₦airaland Forum

Help me ask her oo

I love all surahs cos all do touch me when recited.

I love Surah Maidah because it exposes falsehood.

@mdsocks

Salam

May Allah reward you as you bring up this thread

@mukina

Jazhakullah Khairan for that post

@pilgrim


Back to the topic;

Is the bible complete?

@pilgrim

When you are through with your game, please call on me.

@pilgrim.1

Three issues I have presented to you as pointers to help you understand clearly why it could not be referring to PHYSICAL death:

(a) death in the Bible is defined in several ways, and not just one.

Can I have some of the ways please?

(b) in its CONTEXTS with other verses, the verse you quoted point to spiritual death,
and not physical death.

You think so. The verse is a very straight forward one that doesnt need any twisting which you have been doing

(c) to help the reader understand this, I also offered God's PROPHETIC remedy in
Genesis 3 v 15 to show that He was referring to a time beyond Adam's day!

Haba, that is a blatant lie my dear.

When you put these things together, you find that the Bible does not throw words carelessly as Muslims carelessly read their Qur'an. Each concept is clearly defined CONTEXTUALLY, and if anyone misses the context, the only end up with pretexts which they read into the texts - as you did in trying to read a CURSE for Eve where there was none (because you tore the verse out of its context).

Now read this again:


for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.

Two things can be got here

1. The day you eat the fruit
2. That day you shall die

Now are you trying to say He was referrig to spiritual death. You accused someone of lifting out of context but you have been doing what you accused others of. God made it known to us that the very day they eat the fruit, they will die and you are here trying to twist it, givng it another meaning. Do you mean that the day they eat the fruit, the day they will die a spiritual death?

The explanations are already given - nor did I say that God SAID verbetim that it was spiritual death. He did not say it was PHYSICAL death either - but when you dig deep, you come to understand simply that the "day" in question was not referring to a literal interpretation that is to be taken out of its context.

What was the day referring to considering the other part of the statement that says 'the day you eat the fruit'

My dear babs787, I am waiting for your rebuttal to what I have offered first before jumping to another issue. This hyperventilating of Muslims who have nothing to say in discussing an issue where they make claims that cannot be substantiated is not exactly what will score you any cheap glory here, babs.

Good to hear you say you are waiting for my rebuttal. Let me remind you that when we are through with this, we will go and debate the previously raised questions

You are the one trying to force what is not into that verse which happened to be glaring.

these are the verses again:

Genesis 3 v 16-19. To the woman He said:

'i will greatly multiply you pain in childbearing, in pain you shall bring forth children yet your desire shall befor your husband ad he shall rule over you'.

Go to that book of Genesis and you would see that they never had any problem nor God telling or commanind them as in the above statement prior to the eating of the fruit. They moved freely, they didnt face any hardship but had to go through the above after eating the fruit. It was the eating of the fruit that made God to tell her as in the above verse. Now, please do you think God would have told her that if she has not eaten that fruit? God told her that as the punishment for eating the fruit

And to Adam He said,
'because you have listened
to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of knowledge which I commanded you, you shall not eat of it. Cursed is the ground because of you, in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life, thorns and thistles it shallbring forht for you, and you shall eat the plants of the field. In the sweet of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken and you are dust and to dust you shall return.

Also he made this statement to Adam after eating the fruit. You should know that Adam lived in that Garden peacefully and confortably before the issung of eating the fruit came up but God had to tell him that being the punishment for eating the fruit.

You made a claim that God CURSED Eve - please deal with that fallacy before ducking away from it!

What does that look like my dear? Did God place any hardship on her before eating that fruit?

You pretend to be smart, but not smart enough to sneak away from this issue.

No I am not smart but still learning.

Please find me where God ever CURSED Eve. I beg you - find me that verse.

Now, did God place any hardship on them before they ate the fruit? Is that statement not supposed to be punishment for her sin?

As for those who came under the CURSE of God for what they did, I have offered you clear verses for them. I expect you to find me a verse where God CURSED Eve. Thank you.

Stop twisting the word of God (inspired word of God ). You know the truth that made that statement after eating the fruit which he commanded them not to and you are very aware that God never told them what he did in those verses. The eating of the fruit brought about that and it served as a punishment for eating the fruit. Deny the fact again.

The statement was made AFTER the incident - and not before it. A righteous God does not punish people for sins they haven't commited. Does that sound like a CURSE to you, babs787?

Ok, good. God made that statement because of the sin they committed. God did not give that command when they havent eaten that fruit but had to that after eating the fruit. Please does that not look like a punishment for the sin committed by them?

Please stop crying and demonstrate where I goofed. If I offered that clear pointers that God never placed a CURSE on Eve, where is that a "goof" and yet you could not offer an alternative to demostrate your case?

You should prepare to answer the questions on Jesus being sent to the whole world

2Pilgrim.1

Is the bible complete or not?

@dafidixone


Can you help me beg your sister, pilgrim.1 to respond to my question?

@pilgrim

Have you been to the first page?

No I didnt bother because I know that my professor, pilgrim.1 :Dwill re-supply the meaning and when you do, we will know if Quran came to confirm and correct the Bible based on verses from both books

@pilgrim

Insert Quote
Accusing me with your noise does not help to cover up your adventures of LYING for 'Allah' and not being able to smart up for it.

My response:

Greatest Maradona Nairaland could ever produced. If you ready to answer to those questions, call on me and I will respond Asap

@pilgrim

Have you finished pretending about not remembering to have posted any issues on Genesis 2 v 15? WHY were you pretending to have partial amnesia?

Call my attention when you finish deceiving yourself. You posted wrong thing in the wrong thread, asking for Gen 2 v 15 in a thread where I never posted that

Did I claim that you posted it in that particular thread? I simply reminded you since you were deliberately ducking this thread, and that was how your confusion started chasing you to pretend that you had a momentary lapse of memory.

If you did not claim, why were you asking for that in a thread I never raised such/ Abi your eyes don see double

Where did God mentioned that they would be put to death (physical death) or where did he mention that they would die PHYSICALLY? That was why I took ti,me to explain the coherence and context of that verse in relation to the PROPHECY in chapter 3 v 15 to show that God was not pointing to physical death.

Here you are again with your physical death and please can you show me where God told them that it would be spiritual death because he said they would die that same day?

If you find physical death there rather than a pointer to something far beyond that, please let us know. It will not do to sit smug behind the PC and keep denying issues.

Can I have where God said it was a spiritual death?

Genesis 3 v 16-19 is not a CURSE. Biblical exegesis does not throw words just about anyhow (even though you claimed to know the Bible more than others). God pronounced a judgement upon Eve which should be a asign to all generations as a FACT that the account in Genesis is true; but a curse is a different thing!

My dear Sister, why did God pronounce judgement on Eve?

Of those who were not simply "judged" but cursed, we read the following:

Genesis 3:14 - The serpent
And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this,
thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon
thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

Genesis 4:11 - Cain (for mudering his brother)
And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth
to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand.


The Bible does not confuse these issues - and instead of your shakara of knowing the Bible more than anybody, please rest your bloviates and let us hear word! A "curse" was not placed on Eve - go and find the verse where God pronounced a curse on her!

So what did God do to eve then if it is not a curse because it her eating that fruit brought that statement from God?

Did that sound like God cursed EVE?

Why was the statement made after the incident and what does it look like?

You're forcing yourself to read issues that are non-exietent into the Bible - and for all that, you still arrive at your failure to clearly distinguish them!

You seemed very fast at answering the question on Adam and Eve though you goofed in your explanation but never tried to answer earlier questions.

That is Pilgrim, playing her game of dishonesty

@pilgrim.1

When you learn to drop your hypocrisy, you will face up to intelligence that Muslims only wish for. Trying to play games and expecting me to keep chasing your Islamic ducking every now and then is not going to glorify Islam.

You drop your hypocrisy, then we can enter into a discourse.

When you are ready and want to know more about christianity, answer these questions

What is the Greek word for God in the second statement?
What is the Greek word for God in the last statement?

And you should know that:

Trinity is not biblical, it is not even in the bible, not in bible dictionaries, Jesus never taught trinity nor mentioned same. There is no basis or proof in the bible for the acceptance of trinity.

[quote][/quote]

@dafidixone


I saw you post just hence my replying you late. Dont mind that yeye Maradona, those questions seem too hard for her and she knows the truth deep down her heart.

So pal, im me privately so we talk, pilgrim is just feiging ignorance.

My dear babs, there is a common saying of the yorubas " You can only wake someone who is truely asleep but it may be difficult if not imposible to wake a pretender" "Eni to sun laa ji enikan kii ji eni ti o piroro

"


Ti eni ti a npuro fun ko ba mo, eni to a nap fun mo. If who we are lying to is unaware, the person lying knows that he is lying

I know you know the truth you only want to use this forum and pass time.

Yes I know the truth about Islamic monotheism and also on a manmade religion that has no basis

Are you a retiree?

Why did you ask?

I am only sorry for Olabowale and I will enjoin you to be calling him on private noter to make him know he is on his own ooo

Yeye dey worry you . Why not join me in becoming a muslim. Hope you know that I was like you before I realised the truth. So no pretext this time oga, the clock is ticking and do not say I didnt tell you

Baba babs you must be a metusella ooo

I have beginning and will surely die one day.

@pilgrim.1

That is what I have decided to do. All the shakara and hide-and-seek they have been playing all thise while is not worth the sands of the Arabian road. Such a shame that Muslims cannot face up genuinely to a simple discuorse - and yet they claim to be very 'scientific'.

Enjoy o jare - and the Lord be with you.

Let me know when you finish deceiving youself

I am wishing you happy Hijrah in advance

@pilgrim.1

Are you ready to stop pretending your Islamic hypocrisies?

For you please:

@pilgrim.1

Are you ready to answer the questions?

@pilgrim.1

It seems you are not ready for me but when you are ready call on me for explanation to John 1 v 1.

You may ask any Jehovah Witness for the Greek meaning of the word I asked you and when you are through, call on me to provide further explanation on that.

Your trinity has been nailed to the wall.

Let us shed more light into the issue of trinity.

Christians use 1st epistle of john 5 v 7 as the verse on trinity wich goes this way:


for there are there that bear record in heaven, the father, the word and the holy spirit and thse three are one.Are there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water and the blood and these three agree in one.


The above is in King James Version authorised in 1611 and formed the strongest evidence for the Doctrine of the Trinity. But now this part, 'the father, the word and the holy ghost; and these three are one' has been expunged in the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971 and in many other bibles as it was a gloss that had encroached on the Greek test.


I john 5 v 7 and 8 in the New American Standard Bible read as follows; 'and it is the spirit who bears witness because the spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness, the spirit, and the water and the blood and the three are in agreement.


Also in the New World Translation of Holy Scriptures used by Jehovah Witness, you will find 'for there are three witness bearers, the spirit and the water and the blood and the three are in agreement'.


[b]Trinity is not biblical, it is not even in the bible, not in bible dictionaries, Jesus never taught trinity nor mentioned same. There is no basis or proof in the bible for the acceptance of trinity.[/[/b]quote]

@pilgrim.1

Simple question:

Quote from: pilgrim.1 on Today at 01:55:04 PM
Did you offer anything in Genesis 2 v 15 this morning you did NOT?

Straight forward response

Let me have where I did that [b]in this very thread.[/[/b]quote]

@pilgrim

What is difficult in this simple statement:


Quote from: pilgrim.1 on Today at 12:37:13 PM
Go to the first page
??

I want it posted here so that it will aid us in knowing if really the Quran came to confirm and correct the bible.

@pilgrim.1

Are you ready to answer the questions?

@pilgrim.1

As soon as you give up the hypocrisy of deminading answers from other when you NEVER seek to genuinely answer simple questions.

Greatest Maradona Nairaland could ever produced. If you ready to answer to those questions, call on me and I will respond Asap

@pilgrim.1


Can I have the question you claimed to have asked me?

Can polygamy be a better solution in some cases?



Individual cases:

1. a man dicovers that his wife is barren, and who at the same time instinctively aspires to have children and heirs

In a situation like this, the man would either have to :

a suffer the deprivation of fatherhood for life
b. divorce his barren wife and get married to another woman who is not barren.


In many cases, neither solution can be considered as the best alternative. Polygamy would have the advantage of preserving the marital relationship without depriving the man of fathering children of his own.

2. Aman whose wife becomes chronically ill would have one of several possible alternatives:

a. he may suppress his instinctive sexual needs for the rest of his life
b. he may divorce his sick wife at the time when she needs his compassion most, and get married to another woman, thus legally satisfyng his instictive needs.

c. or he could compromise by keeping illicit sex partners.

The first solution is against  human nature. Islam recognises sex and sexual needs and provides for legitimate means for their satisaction. The second solution is clearly less compassionate, especially where there is love between the two parties. Furthermore divorce is decribed by Prophet Muhammad (saw) as the 'permitted thing which Allah hated most'. The last solution is plainly against the Islamic teachings which forbid illicit sexual relations in any form.

To sum up, Islam being against immorality and against divorce unless no better solution is available, provides for a better alternative which is cosistent with human nature and with the preservation of pure and legitimate sex relationships. In a situation like this, it is doubtful that any solution would be better than polygamy, which is, after all an optional solution.


Social cases:

1. anthropologists tell us that among various tribes and societies, polygamy is a social and economic necessity. In some very poor arears, the infant mortality is vert hugh. children on the other hand, are a source of additional labour for thr earning of the family. To have more children under such situations would require the practice of polygamy. It is by this reason christian missionaries in some African regions justified their permission to local people to practice polygamy without beng excommunicated from the church.

One researcher has even found through his studies that womwn in such socities not only accept polygamy but some of them even prefer this.

2. Aside from cases where women outnumber men, devastating wars, in the past and at present have taken their toll mainly among men. The result is not simply more women who cannot find husbands, but even more widows who may aspire to a respectable family life. In such a siatuation, if polygamy is bad, the limitation on polygamy is far worse.

Both unmarried women and widows are human beings. Unless their insticntive needs are legitimately satisfied, the temptation is great for corruption and immorality. But aside from the moral question these women are also exploited. They are used as tools for men's pleasure, yet have no guarantees, no rights or security, financial or emotional. Should they become pregnant, it is their burden alone. But even if such women are ready to pay the price for this personality, society also suffers seriously from such situations.

The increasing number of illegitimate children born today under conditions such as these provides a potential base for tomorrow's ma-adjusted people and even criminals. Furthermore, it is inhuman, humiliating for those children to grow up without knowing who their fathers are and without enjoying a clean and normal family life.

@pilgrim

Genesis 2 v 15: the Lord God took the man and put him in the gardenf Eden to till it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying 'you may freely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.

You will never stop amusing me. I asked you a question but confused yourself and never knew that I never posted Genesis 2 v 15 in another thread.

Now do you think that I can be deceived like you? Far from that. Read the verse again and something will catch your attention which is:

for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die.

What could me as straight forward as this?

However, here's what I have in answer:

The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ does not place the Christian under a "curse". God cursed the ground on for Adam's sake - and the reason for this is clearly given: "cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life" (Gen. 3 v 17).

Na wa with this your response o.Let me break it down for you. You said that God placed the curse on the ground, please read the verses again:


God punished Eve for eating that fruit and this is the punishment

Genesis 3 v 16-19. To the woman He said:

'i will greatly multiply you pain in childbearing, in pain you shall bring forth children yet your desire shall befor your husband ad he shall rule over you'.


Note; Gid did not curse the ground here


And to Adam:

'because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of knowledge which I commanded you, you shall not eat of it. Cursed is the ground because of you, in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life, thorns and thistles it shallbring forht for you, and you shall eat the plants of the field. In the sweet of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken and you are dust and to dust you shall return.

God made us understand that he cursed the land because of what Adam did by listening to the voice of his wife and having eaten of the tree of knowledge.

"And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us
concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground
which the LORD hath cursed." - [Genesis 5 vs 29]

Now, did God curse the land because of Noah and did he offend God?

@pilgrim.1


You can see that your game is up with Babs. You have been known to always pretend whenever question seems to hard for you.

Babs will spend most of his time in Islaimc thread but mind you, Babs will respond if you try posting any lies against Islam and Muslim because I can see here that most questions are hard for you to reply.

I leave youto continue deceiving yourself.

@pilgrim.1

I knew you pretended not to have seen it. Go to the first page and stop this hypocrisy of no longer understanding English.

Can you please re-post the meaning of confirmation for me?

@pilgrim.1

I offered you just one question on John 1 v 1 - and instead of proffering straight answers, you ducked it with questions of your own. Is that why you NEVER have anything to say after Islam has been bleached clueless and colourless?

You offered me question but have you been there to see my last post on same? Why not answer questions rather than avoiding questions. Go to that thread and please when you are through, let me know if something that is 'with' someone can still be that same person.

John 1v 1 will be exposed soon in that thread as we proceed but in order to deflect topic, can you supply me the question you said you have been asking me here?

@pilgrim.1

There are answers if you are genuinely interested in a discussion.

Can you please answer the questions?

@pilgrim.1


Now can you please answer these questions?


What is the Greek word for God in the second statement?
What is the Greek word for God in the last statement?

@pilgrim.1

Did you offer anything in Genesis 2 v 15 this morning you did NOT?

In case you missed my last post, this is it again:

Let me have where I did that in this very thread.

@mukina

Salaam

@ Babs
i would love to see the polygamy posts . .i have mine on it

as long as you guys do not fight me

Salam

Na wa o. Fight ke, there isn othing like that. Honestly it is not that I am supporting or going against Polygamy but just speaking on why it is allowed in Islam and I will looking forward to reading your rejoinder on same.






why is polygamy allowed in Islam?

Firstly, it must be made clear that Islam did not introduce Polygamy in the 7th century A.C. It was a common practice in the ancient world.

secondly polygamy wa the practice of the earlier prophets such as Abraham, David and Solomon as the bible testifies.

The verse which allows polygamy was revealed after the battle of Uhud in which many muslims were killed, leaving widows and orphans for whom due care was incumbent upon the Muslim survivors.

Quran 4 v 3; if you fear that you will not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, two, three or four but if you fear that you will not be able to deal justly (with them) then (marry) only one,

from this verse a number of facts are evident:


1. That polygamy is neither mandatory nor encouraged but merely permitted.

2. that the permission to practise polygamy is not associated with mere satisfaction of pasion. It is rather associated with compassion toward widows and orphans, a matter that is conformed by the atmosphere in which the verse was revealed.

3. that even in such a situation, the permission is far more restricted than the normal practise which existed among the Arabs and other people at that time when many married as many as ten or more wives.

4. that dealing justly with one's wives is an obligation. This applies to housing, food, clothing, kind treatment etc for which the husband is fully responsible. If one is not sure of being able to deal justly with tme, Allah says 'then marry only one. This verse when combined with another verse in the same chapter, shows some discouragement of such plural marriages. The other verse plainly states' you are never able to be fair and just as between women even it if is your ardent desire (Quran 4 v 129).

The requirement of justice rules out the fantasy that man can own as many as he pleases. It also rules out the concept of secondary wife for all wives have exactly the same status and areentitled to identical rights and claims over their husband. It also implies according to the Islamic Law, that should the husband fail to produce enough support for any of his wives, she can go to court ask for a divorce.

5. the verse says marry not kidnap, buy or seduce. Marriage in Islam is a civil contract which is not valid unless both contracting parties consent to it. Thus no wife can be forced or given to a husband who is already married.


It is thus a free choice of both parties. As to the first wife:

a. she may be barren or ill and see in polygamy a better solution

b. she may divorce her husband if he marries a second wife provided that the marriage contract gives her the right of unilateral divorce.

c. she can go to court and ask for a divorce if there is evidence of mistreatment or injustice inflicted upon her.

But if polgamy is discouraged and loaded with such constraints, could it have been better if the Quran simply forbade it/ To answer this questio, we may have to raise another one:

Can polygamy be a better solution in some cases?
I will continue on that later Insha Allah