word “Ur” as “flame”. However, even if the Bible did make it crystal clear that it was only referring to Ur the city and not the flame, this doesn’t make the Bible right and the Qur’an wrong. One would have to prove that the Bible is actually correct on this point. Also, it is possible that God delivered Abraham out of the city and the flame and just because the Bible is silent on the issue of the flame (assuming it is only clearly speaking about the city) that doesn’t render the story to be false.

    Again, as a Muslim I don’t see this argument just like many other arguments posing a threat to Islam.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: