₦airaland Forum

dolphinheart:
I wish I could discuss your view with you but
1. I dnt have a copy of the book for my own reference right here.
[size=14pt]2 you have not provided prove that there statements where false[/size]
3. I dnt want to derail the thread.

Lol...you see what I'm saying, how will you have the copy when they've probably stopped the distribution because of the lies against the Ante-Nicene fathers and removed it from their online Library.

Imaging the @bold-what evidence do you need again?

FYI: If you want the copy you can get it here: http://thesnarkyapologist..com/2013/02/should-you-believe-in-trinity-booklet.html

Why do you think they remove this booklet from their online Library?

On birthday : I have not avoided the topic. Yes birthday is a pagan celebration and originated from pagan beliefs and culture and you have not proved otherwise or shown where birthday is celebrated or originated by loyal servants of jehovah.

And Abraham made a BIG FEAST on the day Isaac was weaned at the AGE OF THREE.

At least you will agree with me that is Isaac isn't yet up to THREE YEARS OLD Abraham won't arrange any FEAST.

No matter who practise birthday celebration [size=14pt]now,[/size] it does not change it pagan roots.

See how your dubious act is being exposed. you put NOW so that what you can exclude what Russell and some of his successor did by covering them with THE LIGHT GETTING BRIGHTER.

Is it NOW or ALL THE TIME?

Let me help you re-frame your statement with the mind of honesty No matter [b]who practice birthday celebration (with the evidence that the founder of JWs Pastor Russell who claimed to be the mouth piece and directed by the Spirit of God and some Bible students after him actually did), it does not CHANGE it PAGAN roots.[/b]

dolphinheart:
He must have been at least three years old then, for the
registration of Levite males
began at that age. ( 2Ch 31:16 :
Beside their genealogy of males, from three years old
and upward, even unto every
one that entereth into the
house of the LORD, his daily
portion for their service in their
charges according to their
courses)

What do we take from these
1. The bible did not say or indicate the exact age a child is weaned, talkless of it being on his third birthday. Even ur post shows that.

Imaging after you've said that the Bible doesn't have exert age a child is weaning but your quote from 2 Ch 31:16 says "FROM THREE YEARS OLD"
which means a child can't be weaned unless the child is THREE YEARS OLD.

Mean while this still supports my initial post.

Thank God you can still say "This happy event could call for a feast such as the one Abraham arranged at the weaning of Isaac."

2 . The scriptures does not indicate or imply that Hannah took samuel to the temple at exactly 3 years of age.

Go back to school, you're not yet weaned.

ANY WEANED CHILD IS ALREADY THREE YEARS OLDER that's why Hannah herself said in the verse 22 that UNTIL THE CHILD WEANED which means UNTIL The Child reached a PARTICULAR AGE. take that into your skull!

3 . Service at the temple begin at 3 years and any additional day onward. No exact day or birthdate is required. What is required is that the child must be at least 3 years old.

Date of Birth begins immediately a child being born, according to you "Service at the temple begin at 3 years" if the day of birth isn't being counted, how will they know that the Child is 3 YEARS OLD for the service of the TEMPLE? Don't dodge my question ooo

4. The scriptures did not say abraham celebrated Isaacs birthday. [[size=14pt]the day one was weaned is not in anyway associated with birthdate birthday[/size] in the scriptures.

Are you for real?
If the day isn't associated with Birthday, how will they know that the Child is a particular year older?
Maybe weaning is through a random sampling.

That day signifies the day he can now be taught other more important things bout life. No mention of birthdate, birthday or [size=14pt]his exact age is mentioned[/size] In relation to when a child is weaned.

Anybody reading your post can quickly spot the lie, a child that is not 3 YEARS in AGE can't be weaned, please is there an exert age mentioned?

"Birthday" and "day" are two different words in the bible and cannot be used in exchange of each other.

See useless answer, Birthday simply means the DAY ONE WAS BORN and from that day, day will begin to count on the person.
So if a child must be 3 YEARS OLD before being weaned, please would they start to count its day of weaning when he/she was still in the womb?

5. The childs personality, body structure and a host of other heredictory factors determine when a child is termed weaned and is not associated with how long he/she has Lived on earth.

According to the scripture before a child can be weaned READY FOR THE SERVICE OF THE TEMPLE, the child must be 3 YEARS OLD, please when will the counting of his weaning start, while he was still in the womb or the very day he came out from the womb (day of birth-Birthday)?

6. A day a child starts learning about his God is a joyous occassion, everyday inclusive every increase in knowledge of God should call for thanks.

So a day in which God out of His infinite mercy has preserved my life for helping me to see another round day while my life started on earth, isn't called for THANKS!

7. Unlike birthdays, the scriptures did not indicate an anniversary of weaning.

Here is your statement "This happy event could call for a feast such as the one Abraham arranged at the weaning of Isaac

8. Unlike birthdays, weaning is a process not an event, and the completion of that process(with no exact date indicated) can call for joy.

See how you contradicted yourself, you said in the above that THIS HAPPY EVENT but here you said weaning isn't an EVENT.

9. Unlike birthdays, the isrealites weaned their children and God approved of it but there was no mention of birthday celebration.

Abraham arranged a BIG FEAST, please isn't FEAST a celebration?
And with the fact I've provided above weaning is done AT A PARTICULAR AGE

10. Birthday and weaning or weaned are totally seperate and not identical and can't ve used as comparison . Weaning is not pagan created custom while birthday is. Weaning is done for a period of time and essential for the childs growth while birthday is marked ones a year, at a particular date and not essential for a childs growth. A child is weaned and does not wean himself while birthdays is celebrated by the celebrant and not celebrated for him.

Please do you mean ONLY ISRAELITE practice WEAN?
Lol...A child is weaned not wean himself, what if my parent arranged the birthday celebration for me any offense?

11. There was no mention of Hannah having any sort of celebration after weaning samuel. Pls dnt imply or add to what the bible does not say.

When your organization had already done that.
Go back to my previous post I didn't say Hannah celebrated any thing.

Birthday is based on pagan astrology views and plastered with spiritistic and magical processes, weaning is done out of love for the child and proper growth.

And Abraham celebrated Isaac's birthday at the age of his weaning which is 3 years old.

dolphinheart:
1. I do not see them lying , you have not shown me any lies. All you have done and has always been doing is to take parts of their statement,(sometimes adjusting it)then state ur own personal understanding of it. If you where in search of the truth, you would have asked the organization about What they really meant or are trying to say. But you will not ask for clarification , why? Because you already have ur own view which you dnt want to change.
You say they lie based on ur own understanding which is cloudy , opinionated and lacks humility.

Very funny of you.

You do not see them lying when they wrote in their booklet that Justin Martyr, Origin, Clement of Alexandria e.t.c didn't teach anything about Trinity whereas all the works of these Ante-Nicene fathers shows that they all taught Trinity.

See the picture of the booklet "Should you believe in the Trinity?" page 7 below; Notice all these points from what your organization claimed in that page:
1. These fathers were ACKNOWLEDGE to have been leading religious teachers.
2. Dated back to the early century of CHRIST'S BIRTH.
3. That these fathers TAUGHT WHAT IS OF INTEREST.

YET! These people never taught of anyone using the Divine name.

So which means if these father actually taught what JWs didn't believe then JWs' teaching needs to be questioned.

So there's no winning way about it, it's either these three compliments about these fathers by JWs is true or false.
-If it's true then JWs' teaching needs to be thrown inside hell because from these fathers' work we know their teaching is totally different from that of JWs.
-If it's false why then JWs is using false teaching to support their own teaching which means they only make these fantastic statements to deceive people like you.

Now you've avoided the main point of this thread which is celebration of Birthday.

It's birthday a pagan practice now?

*NOTE: I'll ask you again, why did you think your organization remove the booklet "Should you believe in the Trinity" in their online Library?

dolphinheart:
^^^^ u where expecting me to reply on everything he wrote right? Wrooong!! I wunt tell him what he already knows. His post shows he knows where and how to search for the truth. Na only humility and humble assessment remain, and I'm not equipped for that.

You're clamoring on SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH after I've shown you the lies from your organization, please can TRUTH AND LIE work together?

I'm showing you all these to let you know that your organization don't have ANY TRUTH which they always claim to have but lies.

Ephesians 4:14 says, "that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting,"

So if your organization wakes up today and says Ok! you can start celebrating birthday just as the way they wake up and stop it after practicing it for many years. You'll still go with them.

dolphinheart:
Good to know you read there publications fervently. [size=14pt]One day you might see the truth therein.[/size]

How come I can see all these lies BUT YOU who is the majority READER didn't see the lies?

Please @bold-which TRUTH do you want me to see again from the above listed lies?

All I'm asking from you is to prove me wrong that those thing are not from Watchtower Society.

You say I seem to have a view contrary to the organization, now you are implying I'm close -minded. Whichever the case, I'm not going to go into ur well planned twisting.do you notice here again, you docan not see their numerous good works !!?

I'm not only implying that you're close-minded but still maintain my posit that your view is contrary to what your organization teaches which I supported with evidence just as you couldn't counter it in my previous post nor refuted any aforementioned lies about your organization.

I do not think you associate with any religous organization and if you do , I dnt think you will mention it.

Thank God that you only THINK, if you ask for my organization I will tell you.

If you feel u have issues with the watchtower, their contacts is well known and written on their publications which you read regularly. Pls get in touch with them.

How can an organization claimed to be mouth piece of God and directed by the Spirit of God and continue to LIE?
God can not lie, so anything that must come from God can't contain any element of lie YET your organization that claimed to be directed by a God who can't lie involved with many lies.

If this isn't a thing to ponder over for you it's a big concern to me.

As for me, I can only answer questions relating to [size=14pt]what I believe in,[/size] what I know and what I have info on, using the scriptures as a guide.

@bold-that's wrong claim, there's nothing you believe apart from what Watchtower teaches.
Unless you want to tell me that you're not subscribed to everything Watchtower teaches but once you agree with ALL WHAT IT TEACHES Mr man you don't have your own believe.

Since you use scripture as a guide, how do you understand 1 Tim 6:16 "who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen."

Back to the thread, birthdays is a pagan celebration, was celebrated by pagans who worshiped false Gods and no servant of God was recorded as partaking or adopting such practices.

Actually, I was waiting to this end so that you can know that your organization truly perverted the scriptures to suit themselves.
Your Brother CANTICLES also bragged with this statement

"For my trilion dollars, show me a righteous man that observe birthday celebration in the bible?"

Now with this I'm going to show you from NWT that if Birthday celebration is PAGAN and celebrated by pagan then Abraham is also a pagan for celebrating Isaac's birthday.

There are a lot of cross-references represented with alphabet at the center of NWT and on online edition with plus (+) sign. What does it mean? It means the particular verse in view has direct link with the one being referenced to.

With this in mind, now let's go to real business.

Genesis 21:8 reads, "Now the child kept growing and came to be weaned; e [size=14pt]and Abraham then prepared a big feast on the day of Isaac’s being weaned."[/size] When you look at the reference to "e" in the center column it refers you to 1 Samuel 1:22 which read "But Han′nah did not go up,+ for she said to her husband: “As soon as the boy is weaned, I will bring him; then he will appear before Jehovah and remain there from then on.” + when you click at the last plus (+) sign it refers you to 2 Chronicles 31:16 that read "This was in addition to the distribution made [size=14pt]to the males from three years old[/size] and up who were listed in the genealogical enrollment, who came daily to serve in the house of Jehovah and to carry out the duties of their divisions."

From the above we know that a Child is weaned when he is three years old, to support this I'll quote from Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary on the meaning of WEAN Wean:- Among the Hebrews children (whom it was customary for the mothers to nurse, Ex. 2:7-9; 1 Sam. 1:23; Cant. 8:1) were not generally weaned till they were three or four years old.

So Abraham actually did a big birthday party for Isaac when he was three years old because [size=14pt]"...Abraham then prepared a BIG FEAST on the day of Isaac’s being weaned." (this can be translated "...Abraham then prepared a BIG FEAST on the DAY Isaac being three years old)"[/size]

Even while considering other event in the Bible like the case of Han'nah, Han'nah might have also threw a very big feast when Samuel was weaned, though we can't read into the scriptures what isn't there like JWs had read into the scriptures on what Bible didn't give any detail about.

dolphinheart:
I guess you are one of those who see everything in black and white.

Yes! Especially the lies of watchtower

I've not discovered any incoherent teaching.
The organizations beliefs and practise of its members have helped me, in fact , it has saved me literarily!.

Why will you find any?

Only a close-minded person will look at watchtower teaching and says nothing was wrong.

*On different five occasions they couldn't identify who Angel Michael is----yet to you no incoherent
*For more than FORTY YEARS they taught the worshiping of Jesus Christ until they realized that such act is idolatry (what will happen to people who died with the believe of worshiping Christ?)----yet to you no incoherent.
*For more than TWENTY YEARS they are HERALD OF CHRIST but today they were no more Herald of Christ but Jehovah witness even though Bible testimony was that Jehovah Himself witnesses about His Son---Yet to you no incoherent
*They published a booklet title "Should you believe in Trinity?" and blindly distributed ONLY TO LATER DISCOVERED that the booklet was full of lies about what they wrote on EARLY fathers and the booklet was QUICKLY removed FROM THEIR ONLINE LIBRARY---yet to you no incoherent.
*They always preach against SPIRIT-ISM and at the same time use the source of those who involve in SPIRITISM as their support---yet to you no incoherent.
*JWs discredited Justin Martyr in AWAKE 1976 Nov 22 p.27 by saying Justin was not INSPIRED BY GOD as the Bible writers were simply because Justin plainly wrote that Jesus died on the CROSS but they can cite the work of Christianity TRASHIER like John Rylands, E. Washburn Hopkins, Siegfried Morenz, Will Durant, Arthur Weigall who DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE talk less of Jesus Christ to support their claim IN THE SAME BOOKLET "Should you believe in the trinity"? And the funny part of it is that Justin Martyr was also wrongly quoted as a support in the same booklet. confuse people....
*I opened a thread about the comment of JWs on 1 Tim 6:16 you people pretended as if nothing happen simply because none of you could counter it

*The shocking one is when JWs say Jesus is not a MEDIATOR FOR MANKIND BUT ONLY FOR THE 144,000 holy one in heaven, and many more.....

Ur notice is totally wrong !
I've not said anything that goes contrary to the views of the organization.
If you really know me, ull realize that I'm not trying to serve jehovah cus of friends and family, they are secondary to the reason why I'm serving jehovah.

Check what you said earlier to what I posted you know that your statement here is nonsensical.

You see there post and publications from a wrong perspective cus you are constantly and desperately searching for "something wrong" with what they teach. This premeditated search of yours does not allow you to see the good things they teach you in their publications, which should be the main determinant.

With what I posted above, why would I take them serious?
Russell claimed to be mouth piece and directed by the Spirit of God likewise do Rutherford claimed the same ONLY another mouth piece and spirit filled present to arise and said what those mouth piece and spirit filled taught were IDOLATRY, who should will believe?

The funny part of it is that JWs can see the log wood in someone eyes but they couldn't see their own.

They made this statement about Catholic in 1970 "Yes, millions of persons have been shocked to learn that things they were taught as being vital for salvation are now considered by their church to be wrong. "Just ten years ago we Catholics had the absolute truth, we put all our faith in this. Now the pope and our priests are telling us this is not the way to believe any more, but we are to believe 'new things.' [size=14pt]How do I know the 'new things' will be the truth in five years?"[/size] Awake! 1970 Apr 22 p.8

With this question How do I know the 'new things' will be the truth in five years? everyone reading that statement can understand where they're heading to, whereas they couldn't ask themselves THE SAME QUESTION.

I think the question any open-minded JWs who truly wants to know the truth about the TRUE GOD should ask his/herself is, why is the light getting brighter and why must it be?

Though some JWs actually know the reason why the light is getting brighter but they decided to continue to live with the lies.

NervousErection:
Yes, because a Christian who believes [size=14pt]all of the above[/size] is brain-dead.

You're absolutely right.

because it's even contradicting for a Christian to believe ALL OF THE ABOVE at once.

obaobirin:
The bible doesn't contradict itself.
It has expressly stated that "And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man" (John 3:13)

Others that were taken to heaven by the agency of God's influence

While on the other hand

Jesus being God (John 1vs 1-end) (colossians 1 vs 11, Colossians 2 vs9) himself released the force of gravity holding him down--thereby the word ASCENDED (to mount, go upward -all by yourself..)

I suppose to quote OLAADEGBU but it seems both of you have the same view and I read malvisguy212 post also though it seems he missed it along the line.

I discovered that the way you people explain this very verse isn't the actual understanding of Jesus Christ's statement by many commentators.

To fully understand Jesus' statement, let's start from Verse 10 "10 Jesus answered and said to him, "Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 "Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. [size=14pt]12 "If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?[/size] 13 "No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven." NKJV

Here, Jesus' statement means No man has ever gone to heaven (in bringing any report) and COME BACK to earth (to deliver it for mankind) except Him who has his origin from heaven and has come down.

Let me cite some NT commentators so that we can understand it better.

Geneva Bible.
"(k) Only Christ can teach us heavenly things, for no man ascends, etc. (l) That is, has any spiritual light and understanding, or ever had any, but only the Son of God who came down to us..."

Williams Burkitts
"Here our Saviour declares to Nicodemus, That none ever ascended up into heaven, to fetch down from thence the knowledge of divine mysteries, and to reveal the way of life and salvation to mankind by a Mediator, but only Christ himself; who, though he took upon him the human nature, and was then man upon earth yet was he at the same time in his divine nature actually in heaven as God."

Albert Barnes
"Verse 13. And no man hath ascended into heaven. No man, therefore, is qualified to speak of heavenly things, Joh 3:12. To speak of those things requires intimate acquaintance with them--demands that we have seen them; and as no one has ascended into heaven and returned, so no one is qualified to speak of them but He who came down from heaven. This does not mean that no one had gone to heaven or had been saved, for Enoch and Elijah had been borne there (Ge 5:24; comp. Heb 11:5; 2Ki 2:11), and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and others were there; but it means that no one had ascended and returned, so as to be qualified to speak of the things there."

Family Bible
"Hath ascended up to heaven; learned heavenly things by actual presence there, and come down from that world to reveal them. Son of man; Jesus Christ. Which is in heaven; whose proper dwelling-place is in heaven. He left heaven for a season only, to return thither again."

Jameison Fausset Brown
13. no man hath ascended, &c.--There is something paradoxical in this language--"No one has gone up but He that came down, even He who is at once both up and down." Doubtless it was intended to startle and constrain His auditor to think that there must be mysterious elements in His Person. The old Socinians, to subvert the doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ, seized upon this passage as teaching that the man Jesus was secretly caught up to heaven to receive His instructions, and then "came down from heaven" to deliver them. But the sense manifestly is this: "The perfect knowledge of God is not obtained by any man's going up from earth to heaven to receive it--no man hath so ascended--but He whose proper habitation, in His essential and eternal nature, is heaven, hath, by taking human flesh, descended as the Son of man to disclose the Father, whom He knows by immediate gaze alike in the flesh as before He assumed it, being essentially and unchangeably 'in the bosom of the Father'"

I believe these can help us understand the content of that verse.

Shalom!

crusadistic:
of course its always the so-called 'apostle' paul.you've decided to follow paul instead of Jesus.

Don't derail this thread!

Emusan:
One of the arguments that the Watchtower Society raises against Jesus being God in the flesh is the fact that the Holy Bible teaches that God cannot be seen, whereas Jesus was seen:

[size=14pt]Is Jesus God?[/size]

“No man has seen God at any time.”—John 1:18.

WHAT PEOPLE SAY

Many people believe that Jesus is not God. Still, others point to Bible verses that supposedly indicate that Jesus is equal to God. (This indicates that JWs truly knew that some verses in the Bible actually put Jesus in equality with the Father)

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS

The Bible does not portray Jesus as being Almighty God or equal to God. On the contrary, it clearly teaches that Jesus is inferior to God. For example, the Bible records Jesus’ own words: “The Father is greater than I am.” (John 14:28) [size=14pt]The Bible also says: “No man has seen God at any time.” (John 1:18) Jesus cannot be God because many people did in fact see Jesus.[/size]

Jesus’ early followers did not claim that he was God. For example, the Gospel writer John said concerning the things he recorded: “These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.”—John 20:31. (AWAKE! DECEMBER 2013)

*Ironically, the Society interprets this text in reference to Christ, which means that he (JESUS) is the One whom the passage says "no one has seen or can see!"

What basis is there for saying that such phrases as “the one alone having immortality” and the one “whom not one of men has seen or can see” refer to Jesus rather than to Jehovah God?

The apostle Paul wrote: “This manifestation the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times, he the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords, [size=13pt]the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom not one of men has seen or can see.”[/size] —1 Timothy 6:15, 16.

Bible commentators generally reason: ‘How could such phrases as “the one alone having immortality,” the “only Potentate,” and the one “whom not one of men has seen or can see” point to anyone other than the Almighty?’ [size=14pt]ADMITTEDLY, such terms could be used TO DESCRIBE JEHOVAH. However, the context indicates that at 1 Timothy 6:15, 16, Paul WAS SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO JESUS.[/size]

At the end of verse 14, Paul mentions “the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Timothy 6:14) Hence, when Paul writes in 1Ti 6 verse 15 that “this manifestation the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times,” [size=14pt]he is referring to a manifestation of Jesus, not of Jehovah God.[/size] Who, then, is the “only Potentate”? It seems reasonable to conclude that Jesus is the Potentate referred to by Paul. Why? The context makes it evident that Paul is comparing Jesus with human rulers. Jesus truly is, as Paul wrote, “King of those [humans] who rule as kings and Lord of those [humans] who rule as lords.”* Yes, compared to them, Jesus is the “only Potentate.” Jesus has been given “rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him.” (Daniel 7:14) No human potentate can make that claim! (Watchtower, September 1, 2005, Questions From Readers, p. 27; Bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

There are many descriptions we need to consider in these verses:
1. the one alone having immortality,
2. who dwells in unapproachable light, &
3. whom not one of men has seen or can see.

ONLY A BEING THAT IS UNCREATED can absolutely fit into these three descriptions.
So when Jehovah Witness try to explain the phrase "the one alone having immortality" we see them concluding that Jesus life CAN BY ANY MEANS DESTROYED OR BEYOND DESTRUCTION.

[size=13pt]How can Jesus be “the one alone having immortality”?[/size]

The first one described in the Bible as rewarded with the gift of immortality is Jesus Christ. That he did not possess immortality before his resurrection by God is seen from the inspired apostle’s words at Romans 6:9: “Christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is master over him no more.” (Compare Re 1:17, 18.) For this reason, when describing him as “the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords,” 1 Timothy 6:15, 16 shows that Jesus is distinct from all such other kings and lords in that he is “the one alone having immortality.” The other kings and lords, because of being mortal, die, even as did also the high priests of Israel. [size=14pt]The glorified Jesus, God’s appointed High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, however, has “an indestructible life.”[/size] —Heb 7:15-17, 23-25.

The word “indestructible” here translates the Greek term a•ka•ta′ly•tos, meaning, literally, “indissoluble.” (Heb 7:16, ftn) The word is a compound of the negative prefix a joined to other words relating to a “loosening down,” as in Jesus’ statement regarding the loosening down or throwing down of the stones of the temple at Jerusalem (Mt 24:1, 2), as well as in Paul’s reference to the loosening down of the earthly “tent” of Christians, that is, the dissolving of their earthly life in human bodies. (2Cor 5:1) [size=14pt]Thus, the immortal life granted Jesus upon his resurrection is not merely endless but is beyond deterioration or dissolution and is beyond destruction.[/size] (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, Immortality, pp. 1189-1190; underline & bold emphasis ours)

Main Article: www.answering-islam.org/seen-the-unseen-God-pt_1.html

Where are the Jehovah's witness?

olyivy:
Google "chained select" there are tonnes of articles and plugins for that on the internet...

Thanks, but I'm not a guru in web design.

I've done a little research on it but you know things like these are somehow difficult for people like me.

So can I get a template which I can edit from you?

Emusan:
Good day,
I need some one to help me with the web code for Advanced Search where by visitor(s) can use to search.

For instance if a visitor select Lagos State all the localities under Lagos can also be selected in another field.

Thanks.

No help since...

dolphinheart:
Being a witness of jehovah is not by being a member of the organization.

I guess you're one of those who have discovered incoherent teaching of your organization but afraid of leaving the organization due to dis-fellowship from friends and families.

Because I notice some of your claim are against what your organization teaches sometimes, your organization teaching is contrary to what you said above

This is the second baptismal question of your organization:
"Do you understand that your dedication and baptism identify you as one of Jehovah's Witnesses in association with God's spirit-directed organization?" Watchtower 1985 Jun 1 p.30

71

One of the arguments that the Watchtower Society raises against Jesus being God in the flesh is the fact that the Holy Bible teaches that God cannot be seen, whereas Jesus was seen:

[size=14pt]Is Jesus God?[/size]

“No man has seen God at any time.”—John 1:18.

WHAT PEOPLE SAY

Many people believe that Jesus is not God. Still, others point to Bible verses that supposedly indicate that Jesus is equal to God. (This indicates that JWs truly knew that some verses in the Bible actually put Jesus in equality with the Father)

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS

The Bible does not portray Jesus as being Almighty God or equal to God. On the contrary, it clearly teaches that Jesus is inferior to God. For example, the Bible records Jesus’ own words: “The Father is greater than I am.” (John 14:28) [size=14pt]The Bible also says: “No man has seen God at any time.” (John 1:18) Jesus cannot be God because many people did in fact see Jesus.[/size]

Jesus’ early followers did not claim that he was God. For example, the Gospel writer John said concerning the things he recorded: “These have been written down that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God.”—John 20:31. (AWAKE! DECEMBER 2013)

*Ironically, the Society interprets this text in reference to Christ, which means that he (JESUS) is the One whom the passage says "no one has seen or can see!"

What basis is there for saying that such phrases as “the one alone having immortality” and the one “whom not one of men has seen or can see” refer to Jesus rather than to Jehovah God?

The apostle Paul wrote: “This manifestation the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times, he the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords, [size=13pt]the one alone having immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom not one of men has seen or can see.”[/size] —1 Timothy 6:15, 16.

Bible commentators generally reason: ‘How could such phrases as “the one alone having immortality,” the “only Potentate,” and the one “whom not one of men has seen or can see” point to anyone other than the Almighty?’ [size=14pt]ADMITTEDLY, such terms could be used TO DESCRIBE JEHOVAH. However, the context indicates that at 1 Timothy 6:15, 16, Paul WAS SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO JESUS.[/size]

At the end of verse 14, Paul mentions “the manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Timothy 6:14) Hence, when Paul writes in 1Ti 6 verse 15 that “this manifestation the happy and only Potentate will show in its own appointed times,” [size=14pt]he is referring to a manifestation of Jesus, not of Jehovah God.[/size] Who, then, is the “only Potentate”? It seems reasonable to conclude that Jesus is the Potentate referred to by Paul. Why? The context makes it evident that Paul is comparing Jesus with human rulers. Jesus truly is, as Paul wrote, “King of those [humans] who rule as kings and Lord of those [humans] who rule as lords.”* Yes, compared to them, Jesus is the “only Potentate.” Jesus has been given “rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him.” (Daniel 7:14) No human potentate can make that claim! (Watchtower, September 1, 2005, Questions From Readers, p. 27; Bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

There are many descriptions we need to consider in these verses:
1. the one alone having immortality,
2. who dwells in unapproachable light, &
3. whom not one of men has seen or can see.

ONLY A BEING THAT IS UNCREATED can absolutely fit into these three descriptions.
So when Jehovah Witness try to explain the phrase "the one alone having immortality" we see them concluding that Jesus life CAN BY ANY MEANS DESTROYED OR BEYOND DESTRUCTION.

[size=13pt]How can Jesus be “the one alone having immortality”?[/size]

The first one described in the Bible as rewarded with the gift of immortality is Jesus Christ. That he did not possess immortality before his resurrection by God is seen from the inspired apostle’s words at Romans 6:9: “Christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is master over him no more.” (Compare Re 1:17, 18.) For this reason, when describing him as “the King of those who rule as kings and Lord of those who rule as lords,” 1 Timothy 6:15, 16 shows that Jesus is distinct from all such other kings and lords in that he is “the one alone having immortality.” The other kings and lords, because of being mortal, die, even as did also the high priests of Israel. [size=14pt]The glorified Jesus, God’s appointed High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, however, has “an indestructible life.”[/size] —Heb 7:15-17, 23-25.

The word “indestructible” here translates the Greek term a•ka•ta′ly•tos, meaning, literally, “indissoluble.” (Heb 7:16, ftn) The word is a compound of the negative prefix a joined to other words relating to a “loosening down,” as in Jesus’ statement regarding the loosening down or throwing down of the stones of the temple at Jerusalem (Mt 24:1, 2), as well as in Paul’s reference to the loosening down of the earthly “tent” of Christians, that is, the dissolving of their earthly life in human bodies. (2Cor 5:1) [size=14pt]Thus, the immortal life granted Jesus upon his resurrection is not merely endless but is beyond deterioration or dissolution and is beyond destruction.[/size] (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, Immortality, pp. 1189-1190; underline & bold emphasis ours)

Main Article: www.answering-islam.org/seen-the-unseen-God-pt_1.html

Good day,
I need some one to help me with the web code for Advanced Search where by visitor(s) can use to search.

For instance if a visitor select Lagos State all the localities under Lagos can also be selected in another field.

Thanks.

ZoranderGraeme:
And muslims weren't brutally tortured and forced to renounce their faith and when they refuse brutally murdered?

You mean Muhammad and his Caliph?

Surprise surprise, you still don't get it.

Or you don't?

And it can be used as physical superiority, what makes you think you're better qualified to interpret that than all the muslim scholars I. The world? And how will them accept spiritual superiority when they don't believe in the one true God.

How did I interpret it? I can see that you've totally missed the point here.

You see this just sums up your confusion, Jizya is a pillar of islam? Lmao! Please, who is the imb*cile that told you this? News flash, muslims don't pay Jizya, dweeb, only non muslims do? Lol! This just proves how ignorant you are.

My point is that you don't know anything about islam.

And when you read this, you clearly saw, that if they refuse to accept islam they should pay, Jizya, a tax paid by non Muslim, you have epically failed in this post,

Yeah I actually confused it with Zaakat, I admitted my error on that part!

where is the forceful conversion? Did he say convert them by force? He said if they refuse islam, they should pay Jizya. It's not a pillar of Islam like you hilariously posted above. [size=14pt]Please, if you have any evidence of where the Quran or the prophet approved forceful conversion, feel free.[/size] Lol! But this post really cracked me up.

I can't stop laughing sha...you're still trying hard to defend your Allah. Like I said I don't want to post another verse and I can see how you boycott the word of Muhammad in that hadith.

But let me just give you these from both Quran and the Hadith:

"And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone." S. 2:192 (Which means the fight will stop UNTIL everybody worships Allah)

"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" S 8:12
(Unbelievers' head and fingertip should be strike off, what does Allah mean here?)

Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: [size=14pt]'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'.[/size] And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally." (Please who ORDERED Muhammad here to FIGHT?)

Muslim (1:30) - "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah." http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/001-smt.php#001.0030

You need further schooling by your fellow zealots.

You need more than I do...

Again after all this Allah can still say "let there be no compulsion in religion" after he has commanded Muhammad to forcefully convert people.

The more you tried hard to prove Allah right the more Muhammad and his caliph's life disprove you.

JMAN05:
If any honest hearted person here wants to ask question, let him do so. emusan is not ready to see his error.

Please for goodness sake stop mentioning my name on irrelevant issue, if there was an error in my post why can't you highlight it so that people can see it rather than making empty noise?

Yet you haven't answered any of my questions since. mtcheeeee

I don't know. If don't know what am saying, leave it.

And to make yourself more clearer is difficult for you to do.

Seems u wanna let it slide. Good!

And this is coming from someone who have been avoiding my questions since...

Pls show me this greek equivalent. And how does that affect "Jesus" and "Isaiah" we are using today?

What kind of Greek equivalent should I show you?

Kindly explain what you mean by "how does that affect Jesus and Isaiah!

Are you saying they are the english equivalent of the hebrew?

Your situation is pathetic,

So what is the Hebrew equivalent of Jesus and Isaiah in English?

Or Do Jesus and Isaiah in English have different equivalent words in both Hebrew and Greek?

I hope u are talking about bible writers, shey?

No! About the Author of the book "What does Bible really teach?"

Which dictionary did u use? Paste it let's see.

Anyway I used the normal English Android dictionary, but are you saying it's wrong or what?

Oga, Jesus is not a translation of Yehoshua in English. It is an English man's way of saying Yehoshua.
But they have done for "Jesus" and "Isaiah"? And the equivalent is " Jesus" and "Isaiah" shey?

What you're implying here now is that NO TRANSLATION HAS TAKEN PLACE in the rendering of Jesus by an English man, and since it's an English man's way of SAYING Yehoshua, that means the word Jesus is still pronounced in Hebrew FORM not in English FORM.

In this case can we classify this as a BORROW WORD in English?

So what is an English man's way of saying the Divine name?

JMAN05:
I ve written a reply up to 4 times, yet I can't see any. I wonder what is wrong

Maybe your post against NL rules.

In the previous thread. I asked what you mean by Hebrew root/form, and why Jesus and Isaiah have and Jehovah does not.

Means when Jesus and Isaiah (in Greek) were used by the GREEK WRITERS they used GREEK words that equivalent to their Hebrew words.

You also said that Greek use there Greek equivalent. That does not make any sense, since the issue is about name. Unless you are saying that name should be translated.

Are you telling me that Name can't be translated?
In fact TRANSLATE simply means: To CHANGE TEXT from one LANGUAGE to another.
Yoruba man will say 'Ayo' which is a name and an English man will say 'Joy' which is also a name.
I've dealt with this in my previous post please to take me back to beginning.

And what is the equivalent of YHWH in English?

English Scholars have not done that...

2. The link I gave was to show scholars who do not agree that Yahweh is the correct pronunciation. That was the point there. Don't twist it.

Then you're just another time waster, did I tell you that I don't know?
But the evidence in that link is obviously against you and your organization.

JMAN05:
What you referred to were not greek bible manuscripts, they are bible translations. Next time, research well before you speak.

What did I refer to in my post that is not Greek Bible manuscripts?

JMAN05:
Oga, answer those questions or we let the matter slide.

Lame excuse, have you answered my own QUESTIONS? not singular but plural

The publication u quoted is not talking about the Septuagint used in Jesus' day, [size=14pt]but is about variations in bible manuscripts on hand.[/size] That these variations did not make the bible unreliable.

So if this variations DIDN'T make the BIBLE UNRELIABLE, what does it mean?
Remember as a variations it still includes REMOVING OF GOD'S NAME as your organization claimed Yet DIDN'T make the Bible UNRELIABLE.
If God failed to prevent His own name from being removed from over 5000 manuscripts evidence we have today, how are we sure that every thing is RELIABLE?

That God's name was latter removed from the bible (not by the apostles) is never in doubt. That's the truth. You are not acquainted with this topic at all. Why don't you make indepth research before writing?

All this your side talk won't help.
Why can't you post anything you know about this topic and stop this your nonsense talk.
Your brother posted from a link which I've trashed down yet you're saying another thing here. Which evidence do you have that God's name was removed Than to allude to the THEORY of Howard which I've also trashed in my previous reply to your brother's post.

So pls answer those questions.

Answer the question in below chat.

ZoranderGraeme:
Please, explain, what was done to the early disciples?

Google is still your best friend but let me just hint you small before you carry out your own research,
All the Apostles were BRUTALLY KILLED except Apostle John who wrote the book of John, 1-3 John & Revelation after he survived many severe tortures.

Like I said, english is your problem.

How

But you said acknowledgement is about belief, [size=14pt]and I'm showing you the multiple ways it can be used,[/size] again I reiterate, it's physical, and you still haven't showed me where it says convert everyone by force. Again, until they pay tax.

Lol...still trying hard to prove Allah right. Yet you said in above that English is my problem when the statement beautifully described you.
So if it has multiple ways it can be used then you can use it's meaning as superiority for believe, right You need to go back to primary school.

Again, It didn't say convert them by force, jusT says fight against them. But:
Pickthall: And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah. Lo! He, even He, is the Hearer, the Knower. Quran 8:61

Another deluded justification, why commanding them to FIGHT in the first place?

Beside, let me teach you your Islam small.
The word 'Jizya' is what translated as 'TAX' in that verse, this is the same verse in Yusuf Ali "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

1. Jizya is one of the FIVE PILLAR of ISLAM-so is it not a way to adhere with Quranic teaching?
2. WITH WILLING SUBMISSION-what is Islam? No Muslims will ever deny that ISLAM isn't a SUBMISSION.

So what is your point here?

Finally, I don't need to quote another verse where forceful conversion was commanded through fighting but to crown my position on the verse verse, this how Muhammad himself understood this very verse and compare it with how you've been trying to defend Allah's contradictory command.
Muslim (19:4294) - "When the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him... He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war... When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. [size=14pt]Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them."[/size]
http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/muslim/019-smt.php#019.4294 (bold, underline-mine)

If you need another verse where forceful conversion was prescribed I will give you.

Yet Allah said "There is no compulsion in religion..."

Rilwon:
That ishmaelite today are blessed, fertile and multiplying him exceedingly,

Of course Yahweh the great promise keeper who can't lie unlike Allah fulfilled His promise but not as you dubiously interpreted the below verse in your first post.

AND THEY ARE GREAT NATION.....
For what great nation is THERE that has gods so close to it as the LORD, our God, is to us whenever we call upon him? Deut 4:7

Let me know expose your dubious interpretation of your first post through this medium

These are the key point I extracted from your first post
"Now can we ask what is “A GREAT NATION” mean?
As we can see, [size=14pt]the nation of Israel is called great because:[/size]
1) They worship God and only God.
2) They have the law of God."

After you asked the question WHAT IS A GREAT NATION MEAN? you then concluded with the two statements whereas you just made those points to support your false prophet that's why you can say "An honest look at the Muslim nation today reveals that they worship the same God of Abraham and they also have a set of laws given to them in the Quran."

Whereas an open-minded person reading those verses can see that Moses 'the speaker' wasn't saying the nation of Israel were a GREAT NATION because they WORSHIP THE TRUE GOD nor HAVING THE LAWS but Moses simply asking QUESTIONS in both verses: " 7 "FOR WHAT GREAT NATION IS THERE that has God so near to it, as the LORD our God is to us, for whatever reason we may call upon Him? 8 "And WHAT GREAT NATION IS THERE that has such [size=14pt]statutes and righteous judgments[/size] as are in all this law which I set before you this day?

This is more evident with the QUESTION MARK at the end of each verse but because of the lies of Muhammad that is flowing in you, you decided to twist these verses.

The above verses reveal:
1. That TRULY GREAT NATION exists not only Israelite because Bible talked about MANY GREAT NATIONS which some even POWERFUL THAN ISRAEL before they possess the Land.
2. But this GREAT NATION never has a STATUTES and RIGHTEOUS JUDGMENT like the Israelite.

The funny part of it is that despite the fact that you want to squeeze Muslims nation into it you forgot that your Allah's laws some contradicted the very STATUTES given by Yahweh that no any GREAT NATION ever had which means the source of the two books can't be from the same God.

KellamLeTorneau:
Neither did the muslims at first. First muslims were ordered to my migrate, then the mekkans tried to turn every muslim sympathizer against them, including a christian King that gave the muslims safe haven, then they followed them to where they were and wanted to finish them, then God ordered them to defend themselves. What's so silly about this? What's so silly about asking where the prophet killed anyone unjustly? Get a grip?

Lol...do you even know that what they did to Jesus' disciples and the early Christians half of it were not done to Muhammad? YET God didn't tell them to fight for their defence.

Jesus said to his disciples "if they persecute you in one city flee to another...", "...PRAY for them who despitefully use you, and PERSECUTED you"

Can you compare this with Allah's decision?

Look who's talking, but like I always have, I will bring facts to back up this claim.

Can someone help me interpret this

Acknowledgement of superiority as used i. The verse to your deluded mind means to acknowledge a god?

But fight those who do not believe in Allah is not to acknowledge Allah is to praise Jesus.

Where did the verse mention the non Muslims acknowledging muslim God after you fight them? Don't twist words mate. If I say I acknowledge Real Madrid is superior arsenal, does that mean I'm talking about God?

See how you just wasted the money...

Does Real Madrid and Arsenal relate to God? We're talking about your false Qur'an here.

Lol! You and your buffoonery. The verse says until and they pay Jizya and acknowledge superiority. Superiority here obviously as any sane person will view it is physical.

Again you have refused to show me where or how the verse says to convert people by force. It says fight until until they pay tax/Jizya, did it say until they become muslims? You don't even know what you're arguing about.

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah,...nor follow the religion of truth" what does it mean?

KellamLeTorneau:
Tell me one single war Muhammad fought that wasn't out of necessity, or self defense.

See silly excuse, ALL THE DISCIPLES and Early Christians were persecuted YET they didn't FIGHT FOR self-defense.

Read the parts in bold, your claims say until they acknowledge islam and the verse you brought as proof says until they pay Jizya, see how confused or rather blind you are?

Are you asking question for putting QUESTION MARK at the end of that statement
Beside, you lack undrrstanding of simple English.

The last time I check to acknowledge can mean to declare one's belief in; as, to acknowledge the being of a God

So the command of Allah to Muhammad is what Mr?

Read it again: "FIGHT THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN Allah, nor the LATTER DAY, nor do they prohibit what Allah and his Apostle prohibited, nor FOLLOW THE RELIGION OF TRUTH, out of those who have been given the the Book, UNTIL they pay tax in acknowledgment of superiority AND they are in the state of SUBJECTION"

Yes, and Allah does not contradict himself.

Because you still want to defend your false Qur'an if not this is a plain contradiction, mind you I'm not even talking about contradiction here but to let you know that Allah knows that there should be NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION but still went ahead commanding Muhammad to FORCIBLY CONVERT PEOPLE INTO Islam. Which trashed any meaning Muslims can apply to that S. 2:256

KellamLeTorneau:
You really like "bolding" stuff don't you?

Yeah so that your damn closed eyes can see my points.

I don't know which point that proves or why it was a necessity. What about "made explixit" implicates me?

What is he saying

I suggest you go back and refute my claims, that is of course if you can.

Your arrogancy won't allow you to learn.

You said I should refute your claims but I didn't even see any though i love to reply your post but your inability to properly make use of simple post TAG had prevented me not to and I'm trying to correct your ignorance but you're proving stubborn.

Stop giving me an excuse to paint you as a buffoon.

The person who supposed to be referring to as buffoon is making ignorant noise.

For the last time if you're serious, go back to that your PREVIOUS POST use the QUOTE TAG in a right place so that if I quote it, it won't display EMPTY POST. OK!

KellamLeTorneau:
Let's focus on Muhammad here. Here I ask why did Moses fight wars?

Moses fought war as a result of God judging the Amorites for their iniquity not because Moses wanted them to serve his God by force.

Also I ask where Muhammad ordered the unjustified killing of a person.

This is not the initial point you've deviated from it.

You quoted a verse from Quran that says "Let there be no compulsion in religion:..." 2:256 and I said so Allah knows this yet commanded Muhammad to fight those people UNTIL THEY SUBMITTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT ISLAM IS THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION.

So we are talking about compulsion or forceful conversion here not killing unjustly.

In case you forget this is the verse "FIGHT THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN ALLAH, nor the LATTER DAY, nor do they prohibit what ALLAH and his Apostle prohibited, nor FOLLOW THE RELIGION OF TRUTH, out of those who have been given the the Book, UNTIL they pay tax in acknowledgment of superiority AND they are in the state of SUBJECTION" S 9:29 Shakir (Capital, bold & underline-mine)

Yet Allah still said there's no compulsion in religion.

Rilwon:
Which means you accept my point. Very good of you.

Accept your point that?

JMAN05:
Your words are guess replies. U are not well acquainted with what u saying.

Imaging I'm not well acquainted with what I'm saying yet you couldn't point out where I've misinterpreted ALL THE EVIDENCE I'VE PROVIDED FROM YOUR ORGANIZATION nor be able to refute them.

Maybe it's now old light!

I asked a question which you dodged.

This is my question once again, Can you tell us which manuscripts did the translators of NW use? If you think I'm wrong.

JMAN05:
You ve not answered the question. I said:

Now you focus on your questions but you couldn't realize that they're many of many my questions you didn't attend to before you disappeared on this thread even when I trashed the very link you provided.

1. Are you of the opinion that Jesus went along with the popular Jewish tradition of not pronouncing God's name?

I've asked some questions on this thread which I believe if you people have answered them, it'll provide answer to this your question.

Now let me ask again, if Jesus and His disciples actually used the name including THE ACTUAL PRONUNCIATION of the name (because I know if Jesus had to pronounce it He will surely used the right pronunciation) why everything lost again?

2. Do you have the autograph written by apostle John?

Since you have it you can help me get one.

And why do you think that Jesus and John would not use the divine name when the Septuagint used in his day used the name?

Your organization can help you unless if you want to me that they were wrong.

"Not only are there THOUSANDS of manuscripts to compare but discoveries of older Bible
manuscripts during the past few decades take the GREEK TEXT back as far as about the year 125 C.E., just a couple of decades short of the death of the apostle John about 100 C.E. [size=14pt]These manuscript evidences provide strong assurance that we now have a dependable Greek text IN REFINED FORM[/size]." All Scripture is Inspired of God and Beneficial p.319 (Capital, bold-mine)

Please I've addressed all these in my previous post refute my previous post first before you ask further question(s).

Answer...

In short, if u know this topic well, those questions should clear ur eye. Keep copy and pasting what u don't understand. J version, which bible Greek manuscript is J version. Sorry for u.

So it pains you how I'm exposing your false teaching through copy and paste.

I don't understand it yet none of them have you nor your brother refuted.

quote]Its as a result of long typing? If u had admitted ur mistake I would have helped u see ur error, but u are here pushing it to typo.[/quote]You just like making empty noise, after I've told you it was as a result of long typing. you're still referring to it or you want to tell me it hasn't happened to you before.

OK that these versions were translated into Hebrew abt 1385 is still typo?

I guess you're asking question here.

Are you telling me that J versions are not TRANSLATIONS but ORIGINAL one pen down by the disciples?

KellamLeTorneau:
Bombings and suicide attacks are all forbidden in Islam. I think the verse below sums up everything.

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.

— trans. Yusuf Ali, Quran 2:256

This is the very issue I was discussing with one Muslim, so Allah knows this yet commanded Muhammad to fight those people UNTIL THEY SUBMITTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT ISLAM IS THE ONLY TRUE RELIGION.

Beside, from Muhammad himself down to his successors (the caliphates) tell me anyone who didn't fight, why do they fight if there's no compulsion in Islam?