1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Must Read - Christianity Vs Islam - False Prophet

Discussion in 'NonChristian Help Forum' started by Amy, Aug 27, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Amy

    Amy New Member

    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    Apostle’s Greatest Miracle Was Sex By Ayesha Ahmed 2005/09/18 ​
    Apostle’s greatest miracle was not the Quran. It was his capacity for lovemaking. Allah had given him libido of 30 men. Most infidels don’t even consider the Quran to be a big deal. They say a village idiot can come up with such a book. They claim that any book is better than the Quran. But I ask them, can anyone match the apostle’s lovemaking prowess? Can they at the age 60+ make love to 10 young women in a single night? Yes, the apostle could do it. That is an irrefutable proof of his prophethood, which cannot be duplicated. Bukhari,Volume 1, Book 5, Number 268: “Prophet was given the strength (sexual) of thirty men”. Apostle could make love (continuously) to all his wives (9 to 11) in one night. Volume 1, Book 5, Number 268: "The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number. Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men)." Bukhari,Volume 7, Book 62, Number 6: The Prophet used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 5, Number 270: Aisha said, "I scented Allah's Apostle and he went round (had sexual intercourse with) all his wives." PROPHET SULAIMAN WAS GIVEN SIMILAR STRENGTH Such sexual capability and stamina is Allah’s miracle, which is only given to prophets. Prophet Sulaiman used to have sex with 100 women in one night. Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 74i:Allah's Apostle said, "Once Solomon, son of David said, '(By Allah) Tonight I will have sexual intercourse with one hundred (or ninety-nine) women each of whom will give birth to a knight who will fight in Allah's Cause. EVEN GIBRAEEL VISITED APOSTLE’S BEDROOM His lovemaking was complimented by visits of archangel Gibraeel. Once apostle even introduced Gibraeel to Ayesha. Ordinary mortals cannot see angels, needless to say she was clueless and could not see him. Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 57, Number 112: Narrated Abu Salama: 'Aisha said, "Once Allah's Apostle said (to me), 'O Aish ('Aisha)! This is Gabriel greeting you.' I said, 'Peace and Allah's Mercy and Blessings be on him, you see what I don't see' " She was addressing Allah 's Apostle. ALL HIS OTHER WIVES WATCHED HIM MAKE LOVE Apostle’s love making was outstanding and was watched (and admired) by all his wives.... Bukhari, Book 008, Number 3450: Anas (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) had nine wives. They (all the wives) used to gather every night in the house of one where he had to come (and stay that night). PEEPING TOMS ALSO WATCHED Bukhari , Volume 9, Book 83, Number 38a: A man peeped into one of the dwelling places of the Prophet. Muslim, Book 025, Number 5369: Anas b. Malik reported that a person peeped in some of the holes (in the doors) of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him). Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 38: Narrated Sahl bin Sa'd As-Sa'idi: A man peeped through a hole in the door of Allah's Apostle's house, ALLAH BLESSED HIM WITH SPECIAL PRIVILEDGES FOR SEX Allah not only gave him extraordinary capability for sexual activity but also gave him special privileges to use those capabilities. .Q33.50 : O Prophet! In addition to all your wives, slave girls and captured women, we have made lawful to you all your first cousins and any believing woman if she gave herself to you, and if you desire her. ALLAH BLESSED HIM WITH DIVINE INSPIRATIONS AFTER SEX Allah blessed his lovemaking with divine inspirations afterwards. Tabari Vl7, page :7 Ayesha said “Inspiration came to him when he and I were in a single blanket”. Bukhari Vol 5 Bk57 N 119 Prophet said, By Allah, the Divine Inspiration never came to me while I was under the blanket of any woman except Aesha.” WOMEN OFFERED THEMSELVES TO HIM Apostle got solicitated by hot women all the time (apparently by the publicity of his greatness in bed).. Bukhari,Volume 7, Book 62, Number 24: A woman came to Allah's Apostle and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have come to give you myself Bukhari,Volume 7, Book 62, Number 48: Narrated Hisham's father: Khaula bint Hakim was one of those ladies who presented themselves to the Prophet. 'Aisha said, "Doesn't a lady feel ashamed for presenting herself to a man?" Bukhari,Volume 7, Book 62, Number 53: Narrated Thabit Al-Banani: "A woman came to Allah's Apostle and presented herself to him, saying, 'O Allah's Apostle, have you any need for me ?' "Thereupon Anas's daughter said, "What a shameless lady she was! Shame! Shame!" Anas said, "She was better than you; she had a liking for the Prophet Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 54: “A woman presented herself to the Prophet.” Bukhari,Volume 7, Book 62, Number 58: Narrated Sahl bin Sad: A woman came to Allah's Apostle and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have come to you to present myself to you” HIGH LIBIDO CAUSED QUICK ARROUSALS Apostle got aroused at sight of (attractive) women. Muslim, Book 008, Number 3240: “Jabir reported that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) saw a woman, and so he came to his wife, Zainab, as she was tanning a leather and had sexual intercourse with her”. AROUSED BY CLOSE RELATIVES One day Apostle of Allah walked into his adopted son Zaid’s house. Zaid was not there but he caught a glimpse of his voluptuous and beautiful wife Zainab (she was apostle’s first cousin) in her birthday suit. Tabari wrote: "One day Muhammad went out looking for Zaid. Now there was a covering of hair cloth over the doorway, but the wind had lifted the covering so that the doorway was uncovered. Zaynab was in her chamber, undressed, and admiration for her entered the heart of the Prophet". The admiration aroused him instantly, which Zainab also noticed and mentioned it to her husband Zaid later. He rushed to his father’s house and offered Zainab to him. Mohammed worried about possible bad press and refused to accept it. But Allah will not take no for an answer and insisted on their union. Q 33:37 We gave her (Zaid’s wife) unto thee in marriage, so that (henceforth) there may be no sin for believers in respect of wives of their adopted sons”. AROUSED BY WIFE’S MAIDS Once he entered his wife Hafsa’s room for some reason. Hafsa was not there but he found her lovely young maid Maria instead. He grabbed her and jumped into the bed with her for a quickie. But the quickie was not quick enough and Hafsa walked in and started yelling. To quieten her down and to please her he promised never to touch her maid again. However Allah did not approve of this sacrifice and revealed the following ayas: Q66.1 SHAKIR: O Prophet! why do you forbid (yourself) that which Allah has made lawful for you (slave girl Maria); you seek to please your wife(Hafsa) 66.2 Allah has sanctioned for you to break your promise (go sleep with Hafsa’s maid) AROUSED BY LITTLE GIRLS Apostle was helpless because of his 30 man libido and got excited even when he saw little girls.Ibn Ishaq: Suhayli, 2.79: In the riwaya of Yunus Ibn Ishaq recorded that the apostle saw (Ummu’l-Fadl hen she was baby crawling before him and said, ‘If she grows up and I am still alive I will marry her.’ (ref.10, p. 311) Muhammad saw Um Habiba the daughter of Abbas while she was fatim (age of nursing) and he said, "If she grows up while I am still alive, I will marry her." (Musnad Ahmad, Number 25636) AROUSED BY DREAMS OF LITTLE GIRLS Twice he dreamt of a little girl, the 6 year old pretty daughter of his best friend Abu. She was wrapped in a silk cloth. He uncovered the silk cloth to see more of her. Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 15: Narrated 'Aisha: Allah's Apostle said (to me), "You have been shown to me twice in (my) dreams. A man was carrying you in a silken cloth and said to me, 'This is your wife.' I uncovered it; and behold, it was you. I said to myself, 'If this dream is from Allah, He will cause it to come true.'" He ended up marrying the 6 year old girl of his dreams. HIGH LIBIDO CAUSED REALISTIC DAY DREAMING Apostle could think of having sex with his wives and it felt just like real thing.. Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 71, Number 660: Narrated Aisha: “Allah's Apostle used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not”. DRY CLEANING His day dreaming was so realistic that he even got wet spots on his garments . Ayesha drycleaned those spots. .Bukhari,Book 002, Number 0572: Ayesha said “ In case I found that (semen) on the garment of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) dried up, I scraped it off with my nails”. APOSTL’S LIBIDO HAD ITS LIMITS Apostle was turned off instantly whenever he was suspected of shadiness. One night Ayesha got a punch instead of getting sex because she got suspicious of his strange activities and followed him at night (without his knowledge) to a cemetery, where he stood in darkness waving his hands. Muslimi,Book 004, Number 2127: Ayesha narrated. "He struck me on the chest which caused me pain.” (the hadith is too long, one can read on usc.edu/msa) AL SHANBA GETS KICKED OUT OF BED When the apostle was in bed with his new young and pretty bride Al Shanba bint Amr bin Ghiffuriya, she told him that if he was a real prophet, his most beloved 2 year old son Ibrahim would not have died of sickness after he prayed day and night for him. Apostle kicked her out and divorced her without consummation of the marriage. (She was lucky to have been just kicked out. Allah demands death for doubting Mohammed) (Tabari, vol 9, page 136)
     
  2. Amy

    Amy New Member

    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF ISLAM By: Ayesha Ahmad​
    1 Thou shalt behead apostates, pagans and violators of blasphemy laws, it is halal for you.2.Thou shalt extort money from Christians and Jews, the future hell dwellers, and if they refuse, kill them. But do not hurt their women and children, it is haram for you. However thou shalt enslave them, rape them or sell them for profit, it is halal for you.3. Thou art guaranteed paradise and 72 big bosomed houris (and/or charming young boys), along with other fringes, if you cough up big bucks and take a trip to Mecca. Poverty stricken chaps and losers among you who cannot afford the trip, can earn the same privileges and more by participating in Jihad and killing the infidels. The jihadis will get the additional bonus of sharing the booty and beautiful women from the captured infidel lands. 4. Thou shalt marry a maximum of four wives at a time, except for my messenger whom I have exempted from this limit since his needs are equal to the needs of 30 horny men. However Thou art allowed to change your wives at will for variety and maintenance of your harem quality by divorcing them and acquiring younger specimens. Old bags lose their charm and excitement and must be replenished with a fresh supply. Try to acquire younger and better looking ones preferably virgins, leave the older ones and ugliest for the losers and old fogies. 5. Thou art allowed to have unlimited number of slaves and captive women and have sex with them, it is halal for you. Gay guys among you will have to wait for their fun, we will provide them with charming young boys in paradise. Alcohol lovers, hold your horses until you make it to the paradise, there will be rivers flowing with wine, up there. 6. For those amongst you who have pedophilic tendencies, we have made underage children halal for marriage and your carnal pleasure. However let them keep and play with their dolls while you are at it so that their attention is diverted from their pain and shock. Thou art also allowed to marry your daughter in law in case you keep getting excited by her voluptuous body every time you happen to see her in skimpy clothes. 7 Thou can demand sex from your women any time and anywhere, even on a camel's back. Thou shalt keep a lash or a green stick handy in case they refuse and need a good beating. However while doing it on a camels back with your wife, make sure that the hijab is maintained by keeping all yours and her body parts covered with the burka during the action. In case of doing it with your slave girl on a camel’s back hijab requirement is exempted, you are allowed to enjoy the sunshine and the fresh air along with her curves. 8. Thou shalt not listen to music, watch t.v. or go to the movies, these activities are haram for you. However thou shalt take your family to watch beheadings of apostates and kafirs, cutting of hands and feet of petty thieves, and stoning of adulterers, their viewing is halal for you. 9.Thou shalt not indulge in haram professions like selling non halal meat, food items with lard in it, or confectionary even with 1% liquor in it or working in interest charging banks and mortgage companies etc. Thou shalt only indulge in clean and halal means of earning livelihood like slave trading, looting infidel caravans and communities, killing Jews and acquiring their goods and properties, extortion of jizya and kharaj from captured lands, and booty earning bloody Jihads. 10. Ramadan Rules. Thou art not allowed the pleasure of eating or drinking during the fast (except for wives who have to taste food lest their husbands beat them up for cooking foul tasting food) but thou art allowed to kiss your wives, slaves (only female) and the women your right hand posses, to wait out the rough afternoon hungry period. Thou art not allowed to eat pigs but thou art allowed to pig out after breaking the fast. Thou art not allowed to have conjugal relationship during the fast but art allowed to break a fast with sex instead of food. Husbands are allowed to prohibit wives from fasting to keep the ladies fresh and beautiful for a romantic evening after a hard day of fasting.
     
  3. Jordan

    Jordan Active Member

    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    4
    Godhead is the one that controls the nations and He and Him alone. Maybe you don't believe at all' date=' there is a righteous God' date=' do you? YHWH loves you so much that He gave you His only-begotten Son Yahshua to die for our sins that He might bring us back to YHWH.
    Well already did, Same answer from previous quote... I, again do not trust a bible that uses ALEXANDRIAN text.
    Ok...where is it at?
     
  4. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    71
    I dont mean this to be taken wrong BT but sense Catholics dont even study the Bible as thier main book and choose to write thier own instead. I dont see where you can judge which bible is proper or more accurate according to the manuscripts the KJV is most accurate, though maybe not compared to your catholic writtings. But then we dont consider Catholic books Gods Word. but rather interpetations of the church.
     
  5. Jordan

    Jordan Active Member

    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    4
     
  6. Ricky W

    Ricky W New Member

    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    0
    A'udzubillaahiminasysyaithonirrojiimBismillaahirrohmaanirrohiim("Jordan")
    Nice way of torturing the truth Ricky...It's disgusting. Whatever YHWH did was for righteous reason. Besides YHWH uses war for corrections, for righteous, holy reason...YHWH is not a revengeful monster.
    Torturing truth ??? You are the one who disgusting, i'm not torturing it but I giving you FACT OF WHAT HAS BEEN TOLD IN YOUR BIBLE, Now tell me Jordan What was righteous reasons on KILLING CHILDREN AND ALL WOMEN ?If you can easily saying TRUTH rather then torturing TRUTH against ISLAM (as a matter affect i want to do the same act on you-but i keep patience on it), HOW COME YOU CAN SAY IT TORTURING TRUTH meanwhile a lie against ISLAM you are CONSIDERED TRUTH ?Why Moslem WarAl Baqoroh(2):190. Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.At Taubah(9):12 But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and taunt you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained. At Taubah(9):13 Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!An Nisa(4):90 Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them).Pls note, Not even once in Our Islamic Law to kill women nor children in time of War if we can assure they are there(*as far as I know).Now back again on following YHWH BRUTALLITY TO ORDER KIILLING CHILDREN and WOMEN, what righteous reasons is that ? Gee, Jordan.("Jordan")
    Godhead is the one that controls the nations and He and Him alone. Maybe you don't believe at all, there is a righteous God, do you? YHWH loves you so much that He gave you His only-begotten Son Yahshua to die for our sins that He might bring us back to YHWH.
    I do believe, but i thinks you are the one who don't believe it, Moslem fight because the Justice of God. Btw regarding Yahshua on YHWH, please telling that to the CHILDREN and the WOMEN THAT YHWH HAD ORDER TO KILL THEM ?Wallahu a'lam.
     
  7. Jordan

    Jordan Active Member

    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    4
    Numbers 31:7 - And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.Numbers 31:15 - And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?Numbers 31:16 - Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.Numbers 31:17 - Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.Numbers 31:18 - But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. I underlined it for you to see it for yourself Ricky.Lovest ye in Christ Yahshua our Lord and Saviour.
     
  8. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    71
    What was righteous reasons on KILLING CHILDREN AND ALL WOMEN ?(quote) Ricky these are those who were left from the second influx of fallen angels who mated with women and some descendants of cain whos father was Satan were also there.
     
  9. ami

    ami New Member

    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    0
    I beleive Islam is fack. I am sorry to say that but i say it because i beleive that it is fack. I have not studied the Coran but from what i heard from my muslim friends i have learnt that many things are copied from the bible and many are destorted. This i think is done to suit the purpose of whoever founded this relegion. Here is one example.After reading something on muslims paradise i recently asked a muslim friend,who read the coran entirely, how their paradise looks like. He told me that in their paradise there is everything that they need. There are even special rewards for muslim martyrs who kill unbeleivers for the sake of jihad or something. Can u imagine what the reward is? Yes, the reward for muslim martyrs is virgins with big beautiful eyes. He told me that there is also a fest of food and drinks; rivers of Milk, wine and so on. I wonder if there would be porc. A muslim in paradise can sleep with as many women as he can and eat whatever meal he thinks of. So i asked my muslim friend if they do anything else than sleeping with virgins and eating and drinking. He said that would be their job 24/7. That to me looks like a foolish fairy tale. These stories are used to brainwash so many young muslims and drive them into terrorism.Jesus said there is no marriage in the kingdom of God. He said who so ever belives in him would live like an angle in the kingdom of God. Angles don't get married in the kingdom of God. Angels don't feel their stomach and sleep with women, virgins or whatever. Belivers will serve, worship and praise God. That is what belivers in Jesus would do in the kingdom of God.Jesus is the way, the truth and the life.
     
  10. ami

    ami New Member

    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    0
    Kriss is right. God saves the good from the bad. God is always right. He knows what he does and nobody tells him why he did it.What does evil has to do with holy? Be blessed
     
  11. Tyrel

    Tyrel New Member

    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    0
    (kriss;18703)
    I dont mean this to be taken wrong BT but sense Catholics dont even study the Bible as thier main book and choose to write thier own instead. I dont see where you can judge which bible is proper or more accurate according to the manuscripts the KJV is most accurate, though maybe not compared to your catholic writtings. But then we dont consider Catholic books Gods Word. but rather interpetations of the church.
    First, let me make it clear to you, with gentleness and respect, that I am far from being a Catholic.Second, let me make it clear to you that you are quite in the wrong with what you have said. I pray that you don't misinterpret my intentions. Allow me to explain. My study of Philology, while I have yet to advance in university Theology {because I live in Quebec, and am stuck in Cegep}, has led to a greater understanding and respect for the original manuscripts of the Bible. It is important also to understand that what we know as the Word of God, was passed down to us first orally. Jesus gave us an oral teaching, then he gave us the Holy Spirit, not the other way around. Concerning the KJV, the manuscripts do not comply completely. For example, the verse we observed previously; 1 John 5:7. This reading, in the KJV, is not found in any of the Greek manuscripts at all, nor the Latin Vulgate, until the 16th century. The verse is also not quoted by any Church fathers previous to that time. Even Novatian, who wrote the "Trinity Treatise" never referenced it. Not one Scholar, Church Father, Skeptic, or other ever quoted this verse before the 16th Century. Why would that be? Well, this is simply because it did not exist until the 16th Century. If it was in the Bible, don't you think Eusebius Pamphili of Caesarea would have made mention of it at the Council of Nicea? Recall that he was one of the most outspoken at that council, and his writings helped form our current understanding of the Trinity {even himself having composed the rough draft for the Nicene creed}.{note: The early Church fathers quoted the New Testament extensively, over 36,000 times. Those before Nicea quoted the New Testament over 32,000 Times. We could pretty much recreate the entire New Testament in Greek using just their quotes, if we knew where everything went. Why not once did they quote this verse?}Now, for a translation to have one err, even so embarrassing as this one, is not a huge problem. If it did have only one, then surely it would probably be the best translation on the Market. However, it has greater faults. The Prayer of Matthew is longer than it should be in the KJV. That Prayer underwent edition from some Church fathers long afterwards. The more ancient authorities never have as long a prayer as is found in the KJV today.Now, why is the KJV such an object of religious devotion, is a mystery I may never fully understand. It is a Translation of the original manuscripts. A wonderful translation, which was actually amazingly good considering the time from which it originates, and the circumstances surrounding it's put together. However, today we have many more resources at our disposal. Today we have many more scholars examining not only the ancient codex's such as Vaticanus and Sinaicticus, or Alexandrinus, or others. Today we are considering those ALONG with the thousands of fragmentary texts in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin from very early on.Scholars have developed to date such advanced methodological techniques in the field of Philology that it is quite apparent to the diligent student that we are standing on the shoulders of giants, and have a vantage point because of it. Tyndale was the giant which stood as the Base of the KJV. The KJV is the base for just about all english translations of the Holy Scriptures. However, standing on those shoulders certainly doesn't either diminish it's value, but rather simply allows us to observe these things with more knowledge than we would otherwise have had at our disposal. The KJV, in the history of translations, is an invaluable translation. However, Today's more diligent scholars in unison agree that other translations, while not perfect, are far more accurate to the original manuscripts.Allow me, in order to exemplify this, to give some examples which come to mind. I have already made mention of two. Let us observe two more. For fun, let us make both these problems problems which both the NIV and the KJV have in common.Jeremiah 23:5-6;33:14-16I'll leave it to you to look up either version. Read carefully and you will see that the Branch is said to be called the LORD {YHWH}. Here is what Clarke, a Biblical Scholar, has to say about this passage {read it carefully please};"Jer 23:6 - In his days Judah shall be saved - The real Jew is not one who has his circumcision in the flesh, but in the spirit. The real Israel are true believers in Christ Jesus; and the genuine Jerusalem is the Church of the first-born, and made free, with all her children, from the bondage of sin, Satan, death, and hell. All these exist only in the days of the Messiah. All that went before were the types or significators of these glorious Gospel excellencies.And this is his name whereby he shall be called The Lord Our Righteousness - I shall give the Hebrew text of this important passage: וזה שמו אשר יקראו יהוה צדקנו vezeh shemo asher yikreo Yehovah tsidkenu, which the Septuagint translate as follows, Και τουτο το ονομα αυτον ὁ καλεσει αυτον Κυριος, Ιωσεδεκ, “And this is his name which the Lord shall call him Josedek.” Dahler translates the text thus: - Et voici le nom dont on l’appellera:L’Eternel, Auteur de notre felicite.“And this is the name by which he shall be called;The Lord, the Author of our happiness.”Dr. Blayney seems to follow the Septuagint; he translates thus, “And this is the name by which Jehovah shall call him, Our Righteousness.”In my old MS. Bible, the first English translation ever made, it is thus: - And this is the name that thei schul clepen him: oure rigtwise Lord.Coverdale’s, the first complete English translation of the Scriptures ever printed, (1535), has given it thus: - And this is the name that they shall call him: even the Lorde oure rightuous Maker.Matthews (1549) and Becke (1549) follow Coverdale literally; but our present translation of the clause is borrowed from Cardmarden, (Rouen, 1566), “Even the Lord our righteousness.”Dr. Blayney thus accounts for his translation: - “Literally, according to the Hebrew idiom, ‘And this is his name by which Jehovah shall call, Our Righteousness;’ a phrase exactly the same as, ‘And Jehovah shall call him so;’ which implies that God would make him such as he called him, that is, our Righteousness, or the author and means of our salvation and acceptance. So that by the same metonymy Christ is said to ‘have been made of God unto us wisdom, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,’ 1Co_1:30.“I doubt not that some persons will be offended with me for depriving them, by this translation, of a favourite argument for proving the Divinity of our Savior from the Old Testament. But I cannot help it; I have done it with no ill design, but purely because I think, and am morally sure, that the text, as it stands, will not properly admit of any other construction. The Septuagint have so translated before me, in an age when there could not possibly be any bias or prejudice either for or against the fore-mentioned doctrine, a doctrine which draws its decisive proofs from the New Testament only.”Dahler paraphrases, - “This Prince shall be surnamed by his people, ‘The Lord, the author of our happiness.’ The people shall feel themselves happy under him; and shall express their gratitude to him.”I am satisfied that both the translation from Cardmarden downwards, and the meaning put on these words, are incorrect. I prefer the translation of Blayney to all others; and that it speaks any thing about the imputed righteousness of Christ, cannot possibly be proved by any man who understands the original text. As to those who put the sense of their creed upon the words, they must be content to stand out of the list of Hebrew critics. I believe Jesus to be Jehovah; but I doubt much whether this text calls him so. No doctrine so vitally important should be rested on an interpretation so dubious and unsupported by the text. That all our righteousness, holiness, and goodness, as well as the whole of our salvation, come by Him, from Him, and through Him, is fully evident from the Scriptures; but this is not one of the passages that support this most important truth. See on Jeremiah 33 (note)."For my second example, let us observe an even more "touchy" one.~Isaiah 7:14You may already know the controversy, or some of it. Once again this problem plagues both the NIV and the KJV alike. The KJV reads: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. "The word Here for Virgin, in the Hebrew, is Almah. This word means "young woman". Here is a list of all the times it appears in the Tenack;Genesis 24:43Exodus 2:8Psalm 68:25Proverbs 30:19Song of Songs 1:3Song of Songs 6:8You will notice it is not always translated as Virgin. In fact, in Hebrew, Almah does not mean Virgin. It may indicate purity and in a sense it may be somebody "untouched" meaning unmaried. However, the word in Hebrew for Virgin {who has known no man} is Bethulah. For reference to Strong's numbers;H1330בּתוּלהbethûlâhbeth-oo-law'Feminine passive participle of an unused root meaning to separate; a virgin (from her privacy); sometimes (by continuation) a bride; also (figuratively) a city or state: - maid, virgin.This word describes Virginity in the Hebrew language, whereas Almah, does not.Now, the Hebrew manuscripts that we generally work with are from a much later era than the Septuagint. We have more ancient copies of the Septuagint, by a few hundred years. For a time, it may have been argued that the Jews changed their scripture, and the Septuagint was a more ancient witness to what it really said.{Just in case you didn't know, the Septuagint was the copy quoted throughout the New Testament, and is the only ancient authority which reads "Virgin".G3933παρθένοςparthenospar-then'-osOf unknown origin; a maiden; by implication an unmarried daughter: - virgin.}This argument, albeit weak, was stilled completely with the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran. Among the biblical scrolls found there, there were two full copies of Isaiah. Neither one reads Almah. These all come from hundreds of years before the earliest copies of the Septuagint {where this reading originated} which date back as far as the fourth Century AD. They were also transcribed before the Septuagints widespread circulation outside of circles of Hellenized Jews, and/or Alexandria. It was also composed hundreds of years before Christianity, so there is no motive to change that passage at all. Furthermore, we know there is no chance that it was a scribal error because both copies agree with each other perfectly.Allow me to relate to you an excerpt from the NRSV, a bible I frequently use {though not as often as either NIV or NKJV}."In the course of time, the King James Version came to be regarded as "the Authorized Version." With good reason it has been termed "the noblest monument of English prose," and it has entered, as no other book has, into the making of the personal character and the public institutions of the English-speaking peoples. We owe to it an incalculable debt.Yet the King James Version has serious defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of biblical studies and the discovery of many biblical manuscripts more ancient than those on which the King James Version was based made it apparent that these defects were so many as to call for revision."Now, to be sure, this translation has it's issues as well. The one that really gets to me is the 1 Corinthians 11:16. Though the Greek seems ambiguous in that passage, the context alone should make Paul's emphasis clear. Not to mention that on the basis of this passage Tertullian wrote an entire volume on head veils. The early churches understanding of this verse seems, to me, quite clear.In any case, I'm not going to go through my complaints about various translations. I have yet to find one without any flaws. I also doubt very much if one will ever exist. In the end, I just use the Bible closest to me, and cross check it if necessary.So, you see, the KJV does have many problems. No Scholar would disregard it, but no scholar who wishes to better understand the scriptures would use it exclusively.Also, concerning Catholics not studying the Bible, that is hilariously false. They not only study the Bible, but also study the Early Church Fathers. The early church fathers may be wrong about many things. One of my favorite examples is the Phoenix spoken of by Clement. Check it out;"Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed."~Clement, to the Corinthians, Chap. XXV. — The Phoenix an Emblem of Our Resurrection.However, the Church fathers form the basis for Christianity today. Without Nicea, the Trinity is not prescribed, so arianism is still "Christian". The Church fathers are a great source of wisdom. We have to be mindful, as I said previously, that Paul quoted Tradition of his day, even when it might have been wrong. Let me give an example;2 Timothy 3:8Jambres And Jannes are not the names of the sorcerers in the Torah. In fact, they are nameless in the Torah. These names are rooted in Jewish Oral Tradition. Is it possible that by some chance they happen to be correct? Well, of course, but it certainly doesn't matter.The fact is, that Tradition and scripture give and take from each other. The Greek paradosis refers to something handed on from one to another (good or bad). Good Tradition is spoken of in 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6, and Colossians 2:8 where Christian tradition is said to be superior to the Traditions of men.Christian Tradition, according to the Bible, can be oral as well as written (2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2). St. Paul makes no qualitative distinction between the two forms. In Fact, when using the phrase "Word of God" in the New Testament, the Authors were not talking about the Bible including the works they were creating. They were refering to the Teaching of the Gospel. Which is why when Paul says he presented his Gospel in Romans, he doesn't mean he wrote anything down {Romans 16:25}. He also speaks of the superiority of the Gospel's practice {through accepting the oral teaching} over the markings in ink of the teaching; {2 Corinthians 3:3}.While Tradition must be taken in carefully, it is the greatest testimony to the early Church that we have, and it is brimming with wisdom. That is what I have found in reading them. Clements writings, for example. Many Christians wanted them to be in the New Testament. The only reason they weren't, was because of the system developed by Eusebius. He set up criteria upon which books should be judged for canonicity. The only reason Clement wasn't added by the Church, was because it wasn't directly from an apostle, and it was from just a tad bit after the apostles.To say that one who studies the Early Church Fathers isn't studying the Bible is very silly. Also, if you meant the Catechism; it is a book laying out the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Can one not study this and the Bible as well? I study the Qur'an, does that then mean that I cannot study the Bible?I hope you consider these things. Please take my sig seriously.In love, Tyrel.~Shalom Elechem
     
  12. Amy

    Amy New Member

    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    Biblical Tetragramaton,You question my integrity??? I hear you say that you have read the whole thread but I am amazed at your comprehension. It is unfortunate that muslims feel hurt but truth can not be helped. I am not attacking muslims but you and muslims feel attacked. You know why? Because their belief is in question and I have all the right. No one can take away my what God has given me i.e. my free will through which freedom of speech generates. Don't muslim practise that? See all the links provided here by them. Strange, you don't question their tactics. Perhaps, you classify that self defence but can it be classified as dignified or discrete in any way? You are so naive. People try to get me into conversations but I ignore, you have any idea why? I have never on a single occasion called Ricky, Saleem or any other member for that matter a rapist, a terrorist, or in human etc. and you question my integrity??? One of the members tried supporting his point with a very personal example towards me i.e. my reaction if my daughter was to be raped in front of me. I think I reacted in all dignity to such cheapness. Not once have I brought in any members daughter, mothers or sisters... not even as an example. Guess what, I don't need to. My war is not with flesh it's time you read my signature as well !!!As a free human, you have all the right to form an opinion about me. Being human, I shouldn't care less [​IMG]Consider our dialogue done !All the best :bible:
     
  13. Ricky W

    Ricky W New Member

    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    0
    A'udzubillaahiminasysyaithonirrojiimBismillaahirrohmaanirrohiim(thesuperjag)
    Numbers 31:7 - And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
    Yes it's war, so what ? Don't you know, it's not about the male that I concerned but the INNOCENT ONE. The MALE CHILDREN and WOMEN whom being KILL was ON CAPTIVE, NOT IN WAR AGAINTS ISRAEL AT ALL, AND AGAIN IT JUST A CHILD AND WOMAN ! What a bloody COMMENDED. IF you can questioned what Was on Islam and blasphamy with saying false god according to writers that Amy's link (pay attention on this).Numbers 31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods
    Numbers 31:15 - And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?Numbers 31:16 - Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
    IT'S ONLY A WOMEN ! NOT MEN.Again IF YOU CAN QUESTIONING ISLAM because the same case, THEN WHY DON'T QUESTIONING YHWH WITH THE SAME WAY, and I already give, HOW MERCIFULL ISLAM EVEN in BATTLE WAR SITUATION.("Jordan")
    Numbers 31:17 - Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
    I'll make it bigger so you can see what I meant. And I underlined how UNMERCIFULL YHWH TO CHILD AND WOMEN.Numbers 31:17 - Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
    Numbers 31:18 - But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
    AND THE MOST FUNNY IS MOSES by GUIDENCE OF YHWH ofcours, TOLD ISRAEL TO KEEP THE VIRGIN ONE, WHAT A RIDICALOUS !
    I underlined it for you to see it for yourself Ricky.
    You can see also my comment and underlined for you see for your self.
     
  14. Amy

    Amy New Member

    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Biblical Tetragramaton;18724)
    First, let me make it clear to you, with gentleness and respect, that I am far from being a Catholic.Second, let me make it clear to you that you are quite in the wrong with what you have said. I pray that you don't misinterpret my intentions. Allow me to explain. My study of Philology, while I have yet to advance in university Theology {because I live in Quebec, and am stuck in Cegep}, has led to a greater understanding and respect for the original manuscripts of the Bible. It is important also to understand that what we know as the Word of God, was passed down to us first orally. Jesus gave us an oral teaching, then he gave us the Holy Spirit, not the other way around. Concerning the KJV, the manuscripts do not comply completely. For example, the verse we observed previously; 1 John 5:7. This reading, in the KJV, is not found in any of the Greek manuscripts at all, nor the Latin Vulgate, until the 16th century. The verse is also not quoted by any Church fathers previous to that time. Even Novatian, who wrote the "Trinity Treatise" never referenced it. Not one Scholar, Church Father, Skeptic, or other ever quoted this verse before the 16th Century. Why would that be? Well, this is simply because it did not exist until the 16th Century. If it was in the Bible, don't you think Eusebius Pamphili of Caesarea would have made mention of it at the Council of Nicea? Recall that he was one of the most outspoken at that council, and his writings helped form our current understanding of the Trinity {even himself having composed the rough draft for the Nicene creed}.{note: The early Church fathers quoted the New Testament extensively, over 36,000 times. Those before Nicea quoted the New Testament over 32,000 Times. We could pretty much recreate the entire New Testament in Greek using just their quotes, if we knew where everything went. Why not once did they quote this verse?}Now, for a translation to have one err, even so embarrassing as this one, is not a huge problem. If it did have only one, then surely it would probably be the best translation on the Market. However, it has greater faults. The Prayer of Matthew is longer than it should be in the KJV. That Prayer underwent edition from some Church fathers long afterwards. The more ancient authorities never have as long a prayer as is found in the KJV today.Now, why is the KJV such an object of religious devotion, is a mystery I may never fully understand. It is a Translation of the original manuscripts. A wonderful translation, which was actually amazingly good considering the time from which it originates, and the circumstances surrounding it's put together. However, today we have many more resources at our disposal. Today we have many more scholars examining not only the ancient codex's such as Vaticanus and Sinaicticus, or Alexandrinus, or others. Today we are considering those ALONG with the thousands of fragmentary texts in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin from very early on.Scholars have developed to date such advanced methodological techniques in the field of Philology that it is quite apparent to the diligent student that we are standing on the shoulders of giants, and have a vantage point because of it. Tyndale was the giant which stood as the Base of the KJV. The KJV is the base for just about all english translations of the Holy Scriptures. However, standing on those shoulders certainly doesn't either diminish it's value, but rather simply allows us to observe these things with more knowledge than we would otherwise have had at our disposal. The KJV, in the history of translations, is an invaluable translation. However, Today's more diligent scholars in unison agree that other translations, while not perfect, are far more accurate to the original manuscripts.Allow me, in order to exemplify this, to give some examples which come to mind. I have already made mention of two. Let us observe two more. For fun, let us make both these problems problems which both the NIV and the KJV have in common.Jeremiah 23:5-6;33:14-16I'll leave it to you to look up either version. Read carefully and you will see that the Branch is said to be called the LORD {YHWH}. Here is what Clarke, a Biblical Scholar, has to say about this passage {read it carefully please};"Jer 23:6 - In his days Judah shall be saved - The real Jew is not one who has his circumcision in the flesh, but in the spirit. The real Israel are true believers in Christ Jesus; and the genuine Jerusalem is the Church of the first-born, and made free, with all her children, from the bondage of sin, Satan, death, and hell. All these exist only in the days of the Messiah. All that went before were the types or significators of these glorious Gospel excellencies.And this is his name whereby he shall be called The Lord Our Righteousness - I shall give the Hebrew text of this important passage: וזה שמו אשר יקראו יהוה צדקנו vezeh shemo asher yikreo Yehovah tsidkenu, which the Septuagint translate as follows, Και τουτο το ονομα αυτον ὁ καλεσει αυτον Κυριος, Ιωσεδεκ, “And this is his name which the Lord shall call him Josedek.” Dahler translates the text thus: - Et voici le nom dont on l’appellera:L’Eternel, Auteur de notre felicite.“And this is the name by which he shall be called;The Lord, the Author of our happiness.”Dr. Blayney seems to follow the Septuagint; he translates thus, “And this is the name by which Jehovah shall call him, Our Righteousness.”In my old MS. Bible, the first English translation ever made, it is thus: - And this is the name that thei schul clepen him: oure rigtwise Lord.Coverdale’s, the first complete English translation of the Scriptures ever printed, (1535), has given it thus: - And this is the name that they shall call him: even the Lorde oure rightuous Maker.Matthews (1549) and Becke (1549) follow Coverdale literally; but our present translation of the clause is borrowed from Cardmarden, (Rouen, 1566), “Even the Lord our righteousness.”Dr. Blayney thus accounts for his translation: - “Literally, according to the Hebrew idiom, ‘And this is his name by which Jehovah shall call, Our Righteousness;’ a phrase exactly the same as, ‘And Jehovah shall call him so;’ which implies that God would make him such as he called him, that is, our Righteousness, or the author and means of our salvation and acceptance. So that by the same metonymy Christ is said to ‘have been made of God unto us wisdom, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,’ 1Co_1:30.“I doubt not that some persons will be offended with me for depriving them, by this translation, of a favourite argument for proving the Divinity of our Savior from the Old Testament. But I cannot help it; I have done it with no ill design, but purely because I think, and am morally sure, that the text, as it stands, will not properly admit of any other construction. The Septuagint have so translated before me, in an age when there could not possibly be any bias or prejudice either for or against the fore-mentioned doctrine, a doctrine which draws its decisive proofs from the New Testament only.”Dahler paraphrases, - “This Prince shall be surnamed by his people, ‘The Lord, the author of our happiness.’ The people shall feel themselves happy under him; and shall express their gratitude to him.”I am satisfied that both the translation from Cardmarden downwards, and the meaning put on these words, are incorrect. I prefer the translation of Blayney to all others; and that it speaks any thing about the imputed righteousness of Christ, cannot possibly be proved by any man who understands the original text. As to those who put the sense of their creed upon the words, they must be content to stand out of the list of Hebrew critics. I believe Jesus to be Jehovah; but I doubt much whether this text calls him so. No doctrine so vitally important should be rested on an interpretation so dubious and unsupported by the text. That all our righteousness, holiness, and goodness, as well as the whole of our salvation, come by Him, from Him, and through Him, is fully evident from the Scriptures; but this is not one of the passages that support this most important truth. See on Jeremiah 33 (note)."For my second example, let us observe an even more "touchy" one.~Isaiah 7:14You may already know the controversy, or some of it. Once again this problem plagues both the NIV and the KJV alike. The KJV reads: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. "The word Here for Virgin, in the Hebrew, is Almah. This word means "young woman". Here is a list of all the times it appears in the Tenack;Genesis 24:43Exodus 2:8Psalm 68:25Proverbs 30:19Song of Songs 1:3Song of Songs 6:8You will notice it is not always translated as Virgin. In fact, in Hebrew, Almah does not mean Virgin. It may indicate purity and in a sense it may be somebody "untouched" meaning unmaried. However, the word in Hebrew for Virgin {who has known no man} is Bethulah. For reference to Strong's numbers;H1330בּתוּלהbethûlâhbeth-oo-law'Feminine passive participle of an unused root meaning to separate; a virgin (from her privacy); sometimes (by continuation) a bride; also (figuratively) a city or state: - maid, virgin.This word describes Virginity in the Hebrew language, whereas Almah, does not.Now, the Hebrew manuscripts that we generally work with are from a much later era than the Septuagint. We have more ancient copies of the Septuagint, by a few hundred years. For a time, it may have been argued that the Jews changed their scripture, and the Septuagint was a more ancient witness to what it really said.{Just in case you didn't know, the Septuagint was the copy quoted throughout the New Testament, and is the only ancient authority which reads "Virgin".G3933παρθένοςparthenospar-then'-osOf unknown origin; a maiden; by implication an unmarried daughter: - virgin.}This argument, albeit weak, was stilled completely with the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran. Among the biblical scrolls found there, there were two full copies of Isaiah. Neither one reads Almah. These all come from hundreds of years before the earliest copies of the Septuagint {where this reading originated} which date back as far as the fourth Century AD. They were also transcribed before the Septuagints widespread circulation outside of circles of Hellenized Jews, and/or Alexandria. It was also composed hundreds of years before Christianity, so there is no motive to change that passage at all. Furthermore, we know there is no chance that it was a scribal error because both copies agree with each other perfectly.Allow me to relate to you an excerpt from the NRSV, a bible I frequently use {though not as often as either NIV or NKJV}."In the course of time, the King James Version came to be regarded as "the Authorized Version." With good reason it has been termed "the noblest monument of English prose," and it has entered, as no other book has, into the making of the personal character and the public institutions of the English-speaking peoples. We owe to it an incalculable debt.Yet the King James Version has serious defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of biblical studies and the discovery of many biblical manuscripts more ancient than those on which the King James Version was based made it apparent that these defects were so many as to call for revision."Now, to be sure, this translation has it's issues as well. The one that really gets to me is the 1 Corinthians 11:16. Though the Greek seems ambiguous in that passage, the context alone should make Paul's emphasis clear. Not to mention that on the basis of this passage Tertullian wrote an entire volume on head veils. The early churches understanding of this verse seems, to me, quite clear.In any case, I'm not going to go through my complaints about various translations. I have yet to find one without any flaws. I also doubt very much if one will ever exist. In the end, I just use the Bible closest to me, and cross check it if necessary.So, you see, the KJV does have many problems. No Scholar would disregard it, but no scholar who wishes to better understand the scriptures would use it exclusively.Also, concerning Catholics not studying the Bible, that is hilariously false. They not only study the Bible, but also study the Early Church Fathers. The early church fathers may be wrong about many things. One of my favorite examples is the Phoenix spoken of by Clement. Check it out;"Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed."~Clement, to the Corinthians, Chap. XXV. — The Phoenix an Emblem of Our Resurrection.However, the Church fathers form the basis for Christianity today. Without Nicea, the Trinity is not prescribed, so arianism is still "Christian". The Church fathers are a great source of wisdom. We have to be mindful, as I said previously, that Paul quoted Tradition of his day, even when it might have been wrong. Let me give an example;2 Timothy 3:8Jambres And Jannes are not the names of the sorcerers in the Torah. In fact, they are nameless in the Torah. These names are rooted in Jewish Oral Tradition. Is it possible that by some chance they happen to be correct? Well, of course, but it certainly doesn't matter.The fact is, that Tradition and scripture give and take from each other. The Greek paradosis refers to something handed on from one to another (good or bad). Good Tradition is spoken of in 1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6, and Colossians 2:8 where Christian tradition is said to be superior to the Traditions of men.Christian Tradition, according to the Bible, can be oral as well as written (2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2). St. Paul makes no qualitative distinction between the two forms. In Fact, when using the phrase "Word of God" in the New Testament, the Authors were not talking about the Bible including the works they were creating. They were refering to the Teaching of the Gospel. Which is why when Paul says he presented his Gospel in Romans, he doesn't mean he wrote anything down {Romans 16:25}. He also speaks of the superiority of the Gospel's practice {through accepting the oral teaching} over the markings in ink of the teaching; {2 Corinthians 3:3}.While Tradition must be taken in carefully, it is the greatest testimony to the early Church that we have, and it is brimming with wisdom. That is what I have found in reading them. Clements writings, for example. Many Christians wanted them to be in the New Testament. The only reason they weren't, was because of the system developed by Eusebius. He set up criteria upon which books should be judged for canonicity. The only reason Clement wasn't added by the Church, was because it wasn't directly from an apostle, and it was from just a tad bit after the apostles.To say that one who studies the Early Church Fathers isn't studying the Bible is very silly. Also, if you meant the Catechism; it is a book laying out the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. Can one not study this and the Bible as well? I study the Qur'an, does that then mean that I cannot study the Bible?I hope you consider these things. Please take my sig seriously.In love, Tyrel.~Shalom Elechem
    Dear All,With all due respect, this thread is not about different versions of Bible but by all means a comparison between Islam and Christianity. Please create another thread for any off topic discussions.Bless You !
     
  15. Ricky W

    Ricky W New Member

    Messages:
    495
    Likes Received:
    0
    A'udzubillaahiminasysyaithonirrojiimBismillaahirrohmaanirrohiim("kriss")
    What was righteous reasons on KILLING CHILDREN AND ALL WOMEN ?(quote) Ricky these are those who were left from the second influx of fallen angels who mated with women and some descendants of cain whos father was Satan were also there.
    Dear kriss,Before continuing this i felt sorry for everything goes like this way, i'm not attending to do such of thing, it just i will threat like the way some of them threating me [​IMG].I want to ask you a question my dear friend kriss.Is it ok to kill children in no mater what happen ?Is it ok to kill women in no mater what happen ?And regarding on your response, if that the way you give the reason, 1st. Why Moses keep the virgin alive ? Is itn't they were descendants of Satan as well ?Numbers 31:18 - But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. 2nd. How do you know that the one the been killed was the descendants of SATAN (fallen angel), verse would be nice if you have it ?Wallahu a'lam.
     
  16. Tyrel

    Tyrel New Member

    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Amy;18727)
    Dear All,With all due respect, this thread is not about different versions of Bible but by all means a comparison between Islam and Christianity. Please create another thread for any off topic discussions.Bless You !
    Quite right you are, my bad. I suppose superjag, Kriss and I went on a little tangent. I apologize.Superjag, I shall have to communicate through a private message concerning your post.Well, then, for formalities sake; Sorry to all. Amy is quite right, we should not be discussing these things here, I being the most in trespass here, will stop it at that. Please Kriss, I hope to hear from you in a Private message as well.In Gentleness, Tyrel.~Shalom Elechem
     
  17. Tyrel

    Tyrel New Member

    Messages:
    294
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Amy;18725)
    Biblical Tetragramaton,You question my integrity??? I hear you say that you have read the whole thread but I am amazed at your comprehension. It is unfortunate that muslims feel hurt but truth can not be helped. I am not attacking muslims but you and muslims feel attacked. You know why? Because their belief is in question and I have all the right. No one can take away my what God has given me i.e. my free will through which freedom of speech generates. Don't muslim practise that? See all the links provided here by them. Strange, you don't question their tactics. Perhaps, you classify that self defence but can it be classified as dignified or discrete in any way? You are so naive. People try to get me into conversations but I ignore, you have any idea why? I have never on a single occasion called Ricky, Saleem or any other member for that matter a rapist, a terrorist, or in human etc. and you question my integrity??? One of the members tried supporting his point with a very personal example towards me i.e. my reaction if my daughter was to be raped in front of me. I think I reacted in all dignity to such cheapness. Not once have I brought in any members daughter, mothers or sisters... not even as an example. Guess what, I don't need to. My war is not with flesh it's time you read my signature as well !!!As a free human, you have all the right to form an opinion about me. Being human, I shouldn't care less [​IMG]Consider our dialogue done !All the best :bible:
    Dear Amy,My first reaction to this was to be slightly taken aback. Allow me to explain why, and simultaneously let me respond to you.I find it hard to believe that you misunderstood my post to such an extent as to think that my idea of integrity was simply not overtly insulting others. It is also surprising that you seem to think that I have questioned your personal integrity. It is not your integrity I brought into question, nor was it a question of the integrity of the Gospel message; it was the integrity of the message's delivery which I questioned. I don't question for one moment that you truly believe what you have posted, nor do I think you posted it for any malicious reason. Now, perhaps you have truly mustered up a great deal of humility, and perhaps you practiced much forgiveness in your posts thus far. I do not know your sensitivities. As I said before, I myself have thick skin. Speaking of which, I would like to politely point out that I am not in the least offended by anything you have said. I simply wish to offer a helping hand, because it is my strong belief that the perception of Islam which you are presenting is inaccurate. I believe that we could learn much from each other. I am still awaiting that Hadith, which I would very much love to have a reference to, but I digress. The sensitivities you have are quite alien to me, so if I hit any, I apologize. I would never have thought that the example of having your child be the one hurt would offend you. Obviously Ricky was speaking in the hypothetical. I am not oft insulted by much, nor am I oft very much insulted.Now, concerning Muslims being hurt, I am saying that it doesn't have to be this way. Sure, there will always be Muslims who are offended at the Gospel, just as there will always be people who are offended at the Gospel. However, if the message you present receives the same reaction from a group of people, invariably, then perhaps there is something imprudent about the delivery."Strange, you don't question their tactics. Perhaps, you classify that self defence but can it be classified as dignified or discrete in any way? You are so naive."Are they on trial here? Did you disregard what I said concerning them? I reiterate briefly; what they do is up to them, and what you do is up to you. In the end, it's not between you and them, it's between you and God. Even if they should insult you with the most harmful of words, do you not think it would be all the more wise to reply with love overflowing?Also, my advice as an evangelist, is to not be so sure you know the intentions of anybody. You should not assume that Ricky or others are "using tactics" against you, or to bring down the faith. Even if they are, it is not worth assuming, for assuming it does not further incline one towards love. Whether they are dignified, or discrete, is none of my concern in this thread. This is a Christian Forum, not a World Views Forum. They are here, listening to us. How they react should not in any way hinder our solidarity in loving them. As it is, of course it often does. Whenever people disagree about things they can be "put off" by each other, when they are conversing about it.I think I have sufficiently replied. At this point, I will stop, and allow for you to get back to me. Though, I do hope to receive a full reply from you considering both this post and the previous {addressed to you}.ah... umm.. hmmm... "Consider our dialogue done !"I somehow missed that until part way through. Of course, if you wish to end it here, I will not endeavor any longer to converse with you about this against your will. This, however, did indeed add to my shock. You certainly are a surprising person Amy. [​IMG]In respect, Tyrel.~Shalom Elechem
     
  18. Amy

    Amy New Member

    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    0
    (Biblical Tetragramaton;18732)
    Dear Amy,My first reaction to this was to be slightly taken aback. Allow me to explain why, and simultaneously let me respond to you.I find it hard to believe that you misunderstood my post to such an extent as to think that my idea of integrity was simply not overtly insulting others. It is also surprising that you seem to think that I have questioned your personal integrity. It is not your integrity I brought into question, nor was it a question of the integrity of the Gospel message; it was the integrity of the message's delivery which I questioned. I don't question for one moment that you truly believe what you have posted, nor do I think you posted it for any malicious reason. Now, perhaps you have truly mustered up a great deal of humility, and perhaps you practiced much forgiveness in your posts thus far. I do not know your sensitivities. As I said before, I myself have thick skin. Speaking of which, I would like to politely point out that I am not in the least offended by anything you have said. I simply wish to offer a helping hand, because it is my strong belief that the perception of Islam which you are presenting is inaccurate. I believe that we could learn much from each other. I am still awaiting that Hadith, which I would very much love to have a reference to, but I digress. The sensitivities you have are quite alien to me, so if I hit any, I apologize. I would never have thought that the example of having your child be the one hurt would offend you. Obviously Ricky was speaking in the hypothetical. I am not oft insulted by much, nor am I oft very much insulted.Now, concerning Muslims being hurt, I am saying that it doesn't have to be this way. Sure, there will always be Muslims who are offended at the Gospel, just as there will always be people who are offended at the Gospel. However, if the message you present receives the same reaction from a group of people, invariably, then perhaps there is something imprudent about the delivery."Strange, you don't question their tactics. Perhaps, you classify that self defence but can it be classified as dignified or discrete in any way? You are so naive."Are they on trial here? Did you disregard what I said concerning them? I reiterate briefly; what they do is up to them, and what you do is up to you. In the end, it's not between you and them, it's between you and God. Even if they should insult you with the most harmful of words, do you not think it would be all the more wise to reply with love overflowing?Also, my advice as an evangelist, is to not be so sure you know the intentions of anybody. You should not assume that Ricky or others are "using tactics" against you, or to bring down the faith. Even if they are, it is not worth assuming, for assuming it does not further incline one towards love. Whether they are dignified, or discrete, is none of my concern in this thread. This is a Christian Forum, not a World Views Forum. They are here, listening to us. How they react should not in any way hinder our solidarity in loving them. As it is, of course it often does. Whenever people disagree about things they can be "put off" by each other, when they are conversing about it.I think I have sufficiently replied. At this point, I will stop, and allow for you to get back to me. Though, I do hope to receive a full reply from you considering both this post and the previous {addressed to you}.ah... umm.. hmmm... "Consider our dialogue done !"I somehow missed that until part way through. Of course, if you wish to end it here, I will not endeavor any longer to converse with you about this against your will. This, however, did indeed add to my shock. You certainly are a surprising person Amy. [​IMG]In respect, Tyrel.~Shalom Elechem
    Again a marvelous piece of amateur speech. Between, it was not Ricky who gave that awful example, proof enough that you have no idea about what actually has been said in this thread let alone the sense to comprehend which direction things are heading. Such issues are not to be read at random, did that ever occur to you?What is there to consverse? Shall I take you by the finger and show you all over again? Everything is in this thread and yes that includes most of the references. See foot notes on every sharing and if you are that interested make an effort to buy the books, turn the pages and gain some insight. What they want me to do is, lets see Amy if you can grab our own tail and I am sure it's a great show of running in circles but hey, I am not putting it up for anyone. I am not a teacher or a mentor. I have lit the lamp, I can not and will not see things through for you or anyone. It's your choice and it's theirs. I speak from not what I have just read but from what I have experienced as well. What I share is what they are being taught and not once have I promoted the idea of man-slaughter. Two wrongs have never made a right. My mission is to spread awareness of the evil, for we can not fight what we can not see. I am not being sensitive, I am being sensible.Personally, I would learn the word of God but as for your concept of learning from eachother; I assure you there are many more shocks to come your way. So fasten your seat belt and enjoy the ride.Asumptions is what exactly you are doing by asuming what Amy, should and should not do. At this note please reserve your suggestions.
     
  19. Jordan

    Jordan Active Member

    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    4
    Boy, sure I do love this thread...Very much interesting...yes, yes, it's enough proof that Islam is a fake, yet evil. Enough proof that it's religion is not about Christ, It's about what the Kenites (sons of Cain) want for itself instead of Him. Enough proof with the fact that I'm confident to know who is going to win, yet the majority of the people can not see it. We have to wait until the Last Day anyway.Ricky and any other muslims reading this thread. I need not to be taught by pagans and need not to be in self-defense unlike any muslims. As it clearly seen by fact that they are twisted and blind...not able to see the fact between the sons of God and the Kenites. Well I'm just going to sit and relax reading this thread, as my Yahshua wants me free, I shall be free indeed. [​IMG]Lovest ye in Christ Yahshua our Lord and Saviour.
     
  20. Christina

    Christina New Member

    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    71
    (Ricky W;18729)
    A'udzubillaahiminasysyaithonirrojiimBismillaahirrohmaanirrohiimDear kriss,Before continuing this i felt sorry for everything goes like this way, i'm not attending to do such of thing, it just i will threat like the way some of them threating me [​IMG].I want to ask you a question my dear friend kriss.Is it ok to kill children in no mater what happen ?Is it ok to kill women in no mater what happen ?And regarding on your response, if that the way you give the reason, 1st. Why Moses keep the virgin alive ? Is itn't they were descendants of Satan as well ?Numbers 31:18 - But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. 2nd. How do you know that the one the been killed was the descendants of SATAN (fallen angel), verse would be nice if you have it ?Wallahu a'lam.
    Ricky I understand you are feeling attacked no need to apologize No I dont think it right for men to decide to kill any children then or today. What youre missing here is this was not mens decision it was an order from God. And if you say we worship the same God it was not our (christain God) but the one God of all that ordered this so he had to have a very good reason for doing so. They were idol worshipers, many of whom practiced human sacrafice and other abominations. This was common for fallen Angels and also God knew thier hearts.The virgins were not impregnated by these fallen ones.I dont understand why you would use these verse to defend Islam unless you think we do not worship the same god??The difference with today and killing of any kind is that men decide to do itnot God. And to justifying it by saying its in the name of God.? Why when God clearly shows he is capable of saying it should he want it done.Who are men to decide this?? can men know anothers heart?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...