AAA, AAA, Here is a complete historical study of ancient origins of Islam, Mohammed, and Allah. It is a highly researched, easy to access book of 380


Who is he?
Where did he come from?
Is he the God of the Bible?



Any wise enemy is better than an ignorant friend.


Visit Other Pages:

The story of Ishmael

The Bible and the future of the Arabs?

Meet Muhammed in the Hadith

Is Allah in the Bible?

Who is God?

Allah's original name

The journey of Allah from
Babylon to Mecca

What is the name of the God of the Bible in Arabic?

Al Injil-- The Good News

Does the Aramaic Bible,
or the Peshitta,
call the God of the Bible Allah?


There has recently developed a debate, mostly on the Web, as to the name of Allah used in the Aramaic manuscript of the Bible. It is claimed by Islamic scholars that this proves that the original name of God is Allah. There are several reasons why this is a lie:

1. The Peshitta and the Aramaic were not used in the translation of the King James Bible. Only the Greek texts were used. God allowed the Muslim armies to attack Constantinople BEFORE the Aramaic Bible was accepted by the Greek Church. The Greek monks of Constantinople fled their churches with the Greek manuscripts they had from Antioch and the Eastern churches NOT polluted by Syrian pagan notions from Mesopotamia. Thus, the King James Bible was protected by God from pollution by the Aramaic texts. There must be some reason that the Aramaic text of the Bible does not please God.

2. The Muslims and "Jews for Allah" claim that the Western Aramaic text of the Peshitta, was corrupted and changed by Reformers to come in line with the King James principles or with Erasmus. This is an old saw. Whenever things don't agree between the Koran or Islamic myth, the Muslim scholars claim someone altered all the other texts than the ones they like. The cute thing is that the Peshitta and Aramaic did not come to Europe until at least the 18th century. Here is what Jews for Allah (This is a real group of Jews) Say:

The real message of the life and teachings of Jesus, Muhammad and Nestorius can be likened to that of the Peshitta and the Qur'an. The Church of the East claims that every copy of the Peshitta ever made was certified by every Bishop to be a true and clean copy, the meaning of the word "Peshitta" itself. The Qur'an is likened unto it. The Peshitto or Peshitta of the West was changed, not so often as present day Christian Bibles but changed in ancient times. The Torah was destroyed with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and since has suffered a worse fate. There were only two such scrolls at the time. One was held by the priests, the other by the King. In those times families were charged with the memory of whole books and what was created has been re-written many times to suit the purpose of the writers as with the many versions of the Christian Bible.

So, the final authority to these people, as to the authentic Word of God, is the word of a Nestorian Patriarch who does not believe that Jesus was one person, that is, God and man from birth to death and remaining both to this hour. (More on this below) What lousy authorities these heretic bishops are, and so, what a lousy manuscript these patriarchs offer us. No wonder the Muslims love the Peshitta and the Aramaic, at least the late great model.

3. The fact is, the Aramaic and Peshitta were altered and revised over and over through the ages, and when the Aramaic was finally delivered to Europe in the 18th Century, it was not in any way close to the original Aramaic. The altering of the "original" Aramaic was done by the people in the Middle East, not Germany. Furthermore; the oldest Aramaic text is only dated to about 450 AD. This was before Constantine had taken power in a big way, so the claim is that it predates the Roman Western texts. The problem is, the Aramaic text was the text of the Nestorians, and eventually, the Eastern Catholic Church.

Nestorianism is a 5th-century Christological heresy. Nestorianism takes its name from Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople (428-31). Nestorius taught that Christ had two natures-- a divine and a separate human nature. Nestorius was condemned by the Council of Ephesus (431), which was convened specifically to settle the dispute. There the orthodox doctrine on the nature of Jesus Christ was clarified: Christ was pronounced true God and true man, as having two distinct natures in one person --a position that was reaffirmed by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. Nestorius was deposed as bishop and sent to Antioch. Today a Nestorian church survives in the East and has since taught, in opposition to the orthodox doctrine, that there are two persons in the incarnate Christ, human and divine. Copyright (c) Grolier Electronic Publishing, Inc.

As to the Catholic impact on the choice of the Aramaic and Peshitta texts:

"With reference to.... the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision."
Mar Eshai Shimun by Grace,
Catholicos Patriarch of the East

So, we see that the Nestorians, and the Eastern Catholics, had a two person Christ. This is nothing but a modification of Gnosticism which claimed that Christ the human was born, and at his baptism the second Christ the God took habitation in the body of Christ the human.

It is only a small step to join with the Islamic notion of Christ being only one person and not God. The Eastern Syrian Church has been tolerated for centuries by the Muslims because they picked up the name Allah and used it in their Bible instead of El or Elohim.

4. Jesus settled it for us as to the name of God in Hebrew and Aramaic:

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.
46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
47 Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.

We see here two witnesses to the fact that the name of God is El.

Verse 46. Eli, Eli, etc. This language is not pure Hebrew, nor Syriac, but a mixture of both, called commonly Syro-Chaldaic. This was probably the language which he commonly spoke. The words are taken from Psalm 22:1. (Barnes notes)

Jesus was speaking a combined use of Aramaic and Syriac, which is the alleged foundation of the Aramaic from Chaldea where the present day Baith Catholic Church is located, in Syria and in Iraq. Jesus used the Hebrew name for God, El, and he added the possessive suffix, i. Thus, Eli, or "My God."

This also implies that Jesus never used the Aramaic name for God because it may have already been corrupted. In this book I have shown that the name of Allah derived from pagan forms staring at the Tower of Babel. This tower, and Sumer where the gods IL and ILAH evolved, were just up the road from Israel. So some primitive Allah form may have already been in use in Jesus' day. He rejected it and used the name EL or ELOHIM for the God of the Bible.

God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have placed a number of highly urgent wordings in the Word of God in an obvious way so that these wordings would be powerful weapons against Satanic attacks on our faith 2000 years later. In his divine omniscience, Jesus Christ spoke some very special words, in the midst of his suffering, with us in mind. Jesus wanted us to win this debate against Muslim blasphemers. Praise his holy Name.

The second proof in the Matthew text above is found in verse 47 where the people standing by thought Jesus was calling to Elias, or Elijah, whose name means, Eli-Jah, or "My God, Yaweh." If Jesus had said, "Allah, Allah, etc etc" the bystanders would not have been able to make the association with Elias in any way, shape, or form.


What is the issue with the Aramaic text?

The present Aramaic text, and probably many forms of the evolving Peshitta after Mohammed's day, DO use the name Allah for God in various ways. Here is the list of close ones anyway:

B'aALaHaA (This lets Baal into God's name. This is a polution from Babylon where the Nestorians lived.)
AaLaH (Not used of the God of the Bible in the Aramaic)
AiYL (This is a pure pagan form based on Illah of Babylon)
And, 46 more variations

You can see that the Aramaic names of God in their alleged Bible never once made any effort to use El or Elohim, as Jesus did. So, we see the post-Islamic pollution of the later era Aramaic and Peshitta were polluted by Muhahhed's god, Allah, whom Mohammed salvaged from the Kaaba when he evicted the other 365 pagan gods stored there before 650AD. The Eastern Catholic Church has bowed to Mecca in order to curry favor with Islam.



There is NO reason for any true Bible believer to apologize for the use of the name Allah in the Aramaic or the Peshitta. The versions of those texts today are a joke since the metropolitans and bishops of the Syrian Church have corrupted the Word of God, if they ever really had it immediately after the Apostolic era, as they claim.

This corrupting of the Word of God with LXX alterations and bringing in the name of Allah into their Bible, is obviously why God made sure the Aramaic arrived in the West as late as World War I. We would hope that a rational student of the Word of God would see that God intends to keep the Peshitta and Aramaic of the present editions OUT of our consideration. This is why Erasmus and Luther had ONLY the Greek to work with. God WANTED it that way.

If some Mullah or Imam wants to show us the name of God in Aramaic, find us the original manuscript. Of course, that will be a translation from the Greek which Paul wrote and Jesus spoke. And, we don't want a Bible which a filthy Nestorian Bishop has handled with his pagan hands please.