Is The Bible Corrupted?

[IAmZamzam 35]

I take it there are no more problems then, abdullah?

[COD1981 0]

The word “Talmud” is a Hebrew word meaning “learning, instruction.” The Talmud is a central text of mainstream Judaism and consists primarily of discussions and commentary on Jewish history, law (especially its practical application to life)

Christians does not consider the Talmud to be inspired. The Talmud is not considered the authoritative Word of God.
 

The Great Isaiah Scroll dated somewhere between 300 – 100 BC found in a cave near the Dead Sea in 1947 has verified that the Book of Isaiah which Christians read today in the Bible’s Old Testament is accurate. There are some spelling mistakes but the core messages remain the same. The Book of Isaiah is very significant to Christians as it foretells the coming of the Messiah.

This find refutes the claim the Bible is completely corrupted.
 

Does  the Quran not confirm that scripture preceding it are true (“..Confirming that which is with you..”)

 

Sura 2:41

And believe in that I have sent down, confirming that which IS with you,
and be not the first to disbelieve in it. And sell not My signs for a little
price; and fear you Me.

Why not ask a questions about the Quran! I thought this was a discussion forum or is it just one-way traffic on Bible bashing!

Anyhow I have not received a reply to 2 simple questions on the Quran. What is concerning is that this is the second Islamic forum that I have not received a reply to two basic question.
 

1 – Who wrote the Quran text?

2 – When was it first written?

Are these questions so difficult to answer?

[fathi 140]

Something cannot remain pure if it is cut and pieced together time and again and again and again

 

As to the forum thing, (it is humorous that a southerner has to explain how a forum works) you see those big words at the top of the page.  The title of the thread (thats the thing we are presently writing within the context of)  is:  Is The Bible Corrupted? 

 

Now the way a forum works is if you have something you want to talk about you start a thread on that subject in the appropriate area for said topic.  When you go to the main page (thats the one that says Islamic Forum in the letters at the top) then you scroll down to a particular area known as Islamic forums.  For the topic you are wanting you go to Answering anti-Islamic Allegations.  You click the right side of your mouse on the blue letters that say: Answering anti-Islamic Allegations.  Then when the page changes and it says Answering anti-Islamic Allegations in the square thingy at the top you scroll down (not too far though okay?) and on the right there will be this black button with white letters that say: Start New Topic  .  When you click on the black box with the words: Start New Topic a screen will come up.  The square thingy at the top of your page will now say: Posting New Topic.  There will be some greyish letters that will say: Topic Title.  Underneath those words is a big white space.  You click on the empty space under those words.  In said empty space you type in 2 Questions about the Qur'an (or whichever way you wish to phrase it)

 

Isn't learning fun?

 

p.s.

We are also taught btw that while we are not to say anything is false in the context of older scriptures that is in accordance with whether or not it contradicts the Qur'an.  If it does then it is to be believed as one of the corrupted scriptures, if it is not then it is not.  Don't cherry pick like you are Pat Robertson or something.  When you cherry pick the Qur'an you are no better than the Muslims who do the same to the Bible.  Finally, address the topic that is being discussed here and try to stay on topic.  Its not hard.  Stay within the parameters of the subject.  By staying within the parameters of the subject we keep it from spiraling into one thing after another and hopefully at the very least learn differing views from one another in a complete and whole fashion.  This is always better than letting a relatively important discussion in the communication between Islam and Christianity fall apart into nothing more than a bicker fest.

[COD1981 0]

[at] abdullahfath

Point well made on ‘The way a form works’ Thanks for the tutorial :)

I will try once again to get an answer by opening a thread.

I have no problem with anyone so called ‘Cherry picking’ the Bible to help support their argument. If someone has missed the bigger picture by focusing on a ‘Cherry picked’ extract I expect this to be pointed out to that person. Some of us are here to try and learn and understand each others religion. This will involve involves frank, open and probing discussion but without being offensive. This will also means analysis of text which will involve focusing on specifics. Since you are much more qualified than me to speak of the Quran I expect people of the Islamic faith to correct me if my interpretation of text is incorrect.  

Can you tell me of an older scripture that you consider uncorrupted? How about the Great Isaiah Scroll? We have the original remember. But if it contradicts the Quran which it does it must be corrupted. Right? A corrupted original. Now I'm really confused. 

 

Oops! I did it again. Better stay on the topic. I’ll open another Thread for this question.     

[IAmZamzam 35]

COD, just read through the rest of the thread. We've been over stuff already. In short, most scriptures which contradict the Koran are of no consequence since few are connected to it. It's all back there by now.

Edited February 10, 2013 by Yahya Sulaiman

[xtremecheese 1]

“

 

“At the end of the day you are still stuck with being a sinner and as a sinner you need a saviour!”

 

Indeed we do. Good thing our Maker is both omnipotent and good. Even a human being doesn’t need to do anything more than say, “I forgive you.” Why should a deity? In all my life I’ve never heard a good answer to this, just circular arguments about “the law” and what not, and the same misinterpretations about animal sacrifices we’ve already been over before (which doesn't answer the question anyway). When your friend says to you, “Look, I’m so sorry I did that to you, I know I deserve to be punched in the face and I wouldn’t blame you if you did it, but could you find it in your heart to have some mercy on me?” you don’t go, “Sure, no problem, man,” and then give *yourself* a good slobberknocker, saying, “Well, *someone* had to get hit!”

 

Ah, you are on very shaky ground here! a human does not have the authority to forgive sin, Pslam 51: verses 3 & 4 will tell you that we commit our sins against God and God only.

We know that the price of sin is death, so what has to happen if we sin?

 

A good God cannot be a liar, he has to punish sin.

[IAmZamzam 35]

COD: you not only missed most of the thread, you also missed the Oxford citation I gave after you already appeared. Here’s the relevant part:

 

“Their astonishing range of textual variants [has] prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100.”

Xtremecheese: So blood must be spilled, period, even if it’s an innocent man’s blood, because God just can’t find it in him to simply go, “I forgive you; let’s let bygones be bygones already”? Yes, only God has the power to forgive sins. But if He has the power to forgive us, and is feeling merciful enough to forgive us, what is to stop Him from doing so? I put it this way once at another board:

 

“Let us say that I told you about a murder trial in which the automatic penalty in the case of a conviction is death, barring a pardon from the judge. (This judge, by the way, is someone that you respect and trust a great deal.) A pardon is exactly what the culprit gets. The judge grants him the pardon, bangs his gavel, and everyone starts to rise from their seats because they naturally think that the whole thing is over. But then, with the very next bang of his gavel, the judge pronounces a death sentence on *himself*. You ask me, in response to hearing this tale, why the judge would do such a thing, *how* he could do such a thing. I tell you that the law demands that someone has to be put to death when a capital crime is committed and since the judge pardoned the culprit he is naturally obligated to execute himself instead. You protest the logic to me and I say, “Look, they’ve been doing something like this since ancient times and this is just fulfilling the tradition. The law demands that this go on. The judge himself wrote that law. Who are you to argue with it?” What would your reaction be? To assume that I must be wrong about a judge as good and wise as you believe this one to be ever authoring such a law? Or would you think that that my story about the judge, and maybe also the very existence of the law I spoke of, isn’t true? Or that you have been gravely mistaken about this judge being good and wise in the first place? Or would you just shrug and go, “Oh well, I guess that’s good enough for me”?

[xtremecheese 1]

COD: you not only missed most of the thread, you also missed the Oxford citation I gave after you already appeared. Here’s the relevant part:

 

“Their astonishing range of textual variants [has] prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100.”

 

Xtremecheese: So blood must be spilled, period, even if it’s an innocent man’s blood, because God just can’t find it in him to simply go, “I forgive you; let’s let bygones be bygones already”? Yes, only God has the power to forgive sins. But if He has the power to forgive us, and is feeling merciful enough to forgive us, what is to stop Him from doing so? I put it this way once at another board:

 

“Let us say that I told you about a murder trial in which the automatic penalty in the case of a conviction is death, barring a pardon from the judge. (This judge, by the way, is someone that you respect and trust a great deal.) A pardon is exactly what the culprit gets. The judge grants him the pardon, bangs his gavel, and everyone starts to rise from their seats because they naturally think that the whole thing is over. But then, with the very next bang of his gavel, the judge pronounces a death sentence on *himself*. You ask me, in response to hearing this tale, why the judge would do such a thing, *how* he could do such a thing. I tell you that the law demands that someone has to be put to death when a capital crime is committed and since the judge pardoned the culprit he is naturally obligated to execute himself instead. You protest the logic to me and I say, “Look, they’ve been doing something like this since ancient times and this is just fulfilling the tradition. The law demands that this go on. The judge himself wrote that law. Who are you to argue with it?” What would your reaction be? To assume that I must be wrong about a judge as good and wise as you believe this one to be ever authoring such a law? Or would you think that that my story about the judge, and maybe also the very existence of the law I spoke of, isn’t true? Or that you have been gravely mistaken about this judge being good and wise in the first place? Or would you just shrug and go, “Oh well, I guess that’s good enough for me”?

 

Well, in your response you have already argued that Grace is more important that the law, now the law which muslims hold to so dearly requires death, whereas grace which Christians hold on to gives us a greater love for the law - do you understand? see Romans 8 for more details.

However your response is flawed at it's foundations, you've specified an 'innocent's man's blood' - there are no innocent men!

The trouble with sin is that it needs to be covered, sin is far more inflamatory than you believe, it is the reason why we have death in this world and is the reason why this world is in so much trouble, the good news however is that this death has been broken with the perfect sacrifice which is Jesus Christ.

[COD1981 0]

Yahga Sulaiman

 

 

Didn’t miss the citation. I take it your source for the Oxford citation was Wikipedia. Isn't Wikipedia great. So easy to find info on almost anything. 

Here is what Wikipedia says about the Great Isaiah Scroll.

“This copy of Isaiah contains many minor differences from the later Masoretic text (the text which forms the basis of the modern Hebrew bible). Most of the differences are simply grammatical (for example, spelling certain words with an extra letter that does not alter the pronunciation). Of the remainder,
for example some added words, most do not significantly alter the meaning of the passage.^”

 

^{Of the 972 documents found at least we can prove the Great Isaiah Scroll that we read today in the Bibles Old Testament is consistent with the original scripture. What more proof is needed on this scripture?} 

 

 

[IAmZamzam 35]

COD: Boy you are really hyperfocused on Isaiah. What's so important about it? Is it that "prophecy"? Didn't you see the link I gave about it earlier? I'll take "the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100" over a statement about single one book in particular any day. A lot of finds have taught a lot of things, and that one seems to have clinched it, if you'll read the quote.

 

John Paul and xtremecheese: If you really believe that the suffering of an animal is what a person's atonement consists of and not the act itself, the intentions, the repentance, then you may as well say look at sin as a transfusion of diseased blood for all the difference it makes. That's the problem with your religion: for all your elaborate talk about "sin" you don't even know what it is: it's a choice, a matter of free will, of action. It's not a trait, an *object* that can be passed from one creature to another. The only way to alleviate an action is to atone for it *yourself*, and in such a circumstance the slighted party has the option of either (a) punishing the guilty party and NO ONE ELSE or (b) pardoning the guilty party and NO ONE ELSE. Period. Every time I try to explain this to someone I fail. Only Allah can help you. There's nothing I can do. I give up. I should've realized the futility ages ago and not let it bring me down.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Yahya Sulaiman

[COD1981 0]

 

The reason I am hyper focused on Isaiah is because the book of Isaiah provides us with the most comprehensive prophetic picture of Jesus Christ in the entire Old Testament. It includes the full scope of His life: the announcement of His coming (Isaiah 40:3–5), His virgin birth (7:14), His proclamation of the good news (61:1), His sacrificial death (52:13–53:12), and His return to claim His own (60:2–3). Because of these and numerous other christological texts in Isaiah, the bookstands as a testament of hope in the Lord, the One who saves His people.

[IAmZamzam 35]

I've done what I can for you guys, which is zilch. At least abdullah doesn't seem to need any help anymore. I think I may take a break from this forum for a few days now. I've been posting at two boards now and I have fibromyalgia.

[Greg 17]

Please don't be disheartened Yahya, you have done all that is asked of you. Allah guides who he chooses and closes the heart and eyes of those who he chooses. None of us can make someone see if Allah has closed them.

 

"if they argue with you, say 'I have devoted myself to God alone and so have my followers'. Ask those who were given the scripture as well as those without one, 'Do you too devote yourselves to Him alone?' If they do they will be guided, nut if they turn away, your only duty is to convey the message. God is aware of His servants." 3.20

[The Shrew 17]

Yahya,  regarding post 38

 

 

First off it doesn’t matter one tiny whit to a Muslim if the New Testament claims that Jesus (P) was this “prophet like unto Moses” mentioned in Deuteronomy 18. There isn’t a single *mention* of the New Testament anywhere in the Koran, let alone an endorsement. As I’ve explained to people a trillion times before, the Gospel the Koran *does* endorse is not any of the biblical Gospels but rather one of the many lost Gospels outside of the Bible. Surah 5, verse 110 and surah 57, verse 27 explains that this Gospel was revealed directly to Jesus himself and as such he had some sort of hand in its writing: obviously this does not apply to any of the four canonical Gospels. If it had been one of them then the parable in surah 48, verse 29 would have had a biblical parallel.

Hay its a Muslim argument not mine. As for the no mentioning of the Koran in the Bible (shrug). Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture came well Before the Koran. There is also no mention of the Koran in the Torah. So where does that put the Koran? Muslims are the one trying to strech Duet. 18 to Muhammed. Not Christians.

 

 

The New Testament hardly has a good track record when it comes to understanding Old Testament prophecy anyway. For example Matthew 27:9-10 cites the wrong book altogether, referring to Jeremiah when it seems to mean Zechariah 11:12-13. Assuming that was even meant to be a prophecy, which in context it doesn’t look like it was. Very few of them ever do look like prophecies in context.

Since you want to look at St. Matthew 27:9-10 lets look. Then it was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremias the prophet, saying: And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was prized, whom they prized of the children of israel. And they gave them unto the potter's field, As the Lord apponted to me.

 

You seem to think you have stumbled uppon something here don't ya? It has been answered before. You don't think in the 2000 plus years of the Church that it has been addressed? Here is is below simply put.

 

 

Ver. 9.

Then was fulfilled that which was
spoken by Jeremias. Jeremias is now in all Latin copies, and the general reading of the Greek; whereas the passage is found in Zacharias xi. 12. Some judge it to have been in some writing of Jeremias, now lost; as St. Jerome says he found it in a writing of Jeremias, which was not canonical. Others conjecture, that Zacharias had also the name of Jeremias. Others, that St. Matthew neither put Jeremias nor Zacharias, but only of the prophet: and that the name of Jeremias had crept into the text. Jeremias is not in the Syrica[syriac?]; and St. Augustine says it was not in divers copies. --- And they took the thirty pieces of silver; each of which was called an argenteus. The evangelist cites not the words, but the sense of the prophet, who was ordered to cast the pieces into the house of the Lord, and to cast them to the potter:[2] which became true by the fact of Judas, who cast them into the temple: and with them was purchased the potter's field. The price of him that was prized. In the prophet we read, the handsome price, spoken ironically, as the Lord did appoint me; i.e. as he had decreed. (Witham)

 

From the Haydoc commentary.

 

 

And when you think about it, it shouldn’t even be a supreme priority to a *Christian* if the New Testament says that the Deuteronomy passage refers to Jesus. The New Testament doesn’t even consider *itself* to be inerrant. Oh yeah, I’ll bet you didn’t know *that*, did you? Don’t throw 2 Timothy 3:16 at me: that’s referring to whatever was considered “scripture” in Paul’s *own* time and place. The New Testament couldn’t very well have existed while it was still being written, now could it? And on three different occasions (1 Corinthians 7:12 and 7:25, 2 Corinthians 11:17) St. Paul announces that what he’s about to tell us is all him and most definitely *not* inspired by God. Or is it an error when he implies that there might be errors?

 

Once again this has all been adressed before. Here it is below. From the Haydoc commentary.

 

Ver. 16. All scripture divinely inspired is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, or admonish, to instruct others in justice, and in the ways of virtue, that thus he who is a man of God, a minister of the gospel, may be perfect and instructed unto every good work. But when our adversaries of the pretended reformation, undertake from these four verses to shew, first, that every ignorant man or woman is hereby warranted to read and put what construction his or her private spirit, or private judgment, suggests upon all places of the holy Scriptures; and secondly, that the Scriptures alone contain all truths which a Christian is bound to believe; or at least, that the Scriptures teach him all things necessary to salvation, without regard to the interpretation and authority of the Catholic Church: I may at least say (without examining at present any other pretended grounds of these assertions) that these consequences are very remote from the text and sense of St. Paul in this place. As to the first, does this follow; the Scriptures must be read by Timothy, a priest, a bishop, a man of God, a minister of the gospel, whose office it is to instruct and convert others, therefore they are proper to be read and expounded by every ignorant man or woman? Does not St. Paul say elsewhere, (2 Corinthians ii. 17.) that many adulterate and corrupt the word of God? does not St. Peter tell us also, (2 Peter iii.
16.) that in St. Paul's epistles are some things....which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as also the other scriptures, to their own perdition? See the preface to the Gospel of St. John, where reasons are brought for which it was requisite that the Church should put some restraint to the abuse which the ignorant made of reading the Scriptures in vulgar tongues. As to the second consequence, does it follow: every Scripture divinely inspired is profitable for St. Timothy, for a priest, a bishop, a man of God, a minister and preacher of the gospel, to teach and instruct, and conduce to bring both him and others to salvation; therefore they contain all things that a Christian need to believe? &c. Is not every Christian bound to believe that the books in the canon of the New and Old Testament are of divine authority, as in particular these two epistles of St. Paul to Timothy? Where does the Scripture assure us of this? But of this elsewhere. (Witham) --- Every part of divine Scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures which Timothy knew from his infancy, (that is, with the Old Testament alone) nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles and the interpretation of the Church, to which the apostles delivered both the book and the true meaning of it. (Challoner)

 

 

Besides, look at how the Testament seems to contradict itself on the issue of this prophet’s identity in John 1

Ok lets look at John's testimony of who he (John) was. He was answering who he was or was not. We will start at verse 15 and go to verse 29.

 

John 1:15-29 John beareth whitness of him, and crieth out, saying: This was he of whom I spoke: He that shall come after me, is preferred before me: because he was before me. 16 And of his fulness we all have received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. 18 No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. 19 And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent from Jerusalem priests and Levites to him, to ask him: Who art thou? 20 And he confessed, and din not deny: and he confessed: I am not the Christ. 21 And they asked him: What then? Art thou Elias? and he said: I am not. Art thou the prophet? and he answered; No. 22 They said therfore unto him: Who art thou, that we may give an answer to them that sent us? What sayest thou of thyself? 23 He said; I am the voice of the one crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Isaias. 24 And they taht were sent, were of the Parisees. 25 And they asked him, and said to him: Why then dost thou baptize, if thou be not Christ, nor Elias, nor the prophet? 26 John answered them saying: I baptize with water; but there hath stood one in the midst of you, whom you know not. 27 The same is he that shall come after me, who is preferred before me: the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to loose. 28 These things were done in Bethania, beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. 29 The next day, John saw Jesus coming to him, and he saith: Behold teh Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world.

 

It was obvious you needed to keep reading the chapter. But incase that is not clear to you. I will again give you a commentary from Haydoc below.

 

 

Ver. 15.

Is preferred before me.[4]
Literally, is made before me. The sense, says St. Chrysostom is, that he
is greater in dignity, deserves greater honour, &c. though born after me, he
was from eternity. (Witham)

 

Ver. 16.

And of his fulness we all have
received; not only Jews, but also all nations. --- And grace for
grace.[5] It may perhaps be translated grace upon grace, as Mr.
Blackwall observes, and brings a parallel example in Greek out of Theognis, p.
164. It implies abundance of graces, and greater graces under the new law of
Christ than in the time of the law of Moses; which exposition is confirmed by
the following verse. (Witham) --- Before the coming of the Messias all men had
the light of reason. The Greeks had their philosophy, the Jews the law and
prophets. All this was a grace and favour bestowed by God, the author of all
good. But since the word was made flesh, God has made a new
distribution of graces. He has given the light of faith, and caused the
gospel of salvation to be announced to all men; he has invited all nations to
the faith and knowledge of the truth. Thus he has given us one grace for
another; but the second is infinitely greater, more excellent, and more abundant
than the first. The following verse seems to insinuate, that the evangelist
means the law by the first grace, and the gospel by the second. Compare likewise
Romans i. 17. The Jews were conducted by faith to faith; by faith
in God and the law of Moses, to the faith of the gospel, announced by
Christ. (Calmet)

 

Ver. 18.

No man hath seen God. No
mortal in this life by a perfect union and enjoyment of him. Nor can any
creature perfectly comprehend his infinite greatness: none but his only begotten
divine Son, who is in the bosom of his Father, not only by an union of
grace, but by an union and unity of substance and nature; of which Christ said,
(John xiv. 11.) I am in the Father, and the Father in me.
(Witham)

 

Ver. 19.

The Jews sent, &c. These
men, who were priests and Levites, seem to have been sent and
deputed by the sanhedrim, or great council at Jerusalem, to ask of John the
Baptist, who was then in great esteem and veneration, whether he was not their
Messias; who, as they knew by the predictions of the prophets, was to come about
that time. John declared to them he was not. To their next question, if he was
not Elias? He answered: he was not: because in person he was not;
though our Saviour (Matthew xi. 14.) says he was Elias: to wit, in spirit and
office only. Their third question was, if he was a prophet? He answered,
no. Yet Christ (Matthew xi.) tells us, he was a prophet, and more than
a prophet. In the ordinary acceptation only, they were called prophets who
foretold things to come: John then, with truth, as well as humility, could say
he was not a prophet; not being sent to foretell the coming of the Messias, but
to point him out as already come, and present with the Jews.
(Witham)

 

Ver. 23.

The voice of one crying in the
wilderness. See Matthew iii. 3.; Mark i. 3.; Luke iii. 4.; and Isaias xl. 3.
by all which John was his immediate precursor. (Witham)

 

Ver. 26.

Hath stood. St. John the
Baptist, by these words, which he spoke to the priests and Levites, sent to him
by the Pharisees, did not mean to tell them, that Jesus was either at the
present time standing amongst them, or that he had ever been in the presence of
the self same people; but they may be understood two different ways, either with
regard to his divinity; and in that sense, Jesus was always by his divine
presence amongst them; or in regard to his humanity; either that he lived in the
same country, and among their countrymen, or, that he stood actually amongst
them, because Jesus was accustomed yearly to go up to Jerusalem on the festival
of the Pasch. (Denis the Carthusian)

 

Ver. 29.

Behold the Lamb of God. John
the Baptist let the Jews know who Jesus was, by divers testimonies. 1st, By
telling them he was the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin, or sins of the
world, who was come to be their Redeemer, and to free mankind from the slavery
of sin; 2ndly, that he was greater than he, and before him, though
born after him; 3rdly, that God had revealed to him that Jesus was to
baptize in the Holy Ghost; 4thly, that he saw the Spirit descending
upon him from heaven, and remaining upon him; 5thly, that he was
the Son of God, ver. 34. (Witham) --- Who taketh away. It was only
a being like Christ, in whose person the divine and human natures were united,
that could effectually take away the sins of the world. As man, he was enabled
to suffer; and as God, his sufferings obtained a value equal to the infinite
atonement required. (Haydock)

 

 

it is getting late now and the response is getting lengthy. So I will leave you with what I have posted for now.

[IAmZamzam 35]

Go ahead and have any last word you like. I think that by now I've made by point about Christianity sufficiently enough to let my arguments stand on their own, and this Haydoc guy doesn't even look like he's worth the effort of a rebuttal. You'll probably write yet another response behind my back after I told I'm leaving the thread, but I'm making this post to announce that you shouldn't be seeing much more of me anymore. I came back here in the first place to have the option of talking to someone in private. I sort of got caught up in stuff. I was supposed to be a lurker. I suppose that's what I'll be again.

 

It's probably an old tune by now. I guess time will just have to tell, huh?

Edited February 12, 2013 by Yahya Sulaiman

[xtremecheese 1]

COD: Boy you are really hyperfocused on Isaiah. What's so important about it? Is it that "prophecy"? Didn't you see the link I gave about it earlier? I'll take "the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100" over a statement about single one book in particular any day. A lot of finds have taught a lot of things, and that one seems to have clinched it, if you'll read the quote.

 

John Paul and xtremecheese: If you really believe that the suffering of an animal is what a person's atonement consists of and not the act itself, the intentions, the repentance, then you may as well say look at sin as a transfusion of diseased blood for all the difference it makes. That's the problem with your religion: for all your elaborate talk about "sin" you don't even know what it is: it's a choice, a matter of free will, of action. It's not a trait, an *object* that can be passed from one creature to another. The only way to alleviate an action is to atone for it *yourself*, and in such a circumstance the slighted party has the option of either (a) punishing the guilty party and NO ONE ELSE or (b) pardoning the guilty party and NO ONE ELSE. Period. Every time I try to explain this to someone I fail. Only Allah can help you. There's nothing I can do. I give up. I should've realized the futility ages ago and not let it bring me down.

 

:)

:)

No, sin requires death and not suffering (though the two are often inseperable!), the atonement is therefore a covering of sins by the blood of an innocent - the blood of course being the life of a creature (as declared in Levtiticus 17:11) without blood, no oxygen can get to the brain, and when the brain is starved of oxygen, of course we die. Simple repentance without sacrifice is unacceptable as by the very definition of repenting of your sins, you are a blemished sacrifice and hence unacceptable to God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's the problem with your religion: for all your elaborate talk about "sin" you don't even know what it is: it's a choice, a matter of free will, of action. It's not a trait, an *object* that can be passed from one creature to another. The only way to alleviate an action is to atone for it *yourself*, and in such a circumstance the slighted party has the option of either (a) punishing the guilty party and NO ONE ELSE or (b) pardoning the guilty party and NO ONE ELSE. Period. Every time I try to explain this to someone I fail. Only Allah can help you. There's nothing I can do. I give up. I should've realized the futility ages ago and not let it bring me down.

 

 

 

WOAH! atone for it yourself???!!! ye shall be as gods?

As a sinner you stand as an unnaceptable offering - imperfection cannot become perfection by using imperfection!

[parvez mushtaq 4]

This is quite a shocking statement, what you have told me here is that you place the demands of the world - the demands of men above the word of God.

Since when did the world dictate what was right and wrong? surely there are absolutes when it comes to right and wrong, and those absolutes come from God - not the world.

Salams

 

There you are ,dear cheese ( i like cheese ! )

 

not only you ,every one who thinks himself modern thinks this way

life of world -  ruled by constitution of the state

godliness - guided by the holy scriptures

But the fact is ,both are being ruled by scriptures

and they(scriptures) ruled in the past , this is the fact

let me give you a verse from Qur'an

 

               96.5 Has taught man that which he knew not

 

weather it may be Christianity or Hinduism or Islam any scripture you  have these set of laws

only difference is ,in the case other scriptures ,these laws are outdated ,whereas in the case of Islam even today they hold good

while other religions have thrown their scriptures,only Muslims are successfully implementing Qur'an in their day today life 

For a Muslim every thing is religion

because Islam deals with every thing

And thus every thing for a Muslim is a duty towards GOD

Doing business,living with wife , bring up children,going to friends house,visiting relatives house ...every thing , Qur'an has left nothing

 

Do you know what was the last scripture that ruled the world  after Qur'an

It was bible

but today only few countries are holding it and this is the matter of prime prejudice between Muslims and others particularly Christians.

Today countries like Philippines and Ireland are following bible ,but how far it is successful

that is why i have  started this thread

 

 

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/740219-innocence-of-muslims-or-it-should-be-innocence-of-christians/

 

Look at the testimonies of your modern Christians regarding your bible

 

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/740219-innocence-of-muslims-or-it-should-be-innocence-of-christians/?do=findComment&comment=1270358

 

See ,your own people are throwing  your bible ,not Muslims not Hindus but Christians don't  want their bible to rule them

watch the video and write your comments

 

for other things , i think mine as well as your friends are answering you in a excellent way

 

Regards

 

 

Mushtaq

[xtremecheese 1]

Salams

 

There you are ,dear cheese ( i like cheese ! )

 

not only you ,every one who thinks himself modern thinks this way

life of world -  ruled by constitution of the state

godliness - guided by the holy scriptures

But the fact is ,both are being ruled by scriptures

and they(scriptures) ruled in the past , this is the fact

let me give you a verse from Qur'an

 

               96.5 Has taught man that which he knew not

 

weather it may be Christianity or Hinduism or Islam any scripture you  have these set of laws

only difference is ,in the case other scriptures ,these laws are outdated ,whereas in the case of Islam even today they hold good

while other religions have thrown their scriptures,only Muslims are successfully implementing Qur'an in their day today life 

For a Muslim every thing is religion

because Islam deals with every thing

And thus every thing for a Muslim is a duty towards GOD

Doing business,living with wife , bring up children,going to friends house,visiting relatives house ...every thing , Qur'an has left nothing

 

Do you know what was the last scripture that ruled the world  after Qur'an

It was bible

but today only few countries are holding it and this is the matter of prime prejudice between Muslims and others particularly Christians.

Today countries like Philippines and Ireland are following bible ,but how far it is successful

that is why i have  started this thread

 

 

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/740219-innocence-of-muslims-or-it-should-be-innocence-of-christians/

 

Look at the testimonies of your modern Christians regarding your bible

 

http://www.gawaher.com/topic/740219-innocence-of-muslims-or-it-should-be-innocence-of-christians/?do=findComment&comment=1270358

 

See ,your own people are throwing  your bible ,not Muslims not Hindus but Christians don't  want their bible to rule them

watch the video and write your comments

 

for other things , i think mine as well as your friends are answering you in a excellent way

 

Regards

 

 

Mushtaq

 

:) I am glad you like cheese, I too am very fond of it!

 

Okay, firstly you state that the Koran deals with everything, well I'd beg to differ as it does not explain why a Holy God would create sin, and furthermore why we all are in bondage to it.

Also the Koran insists that the opinion of a man is worth 2 women - by todays world standards that's sexisim, and by your standards that makes the Koran obsolete. I mean come on! you are arguing that the world drives God and not the other way around.

 

Now you've linked to a thread which engages in the classic argument about the sun revolving around the earth. I'm sorry but there is no need to argue against this point, it's childish and does not need me to go into any further depth than asking if you can stop the sun from rising in the east or not. I suspect not.

 

The Bible has never rueled the world. You should be aware that the king of this world is Satan, and naturally as the world becomes darker and darker as it is today, teachings which arise that obscure the truth and redemption of the cross. As I've already stated, the rise of Islam has not improved the west, only complimented in it's downfall.

 

Finaly, every man is in conflict with the Bible, the Bible reveals God to be holy and that man isin't if you believe otherwise then you make God a liar (1st John 1:10)

 

[parvez mushtaq 4]

:) I am glad you like cheese, I too am very fond of it!

 

Okay, firstly you state that the Koran deals with everything, well I'd beg to differ as it does not explain why a Holy God would create sin, and furthermore why we all are in bondage to it.

Salams Cheese

 

I think you are going out of the topic and this is beyond the scope of this thread

you have start a new thread for this

 

 

 

 

Also the Koran insists that the opinion of a man is worth 2 women - by todays world standards that's sexisim, and by your standards that makes the Koran obsolete. I mean come on! you are arguing that the world drives God and not the other way around.

 

 

Again ,this is beyond the scope of this thread

BTW , Your are more like a parrot now 

you are posting some thing which you heard or read some where and these things are not coming out of your mind

BTW can you tell me what you mean by "today's Standards"

does human has changed now

can you tell me the most successful set of laws

It is Islamic all the way

proof is here (click)

and BTW.what is sexism ,you mean to say Islam is belittling women by giving this ratio

you mean to say in  today's world women are enjoying better life style than men

lol, have a heart ,cheese .i have already talked about this (click) .Look at the testimonies of modern Muslim women .They are like princess under Islam

You should bother about modern set legislation where you will never get justice

One more thing i want to tell you is , if ,in Qur'an,God had told us to have 100:1 ratio instead of 2:1 we would have happily followed it because our terms are very simple with regards to GOD "smeenah wa attanah" meaning "we hear and we obey" .No questions asked against the will of GOD! So you have to bother

 

 

 

Now you've linked to a thread which engages in the classic argument about the sun revolving around the earth. I'm sorry but there is no need to argue against this point, it's childish and does not need me to go into any further depth than asking if you can stop the sun from rising in the east or not. I suspect not.

 

 

A real typical christian weasel out .I have seen lot of Christians doing  this when they run out of answers

 

 

The Bible has never rueled the world. 

Lol, Is this your ignorance or another way of delusion

any way ,let me help you follow this link (click) and if you are really interested , then ,google out for separation of church and the state

or concordant

 

You should be aware that the king of this world is Satan, and naturally as the world becomes darker and darker as it is today, teachings which arise that obscure the truth and redemption of the cross. As I've already stated, the rise of Islam has not improved the west, only complimented in it's downfall.

I dont know how many gods do Christians have .initially you had one god who created and rested .then ,son god .now Satan god

One good god who created every thing and even created satan ,a bad god but you good god don't have powers over satan god .lol

your beliefs are really ridiculous

But for us ,there is only one GOD .what ever may be , good ,bad ,ugly   every thing is from Only one almighty .Allah subhanawathal

 

Regrads

 

Mushtaq

[The Shrew 17]

 

parvez,I dont know how many gods do Christians have .initially you had one god who created and rested .then ,son god .now Satan god

One good god who created every thing and even created satan ,a bad god but you good god don't have powers over satan god .lol

your beliefs are really ridiculous

O' comon now. You know quite well that satan is not a god. No Christain text teaches that. Satan is a fallen angel who wished to become God. When satan fell he took I believe it was 1/3 of the angels with him. Satan has been around since the beginning of the world. Go to Gen. and read the cration story through the fall of Adam and Eve. And yes God does have power of satan. But he also gave mankind free will. The devil has been making good look bad and bad look good for a very long time. Satans end is writen we know the victor and it is not satan. The messianic text is in Genisis also when satan is informed that he will strike at the heal of the woman and the woman will strike at his head (the woman is a prefiguration of Mary the mother of Jesus). Jesus will be the one to crush the head of Satan.

[parvez mushtaq 4]

O' comon now. You know quite well that satan is not a god. No Christain text teaches that. Satan is a fallen angel who wished to become God. When satan fell he took I believe it was 1/3 of the angels with him. Satan has been around since the beginning of the world. Go to Gen. and read the cration story through the fall of Adam and Eve. And yes God does have power of satan. But he also gave mankind free will. The devil has been making good look bad and bad look good for a very long time. Satans end is writen we know the victor and it is not satan. The messianic text is in Genisis also when satan is informed that he will strike at the heal of the woman and the woman will strike at his head (the woman is a prefiguration of Mary the mother of Jesus). Jesus will be the one to crush the head of Satan.

Salams

 

I think you haven't read his(extremechese)  quote

 

His quote runs like

 

 

.xtremecheese, on 13 Feb 2013 - 09:04

.......You should be aware that the king of this world is Satan.....

 

The word "King of this world" is one of the attribute of Allah Subhanavatala

When this attribute is given to satan ,what you will expect from me

actually this is not his fault

rather this is fault of the church

you people are programed this way

All good things are from god and all bad things are from satan .this is what church teaches

but we have a different view point ,rather the correct one

Btw , I don't know why you are bringing bible here

i don't know  from when Christians have started believing in bible

If so , what happened to the rest of the bible

The point is ,since Christians themselves cannot follow bible,obviously ,it cannot be from GOD

IT IS CORRUPTED !

every christian testifies this

One more thing i want to add is about Mary ,you people have even taken her to be a god

if you say no ,then read about the Temple of Mary

You people are pagans , real pagans

Sorry to call you this way ,but these are not my words even Sir Issac Newton called you this way .

 

Regards

 

Mushtaq

[The Shrew 17]

Salams

 

I think you haven't read his(extremechese)  quote

 

His quote runs like

 

 

The word "King of this world" is one of the attribute of Allah Subhanavatala

When this attribute is given to satan ,what you will expect from me

actually this is not his fault

rather this is fault of the church

you people are programed this way

All good things are from god and all bad things are from satan .this is what church teaches

but we have a different view point ,rather the correct one

Btw , I don't know why you are bringing bible here

i don't know  from when Christians have started believing in bible

If so , what happened to the rest of the bible

The point is ,since Christians themselves cannot follow bible,obviously ,it cannot be from GOD

IT IS CORRUPTED !

every christian testifies this

One more thing i want to add is about Mary ,you people have even taken her to be a god

if you say no ,then read about the Temple of Mary

You people are pagans , real pagans

Sorry to call you this way ,but these are not my words even Sir Issac Newton called you this way .

 

Regards

 

Mushtaq

Well I will let excheese hanlde those. As far as your links don't confuse a shrine and a basilica. Intersession is a whole nother topic and I believe there is a ban on disscussing it here on IF.

[TheAmerican 14]

A good question!

 

Now, before we begin, it is VERY important to note tha translating Arabic to English is difficult, and risky, business. That's one reason why Arabi is stressed for muslims to learn. A lot of things can get lost in the translation, including meanings of words, sentences etc.

 

"None can alter God's word"

 

This can mean many things. It could mean that no one can physically alter it, but that won't stand for God does not interfere with free will. Both Christians and Muslims hold this to be true.

 

You could say that none MAY alter Gods word, which states it can happen, but it is a terrible sin.

 

It may also mean that none can alter the meaning of Gods word, but the wording may (sinfully) be changed.

 

Arabic is a tough language to translate. Take this into account.

[xtremecheese 1]

Salams

 

I think you haven't read his(extremechese)  quote

 

His quote runs like

 

 

The word "King of this world" is one of the attribute of Allah Subhanavatala

When this attribute is given to satan ,what you will expect from me

actually this is not his fault

rather this is fault of the church

you people are programed this way

All good things are from god and all bad things are from satan .this is what church teaches

but we have a different view point ,rather the correct one

Btw , I don't know why you are bringing bible here

i don't know  from when Christians have started believing in bible

If so , what happened to the rest of the bible

The point is ,since Christians themselves cannot follow bible,obviously ,it cannot be from GOD

IT IS CORRUPTED !

every christian testifies this

One more thing i want to add is about Mary ,you people have even taken her to be a god

if you say no ,then read about the Temple of Mary

You people are pagans , real pagans

Sorry to call you this way ,but these are not my words even Sir Issac Newton called you this way .

 

Regards

 

Mushtaq

I'm sure you have noticed that this world is courrpted and that our physical flesh is in bondage to sin?

Please tell me if I'm wrong?

Is God responsible for this corruption and sin? As a Christian, mine isn't.

If you are telling me that your God has made you bondage to this sin then all you are telling me is that you have a God that want's you dead.

So we must not conform to the will of this world and conform only to the will of God - do you at least agree with this last statment?

[parvez mushtaq 4]

I'm sure you have noticed that this world is courrpted and that our physical flesh is in bondage to sin?

Please tell me if I'm wrong?

Is God responsible for this corruption and sin? As a Christian, mine isn't.

If you are telling me that your God has made you bondage to this sin then all you are telling me is that you have a God that want's you dead.

So we must not conform to the will of this world and conform only to the will of God - do you at least agree with this last statment?

Salams

Of course world is corrupted,do you know who are behind this corruption ....CHRISTIANS

they have thrown the bible behind their backs and corrupted the world beyond its original from 

we dont know what is right or wrong ,we dont know what is moral and immoral

Thanks to Christians!

 

 

Firstly i want to answer for this qoute :

 

 

Is God responsible for this corruption and sin? As a Christian, mine isn't.

If you are telling me that your God has made you bondage to this sin then all you are telling me is that you have a God that want's you dead.

Note the highlighted part .As per you , there are two gods , one god for Muslims and one for Christians

 

But , for me there is no such thing like christian god,Muslim god or a Hindu god

For a Muslim ,there is only one GOD and that is Allah subhanawathala

And that is what my Qur'an tells me

 05.072

YUSUFALI: They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help. 

 

Further , in the ayah

  005.117

YUSUFALI: "Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things. 

 

These were the statements made by Jesus (pbuh) in the Qur'an

 

Further

 

057.008

YUSUFALI: What cause have ye why ye should not believe in Allah?- and the Messenger invites you to believe in your Lord, and has indeed taken your Covenant, if ye are men of Faith. 

 

There  are lot of such verses in Qur'an

this is after all true monotheism

See how clear we are in our faith and how much deluded you people are !

 

Your remaining  quote :

 

 

I'm sure you have noticed that this world is courrpted and that our physical flesh is in bondage to sin?

Please tell me if I'm wrong?

Again you are trying to put the blame on satan ,there by making him a god

but Islamically , lets see how these things go

I think you will not have the problem to believe that it was GOD who created satan

 

Next , read this verse

 

015.039

YUSUFALI: (Iblis) said: "O my Lord! because Thou hast put me in the wrong, I will make (wrong) fair-seeming to them on the earth, and I will put them all in the wrong,- 

015.040

YUSUFALI: "Except Thy servants among them, sincere and purified (by Thy Grace)." 

 

Further in

 

007.016

YUSUFALI: He said: "Because thou hast thrown me out of the way, lo! I will lie in wait for them on thy straight way: 

007.017

YUSUFALI: "Then will I assault them from before them and behind them, from their right and their left: Nor wilt thou find, in most of them, gratitude (for thy mercies)." 

 

 

So if your path is correct satan have no power over you

The problem is your faith

 

Now read this ayahs

043.036

YUSUFALI: If anyone withdraws himself from remembrance of (Allah) Most Gracious, We appoint for him an evil one, to be an intimate companion to him. 

 

Is it not Qur'an talking about you ,cheese .not only you ,even if Muslims forget Allah , satan will be with us and that is why there are lot of evil and sin in the world

 

Just read what satan will have to say on the day of judgement

 

014.022

YUSUFALI: And Satan will say when the matter is decided: "It was Allah Who gave you a promise of Truth: I too promised, but I failed in my promise to you. I had no authority over you except to call you but ye listened to me: then reproach not me, but reproach your own souls. I cannot listen to your cries, nor can ye listen to mine. I reject your former act in associating me with Allah. For wrong-doers there must be a grievous penalty." 

 

note the highlighted part ,that is what your doing , as per you world is controlled by satan .

In truth ,We are going after him instead .

 

satan is not controlling us or the world rather we are responding his wishpers

 

As a solution quran says

007.201

YUSUFALI: Those who fear Allah, when a thought of evil from Satan assaults them, bring Allah to remembrance, when lo! they see (aright)! 

007.202

YUSUFALI: But their brethren (the evil ones) plunge them deeper into error, and never relax (their efforts). 

 

 

Do tell me your are not informed of the sin before you commit ,every human is well aware of what is right or what is wrong before doing something wrong

 

So to avert sin , we should remember Allah (my GOD and your GOD ) (rabbi wa rabbukum)

 

 

Thanks for giving me this opportunity to write this 

 

 

Jazak Allah

 

Mushtaq