Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A listing of the contradictions and errors in the bible.
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 158 (18525)
09-29-2002 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by peter borger
09-29-2002 6:05 AM


John 1:25 And they [[asked him, and] said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
If I'm not misquoting there, the verse is supposed to be about the Pharisees asking John the Baptist (Prophet Yahya to us), about his identity if he is not 1)Christ (he is clearly not Jesus Christ) 2)Elias (not sure who this is but I think John is not Elias) or 3) THAT PROPHET.
Who could THAT PROPHET be? Prophet Muhammad?
Maybe. In Isaiah 29:11--12 I found an interesting scene:
29:11
And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:
29:12
And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.
If I am not misquoting there, this verse is about Isaiah's vision of a sealed book which cannot be read. This scene is recorded in the history of Prophet Muhammad's life also.
(from a hadith shahih, narrated by Al-Bukhari)
One day suddenly the Truth descended upon him while he was in the cave of Hira. The angel came to him and asked him to read. The Prophet (peace be upon him) replied, "I do not know how to read." The Prophet (peace be upon him) added, "The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read and I replied, "I do not know how to read." Thereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time until I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read but again I replied, "I do not know how to read (or what shall I read)?" Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me, and then released me and said, "Read in the name of your Lord, who has created (all that exists), created man from a clot. Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous.'"(96):1-3.
You might also be interested in this link:
http://www.answering-christianity.com/aramaic_society.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by peter borger, posted 09-29-2002 6:05 AM peter borger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Wordswordsman, posted 09-30-2002 3:01 PM Andya Primanda has replied
 Message 86 by w_fortenberry, posted 10-01-2002 2:25 PM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 158 (18607)
09-30-2002 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by peter borger
09-29-2002 6:05 AM


"Dear Andya, Dear wordswordsman
Interesting stuff, guys.
If I understand properly than both "christians" and "muslims" worship the same god."
WS: Not so. Check out a definition article that clearly separates the two as not at all the same entity. http://www.answering-islam.org/Index/index.html
Scroll down and click on Allah.
Then follow the link to "Moon God" or look it up in the index. See for yourself what that debate is about. Regardless of that outcome, "Allah" is not Jehovah, nor did "Allah" have anything to do with the writing of the Bible. Jehovah was the God Abraham worshipped thousands of years before Muhammad wrote about "Allah" and his revised historical accounts. There was no Islam until centuries after Christianity was established, long after the Torah stood unchallenged.
I'll discuss the balance of your post in answering Andya.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by peter borger, posted 09-29-2002 6:05 AM peter borger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by gene90, posted 10-01-2002 12:42 AM Wordswordsman has replied

  
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 158 (18618)
09-30-2002 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Andya Primanda
09-29-2002 6:46 AM


"John 1:25 And they [[asked him, and] said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?"
WS: John 1:25
And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
WS: Good English use would tell you "neither" has to do with a choice between two, being a grammatically singular word. There was no third reference to another person not named, or it would have read "nor that prophet". That wouldn't make a lick of sense since there is no hint of any third prophet the Pharisees expected, nowhere in Scripture, certainly not within that discussion. They were expecting a returned Elijah who was taken up without seeing death. They had but two choices, either John was the promised, expected Messiah (rendered "Christ" here, but the Pharisees would have said "mashiyach" if this account were written in Hebrew, or if in Aramaic the equivalent), or he was the prophet Elijah. The word "Elias" is from Helias, of Hebrew origin ('Eliyah); Helias (i.e. Elijah), an Israelite :- Elias. The problem is the transliteration from Hebrew to Greek. If John was actually either one of those two prophets, they would not hinder the baptizing. Eventually John was indeed hindered, but not until after he finished what he was sent forth to do.
The reason they zeroed in on those two names was because they were challenging John's baptizing. They were accustomed to Jewish converts made by ceremonial cleansings, but requiring an order from the Sanhedrin, or three magistrates/doctors of the law. They challenged John who must then be of great stature to bypass Jewish authority and ignore Pharisee practices. The idea was for John to stop doing it if he was neither expected prophet. But John identified who the subject person of their inquiry was, one who already walked among them, whom John identified when Jesus came to be baptized. There is no way any reference to a future person could be inferred.
"If I'm not misquoting there, the verse is supposed to be about the Pharisees asking John the Baptist (Prophet Yahya to us), about his identity if he is not 1)Christ (he is clearly not Jesus Christ) 2)Elias (not sure who this is but I think John is not Elias) or 3) THAT PROPHET.
"Who could THAT PROPHET be? Prophet Muhammad?"
WS: Very poor exegesis of Scriptures. You would need a direct prophecy in the Old Testament naming him, or make Muhammad the same as either Messiah or Elijah, then prove it. But you can't do that since Islam makes Muhammad a stand-alone prophet, not someone else. To attempt to insert Muhammad in the Bible prophecy would be no difference in religion than Bahai, or any of among the many who came and do come claiming the same things Muhammad did, making many Christs, all false ones, in every generation.
Maybe. In Isaiah 29:11--12 I found an interesting scene:
29:11
And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:
29:12
And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.
If I am not misquoting there, this verse is about Isaiah's vision of a sealed book which cannot be read. This scene is recorded in the history of Prophet Muhammad's life also.
WS: Read it carefully in context. The reference was to the vision that appeared AS such a sealed book. There is no literal sealed book referred to, but the concept is used to explain the nature of the vision.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-29-2002 6:46 AM Andya Primanda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by John, posted 09-30-2002 3:41 PM Wordswordsman has replied
 Message 83 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-01-2002 7:23 AM Wordswordsman has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 158 (18622)
09-30-2002 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Wordswordsman
09-30-2002 3:01 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: Good English use would tell you "neither" has to do with a choice between two, being a grammatically singular word.
Funny thing is, it isn't modern English. It also didn't start out as English. It has translated. If you read the Greek, the word used for 'nor' in the above sentence, is also the word used for 'neither'
quote:
You would need a direct prophecy in the Old Testament naming him
Funny thing.... you type 'Jesus' into the search box at Blueletterbible.org and all of the verses returned are in the NT. How's that for naming names?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Wordswordsman, posted 09-30-2002 3:01 PM Wordswordsman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Wordswordsman, posted 09-30-2002 5:00 PM John has replied

  
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 158 (18629)
09-30-2002 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by John
09-30-2002 3:41 PM


quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Wordswordsman:
WS: Good English use would tell you "neither" has to do with a choice between two, being a grammatically singular word.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funny thing is, it isn't modern English. It also didn't start out as English. It has translated. If you read the Greek, the word used for 'nor' in the above sentence, is also the word used for 'neither'
WS: It's one thing to be able to go find the Greek, another to know which Greek translation is the most accurate, and quite another for any one non-biblical scholar to handle the Greek and its grammatical nuances better that the host of life-time scholars who have come to agreement on the English translation.
The standard for English grammar has been for centuries found in the KJV. The use of neither and nor has not changed, though their use is becoming archaic probably people are not comfortable with them, not knowing the proper use anyway.
As for the Greek word "oute" being used interchangeably, its use and meaning is based on the plurality or singularity of the subject. Singular- translated neither in the English equivalent of the definition. Plural- translated nor in the English equivalent, requiring two objects, one before, one after.
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You would need a direct prophecy in the Old Testament naming him
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Funny thing.... you type 'Jesus' into the search box at Blueletterbible.org and all of the verses returned are in the NT. How's that for naming names?
WS: "Jesus" is the translation/combined English transliteration of the Greek Iesous, ee-ay-sooce'; of Hebrew origin [Hebrew 3091 (Yehowshuwa`)]; Jesus (i.e. Jehoshua), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites :- Jesus. There was no direct Greek word to transmit that name from the Hebrew. God knows who we speak of, and so do you. Anglicans and many other prople groups for that matter, can't even pronounce Yehowshuwa (approx. "wow-u-shoo-ah") without some tutoring, while Spanish/Hispanic people can't handle the "J", making a "Hey" of that, saying "Hayzus"- best they can utter. There are many of the peculiar Greek words in the NT you won't find in the OT, like "Christ". What would you look for in reference to Christ in the OT?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by John, posted 09-30-2002 3:41 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by John, posted 09-30-2002 6:09 PM Wordswordsman has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 158 (18632)
09-30-2002 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Wordswordsman
09-30-2002 5:00 PM


quote:
WS: It's one thing to be able to go find the Greek, another to know which Greek translation is the most accurate
How bout the one from which the KJV was translated? The Textus Receptus.
quote:
and quite another for any one non-biblical scholar to handle the Greek and its grammatical nuances better that the host of life-time scholars who have come to agreement on the English translation.
Host of scholars eh?
The NKJV has "nor" in the offending spot.
The NLT has both 'nor' and 'neither' as 'or'
The NASB has 'nor' in the offending spot.
The RSV also has 'nor'
Webster's agrees with the KJV and keeps the 'neither'
Young's has 'nor'
Darby's has 'nor'
The ASV has 'neithe'
The HNV has 'nor'
The Vulgate has 'neque' -- as it is in Latin-- in place of both neither and nor.
Looks like the host of scholars are stacked against you. Its easier to launch an attack on my linguistic abilities than to look it up eh?
quote:
The standard for English grammar has been for centuries found in the KJV.
Surely your joking? If I wrote an essay in KJV English and turned it in to an english teacher the paper would dissolve in the red ink. We do not speak the English of the 1600s and haven't for centuries.
quote:
The use of neither and nor has not changed, though their use is becoming archaic probably people are not comfortable with them, not knowing the proper use anyway.
Actually, neither should come before nor, not nor before neither according to my grammar book.
quote:
As for the Greek word "oute" being used interchangeably, its use and meaning is based on the plurality or singularity of the subject. Singular- translated neither in the English equivalent of the definition. Plural- translated nor in the English equivalent, requiring two objects, one before, one after.
And most translators of modern bibles disagree with you.
quote:
WS: "Jesus" is the translation/combined English transliteration of the Greek Iesous, ee-ay-sooce'; of Hebrew origin [Hebrew 3091 (Yehowshuwa`)]; Jesus (i.e. Jehoshua), the name of our Lord and two (three) other Israelites :- Jesus.
And it doesn't appear in the KJV before the NT.
quote:
God knows who we speak of, and so do you.
You are missing the point. I know of whom you speak; I do not know if the OT prophets spoke of Jesus because they never named him as such. These are you standards. See your previous post.
quote:
Anglicans and many other prople groups for that matter, can't even pronounce Yehowshuwa (approx. "wow-u-shoo-ah") without some tutoring, while Spanish/Hispanic people can't handle the "J", making a "Hey" of that, saying "Hayzus"- best they can utter. There are many of the peculiar Greek words in the NT you won't find in the OT, like "Christ".
And this matters why?
quote:
What would you look for in reference to Christ in the OT?
Jesus. You said 'named by name'
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Wordswordsman, posted 09-30-2002 5:00 PM Wordswordsman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-01-2002 2:12 PM John has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 82 of 158 (18667)
10-01-2002 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Wordswordsman
09-30-2002 12:53 PM


Are you sure your site is unbiased? It seems like a group that has nothing better to do than oppose the progress and spread of Islam might not be terribly interested in giving an accurate picture of the truth. I've seen these types before, every large religion has them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Wordswordsman, posted 09-30-2002 12:53 PM Wordswordsman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-01-2002 3:08 PM gene90 has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 158 (18701)
10-01-2002 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Wordswordsman
09-30-2002 3:01 PM


Got original texts? Then we can discuss some of this. You see, it's this translation and retranslation of the Bible that caused this. Even you can't trust your own sacred texts because of that.
As for the Answering Islam page about Allah (your reply to peter borger), it's a good monograph of His description. However, I fail to see why you think they're different... found no reason for it in the page. The page documents that the name 'Allah' was known before Prophet Muhammad's time. This is certainly what Muslims believe: Allah has revealed himself to humanity long before Prophet Muhammad's time, especially through prophets to the Children of Israel.
*The OT prophesy: I agree with John[evc]'s stance. Jesus was not mentioned either in the OT. So it's a stalemate. Or you got evidence?
btw, it's not that I don't respect your holy books, but I find their texts too variable to be a good reference to back my point. I was responding to Peter Borger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Wordswordsman, posted 09-30-2002 3:01 PM Wordswordsman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-01-2002 3:30 PM Andya Primanda has replied

  
RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 158 (18727)
10-01-2002 12:33 PM


Allah is in fact a different name for Yahweh, the war god, kept in the ark of the covenant, released to destroy the enemies of the jews.
The same god who in the old testemant was not quite the nice old man portrayed by Jesus and the Renessaince.
Much like angels who were originally the messangers of god, or soldiers of god when needed. In fact Jacob got the name Isreal(wrestles with god) beause he wrestled with god's messanger.
If you would really like to get down to it, the argument can be made that both Islam and Christianity are both perversions of judiusm. Neither ascribing to the original covenants(such as circumsiscion) and Judiusm originally had no notion of hell or heaven. Our time was solely here on earth, serving our god(one of many).
Which brings up an interesting question. If there was only one TRUE god, why do we need a commandment telling us not to worship other gods if there are no other gods?
And how do christians resolve the changing nature of god from the OT to the NT?

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-01-2002 3:43 PM RedVento has not replied
 Message 94 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-02-2002 12:33 AM RedVento has not replied

  
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 158 (18738)
10-01-2002 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by John
09-30-2002 6:09 PM


quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What would you look for in reference to Christ in the OT?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus. You said 'named by name'
WS: All I have to say about the earlier part of your post is that there is absolutely no reference to a third prophet, the only references being to either Christ or Elijah. The KJV rendering captures that, as determined by up to 70 scholars who made lifetime careers of studying the Scriptures. You apparently don't know the history of some of those modern translations.
You failed to answer my question properly. You would properly look for the English "messiah" in the OT to find reference to the Greek "Christ".
FWIW, for the first 150 years of American public education the KJV Bible was the English textbook, gradually replaced by the readers based on the Bible. Since then the language has changed dramatically, but the technical grammatical rules remain the same. Only popular useage has changed, and education has changed to deal with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by John, posted 09-30-2002 6:09 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by John, posted 10-01-2002 4:19 PM Wordswordsman has replied

  
w_fortenberry
Member (Idle past 6107 days)
Posts: 178
From: Birmingham, AL, USA
Joined: 04-19-2002


Message 86 of 158 (18739)
10-01-2002 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Andya Primanda
09-29-2002 6:46 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
John 1:25 And they [[asked him, and] said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?
If I'm not misquoting there, the verse is supposed to be about the Pharisees asking John the Baptist (Prophet Yahya to us), about his identity if he is not 1)Christ (he is clearly not Jesus Christ) 2)Elias (not sure who this is but I think John is not Elias) or 3) THAT PROPHET.
Who could THAT PROPHET be? Prophet Muhammad?

To give a direct answer to a direct question, "that prophet" is the prophet spoken of by Moses in Deuteronomy 18:15-22.
quote:
15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
16 According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.
17 And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
Another reference to "that prophet" can be found in Acts 3:18-26.
quote:
18 But those things, which God before had shewed by the mouth of all his prophets, that Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.
19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the aworld began.
22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, 1 A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.
24 Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days.
25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.
And one more reference can be found in Acts 7:37-39.
quote:
37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.
38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
39 To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into Egypt,
So then "that prophet" which is spoken of in John 1:25 is Jesus Christ. John answered the Pharisees question by pointing them to Christ.
quote:
26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
By the way, I believe Muhammad would meet the criterion for a false prophet as given in Deuteronomy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Andya Primanda, posted 09-29-2002 6:46 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 158 (18741)
10-01-2002 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by gene90
10-01-2002 12:42 AM


"Are you sure your site is unbiased? It seems like a group that has nothing better to do than oppose the progress and spread of Islam might not be terribly interested in giving an accurate picture of the truth. I've seen these types before, every large religion has them."
WS: It might behoove you to go check out the "progress" of the spread of Islam independently then go decide whether that site is accurate or not. While you are at it, find out the mechanism by which virtually every nation that is Muslim got that way. I found they all became Muslim through subjugation at the point of knives, swords, and other enforcements. Their ways are accurately described in the site I linked. No people has freely adopted Islam through the process of inquiry and being convinced through preaching. Militarily weak nations had it shoved down their throats. It is too easy to prove accuracy by comparing to the majority of other authoritative sources, including some books by former Islamic professors of Islam who have been converted to Christianity, who are stepping up to the plate exposing Islam. There are some startling works in print, others on their way, causing quite a stir in the world.
I finished a month ago "Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith" by Robert Spencer I started it around our church and have begun a storm of concern!
I've spent years debating Muslims, following probably hundreds of links, reading books, and learning from ex-Muslims in recovery groups designed to reorganize Muslims dealing with the shock of discovering the truth about the religion. I belong to two such Yahoogroups. Mostly we find a common element of people having been in it without knowing the extent of the teachings, offering little or no technical knowledge to deal with Islamic doctrine, but I do gain a good understanding of the lives they lived. All in all I find that site to be quite accurate and revealing, currently supported by news stories, and not at odds with neutral encyclopedic articles and history texbooks. The facts of Islam have been around a long time, easily corroborated with a little research.
I find an increasing trend among online Muslim websites trying to negate the really startling parts of the Quran as being akin to Christians not following the laws of Moses. They attempt to quiet fears Islam still includes ongoing Jihad, that Islam is now a peaceful religion. I have yet to find one of them willing to reveal to me that message from "Allah". It appears made up. The analogy to the Old Testament is faulty. That reference proclaimed within its own context a new covenant was coming (Jeremiah 31:31
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah
Then the New Testament clearly explained the Christian relationship to the Mosaic law. The Quran doesn't do that. The references to the Jihad principle are interspersed throughout that work, being without end, everlasting, with no indication of a change of mind from "Allah". There are no Islamic-sanctioned "New Testament" Muslims that are excused from the actual teachings of the Quran. Such "moderates" are hated by most of the real Islamic world, themselves in danger of severe corrections. My pointis that version of Islam is not backed by any holy text, and is offered up sort of like the modern versions of Judaism and liberal humanistic Christian sects are today. The Quran is largely not available to the average Muslim, like the Bible was for most of the time left in the possession of the clerics. Good Muslims learn the ten pillars, pray, and support the religion in general ignorance. Those who do study it and know the full revelation are called fundamentalists, but they are actually just fully practicing Muslims exercising unfettered Islam. Islamic clerics dish out the things they need the people to know, able to add in concepts not found in the Quran, such as the supposed rewards of 70 virgins for each martyr. It's a great deception sweeping around the world. Find out more at
Answering Islam, A Christian-Muslim Dialog and Apologetic
Another interesting one is http://www.islamexposed.com/
and http://members.aol.com/oldtestmt/islam01.htm
and islam-in-focus ’ ’
Explore the Quaran for yourself:
http://www.stg.brown.edu/webs/quran_browser_message.html
Dynamic DNS Home Users
Use the search engines to discover what it says about Christians, Jesus, Jews, unbelievers (of Islam), or read the really rough ones already picked out at islam-in-focus ’ ’. Think they are out of context? Go check it out. Do Muslims say the problem is the version selected? Ask them if they know they have the original manuscript. They will always say we are using the wrong version or misinterpreting, just as they say we misinterpret the Bible. Learn about your own destiny if you don't accept Islam once you read and know the "truth". If you read and learn then reject, you are twice damned, a legal target for any fundamentalist to take you out of this world, AND burn in hell. Ah, such love.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by gene90, posted 10-01-2002 12:42 AM gene90 has not replied

  
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 158 (18742)
10-01-2002 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Andya Primanda
10-01-2002 7:23 AM


"Got original texts?"
WS: Do you? How do you know what you have is "original" when your own cleric scholars dispute over that? It isn't necessary to referto any original texts. All the work is already done many times over. How many times must people pour over each word, bringing it into a modern language? You make the same case of clerics of old who refused to allow the Bible into the hands of average people, making it an intellectual exercise, couching it in Latin or French, allowing only portions let out in sermons. The fact is there is enough accuracy in translations to derive from them what the original message was.
"Then we can discuss some of this."
WS: Cop-out, pure and simple. Whatever version of Quran I get hold of will be denied, right?
"You see, it's this translation and retranslation of the Bible that caused this. Even you can't trust your own sacred texts because of that."
WS: We already know which translations were translated from others rather than going to oldest manuscripts. We have enough history to know which versions were done accurately, making good foundations for later versions/translations. Certainly we trust certain Bibles. We know the LB is a poor pharaphrase, but does give a good overview of the Bible.
"As for the Answering Islam page about Allah (your reply to peter borger), it's a good monograph of His description. However, I fail to see why you think they're different... found no reason for it in the page. The page documents that the name 'Allah' was known before Prophet Muhammad's time. This is certainly what Muslims believe: Allah has revealed himself to humanity long before Prophet Muhammad's time, especially through prophets to the Children of Israel."
WS: You acknowledge the site is accurate. Good. Maybe we can come to some conclusions eventually. Please comment on this article:
http://answering-islam.org/lovesus.html
"*The OT prophesy: I agree with John[evc]'s stance. Jesus was not mentioned either in the OT. So it's a stalemate. Or you got evidence?"
WS: Isaiah 7:14
"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
I realize this will probably set off a discussion about "virgins" and the mystery of this prophecy within a prophecy, but I've already dealt with it dozens of times, so fire away.
Matthew 1:23
"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."
That name was clearly associated with the child Jesus, Yeshua, the Christ, each name having a special meaning towards His mission on earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-01-2002 7:23 AM Andya Primanda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Andya Primanda, posted 10-02-2002 11:15 AM Wordswordsman has replied

  
Wordswordsman
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 158 (18743)
10-01-2002 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by RedVento
10-01-2002 12:33 PM


"Allah is in fact a different name for Yahweh, the war god, kept in the ark of the covenant, released to destroy the enemies of the jews.
The same god who in the old testemant was not quite the nice old man portrayed by Jesus and the Renessaince."
WS: So I'm to believe that throughout the entire record of the Bible, Jehovah (Yahweh) forgot to drop that name you say is His?
Out of all those MANY names used to link to God, that ONE never once emerged!
"Much like angels who were originally the messangers of god, or soldiers of god when needed. In fact Jacob got the name Isreal(wrestles with god) beause he wrestled with god's messanger."
WS: Wrong. Not BECAUSE he wrestled, but because of this: Genesis 32:28
"And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed."
Israel: Heb. Yisra'el, yis-raw-ale'; from Hebrew 8280 (sarah) and Hebrew 410 ('el); he will rule as God; Jisral, a symbolical name of Jacob; also (typically) of his posterity :- Israel.
"If you would really like to get down to it, the argument can be made that both Islam and Christianity are both perversions of judiusm. Neither ascribing to the original covenants(such as circumsiscion) and Judiusm originally had no notion of hell or heaven. Our time was solely here on earth, serving our god(one of many)."
WS: A lot of off-the-wall comment. Sheesh. What to do? Itwould take too long to sort that one out. Maybe if you would present one at a time....point is, you are not supported at all there.
"Which brings up an interesting question. If there was only one TRUE god, why do we need a commandment telling us not to worship other gods if there are no other gods?"
WS: Ah, a short answer question. Many idols existed which men worshipped as though gods. Most were of wood or stone, never changing, never speaking, unable to help one iota. God knew he futility of worshipping them, but men needed to be told not to do it. Sometimes a whole lifetime is wasted before they figure it out on their own.
"And how do christians resolve the changing nature of god from the OT to the NT?"
WS: We don't have to resolve that, since there was no change in his nature. He changed some of his judgments against Israel, decided not to do certain acts again, flood the entire earth again, etc, but never changed his nature. He is the same yesterday, today and for ever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by RedVento, posted 10-01-2002 12:33 PM RedVento has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 158 (18745)
10-01-2002 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Wordswordsman
10-01-2002 2:12 PM


quote:
WS: All I have to say about the earlier part of your post is that there is absolutely no reference to a third prophet, the only references being to either Christ or Elijah.
Wrong again. It seems to be a pattern. w_fortenbury has shown this claim to be false.
quote:
The KJV rendering captures that, as determined by up to 70 scholars who made lifetime careers of studying the Scriptures.
Yes, and these 70 scholars trump all the other scholars who disagree? That is hardly sporting. No comment upon having your arrogance called on the issue of the word 'nor'? No comment upon being shown to be full of blustering hot-air? You will continue to trumpet the KJV?
quote:
You apparently don't know the history of some of those modern translations.
Gee, in fact I do. The problem, as I see it, is that you've made the KJV sacrosanct. Any deviation is simply wrong, the sources be damned.
quote:
You failed to answer my question properly. You would properly look for the English "messiah" in the OT to find reference to the Greek "Christ".
Right.... isn't that a clever ploy. Insist that Muhammed be named by name, yet Jesus can be named by a general term. You are missing the point.
quote:
Since then the language has changed dramatically, but the technical grammatical rules remain the same.
You mean like not beginning a sentence with 'and'? Or putting 'neither' before 'nor'? This is crap. The language has changed since Kng James.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-01-2002 2:12 PM Wordswordsman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Wordswordsman, posted 10-01-2002 7:20 PM John has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024