₦airaland Forum

@babs787,

babs787:
@4 get me & mrpataki,

Make sure you do not contradict each other just like davidylan and shahan did.

What is the contradiction you have read between our entries?

babs787:
Posted by 4get_me
Worship encompasses prayer, praise, singing, offering and the believer's lifestyle.

You are right my brother. But when it comes to prayer, it must be nothing but SOLAT.All the activities mentioned above precede prayer.

Why is it that everything "must be" judged by Islamic interpretations, even though you don't have a good grasp of your own interpretations? Prayer is not something that "must be" SOLAT.

babs787:
When it comes to prayer, there must be silence coupled with praying to God face down (Sujud). Bible authors tried as much as possible to remove all the acts pertaining to Muslims' worship but couldnt change everything.

Dishonest claims again. No "Bible authors" tried to remove anything given to them by inspiration. Rather, it was Muhammad that tried to remove every refernce in the Bible that exposes his claim to be a prophet.

There is no hard and fast rule about prayer in the Bible - one can be silent or loud; it is not a mechanical, robotic, empty and spiritless exercise such as you describe happens in your version of prayer. God's people can pray with face down or face up, kneeling or sitting, walking or standing. It is all a matter of the Spirit of God birthing deep inspiration in the heart of the one praying.

babs787:
Posted by: 4get_me
"Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name: bring an offering, and come before him: worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness." (I Chron. 16:29)

The above says you should worship God but not with musical instruments

Where you get your ideas from have no bearing in Biblical understanding. If you ever understood the meaning of "the beauty of holiness", then you would not be advancing such kidding arguments.

babs787:
Posted by: 4get_me
"And Jehoshaphat bowed his head with his face to the ground: and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem fell before the LORD, worshipping the LORD. And the Levites, of the children of the Kohathites, and of the children of the Korhites, stood up to praise the LORD God of Israel with a loud voice on high." (II Chron. 20:18-19)

Here, they prayed and worship God just like muslims, bowing their heads with their faces to the ground (Sujud) and later stood up to praise God just like muslims do after every prayer.

Please don't make me laugh - "like Muslims do". Indeed. When do Muslims ever "praise the LORD God of Israel with a loud voice on high"?? Is this something you have been hoping for a long time that you must of necessity have some way of twisting issues? Do Muslims know the LORD God of Israel that much to still detest the Jews??

babs787:
Posted by: 4get_me
"And all the congregation worshipped, and the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded: and all this continued until the burnt offering was finished." (II Chron. 29:28)

The above activities were not done at the same time hence the word "and". The activities follow in sequential order. They first worshipped, then sang followed by the blowing of the trumpets.

And what difference did it make from my statement earlier that worship encompasses all those activities? The same argument could be stated using Matt. 18:26 ('The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all') - "fell down, and worshipped him" >> are they separate the one from another?? Did the man finish with the first part ('fell down') and then do the second separately ('worship')?? What sort of reasoning are you advancing with mere semantics?

You're just sweating to look for a crack somewhere where none exists; that is why your efforts to interpret everything by Quraish tradition is not helping your case. The word "and" does not separate the worship of God's people from those activities; rather, more than anything, it INCLUDES them!

babs787:
Posted by: 4get_me
"All the earth shall worship thee, and shall sing unto thee; they shall sing to thy name. Selah." (Psa. 66:4)

Did you notice that worship precedes singing?

Does that negate the fact that worship includes singing?

babs787:
Posted by: 4get_me
"I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." (Psa. 138:2)

Did you see in the above that they were both differentiated (worshipping and praising)?

They were both INCLUSIVE - go do a little study of the language construct. It is a matter here of emphasis, as most other texts using the word "and" demonstrate that the same thing is being referred to with emphasis!

babs787:
Posted by: 4get_me
"And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast" (John 12:20).

Lets see from the bible how they worshipped and prayed to God just like muslims

Would you please stop being so dishonest for once? The Greeks never knew anything like Islam back then; they did not worship like Muslims; their worship activities did not in any way bear semblance to Islamic worship; most of all, it was to the LORD God of Israel that they came to worship - in the sacred feasts of the LORD! Where in all these do you draw the semblance between Jewish and Muslim worship?

babs787:
Mathew 26v39: And going a little farther he fell on his face, (just like muslims)

Alright then - by your inference, we should suppose that they Greeks came into Gethsemane to do the very same act as did Jesus at the hour? And since when have muslims started using the Bible to "prove" Islamic worship?

babs787:
Mathew 4v9-10: , All these I will give you if you will fall down and worship me.

Please babs787, go read the context there - Jesus did not yield worship to Satan; and your reference here is not in any way significant.

babs787:
v10: Then jesus said to him, Begone, Satan! for it is written " You shall worship your Lord God and only him shall you serve"

Proves precisely my point just above.

babs787:
It is noted in the above that Jesus had to rebuke Satan when he told him to bow down and worship him. Both of them knew that bowing dow is only the act of worshipping God just like the muslims.

The "only act of worshipping God" (as you put it) is what Islam preaches. This is how the Bible itself deflates that idea: Heb. 11:21 - "By faith Jacob, when he was a dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph; and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff."

Did you miss that? This blessed patriarch was leaning upon the top of his staff when he worshipped - is that the same as falling down on his face towards the ground? What really is your problem, babs787?

babs787:
1st corinthians 14v25: The secrets of the heart are disclosed; and so, FALLING ON HIS FACE, HE WILL WORSHIP GOD and declare that God is really among you.

The above shows that they prayed just like muslims.

Please, if you can give me one verse in the Qur'an that says Muslim worship like the Church in Corinth, I would most gladly rest my case. Or, stated another way: "Please find me the one verse that mentions Muslims ever addressing God the same as the Corinthians did - past, present, or future."

Just bowing down does not equate Christian worship in Corinth with Muslim worship anywhere - one must go into the substance of their worship; which is the main reason why anyone claiming to have been a former Christian and now a Muslim (like you) is holding unto. There would be no reason for this debate or any divergent views if it was only a matter of bowing down with face to the ground!

babs787:
Now let us go to SOLAT IN THE BIBLE

Nehemiah 8v1-6 :
1. And all the people gathered as one man into the square before the water gate

[Getting set for congregational prayer (solat) ]

2. And Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly, both men and women and all who could hear with understanding on the first day of the seventh month

(Just like when Iman brings out the Holy Quran)

3. And he read from it facing the square before the water gate from early morning until midday in the presence of the men and women and those who could understand, and the ears of all the people were attentive to the book of the law

(the book of the law is just like the Quran. He reads out to the congregation just like Imams do)

4. And Ezra the scribe stood on a wooden pulpit which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, Shema, Annaiah Uriah, Hilkiah, and a Maaseiah on his right hand and Pedaiah, Mishael, Malchijah, Hashum, Hashbaddanah, Zechariah and Meshullah on his left

(Just like when muslims are getting set for Solat hence the line up and the arrangement from the right to the left)

5. And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people, for he was above all the people and when he opened it all the people stood.

(Note: there is no sitting on chairs like the christians do here. Ezra just like Imam wants to recite from the book known to muslims as "Khutbah"

As pointed out above, there are no similarities of worship between Jewish and Muslim worship; so any reference here is simply mute. Second, there may not have been chairs in the references quoted above; yet in the same setting of Jewish setting, people could sit down -

"And he (i.e., Jesus) closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him." (Luke 4:20).

babs787:
6. And Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God, and all the people answered, AMEN, AMEN,

(just like praising Allah first followed by the recitation of Surah Fatiah in which at the end of the recitation, muslims will say AMIN)

In all honesty, do Muslims follow the precedence in Jewish worship?

babs787:
I continue with the verse 6

6. Lifting up their hands and they BOWED THEIR HEADS AND WORSHIPPED THE LORD with THEIR FACES TO THE GROUND.

(Lifting up their hands just like when muslims say Allah Akbar and proceeds to Rukuh and finally to Sujud [bowing their heads with their face down].

As above, there are no similarities between the two.

babs787:
If you forget me, pataki and others will not deceive yourselves, Solat is from God and will accept the fact that what they did here, is nothing short of Solat. Any meaning you may try to give the above will go other way thereby contradicting the verse. If you want to say its not Solat, tell me what they all did in the above verse.

In all honesty, if there were SOLAT, then please tell me: where in ISLAM do Muslims worship the LORD Gos of Israel?

As I pointed out earlier, it is not just a matter of surficial interpretations that settles the matter - one needs go into the real crux of the issues highlighted in those references.

babs787:
Exodus 34v8: , And moses made haste to bow his head towards the earth and worship before the Lord.

It has been established that solat had been in exitence before Prophet Muhammed (saw). The only difference is that, it was during his time (as a result of the night journey) that the religion was perfected.i.e, he was given 5 times daily prayer.

If MUHAMMAD could actually produce one verse (abrogated or otherwise) that states that MUSLIMS worshipped "the LORD God of Israel", then I rest my case.

babs787:
It is high time you accepted the truth which is ISLAM because it is the only religion before God.

I knew that would predictably be your conclusion - a fine way of denying the same religion that you just compared. There is no truth in ISLAM, especially as confirmed by the Islamic tenet of al-Taqqiya.

@babs787,

babs787:
I can see that the below have proven the same set of questions you have been asking me. I also told you to create a fresh thread for your questions but you declined. Dont worry, its time to answer your questions.

I didn't see the sense of creating another thread just for babs787 as you had earlier hinted that it's never your turn to answer questions.

babs787:
Before I go on, kindly answer these simple questions.

Now if they say, say "4 get me was beside gbade".

1.Do we say they are one being?

2. What does beside mean to you?

Something beside another cannot be that same thing.

Ponder on my questions till I come with detailed response

Blank statements that have no bases do not require answers. If you are referring to John 1:1, I advise you go back and read, study, and assimilate the meaning of that verse before you post something tending to ignorance.

babs787:
Another question,

Why was trinity not preached among early prophets?

Depends on who you include as" early prophets".

The Bible clearly teaches the Trinity in both the Old and New Testaments, even though the word does not in itself appear in the Bible. There are several other words we use today to express Biblical teachings well established in both the Old and New Testaments. Not only so, there various concepts that Muslims now teach as Islamic tenets which do not appear in the Qur'an.

The doctrine of the Trinity is well established on the pronouncements of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself - "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 28:19) and "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30).

I just finished chatting with a witness friend of mine and he told me that I shouldnt believe you that they (witnesses), are the one having their bible written according to the original manuscript.

In just the same way, I could simply claim to engage in a chat with a Muslim who could confirm every allegation levelled against Muhammad and the Qur'an. Who are you and your witness friend trying to play pranks with? I've told you before: take the time to make a careful study of the Greek manuscripts of just two references - John 1:1 and Isaiah 9:6 - and you will not find your witness friend able to stand up to scrutiny.

But never mind, I will not base my response on jehovah witnesses but will be direct.

Am cooking your response and when I am through, I will serve you real hot

I don't see your point in having made reference to your witness friend's chat in the first place.

Mind you, don't salivate, wait till it comes.

Attend to my questions till I come your way.

What questions have you really been asking? Just making hole-and-corner claims is not the same thing as asking questions.

@babs787,

Let me quickly run through this one in my busy schedule.

babs787:
Jehovah witness are not in agreement with protestant. They are claiming that their bible is in line with the original manuscript.

Did you not claim that you were a Christian for some years? How come you're pretending knowledge that you did not have previously?

Christians who have taken the time to check out JW claims have found them to be dishonest. The "translators" of the NWT that the JW use have no bearing on the original manuscripts - and you of all former "Christians" should have known that. No JW member of any scholarship has been able to refute the challenges levelled against the NWT of the Bible that the JW use.

babs787:
The catholics are not in line with Protestant and they are claiming that their bible is in line with the original manuscript.

Depends on what you call "their bible". What Protestants and Catholics have debated between themselves is a matter of interpretation, and not of differences in "their bible." The same John 1:1 that declares Jesus Christ as God has not been debated between them.

babs787:
The protestant too, are claiming same.

No difference between them. What did John 1:1 and Isaiah 9:6 say?

babs787:
Likewise the Mormons, seventh day adventist etc,

As for the Mormons, we know that the so-called translation by Joseph Smith is no translation at all. At best, he pretended a 'translation' of the KJV of the Bible where he sought to edit out verses that did not rhyme with his heresies.

Even the Mormons today make excuses as to why they themselves never use Joseph Smith's translation in teaching their own members. They say that Joseph Smith did not have the time to "finish" his 'translation' - the very same excuse that Muslims (including you) have given for the abrogated verses of the Qur'an. Further, the doctrines of Mormonism are always evolving and changing - not so long ago the Mormon president was interviewed about the Brigham Young doctrine of Adam being "the only God" with which Mormons have to do. His comments? "I don't know that we teach that doctrine!"

If you take the time to further investigate M[/b]ormonism, then you will make a very interesting discovery that it is a cousin to [b]M[/b]ohammedanism - they have the same traits in twisting the Bible into their own dishonest tales without revelation from God.

And how do the seventh day adventists make the same claim as you accused?

babs787:
The question now is,

[b]Which do we agree to since they are all claiming to have written their bibles in line with the original manuscript.

Having studied the texts for yourself, you know which translation of the Bible preserves the sense of God's Word as given to the inspired men who penned the holy writ.

The same questions should be advanced as regarding the Qur'an:

#1. Since the Qur'an ceases to be the word of "Allah" whenever it is "translated", what then is left of the words you cannot understand or interprete from Arabic to another language?

#2. Since the Qur'an bears witness of itself that certain verses are abrogated (which has been your own claim on this Forum), then how can the remaining verses be the perfect word of God?

#3. Knowing that every English translation of the Qur'an says differerent things in addition to "abrogated verses", then it makes sense that Muslims have only the word of men dressed up as the Word of God - if we are to follow your own reasoning.

True righteousness is found in Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God.

@babs787,

babs787:
I will give you just two examples to answer your questions above

2nd Timothy 4v9: , do your diligence to come shortly unto me. The cloak that I left at Tro-as with Cyprus, when you comem bring with you, and the books, but especially THE APARCHMENTS.

Is the above word of God?

Yep. And what is your problem with that?

babs787:
Luke 1v1; for as much as many have taken in order a declaration of these things which are most surely believed among us. Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word: IT SEEMED GOOD TO ME ALSO, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very forst to write unto you in order, MOST EXCELLENT THEOPHILUS.

Do you call the above word of God?

Yes. That is part of what Muhammad first referred to as the Injil, and then later denied without a shred of truth in his claims.

babs787:
You can never see irrelevant words like the above in the Quran.It consist only the words of Allah. You will only find the words of the prophet making up the hadith whereas we have words of prophets making up your bible that is supposed to be word of God.

First, you forget that Muhammad initially embraced the Bible - both Old and New Testaments. It was later on that he accused the Bible of having been corrupted - after initially having received "revelation" from the same "Allah" that he sent down, revealed and confirmed what Muhammad was denying.

The words and behaviour of the prophet Muhammad contradict the Qur'an, apart from the Qur'an contradicting itself with "strong" (and weak) "abrogated verses". That is why when certain words and acitivities of Muhammad are pointed out in the Hadith, Muslim quickly deny them (as they fear denying the Qur'an), and then make excuses that Muhammad was a man like anyone else; or that, such and such an Hadith is a false one and no one can really know which one is a true hadith.

babs787:
Also letters written by prophet to many leaders were not included in the Quran but in your so called holy book, we have letters of luke, paul, james making up the gospel of jesus (very funny) etc.

The Qur'an you have today was written by men - most of whom confirmed that certain verses of the Qur'an have been lost; and others editted and compiled them to make up the political redaction of the third Caliph Uthman. I don't see why a Muslim would want to burn the word of "Allah" if there were no descripancies between what he had produced and and the original copy.

Meanwhile, there were frequent fights between early Muslims about the differences in reading of the revealed words of the Qur'an: no one was agreed as to which was which - and today, Sunnis and Shiites are at each others' throats over the age-old controversies.

babs787:
Note: coming soon absurdities in the bible

It won't be new - there have been attacks on the Bible from all corners; and yet, it has confirmed its promises true in the lives of those who know Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. When people have no defences for their accusations against Christ, they employ so-called "absurdities in the bible" against CHRISTIANITY. My simple question is: are Muslims willing to subject Muhammad to the same test of "absurdities"?? It's all a question of CHRIST and MUHAMMAD, not so?

babs787:
Just the same question that was asked backslider: we all know that the bible is an incomplete book based on missing verses, bring out just only missing verse from the Quran and I will believe you.

And what has happened to the "abrogated verses" of the Qur'an - or you don't understand the simple English meaning of "abrogate"??

@babs787,

babs787:
can you bring me a verse that says Christians should be slayed?

Sura 4 vs.89
They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.

Sura 9 vs.111
Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.

babs787:
The broad generalization of accusing Christians of the sins of Muhammad hasn't won any arguments/debates; and

The above had been debunked

By who? Or was that too hard for you to understand?

@TV01,

TV01:
Typical. Can't defend your position, so your resort too rubbishing the opposing one.

What position have I proposed so far, other than merely pointing out that the term "man of God" is categorically used in Scripture? If that is what you want me to defend, it is there in Scripture in the reference given earlier; and it is not a "myth", nor a "nonsensical, man-made, religious construct" as you supposed.

TV01:
As ever, the religious always stamp "God" all over their religiosity, in a lame attempt to  validate it.

Just because you have lost connection with the Word does not help your accusative bragado these days. If your synical remarks apply at all, it heavily falls on your lame attempt to push your own blind religiosity in the hope that you're serving tennis.

TV01:
"Show clearly from scripture that the MOG concept as used in contemporary church organisations is scripturally mandated"

If the reference "from scripture" given earlier has not helped you calm down in your vaunted games of ascribing it to a "myth" and "nonsensical, man-made, religious construct", then it is all the more obvious that you've been reading another book.

TV01:
But as it's not there and you can't do it, I expect you'll resort to your usual obsfucating wordiness and girlie ad-hominem barbs.

"It's not there", you said? Second confirmation that you've been reading another book and have lost your grip on Scripture. Read your Bible again - there are at least 73 verses bearing the appellation of "man of God." Your "obsfucating" and "girlie" exercise is more suited to a noisy motor-park; not to mention that your overheated hotheadedness feeds your eristic arguments.

TV01:
Come back when you are seasoned enough to play hardball, otherwise keep travellin'.

My travels haven't slowed my study of God's precious Word - the very same that you've been playing hardball over.

TV01:
Or play at your usual level, which is too buttress already well-established and generally-accepted doctrine. Second stringer!

And you actually have been waiting for cheap applause for being such a loser? Here's a friendly tip: go back and read God's Word - it doesn't hurt to humble yourself and let Him show you what you claim "it's not there".

babs787:
What you do in christianity is singing and singing is something that has to do with musical instrument and you can't worship with that. Dont worry, go to the end of my post, you will see the difference between praising God and worshipping

Worship encompasses prayer, praise, singing, offering and the believer's lifestyle.

"Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name: bring an offering, and come before him: worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness." (I Chron. 16:29)

"And Jehoshaphat bowed his head with his face to the ground: and all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem fell before the LORD, worshipping the LORD. And the Levites, of the children of the Kohathites, and of the children of the Korhites, stood up to praise the LORD God of Israel with a loud voice on high." (II Chron. 20:18-19)

"And all the congregation worshipped, and the singers sang, and the trumpeters sounded: and all this continued until the burnt offering was finished." (II Chron. 29:28)

"All the earth shall worship thee, and shall sing unto thee; they shall sing to thy name. Selah." (Psa. 66:4)

"I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." (Psa. 138:2)

"And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast" (John 12:20).

@TV01,

I think there's a limit to stretching your tennis game over Scripture. A more appropriate place would be the Recycle Bin.

TV01:
You were right on one point though, it's not a myth, it's a nonsensical, man-made, religious construct .

That just about describes you; for these days you seem to be losing your grip on God's Word to the extent that Biblical teaching has become first a myth; and now "a nonsensical, man-made, religious construct." Well done; the Lord sees it all.

I wonder why Muslims who believe that Jesus Christ was one of their prophets have been so silent when issues of the denial of His existence are presented.

@babs787,

babs787:
funny enough, I wonder why christians attack muslims when it comes to the issue of war fought by the Holy Prophet in the Glorious Quran yet these same people never knew that they have the highest number of incest cases , rape, murder, killing of innocent children, slavery, stealing women, taking properties of war captives, racism etc. recorded in their bible.

hmmmmmmm

You should know, more than any other person, that Muhammad hated both Jews and Christians, besides his 'revelations' to slay pagans. The JEWISH wars of the Old Testament are not doctrines of command for CHRISTIANS - and just as Muhammad said, if you are in doubt, ask "the people of the book" by reading the New Testament.

The cases of "incest, rape, murder, killing of innocent children, slavery, stealing women, taking properties of war captives, racism etc" are more suited to the adventures of Muhammad than to the disciples of Jesus Christ. These cases are confirmed both in the Qur'an and the Hadiths - not merely as history, but as doctrines of commandments for Muslims.

The broad generalization of accusing Christians of the sins of Muhammad hasn't won any arguments/debates; and which sincere and honest Muslim can deny that al-Taqiyya (the doctrine of lying) is one of the confirmed tenets of Islam??

@babyosisi,

babyosisi:
let's take it then that those of us who worship on Sundays do it because there is an emergent need to do our hair and nails,grocery shopping ,sometimes  work on Saturdays lol.
Why should God excuse the firefighters and doctors and hospital workers and not excuse the hairdressers,store owners and their customers.

Well, the excuse is both for cases that are emergent as well those that are not emergent - it works both ways, and the SDA has no moral justification to use their doctrine of convenience against non-SDAs.

For cases that are emergent, this would include a profound list of occupations:

1. NEPA (PHCN) staff

2. transport workers - taxi, molue, okada, danfo, etc.

3. Police (including those with special assignment to collect N50 from taxi & danfo drivers)

4. Television and Radio staff

5. Airport Authorities

6. Stock Exchange Traders

7. Newspaper agencies. . .
     . . . etc.

And for cases that are not emergent, they can be excused on the same grounds as those who "usually get the sabbath off." They would include:

1. Macdonalds, Burger King, MrBiggs, SubWay, Dunkin Doughnuts, and any other fastfood outlet of your choice

2. Supermarkets, Malls, and Shopping Plazas

3. Hair Salons and Barbers

4. CyberCafes and Video Rentals

5. Amusement Parks and Gardens

6. Seasons Football Matches - players and fans

7. The "Jambite" (University student) who has to travel home to refuel, especially for those inescapable lecturers' "Handouts". . .
        . . .etc.

So, in one word, according to SDA, just about anyone "usually gets the sabbath off" - the only catch being that such must be a member of the SDA! Non-SDAs can expect no such excuses, otherwise they belong to "babylon!"

@trini_girl,

Thanks for the weblinks, and many more blessings to you.

@naijacutie,

naijacutee:
Thanks for that, trinigirl but recently,I have decided to let people be, as they all answerable to othemselves. I don't get infuriated by all these Anti-Christian posts on Nairaland anymore. . . They put so much time and effort into bashing Christianity and I don't think I have the time or effort to "dance to their tune" and "prove" that there is a God. Hey, thanks for that discovery again. But even without it, the very core of most of us know that the Bible is true, whether or not we want to admit to it is the issue.

I feel you.

@babs787,

babs787:
The Hadith comprises the sayings of the Holy Prophet . Note that the Hadith is just like the Gospel. The bible can never be said to be word of God because you find the word of God, word of Prophets and word of ordinary men whereas in the Holy Quran, you can never see such things.

Three questions, please:

#1. Since you believe that the Bible can never be the word of God, how come in the same breath you still believe that it contains the Word of God as well?

#2. Can you enunciate the texts in the Bible that you believe to be the Word of God?

#3. Since in the Qur'an, "you can never see such things" (such things including "the word of God" in your statement), does that not conclude then that the Qur'an is not the Word of God?

We know that Muslim sources themselves have questioned the Qur'an as the Word of God by indicating that some of it was lost and other verses were abrogated. Maybe that's why we can agree with you that "in the Holy Quran, you can never see such things" when it comes to what is called "the word of God".

babs787:
The Hadith is the sayings of the Prophet.

While the Sunnah is the doing of the Holy Prophet.

Both the Hadith and the Sunna contradict the Qur'an in several instances.

@donnie,

donnie:
To the baby christian who does not know that his sickness was taken away when Christ died on the cross, he needs to feel something poured on his head to believe that his sickness is 'now' being cured. He is the one in need of the oil.

Please go back again and read the verses in James 5:14-15 in their context - they don't suggest anything of your interpretation.

¹⁴Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: ¹⁵And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

Notice there it is called the "prayer of faith"; and we know that whenever the Bible is speaking of faith, it is not a matter of feelings. Faith is not based on feelings; so the anointing oil is not something meant alone for 'baby' Christians; nor was it merely for a matter of feeling something poured on the head that God gave that verse.

Just because the sick person was to call for the "elders" doesn't mean that such a person is a "baby" Christian. Even the apostle Paul asked for prayers from others who were not apostles, without a hint of anyone being considered a "baby" (I Thes. 5:25; II Thes. 3:1).

The elders of the Church are those called to care for the church; their calling by God does not put anyone in a postion of 'baby' Christian.

babs787:
Though the Holy Prophet said nothing on this because he knew that all verse are valid when necessary.

Is there a time when a verse is not valid when necessary? Are we to understand that anyone can just choose willy-nilly when a verse is not necessary as to render it invalid?

babs787:
But the people who inherited the Quran tried indicating the verses that people may say contradict each other and made explanations on them that they were rather abrogations.

Doesn't this immediately establish the fact that some people tried to tamper with the revelations Muhammad purportedly gave his companions? As they were not in the position of Muhammad to have received "revelation", how would they have known which was which among the 'abrogated' verses?

babs787:
With the above examples, it is being agreed that they are abrogated verses. Abrogated verses in the Quran are still strong, only time to use them are different.Abrogated verses do not mean Contradiction just as in the case of the bible.

There were no abrogated verses in the Bible, as "Scripture cannot be broken" - John 10:35.

The 'abrogated' verses in the Qur'an is another matter entirely, and gives the meaning of verses having been "revoked" or "abolished". The idea of the possibility of abrogating verses only indicate that the revealer wasn't God.

Bobbyaf:
If the case isn't emergent then such persons usually get the sabbath off.

Well, I can only wonder at the convenience of skipping the same LAW that has been used against others for being non-SDA. Like donnie, perhaps there's a convenient way of making excuses for sin.

@trini_girl,

You might not be far wrong. The argument that Amby puts forward is untenable when pursued to its logical ends.

@shahan,

shahan:
Now, would you be kind as to address the questions I offered earlier as borrowed from 4get_me? Here again:

For those accusing the Bible of having been corrupted (according to the Qur'an), I have a few questions:

#1. what did the original Bible say in John 1:1, Psalm 2:12, and Isaiah 9:6 before Muhammad was born?

#2. who exactly "corrupted" the verses in John 1:1, Psalm 2:12, and Isaiah 9:6 according to Muhammad's accusation?

#3. In what year exactly were John 1:1, Psalm 2:12, and Isaiah 9:6 'corrupted' as accused by Muhammad against the Bible?

#4. What "Psalms" did Muhammad refer to when he stated in the Qur'an that Allah gave the Psalms unto David [Sura 4:163 - ". . and to David We gave the Psalms."]? What exactly did the Psalms say, and how many chapters were they?

#5. Why did Muhammad not mention Isaiah in the Qur'an as one of the prophets of God, even though the Jews recognized him as such, and Jesus quoted from the same Isaiah?

If Muslims have investigated Muhammad's accusations and found them untenable, would they be willing to admit that Muhammad was not telling the truth?

The reason why you should deal with them here is to settle this rascally attitude of yours in often advancing eristic denials of biblical tenets simply because Muhammad made those denials.

You might as well wait forever, or console yourself with the excuses that will follow your repeated request for answers to those questions. The reason is simple: Muslims are averse to investigating anything in Islam.

I Tim. 6:11 >> But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.

TV01:
Actually, I aim to utilise this thread in my avowed mission to put the MOG myth to bed once and for all.

I do hope that in your avowed mission, you don't put yourself to bed once and for all - "the MOG myth" is not a myth afterall.

babs787:
I never said that they havent answer my questions. I quoted different versions for people to see.

Are there not different versions of the Qur'an - all saying various things? Even then, some prominent Muslims are not all agreed as to which translation of the Qur'an is to be trusted.

babs787:
I was a christian for years yet you are now telling that maybe I should pray for , I don't know.

Many people make this empty claim about having been a Christian for years; but it is just that - and empty claim.

babs787:
Before you even tell me anything here, try to reconcile with jehovah witness, catholics, mormon etc.

And before anyone would listen to you, try preaching to the various sects in Islam that are all at standby to wipe one another off the face of the earth - the Shiites and Sunnis, with the Wahhabis rubbing their fingers as they watch the drama unfold.

@nuru,

Would you please try and grow up instead of making blank statements that you cannot defend.

First, it was your idea that Muhammad's companions sought consent before having coitus interruptus with theit captives - and you have failed time and again to answer the question to provide your evidence thereto.

Then it was your idea that Muhammad's pillaging settlements and dividing the victims was describing "how generous" he was - and again you failed to defend your statement.

This robotic al-Taqiyya that you're bantering about is not helping your responses; and to come back sounding accusative is even worse. If there's nothing sound in your musings, were it not more dignified that you never attempt them in the first place?

goodguy:
I see a lot of sense in Moukee's posts, especially those on the Pastors and the Sabbath.

It were wiser that such statements were never uttered, than to have done so and cleared all doubts about the no-sense in Moukee's posts. Some people simply do not understand the subjects that they assume to treat; and to applaud them is amuzing enough.

Jen33:
How many people do you want to influence with your nonsensical fairytale?

I wonder if this chap was musing about his/her own 'nonsensical fairytale' - because it's quite obvious that the links supplied are teeming with well-spun tales.

Jen33:
It would help if you took the time to read/view the evidence presented rather than shooting off like a cat in heat.

Titters! Did he/she really say that? Those 3-dimensional cartoons -- is that what Jen33 calls "the evidence presented"??

Jen33:
Colonised twerp.

Ahh - there! Self-descriptive afterall.

@bari_kade,

bari_kade:
As you very well know, the Christian position is an exceedingly far more glorious calling than the Old Covenant. This is the core of my argument on this subject, and in due cause we shall come to that point.

Thanks. Can hardly wait.

bari_kade:
When dirty comot for your cursed eyes, you go see road. Read on.
. . .
You score such illiterate interjections because you can't read or understand anything in front of your eyes. Mark 14:69 does not have "below in the courtyard" as you quoted; so who is working overtime with your cheap lies? It won't take you long before you get to your 787th lie!

bari_kade:
We all agree Scripture teaches that Jesus (the Logos) is God - John 1:1.

Now let me ask you a few questions.

1. Since Jesus is God, did He die as 'GOD' on the Cross between two thieves?

2. Since Jesus is God, did He become hungry as 'GOD' in Mark 11:12?

3. Since Jesus is God, did He weep as 'GOD' in John 11:35?

@Amby,

What sayest thou on the above?

Jen33:
Jesus Christ Did Not Exist.


http://www.truthbeknown.com/christ.htm


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGbJpGlwjyU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ-kvw1fYXs&mode=related&search=

Another tired wishful thinker on the loose. The tired-out 'stories' and kindergarten questions are all the more obvious in the second youtube link. E.g., sample the following -

'Suddenly, John the Baptist is "put in prison". There is no further explanation in the Bible, which seems quite strange if John were a real person. We want to know why he was put in prison.'

This cheap fellow must have deliberately ignored the answer to his "why" question in the Bible in Matt. 14:3-4 >>

"For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife. For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her."

When someone plays games like these and asks silly questions in pretence that the answers are not in the Bible, it just isn't worth losing sleep over noise makers and attention seekers as such.

@topic,

It is really amusing for babs787 to start out with the 16th century 'Gospel of Barnabas' as "proof" that Jesus was not crucified, and then work his way backwards to the 1st century Barnabas of the Bible!

This chap has failed to realise that the 'Gospel of Barnabas' even contradicts the Qur'an as effectively as he supposes it does the Bible. No matter how many times it has already been mentioned, babs787 still hasn't seen the weakness in his argument that knowledgeable MUSLIMS do NOT even take this document seriously.

Well, the substance of the topic is not easily established by a family discussion, though at that level it may only help the feeling of the moment.

As a Christian, it would require something more engaging to present for persuasion to those wondering about the subject. Some of these would include Biblical history and the convicting power of the Gospel.

@topic,

Every expression of a religion as it exists today is at best an attempt to represent the said religion in consonance with the special interpretation of the particular group being examined. This applies in Christianity as well as in Islam and other faiths.

The allegation that Pentecostalism is a weak form of Christianity is only a reflection of one man's view (drag_on) based on very myopic evaluation. At best, he was only expressing some of his personal vexations against something he really does not understand.