₦airaland Forum

seagulsntrawler: My point is God never created everone to be rich. Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Two things have i required of thee,deny me them not before i die: remove far from vanity and lies:give me neither poverty nor riches;feed me with food convenient for me: Lest i be full, and deny thee, and say, who is the LORD? or lest i be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain. Prov 30:5-9. If all christians were to become extremely wealthy as the prosperity teachers would have us belive,the question is how economically viable and sustainable is it?

God never created everyone to be rich? It is this type of teaching that turn brothers to atheist,God has plans for every each of us,as long as you can afford what ever you need, YOU ARE RICH, riches dosent mean excess money,you should have just say'everyone with his/her destiny. Let me ask you a simple question IS JESUS POOR?

martijez: Been thinking and thinking,many things gat me confused. I have always had questions concerning religion buh todays catholic gospel actually ignited my curiousity more and left me asking more questions. The part of the gospel that caught my attention was when jesus said to peter "you are the rock,and upon this rock I will build MY CHURCH" when our priest was preaching,he made it seem like the bible said "you are the rock and upon this rock I will build THE CATHOLIC CHURCH"..wah I wanna know is y catholics are so confident that dey are on the right path? 2)first commandments said: "do not make of thyself any graven image" buh wah about the crucifix,the blessed sacraments,mary's statue etc aren't dey images as well? 3) where is pope,holy communuion etc written in da bible?


FYI,I was born a catholic,still a catholic

the bible is there for you to read and understand.

THE BIBLE IS A SEALED BOOK FOR EVERY MAN, LEARN OR UNLEARNED TILL HE STUDY THE BIBLE WITH A SIMPLE HEART AND GUIDANCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, THENCE IT WILL LEAD YOU TO THE TRUTH.

Abdulsalam20: I'M POSTING THIS BEAUSE I PITY U GUYS U LACK UNDERSTANDING I POSTED D CONTRADICTION AND EVILS IN UR BOOK U CANT DEFEND IT AND U CAN STIL TALK...................

you are Soo confused,open minded fellow will understand.

Haywhymido: stories by sunlight. Tell dat to d little ones

bible say" the natural man cannot comprehend the deep thing of the spirit" to him it is foolishness, SHALOM.

abdusalam20.
MUHAMMAD AS A PROPHET Muhammad’s father’s name was
AbduAllah (Abdullai) and his mother’s
name was Aminah. His grandfather’s
name was Muttalib. They were idol
worshipers. A careful study of islam
brought by Muhammad reveals that it is a continuation of his father’s idol worship
even though they said islam is against any
form of idol worship. Islam is not idol
worship on the pages of quran but it is in
truth and practice. Let us examine islamic
mode of worship: 1. TAWAF BETWEEN SAFA AND MARWA Doing Tawaf between Safa and Marwa is
an Islamic ritual associated with the
pilgrimage to Mecca. Safa and Marwa are
two mounts, located at Mecca. This ritual
entails Muslims walking frantically
between the two mounts, seven times. This was originally a pagan pre-Islamic
practice. Muhammad retained it for Islam,
sanctioning it with yet another Qur'anic
revelations.
Narrated 'Asim: I asked Anas bin Malik: "Did you use to dislike to perform Tawaf
between Safa and Marwa?" He said, "Yes,
AS IT WAS THE CEREMONIES OF THE DAYS
OF PRE-ISLAMIC PERIOD OF IGNORANCE
TILL Allah REVEALED 'Verily! (The two mountains) As-Safa and Al-Marwa are
among the symbols of Allah. It is
therefore no sin for him who performs
the pilgrimage to the Ka'ba, or performs
'Umra, to perform Tawaf between them.'
" (Quran 2.158) (Sahih Bukhari 2:26:710)
You can see from the above hadith that
what was being practiced by idol
worshipers before islam was
incorporated into it. I mean islam
continues with the ways of idol worshipers. 2. REQUIREMENT OF IHRAM Ihram is a state a Muslim enters into for
his pilgrimage to Mecca. It involves a
series of procedures like ritual washing,
wearing 'Ihram garments', etc. Ihram was
originally a pagan requirement for
worshipping idols during pre-Islamic times. Muhammad retained this practice
for Islam. Muslims assume Ihram to
perform the Hajj or Umrah.
Narrated 'Urwa: I asked 'Aisha : ...But in fact, this divine inspiration was revealed
concerning the Ansar who used to assume
“Ihram” for worshipping an idol called
“Manat” which they used to worship at a
place called Al-Mushallal before they
embraced Islam, and whoever assumed Ihram (for the idol), would consider it not
right to perform Tawaf between Safa and
Marwa.
(Sahih Bukhari 2:26:706)
They continued their pagan ways of
worship even when they embraced islam. 3. PRAYING 5 TIMES TOWARDS MECCA Pagans prior to Islam would pray five
times per day towards Mecca. Muhammad
retained for Islam, this pre-Islamic
practice, sanctioning it with a story of a
night trip to heaven on a mythical beast
called al-Buraq. In heaven, the Hadith tells us that Allah demanded 50 prayers per
day per Muslim. Upon advice from Moses,
Muhammed bargains with Allah and
successfully reduces it to five prayers per
day.
Zoroastrians are also expected to recite their (kusti) prayers at least five times a
day.allah ask all muslim to pray 50 times but moses interfere and until it was reduce to 5times, why will moses interfere in the revelation of allah? Moses know more than allah? If no then all muslim should pray 50times a day.but if moses know more than allah then allah is weak.

Haywhymido: what is dis one saying gan! Where did jesus tell u to use old testament as lesson book n new testament as practise book? Isn't it dat ur same God dat brought both old n new testament.If u gat nothin good to say kindly shut d f up.

that why I said you guys are spiritualy blinded, satan is using the quran to manipulate you guys, the old testament is a foreshadowing event that will come to pass on the new testament.example the sacrifice of abraham and isaac, that even happen but God use it to show us how his son jesus will pay the price for the sin of mankind.do you REALY think God ask you guys to be religion?

Slitz: sincerely doubt if that young man understands what contradiction means...ur dubious post has absolutely notin to do with contradictions in the Quran. if u tried all d days of ur life, u Wld never find one! ur post rather shows how clueless you are abt Islam. d OP as posted enuf from the Bible to shut ur mouth and open ur mind... but do I blame u sha? No! the Quran alrdy explains ur situation, DEAF, DUMB AND BLIND! May Allah guide u to the path that is straight.

the quran is spiritualy manipulation,allah suppose to be perfect but there are lot of error in the quran, muhammad is like the ethiopian eunuch in the book of acts of the apostle chapter 8, who was reading the scripture witout understanding it until the holy spirit told philip to interpret it for him,most of my family are muslim but by his grace they are all christian.

Abdulsalam20: ......... I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE TO START WITH U I ASKED FOR CONTRADICTIONS U POSTED AN ARTICLE THAT IS NOT REASONABLE THAT IS WHAT I TELL U U CAN NEVER FIND ONE SOME FORGED IT HERE ON NL BUT THEY WERE BUSTED...........WHAT CONTRADICTION MEAN IS THAT A VERSE THAT CONTRADICT ONE ANOTHER..........
NOW CONCERNING U SAYING QURAN IS NOT DETAILED WITHOUT HADITH DID U KNOW WHAT HADITH MEAN?.......HADITH MEAN WHAT THE PROPHET SAY AND QURAN IS WHAT ALLAH SAYS AND IT IS EVIDENT IN D QURAN

Allah SWT says repeatedly in the Quran to obey both Him and
the Messenger. One example is Surah an-Nisa ayah 59.
Ya ayyuha alladhina amanu ati Allaha wa ati ar-Rasul
wa ulu'l-amr min kum. Fa in tanaza'tun fi shay'in fa
rudduhu ilaAllahi wa ar-Rasul in kuntum tu'minuna
bIllahi wa'l-Yawmi al-Akhir. Dhalika khayrun wa ahsanu
ta'wil.
O you, those who have faith, obey Allah and obey the
Messenger and those in authority among you. And if you
dispute over a thing, then return it to Allah and the
Messenger, if you have faith in Allah and the Last Day.
That is better and more beautiful of interpretation.
He says that the Prophet (sAas) has been sent to explain the
Quran, not just to deliver it (Surah an-Nahl ayah 44).
Bi al-bayyinat wa az-Zubur wa anzalna ilayka adh-
Dhikra li-tubayyina li an-nas maa nuzzila ilayhim wa
la'allahum yatafakkarun.
By clear proofs and scriptures, and We have sent down
on you (O Prophet) the Reminder, that you can explain to
humankind what is sent down for them and in order that
they may reflect.
He says that people do not have faith if they do not take the
Prophet (sAas) as the judge of their disputes (Surah an-Nisa
ayah 65).
Fa laa wa Rabbika laa yu'minuna hatta yuhakkimuka fi
maa shajara baynahum thumma laa yajidu fi anfusihim
haraj min maa qadayta wa yusallimu taslima.
No, by your Lord and Sustainer, they do not have faith
until they have you (O Prophet) judge what is disputed
among them, then they do not find in their souls any
distress at what you have decided, and they accept it
wholly and completely.
He says that when He and the Prophet (sAas) have decided a
matter, it is not for any believing man or woman to do anything
but obey (Surah al-Ahzab ayah 36).
Wa maa kana li mu'min wa laa mu'minah idha
qadaAllahu wa Rasuluhu amran an yakuna lahum al-
khiyarat min amrihim wa man ya'siAllaha wa Rasulaha
faqad dalla dalala mubin.
And it is not ever for a faithful man or a faithful woman,
when Allah and His Messenger have decided an affair
that there is any choice for them in their affair, and who
disobeys Allah and His Messenger, so he is indeed
wandering far astray.
He says that what the Messenger gives, people should take,
and what he prohibits, they should abstain from (Surah al-
Hashr ayah 7).
...Wa maa atakum ar-Rasul fa khudhuhu wa maa
nahakhum anhu fa intahu. Wa ittaquAllah innAllaha
Shadid al-Iqab.
...And what the Messenger gives you, so take it, and what
he prohibits you, so refrain from it. And be in awe of
Allah. Surely Allah is Stern of Punishment.
How do we determine what the Prophet (sAas) has ordered, in
order to obey it?
How do we find out what he judged in disputes so that we can
abide by it?
How do we know what he has decided on matters, so that we
can submit to it?
How do we discover what he has given, so that we can take it,
or what he has prohibited, so we can abstain from it?
The answer to all these questions is very simple: we look to the
SUNNA. If you deny the validity of the Sunna then you may end
up disobeying what the Prophet (sAas) has commanded,
turning away from what he has judged, rejecting what he has
decided, ignoring what he has given, and doing what he has
prohibited.
And if you do these acts of disobedience, turning-away,
rejecting, ignoring, and doing-the-prohibited then YOU HAVE
DISOBEYED ALLAH. It's that simple. It is incumbent upon every
Muslim to obey both the Quran and the Sunna. Read the verses
I have cited for yourself. What do you think they mean?

how dos this address my question?anyway, let it be seal in your heart.thank you for your time.

Abdulsalam20: owk post it ...............

Who say Quran is God's words ?I believe
Quran is not God's words but the words of
Muhammad. What make me say this?
Iam a Christian that believed in searching
for the truth as a way of salvation.
Actually, i believed in Bible but i still want to learn about Islam. In quest for this, i
read the English Quran to see if its a true
book of God. On 24 of July 2014 i finished
the reading of Quran without Saadah and
these were what i discoverd that made
me says Quran is not the words of God but the worlds of Muhammad.
1.If you have read the Bible before and
you really understood what you read you
would agree with me that Quran isn't
God's words because it is not sound like
words of God. The Quran used the pronoun such as our, we, he when refers
to Allah.To me,Quran sound like words of
advice or explanatory words rather than
the report speech that it should be.Look
at this statement from Quran and tell if it
sound like Allah's words or report speech " This Quran is not such as can be
produced by other than Allah, on the
contrary it is a comfirmation of
(revelation) that went before it and a
fuller explanation of the book where in
there is no doubt it from the lord of the world " (Yunus 4:37)
whose statement is the above statement?
Even, if it is God's words, why would God
commends Quran to the extence of saying
" there is no doubt its from the lord of
world" who is doubting? Who is speaking ?Who is the lord of the world?
Also look at this
Or do they say " he forged it" say bring
then a surah like unto it and call ( to your
aid) any one you can beside Allah if it be
ye speak the truth" (Yunus 4:38) was/is Allah in arguement with the
people he created?
Another
Has the story of Moses reached thee?
(Those who pull out 2:15)
was Allah questioned Muhammad or Muhammad questioned people?
2 the Muslims claimed that Muhammad
was not a learner and that Angel Gabriel
appeard to him and asked him to read.
That is the only time Muhammad claimed
he saw an Angel. Muhammad claimed that, he was not a learner and that people
said "he forged Quran and the people
they are pointing to that he teaches him
(Muhammed) was christian but he does
not understand arab"
In another verse of Quran he says, the christians had testified to Quran that it is
like the other books that Allah sent and if
people doubted it they should ask them
(christians)
Muhammed heard the Christians when
they said Quran is like other books revealed by Allah, but Quran does not say
the language in which they
communicated to Muhammad. These
shows that Muhammad had Christians
around him when he was alive and they
can communicate with him. Muhammed claimed he received
messages through inspiration
" say iam man like you it reveal to me
through inspiration that your God is one
God" (Ha Him 1:6)
" Allah sent his Spirit of inspiration to all his servant" (The believer 2:15)
the definition of inspire is to fill with the
urge to do something or to creat a filling
in a person according to dictionary
meaning
i believed many things we human being are doing in life are by inspiration. The
authors can not write a book if not by
inspiration, the musicians cannot write
music without been inspired, when you
are inspired by the beauty of woman you
can write poem . The woman who said she was God, what inspired her?
Inspiraton required deep thought.
Muhammed source of inspiration cannot
be verified or confirmed. When God
speaks to Moses Moses heard his voice,
the Isaelite during the Moses time heard the voice of God, Samuel heard his
voice ,God speaks to some prophets in
their dreams, some of the prophets heard
the words of God and they were inspired
by Holy Spirit to say what they heard. The
apostles were inspired by Holy Spirit. How dn we know they were Inspired by Holy
Spirit? We know because they revealed
the hidden truths in the scripture. The
Bible told us of sarmaritan Queen who
was reading Scripture from the book of
Isaiah but did not understand what she was reading but Philip with the help of
Holy Spirit was able to explain it to her
and his explanation match with what was
happened .Paul with the help of holy
Spirit was able to explain how Jesus died
for our sins in accordance with the scripture but Muhammed's inspiration
denied others prophets writtings. Muslims
should tell us why they believed in
Muhammed's source of inspiration?
3 Muhammed desires and intetions were
what Muhammed made to be the words of Allah - Muslims said Muhammed was
not speak of his own desire but what
Allah revealed to him but the Quran and
Hadith proved this wrong. Because
Muhammed speaks of his own desires,
that is what make Quran useless without Hadith. Its the hadith that explained
Quran. is it surpose to be like that? Hadith
that is words of men explained Quran
that is the words of God. and the Quran is
said to be the book that Allah sent down.
That is funny. Look at this verse of Quran. " O ye who believe! Enter not the prophet
house until leave (permission) is given
you. For a meal (and then) not (so early
as) to wait for it preparation but when
you are invited, enter: and when you have
taken your meal, disperse, without seeking familiar talk such (behavious)
annoyed the prophet: he is shy to dismiss
you but Allah is not shy (to tell you) the
truth.And when you ask (his ladies for
anything ye want ask them from before a
screen that make for a greater purity for your hearts and for their. Non is it right
for you that ye should annoy Allah
messenger, or you should married is
widows after him at a time. Truely such a
thing is in Allah sight an enormity " ( the
Allies 6:53 i think the above issue should be the
decission of Muhammed alone .why did
Muhammed have to involve Allah. To me
Muhammed lied against Allah.He was shy
to tell them that he does not like their
behavious and he knows that if he speaks in Allah's name to them, they would fear
and not see him as a man with bad
temper.
Humm! He married so many widows in
the name of been nice to them but, he
does not want any man to share of his wife even when they become widows.
Hadith gave many accounts of Muhammed
using his intentions and desires to be the
words of Allah. The verse on his adopted
child (Saheed) was his desire, verse on
woman Muhammed could married (Zainab) was his desire ,the facing of
mecca(kaaba) when praying was his
desire, the Satanic verses (to unite his
tribe) was his desire and many more.
Allah in Quran always sent verses of
Quran in favour of Muhammed. what a lie !
4. No Hadith no Islam - Quran is not in
detail ,it will leave us with qestions when
reading it without knowlege of Hadith.
many of the doctrines of Islam are based
on Hadith, what would Muslims use to preach without Hadith? which prayer do
Muslims have to use without hadith?Let
take this for example.
There is no where in Quran that mention
or list 99 names of Allah. What Quran says
in similar to that is that, we should call Allah all the beautiful names we know. If
this should be the case, then, the names
of Allah can be more than 99.
Hadiths are useful in Islam , also they
exposed the lies of Muhammed. That is
why Muslims called some hadiths fabricated Hadith and Some Authentic
Hadiths. Many of the writters of Authentic
Hadith were also the Writers of
Fabricated Hadiths even Aisa one of the
prophet wives fabricates words. Who do
we have to trust? 5 Repetitions in Quran- if repetitions are
to be removed from Quran, i think the
suras would remain in Quran should not
be more than five suras. Why would God
continued to repeat thesame words in so
many times? If Muhammed was not have intention to make Quran look like Bible
why repetitions of words? What was the
idea behind the title of each Suras if
Muhammed was not jealous of Jew and
envey of Bible? If Quran is really God's
words,i think the title of Quran suras should be Muhammad like
Isaiah,Jerimaiah in Bible.Did God/ Allah
tells Muhammed to use those titles for
Quran's Suras?
Take notice of repetitions in Quran when
next you are reading it,you we understand what i mean.
We are still on repetition in Quran. I
found something funny in Quran and i
want the Muslims on this thread to tell me
if it was person that transliterated the
Quran i read that made the Mistake or not.What i found was that,The sura
Sandhills and Sura Muhammed has
thesame content also Sura The
Banishment and Sura The Examine One
was thesame in content.
If it was not mistaken,should what God sent down be like that?Who made that
mistakes God or Muhammed or those that
compiled it?
6.Sura the Cave -Muhammed was not
certain of the numbers of the Youth in
the story of the cave.He said "... some say they were three the dog be
the fourth among them, other say they
were five, the dog being the six doubtfully
quessing at unknown (yet others) say they
were seven the dog being the eight.Say
then my lord knoweth best their number.It is but few that knows there
(real case) Enter not into controversies
concerning them ,except on matter that is
clear,nor consult any of them about (the
affair of) the sleepers. The Cave 3: 22
what does Muhammed mean by"some" is it not Allah that revealed the story to
him? Why not knowing the numbers of
the youth in the cave?"my lord knoweth
best their numbers" those words shows
that it was'nt God that revealed the story
to Muhammed. I trust my God, God of Abraham, God that reavealed the dream
of Pharao to Joseph wthout go and come,
he revealed the dream of
Nheibuckadinazary to Daniel
I heard that the story was asked to test
the prophethood of Muhammed and it took Muhammed fifteen (15) good days to
answer and when he answerd see what
he was saying. Why can't Muhammed be
sured of their numbers?
7. 'They ask you about this , Say..... ' - I
hate that statement in Quran. Is Allah or Muhammed teaching his followers how to
tackle Christians and Jews? This shows
that Muhammed knows himself to be a
liar.
8. The Quran made mentioned of these
prophets. Adam, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph and his eleven
brothers(not by names) Moses, Aaron,
Zakariah( John the Baptize's father) ,
Elias,David Solomon, John the Baptize,
Jesus. To confirme the Scripure that was
sent before Quran but Allah /Quran/ Muhammed did not make mention of
Many prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremaiah,
Ezeikel, Nehemaiah, Malachi,
Zechariah ,Amos. Were they not Prophet
of God?
Allah /Quran/ Muhammed tells the Stories of Adam, Abraham, Mose Aaron And
Pharao, the Thamud ,add, Sodom and
Gomarah, Mary, John the Baptize ,Jesus ,to
confirm scripture before Quran but what
about the prophecies of the above
prophets that Quran did not mention were they not from God? And if Muslims
would talk , they would say Quran is not a
story book.
9. The parables in Quran- cannot be
compared with Bible's parable . How
could God almighty gives those childish tale as parable. It proved Muhammed to
be a liar.
10. Muhamned the loveth prophet of
Allah, whose Allah has forgiven his past,
the present, and the future sins. The man
that would interceed for Muslims on the day of judgement. The man who knows
what God would say on the day of
Judgement and how God would judged
the sinner.
I just can fathom why Muhammed
deserved the merit he gave to himself over other prophets.
In a nutshell, Muhammed was self
proclaimed prophet that envey the Jews
because both arab and Jew were
decsendants of Abraham. He created his
religion to save arab of shame of not having a single prophet.

Abdulsalam20: ......my first evidence jesus said u must follow the OLD TESTAMENT Matthew 5:17-20: AND TERROR IN THE NEW TASTAMENT PLEASE FOLLOW THIS LINK www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt.html HOPE TO HEAR FROM U SOON

sorry for this.......muslims are spiritualy blind, were did I say christian are not to follow the old testament? My good friend God has giving us His grace through jesus,jesus has already shown us how to deal with the law,were there is many law one expect many breaker of the law because man is not perfect, satan will find his way to manipulate man through the law,but thank God for his grace through jesus christ.we only learn lesson from the old testament.

25. Joshua and the Israelites did
(Joshua 10:23,40) or did not
(Joshua 15:63) capture
Jerusalem? (Category: misread the text)
The short answer is, not in this
campaign. The verses given are
in complete harmony and the
confusion arises solely from
misreading the passage concerned.
In Joshua 10, it is the king of
Jerusalem that is killed: his city is
not captured (verses 16-18 and
22-26). The five Amorite kings
and their armies left their cities and went to attack Gibeon.
Joshua and the Israelites routed
them and the five kings fled to
the cave at Makkedah, from
which Joshua's soldiers brought
them to Joshua, who killed them all. Concerning their armies,
verse 20 states: 'the few who
were left reached their fortified
cities', which clearly indicates
that the cities were not
captured. So it was the kings, not their cities, who were captured.
Joshua 10:28-42 records the rest
of this particular military
campaign. It states that several
cities were captured and
destroyed, these being: Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish,
Eglon, Hebron and Debir. All of
these cities are south-west of
Jerusalem. The king of Gezer and
his army were defeated in the
field whilst helping Lachish (v.33) and in verse 30
comparison is made to the
earlier capture of Jericho, but
neither of these last two cities
were captured at this time.
Verses 40 & 41 delineate the limits of this campaign, all of
which took place to the south
and west of Jerusalem.
Importantly, Gibeon, the eastern
limit of this campaign, is still
approximately 10 miles to the north-west of Jerusalem.
Jerusalem is, therefore, not
stated as captured in Joshua 10.
This agrees completely with
Joshua 15:63, which states that
Judah could not dislodge the Jebusites in Jerusalem. 26. Was Jacob (Matthew 1:16)
or Heli (Luke 3:23) the father of
Joseph and husband of Mary? (Category: misunderstood the
Hebrew usage)
The answer to this is simple but
requires some explanation. Most
scholars today agree that
Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives that of
Mary, making Jacob the father of
Joseph and Heli the father of
Mary.
This is shown by the two
narrations of the virgin birth. Matthew 1:18-25 tells the story
only from Joseph's perspective,
while Luke 1:26-56 is told wholly
from Mary's point of view.
A logical question to ask is why
Joseph is mentioned in both genealogies? The answer is
again simple. Luke follows strict
Hebrew tradition in mentioning
only males. Therefore, in this
case, Mary is designated by her
husband's name. This reasoning is clearly
supported by two lines of
evidence. In the first, every name
in the Greek text of Luke's
genealogy, with the one
exception of Joseph, is preceded by the definite article (e.g. 'the'
Heli, 'the' Matthat). Although not
obvious in English translations,
this would strike anyone reading
the Greek, who would realize
that it was tracing the line of Joseph's wife, even though his
name was used.
The second line of evidence is
the Jerusalem Talmud, a Jewish
source. This recognizes the
genealogy to be that of Mary, referring to her as the daughter
of Heli (Hagigah 2:4).
(Fruchtenbaum 1993:10-13) 27. Did Jesus descend from
Solomon (Matthew 1:6) or from
Nathan (Luke 3:31), both of
whom are sons of David? (Category: misunderstood the
Hebrew usage)
This is directly linked to
'contradiction' 26. Having shown
that Matthew gives Joseph's
genealogy and Luke gives that of Mary, it is clear that Joseph was
descended from David through
Solomon and Mary through
Nathan. 28. Was Jechoniah (Matthew
1:12) or Neri (Luke 3:27) the
father of Shealtiel? (Category: misunderstood the
Hebrew usage)
Once again, this problem
disappears when it is understood
that two different genealogies
are given from David to Jesus, those of both Mary and Joseph
(see #26). Two different
genealogies mean two different
men named Shealtiel, a common
Hebrew name. Therefore, it is
not surprising to recognize that they both had different fathers! 29. Which son of Zerubbabel
was an ancestor of Jesus Christ,
Abiud (Matthew 1:13) or Rhesa
(Luke 3:27), and what about
Zerubbabel in (1 Chronicles
3:19-20)? (Category: misunderstood the
Hebrew usage)
As with #28, two different
Shealtiels necessitates two
different Zerubbabels, so it is no
problem that their sons had different names.
It should not surprise us that
there was a Zerubbabel son of
Shealtiel in both Mary's and
Joseph's ancestry. Matthew tells
us that Joseph's father was named Jacob. Of course, the Bible
records another Joseph son of
Jacob, who rose to become the
second most powerful ruler in
Egypt (Genesis 37-47). We see no
need to suggest that these two men are one and the same, so
we should have no problem with
two men named Zerubbabel son
of Shealtiel.
The Zerubbabel mentioned in 1
Chronicles 3:19,20 could easily be a third. Again, this causes no
problem: there are several Marys
mentioned in the Gospels,
because it was a common name.
The same may be true here. This
Zerubbabel would then be a cousin of the one mentioned in
Matthew 1:12,13. A comparison
of Matthew and 1 Chronicles
gives the following possible
family tree:
Jehoiachin |
Shealtiel----Malkiram----
Pedaiah----Shenazzar----
Jekamiah----Hoshama----
Nedabiah----...
| | Zerubbabel Zerubbabel----
Shimei----...
| |
Abiud 7 sons
| (1 Ch. 3:19,20)
| Joseph 30. Was Joram (Matthew 1: or
Amaziah (2 Chronicles 26:1) the
father of Uzziah? (Category: misunderstood the
Hebrew usage)
This answer is of a similar nature
to that in #24. Just as the
Hebrew bat (daughter) can be
used to denote a more distant descendant, so can the Hebrew
ben (son). Jesus is referred to in
Matthew 1:1 as the son of David,
the son of Abraham. Both the
genealogies trace Jesus' ancestry
through both these men, illustrating the usage of 'son'.
Although no Hebrew manuscripts
of Matthew's gospel are extant
today, it is clear that he was a
Jew writing from a Hebrew
perspective and therefore completely at home with the
Hebrew concept of son ship.
With this in mind, it can easily be
shown that Amaziah was the
immediate father of Uzziah (also
called Azariah). Joram/Jehoram, on the other hand, was Uzziah's
great-great-grandfather and a
direct ascendant. The line goes
Joram/Jehoram - Ahaziah - Joash
- Amaziah - Azariah/Uzziah (2
Chronicles 21:4-26:1). Matthew's telescoping of
Joseph's genealogy is quite
acceptable, as his purpose is
simply to show the route of
descent. He comments in 1:17
that there were three sets of fourteen generations. This
reveals his fondness for numbers
and links in directly with the
designation of Jesus as the son
of David. In the Hebrew
language, each letter is given a value. The total value of the
name David is fourteen and this
is probably the reason why
Matthew only records fourteen
generations in each section, to
underline Jesus' position as the son of David. 31. Was Josiah (Matthew 1:11)
or Jehoiakim (1 Chronicles 3:16)
the father of Jechoniah? (Category: misunderstood the
Hebrew usage)
This question is essentially the
same as #30. Jehoiakim was
Jeconiah's father and Josiah his
grandfather. This is quite acceptable and results from
Matthew's aesthetic telescoping
of the genealogy, not from any
error. 32. Were there fourteen
(Matthew 1:17) or thirteen
(Matthew 1:12-16) generations
from the Babylonian exile until
Christ? (Category: misunderstood the
Hebrew usage)
As Matthew clearly states (1:17),
there were fourteen. In the first
section there are fourteen
names, in the second fifteen and in the third, fourteen. Perhaps
the simplest way of resolving the
problem is to suggest that in the
first and third sections, the first
and last person is included as a
generation, whereas not in the second. In any case, as Matthew
has clearly telescoped his
genealogy with good reason, a
mistake on his part is by no
means shown conclusively. If by
some chance another name or two has been lost from the list in
the originals, by scribal error, we
cannot know. Whatever the real
situation, a simple explanation
can be afforded, as above.

Abdulsalam20: SO WITH all this u pos mean god is not perfect nawaooo

according to muslim, the quran is sheep down from heaven meaning God himself was the author, it suppose to be 100% accurate , but there are a lot of error in the quran, I will post it at your command.

10. Was Noah supposed to
bring 2 pairs of all living
creatures (Genesis 6:19-20), or
was he to bring 7 pairs of
'clean' animals (Genesis 7:2; see
also Genesis 7:8,9)? (Category: misquoted the text)
This indeed is an odd question to
raise. It is obvious that Shabbir
Ally has misquoted the text in
the 6th chapter of Genesis, which
makes no mention of any 'clean' animals in its figure, while the
7th chapter specifically
delineates between the clean
and unclean animals. Genesis 7:2
says Noah was to bring in 7 pairs
of 'clean' animals and 2 pairs of every kind of 'unclean' animal.
Why did Shabbir not mention the
second half of this verse which
stipulates 2 pairs in his
challenge? It is obvious that
there is no discrepancy between the two accounts. The problem is
the question itself.
Shabbir attempts to back his
argument by mentioning that
verses 8 and 9 of chapter 7 prove
that only two pairs went into the ark. However, these verses say
nothing about two pairs entering
the ark. They simply say that it
was pairs of clean and unclean
animals or birds and creatures
which entered the ark. The reason for including seven of
the clean species is perfectly
evident: they were to be used for
sacrificial worship after the flood
had receded (as indeed they
were, according to Genesis 8:20). Obviously if there had not been
more than two of each of these
clean species, they would have
been rendered extinct by their
being sacrificed on the altar. But
in the case of the unclean animals and birds, a single pair
would suffice, since they would
not be needed for blood
sacrifice.
(Archer 1982:81-82) 11. Did David capture 1,700 of
King Zobah's horsemen (2
Samuel 8:4), or was it 7,000 (1
Chronicles 18:4)? (Category: copyist error)
There are two possible solutions
to these differing figures. The
first by Keil and Delitzsh (page
360) is a most convincing
solution. They maintain that the word for chariotry (rekeb) was
inadvertently omitted by the
scribe in copying 2 Samuel 8:4,
and that the second figure, 7,000
(for the parasim "cavalrymen",
was necessarily reduced to 700 from the 7,000 he saw in his
Vorlage for the simple reason
that no one would write 7,000
after he had written 1,000 in the
recording the one and the same
figure. The omission of rekeb might have occurred with an
earlier scribe, and a reduction
from 7,000 to 700 would have
then continued with the
successive copies by later scribes.
But in all probability the Chronicles figure is right and the
Samuel numbers should be
corrected to agree with that.
A second solution starts from the
premise that the number had
been reduced to 700 as it refers to 700 rows, each consisting of
10 horse men, making a total of
7,000.
(Archer 1982:184: Keil &
Delitzsch 1949:360; Light of Life
II 1992:182) 12. Did Solomon have 40,000
stalls for his horses (1 Kings
4:26), or 4,000 stalls (2
Chronicles 9:25)? (Category: copyist error, or
misunderstood the historical
context)
There are a number of ways to
answer these puzzling
differences. The most plausible is analogous to what we found
earlier in challenge numbers five
and six above, where the decadal
number has been rubbed out or
distorted due to constant use.
Others believe that the stalls mentioned in 2 Chronicles were
large ones that housed 10 horses
each (that is, a row of ten stalls).
Therefore 4,000 of these large
stalls would be equivalent to
40,000 small ones. Another commentator maintains
that the number of stalls
recorded in 1 Kings was the
number at the beginning of
Solomon's reign, whereas the
number recorded in 2 Chronicles was the number of stalls at the
end of his reign. We know that
Solomon reigned for 40 years; no
doubt, many changes occurred
during this period. It is quite
likely that he reduced the size of the military machine his father
David had left him.
(Light of Life II 1992:191) 13. According to the author, did
Baasha, the king of Israel die in
the 26th year of king Asa's
reign (1 Kings 15:33), or was he
still alive in the 36th year ( 2
Chronicles 16:1)? (Category: misunderstood the
historical context, or copyist
error)
There are two possible solutions
to this problem. To begin with,
scholars who have looked at these passages have concluded
that the 36th year of Asa should
be calculated from the
withdrawal of the 10 tribes from
Judah and Benjamin which
brought about the division of the country into Judah and Israel. If
we look at it from this
perspective, the 36th year of the
divided monarchy would be in
the 16th year of Asa. This is
supported by the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel, as well
as contemporary records, which
follow this convention. (note: for
a fuller explanation of this
theory, see Archer, page
225-116). Keil and Delitzsch (pp. 366-367)
preferred to regard the number
36 in 2 Chronicles 16:1 and the
number 35 in 15:19 as a copyist's
error for 16 and 15, respectively.
This problem is similar to question numbers five and six
above. In this case, however, the
numbers were written using
Hebrew alphabetical type (rather
than the Egyptian multiple stroke
type used in the Elephantine Papyri, referred to in questions 5
and 6). It is therefore quite
possible that the number 16
could quite easily be confused
with 36. The reason for this is
that up through the seventh century BC the letter yod (10)
greatly resembled the letter
lamed (30), except for two tiny
strokes attached to the left of
the main vertical strokes. It
required only a smudge from excessive wear on this scroll-
column to result in making the
yod look like a lamed. It is
possible that this error occurred
first in the earlier passage, in 2
Chronicles 15:19 (with its 35 wrongly copied from an original
15); then to make it consistent in
16:1, the same scribe (or perhaps
a later one) concluded that 16
must be an error for 36 and
changed it accordingly on his copy.
(Archer 1982:226: Keil &
Delitzsch 1949:366-367; Light of
Life II 1992:194) 14. Did Solomon appoint 3,600
overseers (2 Chronicles 2:2) for
the work of building the
temple, or was it only 3,300 (1
Kings 5:16)? (Category: misunderstood the
author's intent)
This is not too great a problem.
The most likely solution is that
the author of 2 Chronicles
included the 300 men who were selected as reservists to take the
place of any supervisors who
would become ill or who had
died, while the author of the 1
Kings 5:16 passage includes only
the supervisory force. With the group as large as the 3,300,
sickness and death certainly did
occur, requiring reserves who
would be called up as the need
arose.
15. Did Solomon build a facility
containing 2,000 baths (1 Kings
7:26), or over 3,000 baths (2
Chronicles 4:5)? (Category: misunderstood the
author's intent, or copyist error)
The Hebrew verb rendered
"contained" and "held" is
different from that translated
"received"; and the meaning may be that the sea ordinarily
contained 2,000 baths. But when
filled to its utmost capacity it
received and held 3,000 baths.
Thus the chronicler simply
mentions the amount of water that would make the sea like a
flowing spring rather than a still
pool. This informs us that 3,000
gallons of water were required
to completely fill the sea which
usually held 2,000 gallons. Another solution follows a theme
mentioned earlier, that the
number in Hebrew lettering for
2000 has been confounded by
the scribe with a similar
alphabetical number for the number 3,000.
It should be noted that Shabbir
(in his debate on 25th February
1998 against Jay Smith in
Birmingham, UK) quoted this
"contradiction" and added to it saying that if the bath had a
diameter of 10 cubits it cannot
possibly have had a
circumference of 30 cubits as the
text says (since 'pi' dictates that
it would have a circumference of 31.416 or a 9.549 diameter).
Shabbir made the humorous
comment "Find me a bath like
that and I will get baptized in
it!" But Shabbir did not read the
text properly or was just going for a cheap, displaced laugh.
Why? Because the text says that
it was about 8cm thick and had a
rim shaped like a lily. Therefore
it depends on where you
measure from. The top or bottom of the rim or the inside or
outside for the vessel would all
give a different diameter; and
depending on whether you
measure at the top of the rim or
at the narrower point, you would get a different circumference.
In other words, Shabbir may well
be getting baptized if someone
can be bothered to make a
replica!
(Haley pg. 382; Light of Life II 1992:192) 16-21. Are the numbers of
Israelites freed from Babylonian
captivity correct in Ezra (Ezra
2:6, 8, 12, 15, 19, 28) or in
Nehemiah (Nehemiah 7:11, 13,
17, 20, 22, 32)? (note: because numbers 16-21
deal with the same census, I
have included them as one)
(Category: misunderstood the
historical context)
In chapter 2 of Ezra and in chapter 7 of Nehemiah there are
about thirty-three family units
that appear in both lists of
Israelites returning from Babylon
to Judea. Of these 33 family units
listed in Ezra and Nehemiah, nineteen of the family units are
identical, while fourteen show
discrepancies in the number of
members within the family units
(though Shabbir only lists six of
them). Two of the discrepancies differ by 1, one differs by 4, two
by 6, two differ by 9, another
differs by 11, another two by
100, another by 201, another
differs by 105, a further family
differs by 300, and the largest difference is the figure for the
sons of Azgad, a difference of
1,100 between the accounts of
Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7.
How, then, are we to account for
the 14 discrepancies? The answer is quite simple, and
Shabbir, had he done any study
into the history of these two
accounts would never have
bothered to waste his time in
asking these questions. The fact that there are both similarities
and discrepancies side-by-side
should have pointed him to the
solution as well (as you who are
reading this are probably even
now concluding). There are two important factors
to bear in mind when looking at
these discrepancies between the
two lists. The first is the
probability that though members
of the units or families had enrolled their names at first as
intending to go; in the interval of
preparation, some possibly died,
others were prevented by
sickness or other insurmountable
obstacles, so that the final number who actually went was
not the same as those who had
intended to go. Anyone who has
planned a school-coach trip to
the beach can understand how
typical a scenario this really is. A second and more important
factor are the different
circumstances in which the two
registers were taken, an
important fact of which Shabbir
seems to be acutely unaware. Ezra's register was made up
while still in Babylon (in the 450s
BC), before the return to
Jerusalem (Ezra 2:1-2), whereas
Nehemiah's register was drawn
up in Judea (around 445 BC), after the walls of Jerusalem had
been rebuilt (Nehemiah 7:4-6).
The lapse of so many years
between the two lists (between
5-10 years) would certainly make
a difference in the numbers of each family through death or by
other causes.
Most scholars believe that
Nehemiah recorded those people
who actually arrived at Jerusalem
under the leadership of Zerubbabel and Jeshua in 537 or
536 BC (Nehemiah 7:7). Ezra, on
the other hand, uses the earlier
list of those who originally
announced their intention to join
the caravan of returning colonists back in Babylon, in the
450s BC.
The discrepancies between these
two lists point to the fact that
there were new factors which
arose to change their minds. Some may have fallen into
disagreement, others may have
discovered business reasons to
delay their departure until later,
whereas in some cases there
were certainly some illnesses or death, and in other cases there
may have been some last-minute
recruits from those who first
decided to remain in Babylon.
Only clans or city-group's came in
with a shrunken numbers. All the rest picked up last-minute
recruits varying from one to
1,100.
When we look at the names we
find that certain names are
mentioned in alternate forms. Among the Jews of that time (as
well as those living in the East), a
person had a name, title, and
surname. Thus, the children of
Hariph (Nehemiah 7:24) are the
children of Jorah (Ezra 2:18), while the children of Sia
(Nehemiah 7:47) are also the
children of Siaha (Ezra 2:44).
When we take all these factors
into consideration, the
differences in totals that do appear in these two tallies
should occasion no surprise
whatsoever. The same sort of
arbitration and attrition has
featured every large migration in
human history. (Archer 1982:229-230 and Light
of Life II 1992:219-220) 22. Both Ezra 2:64 and
Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the
totals for the whole assembly
was 42,360, yet when the totals
are added, Ezra - 29,818 and
Nehemiah - 31,089? (Category: copyist error)
There are possibly two answers
to this seeming dilemma. The
first is that this is most likely a
copyist's error. The original texts
must have had the correct totals, but somewhere along the line of
transmission, a scribe made an
error in one of the lists, and
changed the total in the other so
that they would match, without
first totaling up the numbers for the families in each list. There is
the suggestion that a later scribe
upon copying out these lists
purposely put down the totals for
the whole assembly who were in
Jerusalem at his time, which because it was later would have
been larger.
The other possibility is
forwarded by the learned Old
Testament scholar R.K. Harrison,
who suggests that at any rate the figure of 42,000 may be
metaphorical, following "...the
pattern of the Exodus and similar
traditions, where the large
numbers were employed as
symbols of the magnitude of God, and in this particular instance
indicating the triumphant
deliverance that God achieved for
His captive people" (Harrison
1970:1142-1143).
Such errors do not change the historicity of the account, since
in such cases another portion of
Scripture usually corrects the
mistake (the added totals in this
instance). As the well-known
commentator, Matthew Henry once wrote, "Few books are not
printed without mistakes; yet,
authors do not disown them on
account of this, nor are the errors
by the press imputed to the
author. The candid reader amends them by the context or
by comparing them with some
other part of the work."
(Light of Life II 1992:201, 219) 23. Did 200 singers (Ezra 2:65)
or 245 singers (Nehemiah 7:67)
accompany the assembly? (Category: copyist error)
As in question number 7, this is a
copyist error, where a scribe
copying the numbers in the Ezra
account simply rounded off the
figure of 245 to 200. 24. Was King Abijah's mother's
name Michaiah, daughter of
Uriel of Gibeah (2 Chronicles
13:2) or Maachah, daughter of
Absalom (2 Chronicles 11:20 & 2
Samuel 13:27)? (Category: misunderstood the
Hebrew usage)
This apparent contradiction rests
on the understanding of the
Hebrew word bat, equivalent to
the English daughter. Although usually used to denote a first
generation female descendant, it
can equally refer to more distant
kinship. An example of this is 2
Samuel 1:24, which states: 'O
daughters of Israel, weep for Saul...' As this is approximately
900 years after Israel (also called
Jacob) actually lived, it is clear
that this refers to the Israelite
women, his distant female
descendants. When seen in this light, the
'contradiction' vanishes. 2
Chronicles 13:2 correctly states
that Michaiah is a daughter of
Uriel. We can assume that Uriel
married Tamar, Absalom's only immediate daughter. Together
they had Michaiah who then
married king Rehoboam and
became the mother of Abijah. 2
Chronicles 11:20 and 1 Kings
15:2, in stating that Maachah was a daughter of Absalom,
simply link her back to her more
famous grandfather, instead of
her lesser known father, to
indicate her royal lineage.
Abishalom is a variant of Absalom and Michaiah is a
variant of Maachah. Therefore,
the family tree looks like this:
Absalom/Abishalom
|
Tamar-----Uriel |
Rehoboam-----Maachah/Michaiah
|
Abijah

5. Was Ahaziah 22 (2 Kings
8:26) or 42 (2 Chronicles 22:2)
when he began to rule over
Jerusalem? (Category: copyist error)
Because we are dealing with
accounts which were written
thousands of years ago, we
would not expect to have the
originals in our possession today, as they would have disintegrated
long ago. We are therefore
dependent on the copies taken
from copies of those originals,
which were in turn continually
copied out over a period of centuries. Those who did the
copying were prone to making
two types of scribal errors. One
concerned the spelling of proper
names, and the other had to do
with numbers. The two examples of numerical
discrepancy here have to do with
a decade in the number given.
Ahaziah is said to have been 22
in 2 Kings 8:26; while in 2
Chronicles 22:2 Ahaziah is said to have been 42. Fortunately there
is enough additional information
in the Biblical text to show that
the correct number is 22. Earlier
in 2 Kings 8:17 the author
mentions that Ahaziah's father Joram ben Ahab was 32 when he
became King, and he died eight
years later, at the age of 40.
Therefore Ahaziah could not
have been 42 at the time of his
father's death at age 40! Such scribal errors do not change
Jewish or Christian beliefs in the
least. In such a case, another
portion of scripture often
corrects the mistake (2 Kings
8:26 in this instance). We must also remember that the scribes
who were responsible for the
copies were meticulously honest
in handling Biblical texts. They
delivered them as they received
them, without changing even obvious mistakes, which are few
indeed.
(Refer to the next question for a
more in-depth presentation on
how scribes could misconstrue
numbers within manuscripts) (Archer 1982:206 and Light of
Life II 1992:201) 6. Was Jehoiachin 18 years old
(2 Kings 24: or 8 years old (2
Chronicles 36:9) when he
became king of Jerusalem? (Category: copyist error)
Once again there is enough
information in the context of
these two passages to tell us
that 8 is wrong and 18 right. The
age of 8 is unusually young to assume governmental
leadership. However, there are
certain commentators who
contend that this can be entirely
possible. They maintain that
when Jehoiachin was eight years old, his father made him co-
regent, so that he could be
trained in the responsibilities of
leading a kingdom. Jehoiachin
then became officially a king at
the age of eighteen, upon his father's death.
A more likely scenario, however,
is that this is yet another case of
scribal error, evidenced
commonly with numbers. It may
be helpful to interject here that there were three known ways of
writing numbers in Hebrew. The
earliest, a series of notations
used by the Jewish settlers in the
5th century BC Elephantine Papyri
(described in more detail below) was followed by a system
whereby alphabetical letters
were used for numbers. A further
system was introduced whereby
the spelling out of the numbers
in full was prescribed by the guild of so-perim. Fortunately we
have a large file of documents in
papyrus from these three sources
to which we can refer.
As with many of these numerical
discrepancies, it is the decade number that varies. It is
instructive to observe that the
number notations used by the
Jewish settlers in the 5th century
BC Elephantine Papyri, during the
time of Ezra and Nehemiah, from which this passage comes,
evidences the earlier form of
numerical notation. This
consisted of a horizontal stroke
ending in a downward hook at
its right end to represent the numbers in tens (thus two
horizontal strokes one above the
other would be 20). Vertical
strokes were used to represent
anything less than ten. Thus
eight would be /III IIII, but eighteen would be /III IIII with
the addition of a horizontal line
and downward hook above it.
Similarly twenty-two would be /I
followed by two horizontal
hooks, and forty-two would be /I followed by two sets of
horizontal hooks (please forgive
the deficiencies of my computer;
it is not the scholar Dr. Archer is).
If, then, the primary manuscript
from which a copy was being carried out was blurred or
smudged, one or more of the
decadal notations could be
missed by the copyist. It is far
less likely that the copyist would
have mistakenly seen an extra ten stroke that was not present
in his original then that he would
have failed to observe one that
had been smudged.
In the New International Version
(NIV) of the Bible, the corrections have been included in
the texts. However, for clarity,
footnotes at the bottom of the
page mention that earlier
Hebrew MSS include the scribal
error, while the Septuagint MSS and Syriac as well as one Hebrew
MSS include the correct numerals.
It only makes sense to correct
the numerals once the scribal
error has been noted. This,
however, in no way negates the authenticity nor the authority of
the scriptures which we have.
Confirmation of this type of
copyist error is found in various
pagan writers as well. For
example in the Behistun rock inscription set up by Darius 1, we
find that number 38 gives the
figure for the slain of the army of
Frada as 55,243, with 6,572
prisoners, according to the
Babylonian column. Copies of this inscription found in Babylon
itself, records the number of
prisoners as 6,973. However in
the Aramaic translation of this
inscription discovered at the
Elephantine in Egypt, the number of prisoners was only 6,972.
Similarly in number 31 of the
same inscription, the Babylonian
column gives 2,045 as the
number of slain in the rebellious
army of Frawartish, along with 1,558 prisoners, whereas the
Aramaic copy has over 1,575 as
the prisoner count.
(Archer 1982:206-207, 214-215,
222, 230; Nehls pg.17-18; Light
of Life II 1992:204-205) 7. Did king Jehoiachin rule over
Jerusalem for three months (2
Kings 24:, or for three months
and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)
? (Category: misunderstood the
author's intent)
Here again, as we found in
challenge number 2 and 4, the
author of the Chronicles has been
more specific with his numbering, whereas the author
of Kings is simply rounding off
the number of months, assuming
that the additional ten days is
not significant enough to
mention. 8. Did the chief of the mighty
men of David lift up his spear
and killed 800 men (2 Samuel
23: or only 300 men (1
Chronicles 11:11)? (Category:misunderstood the
historical context or
misunderstood the author's
intent)
It is quite possible that both
authors may have described two different incidents, though by
the same man, or one author
may have only mentioned in part
what the other author mentions
in full.
(Light of Life II 1992:187) 9. Did David bring the Ark of
the Covenant to Jerusalem after
defeating the Philistines (2
Samuel 5 and 6), or before (1
Chronicles chapters 13 and 14)? (Category: didn't read the entire
text)
This is not really a problem.
Shabbir Ally should have
continued reading on further to 1
Chronicles 15, as he would then have seen that David brought the
Ark after defeating the
Philistines. The reason for this is
that the Israelites moved the Ark
of the covenant twice. The first
time, they moved it from Baal, prior to the defeat of the
Philistines, as we see in 2
Samuel 5 and 6 and in 1
Chronicles 15. Once the prophet
Samuel narrates David's victory
over the Philistines, he tells us about both times when the Ark
was moved. However in 1
Chronicles, the order is as
follows: the Ark was first moved
from baal; then David defeated
the Philistines; and finally, the Ark was moved from the House
of Obed-Edom.
Therefore the two accounts are
not contradictory at all. What we
have here is simply one prophet
choosing to give us the complete history of the Ark at once (rather
than referring to it later) and
another presenting the history in
a different way. In both cases
the timing of events is the same.
The same could be said of the Qur'an. In Sura 2 we are
introduced to the fall of Adam,
then God's mercy is shown to the
Israelites, followed by Pharaoh's
drowning, followed by Moses and
the Golden calf, followed by the Israelites complaint about food
and water, and then we are
introduced to the account of the
golden calf again. Following this,
we read about Moses and Jesus,
then we read about Moses and the golden calf, and then about
Solomon and Abraham. If one
wants to talk about chronology,
what does Moses have to do with
Jesus, or Solomon with
Abraham? Chronologically the sura should have begun with
Adam's fall, then moved to Cain
and Abel, Enoch, Abraham, Lot,
Isaac, Jacob and Esau, Joseph,
the sons of Israel and Moses, in
that order. If such a blatant chronological mix-up can be
found in this sura of the Qur'an,
then Shabbir would do well to
explain it before criticizing what
they deem to be an error in the
Bible.

101 contradictions in the Bible (part
1) **Debunked** In response to the propaganda 1. Does God incite David to
conduct the census of his
people (2 Samuel 4:1), or does
Satan (1 Chronicles 21:1)? (Category: misunderstood how
God works in history)
This seems an apparent
discrepancy unless of course both
statements are true. It was
towards the end of David's reign, and David was looking back over
his brilliant conquests, which had
brought the Canaanite, Syrian,
and Phoenician kingdoms into a
state of vassalage and
dependency on Israel. He had an attitude of pride and self-
admiration for his achievements,
and was thinking more in terms
of armaments and troops than in
terms of the mercies of God.
The Lord therefore decided that it was time that David be
brought to his knees, where he
would once again be cast back
onto the mercy of God. So he let
him go ahead with his census, in
order to find out just how much good it would do him, as the only
thing this census would
accomplish would be to inflate
the national ego (intimated in
Joab's warning against carrying
out the census in 1 Chronicles 21:3). As soon as the numbering
was completed, God intended to
chasten the nation with a
disastrous plague which would
bring about an enormous loss of
life (in fact the lives of 70,000 Israelites according to 2 Samuel
24:15).
What about Satan? Why would
he get himself involved in this
affair (according to 1 Chronicles
21:1) if God had already prompted David to commit the
folly he had in mind? It seems his
reasons were entirely malicious,
knowing that a census would
displease the Lord (1 Chronicles
21:7-, and so he also incited David to carry it through.
Yet this is nothing new, for there
are a number of other
occurrences in the Bible where
both the Lord and Satan were
involved in soul-searching testings and trials:
In the book of Job, chapters one
and two we find a challenge to
Satan from God allowing Satan to
bring upon Job his calamities.
God's purpose was to purify Job's faith, and to strengthen his
character by means of discipline
through adversity, whereas
Satan's purpose was purely
malicious, wishing Job as much
harm as possible so that he would recant his faith in his God.
Similarly both God and Satan are
involved in the sufferings of
persecuted Christians according
to 1 Peter 4:19 and 5:8. God's
purpose is to strengthen their faith and to enable them to
share in the sufferings of Christ
in this life, that they may rejoice
with Him in the glories of heaven
to come (1 Peter 4:13-14),
whereas Satan's purpose is to 'devour' them (1 Peter 5:, or
rather to draw them into self-
pity and bitterness, and down to
his level.
Both God and Satan allowed
Jesus the three temptations during his ministry on earth.
God's purpose for these
temptations was for him to
triumph completely over the very
tempter who had lured the first
Adam to his fall, whereas Satan's purpose was to deflect the
saviour from his messianic
mission.
In the case of Peter's three
denials of Jesus in the court of
the high priest, it was Jesus himself who points out the
purposes of both parties
involvement when he says in
Luke 22:31-32, "Simon, Simon,
Satan has asked to sift you as
wheat. But I have prayed for you Simon, that your faith may not
fail. And when you have turned
back, strengthen your brothers."
And finally the crucifixion itself
bears out yet another example
where both God and Satan are involved. Satan exposed his
purpose when he had the heart
of Judas filled with treachery and
hate (John 13:27), causing him to
betray Jesus. The Lord's
reasoning behind the crucifixion, however, was that Jesus, the
Lamb slain from the foundation
of the world should give his life
as a ransom for many, so that
once again sinful man could
relish in the relationship lost at the very beginning, in the garden
of Eden, and thereby enter into a
relationship which is now
eternal.
Thus we have five other
examples where both the Lord and Satan were involved
together though with entirely
different motives. Satan's motive
in all these examples, including
the census by David was driven
by malicious intent, while the Lord in all these cases showed an
entirely different motive. His was
a benevolent motive with a view
to eventual victory, while
simultaneously increasing the
usefulness of the person tested. In every case Satan's success was
limited and transient; while in
the end God's purpose was well
served furthering His cause
substantially.
(Archer 1982:186-188) 2.2 Samuel 24:9 gives the total
population for Israel as 800,000,
whereas 1 Chronicles 21:5 says
it was 1,100,000. (Category: misunderstood the
historical context or
misunderstood the author's
intent)
There are a number of ways to
understand not only this problem but the next challenge as well,
since they both refer to the same
passages and to the same
census.
It is possible that the differences
between the two accounts are related to the unofficial and
incomplete nature of the census
(which will be discussed later), or
that the book of Samuel presents
rounded numbers, particularly for
Judah. The more likely answer, however,
is that one census includes
categories of men that the other
excludes. It is quite conceivable
that the 1 Chronicles 21:5 figure
included all the available men of fighting age, whether battle-
seasoned or not, whereas the 2
Samuel 24:9 account is speaking
only of those who were ready for
battle. Joab's report in 2 Samuel
24 uses the word 'is hayil, which is translated as "mighty men", or
battle-seasoned troops, and
refers to them numbering
800,000 veterans. It is
reasonable that there were an
additional 300,000 men of military age kept in the reserves,
but not yet involved in field
combat. The two groups would
therefore make up the 1,100,000
men in the 1 Chronicles 21
account which does not employ the Hebrew term 'is hayil to
describe them.
(Archer 1982:188-189 and Light
of Life II 1992:189-190) 3.2 Samuel 24:9 gives the round
figure Of 500,000 fighting men
in Judah, which was 30,000
more than the corresponding
item in 1 Chronicles 21:5. (Category: misunderstood the
historical context)
Observe that 1 Chronicles 21:6
clearly states that Joab did not
complete the numbering, as he
had not yet taken a census of the tribe of Benjamin, nor that of
Levi's either, due to the fact that
David came under conviction
about completing the census at
all. Thus the different numbers
indicate the inclusion or exclusion of particular
unspecified groups in the nation.
We find another reference to
this in 1 Chronicles 27:23-24
where it states that David did
not include those twenty years old and younger, and that since
Joab did not finish the census the
number was not recorded in King
David's Chronicle.
The procedure for conducting the
census had been to start with the trans-Jordanian tribes (2 Samuel
24:5) and then shift to the
northern most tribe of Dan and
work southward towards
Jerusalem (verse 7). The
numbering of Benjamin, therefore, would have come last.
Hence Benjamin would not be
included with the total for Israel
or of that for Judah, either. In
the case of 2 Samuel 24, the
figure for Judah included the already known figure of 30,000
troops mustered by Benjamin.
Hence the total of 500,000
included the Benjamite
contingent.
Observe that after the division of the United Kingdom into the
North and the South following
the death of Solomon in 930 BC,
most of the Benjamites
remained loyal to the dynasty of
David and constituted (along with Simeon to the south) the
kingdom of Judah. Hence it was
reasonable to include Benjamin
with Judah and Simeon in the
sub-total figure of 500,000, even
though Joab may not have itemized it in the first report he
gave to David (1 Chronicles 21:5).
Therefore the completed grand
total of fighting forces available
to David for military service was
1,600,000 (1,100,000 of Israel, 470,000 of Judah-Simeon, and
30,000 of Benjamin).
(Archer 1982:188-189 and Light
of Life II 1992:189) 4. 2 Samuel 24:13 mentions that
there will be seven years of
famine whereas 1 Chronicles
21:12 mentions only three. (Category: misunderstood the
author's intent, and
misunderstood the wording)
There are two ways to look at
this. The first is to assume that
the author of 1 Chronicles emphasized the three-year
period in which the famine was
to be most intense, whereas the
author of 2 Samuel includes the
two years prior to and after this
period, during which the famine worsened and lessened
respectively.
Another solution can be noticed
by observing the usage of words
in each passage. When you
compare the two passages you will note that the wording is
significantly different in 1
Chronicles 21 from that found in
a 2 Samuel 24. In 2 Samuel 24:13
the question is "shell seven years
of famine come to you?" In 1 Chronicles 21:12 we find an
alternative imperative, "take for
yourself either three years of
famine..." From this we may
reasonably conclude that 2
Samuel records the first approach of the prophet Gad to
David, in which the alternative
prospect was seven years;
whereas the Chronicles account
gives us the second and final
approach of Nathan to the King, in which the Lord (doubtless in
response to David's earnest
entreaty in private prayer)
reduced the severity of that grim
alternative to three years rather
than an entire span of seven. As it turned out, however, David
opted for God's third preference,
and thereby received three days
of severe pestilence, resulting in
the deaths of 70,000 men in
Israel.

abdusalam20. In the old testament people live by the law,God will always fulfill his word, if He said I will punish those who break the law, He will do it. in a situation were one live by the law , it will be difficult for him to keep the law as we all know man is not perfect, man will make mistake,it is because man is not perfect that God decided to give us his grace through jesus christ in the new testament church, jesus came to fulfilled the law,how? By makin man no that man can keep the law through christ our Lord, God dwell in the flash through jesus by showing man that we are god, read genesis1:27."and God created man in his image and likeness" the verse mean that man is god so man can keep the law but we don't know how we can keep the law until jesus came and fulfilled the law for us.CAN YOU MENTION THE WAR JESUS OR HIS DISCIPLES FOUGHT? EVEN PAUL WHOM YOU GUYS HATE SOOOO MUCH DID NOT FIGHT WAR,PAUL SAY"TO LIVE IS CHRIST TO DIE IS GAIN"


In the arab, you guys live by the law, denying the grace of God through christ jesus, calling sharia law God law is an insult,you have no right to judge, only God can judge us.

AlfaSeltzer: Money sweet.

when you chose to do evil: God will watch you from far and satan will stay close to you cause God hate sin.
When you chose to do good:is always by your side, satan cant come closer,he can't comprehend the light of God.

plaetton: Ok. I am going to take your word on this.

Are you living without money, yes or no?
If no, then why are you not emulating the lifestyles of Jesus and Adam by living the way god wants you to live?

I don't have money the way bill gate have, I don't lack,anytin I ask God give me,not all the time I get what I pray for, why? Because for example now, a rich man has the money to give to his children but if that rich man know how to train his children, he would know that giving all the time to his children will spoil them.


So you don't know soldier has there own church? Military church? I attend st luke military church, anglican.

musKeeto: The verse in the OP is a direct quote from Jesus, not a secondary opinion from some other random guy who never met him. Jesus explicitly states that for the Christian to attain perfection, he wouldn't find it in material things, but in service to humanity and the kingdom of God.


Jesus told the young man to sell off his material possessions. His position on materialism couldn't be more obvious.


Lol. Pls, if you have plenty, it means you have 'extra' to share with others. You're just confusing yourself.


It was described as a miracle. Your statement here seems to insinuate Jesus sent out the disciples to go buy food for the hungry congregation.


Again, a miracle. Jesus didn't go on a spending spree in the Mall of Nazareth to pay taxes. Apparently, he could pull out gold coins from the mouths of fishes. Much easier and quite convenient.


This doesn't imply he was rich. You're a Christian. You should read that chapter and understand the context in which he made the statement.


Oh, but the Bible notes he never had a home or a place to lay his head. He clearly lacked some material items, or saw no need for them.



Oh boy, no vex. I can't go through the rest of your gibberish.

pleatton an athiest but you muskeeto I don't know.you guys don't believe in the bible but you want to prove your point with the same bible, let me pretend you believe in the bible. Ok then.

Jesus spend the last supper on a hotel, Infact he oder for best room, were did he get the money?when they ask him to pay tax, he send his disciple to take money from the mouth of fish, if he want to be rich as you guys want, why dint he remove as much money as he want? the ox he ride to jerusalem how did he get?He dint come for material thing,he never lack, he just don't bother with riches, he know when he time on earth will end


acts1:6.Then they gathered around him and
asked him, "Lord, are you at this time
going to restore the kingdom to Israel?" can a poor man restore the kingdom to isreal? He was rich yet he became poor for us to be rich in him.

Dymondgurl: I don't get, are u also an aethist or........

lady. Rebuke the devil and he will flee from you.

Zikdik: At the same time that Christians claim to worship
God as an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent
being, they make him out to be incompetent
bumbler. Or worse. Simple forgiveness is beyond
his capacities. God must "sacrifice himself to
himself to change a rule he made himself!"
This is not only an absurdity, it is an essential
absurdity. It is present in almost all forms of
Christianity, and one can scarcely remove it and
remain a Christian in anything but name. By
definition, all Christians worship Christ - in some
form - and most worship him as a saviour.
But what, exactly, is he saving us from? Though it
varies from church to church, no matter what they
call it, it's God himself. A hell created by God, a
world fallen as a result of God's negligence, a
separation from God imposed... by God.
Christianity certainly isn't the first religion to
promote appeasement of its gods, and if it were
merely another supernatural protection racket, it
would be bad enough. Unfortunately, it doesn't stop
there. Christians elevate appeasement to the realm
of "personal relationship", transforming their religion
into a true monstrosity.
This is the type of "relationship" that abused wives
have with their husbands, that brainwashed
hostages have with their captors. It is known in
clinical circles as Stockholm Syndrome. Should it
come as any surprise that the cries of the church,
"The Bride of Christ" sound much like the cries of
an abused wife attempting to protect her husband?
"He must beat me."
"I deserve it."
"He has no choice."
"It's for my own good."
These excuses don't work for human abusers, and
they work even less well for God. For if God is
omnipotent, he must have a choice. And if we are
flawed, we are only flawed because that is the way
he made us. (No excuses that we ruined his perfect
creation. A truly perfect creation does not self-
destruct.)
If the Christian God does exist - and I see no
reason to believe that he does - he's not worthy of
the name.

An't you guys the athiest get tired of all this?Truthman2012 was right,jesus who did not killed, fight war molest was more hated than muhammad who fight and molest people wife.or are you guys don't know anytin from the quran? Can you show me verse were jesus or even paul fight war kill innocent people? But there are verse were muhammad fight war,but you guys chose to go blind on islam but are ready to destroy the foundation of faith which is impossible. Well, it not a new things to us, the christian. Either you like it or not, the gospel shall be preach and then the end will come.

Peace.

IbnuUche: capital YES!!! He beget not nor was he begotten. exalted be GOD on such baseless attribute to him, none comparable to him .

you are a muslim, I don't expect you to understand the relationship God has with his children, a man born of the spirit of God, who will be his father?it either he is God or the son of God.

[quote author=seagulsntrawler]The most distinct features about his ministry while on earth was salvation. The Gospel of christ as a means to acquiring wealth is decietful to say the least cos HE ASKED HIS FOLLOWERS NOT TO WORRY ABOUT THERE NEED THAT GOD WILL PROVIDE. I don't think you will find where he made anybody rich in the scripture. Lastly, we used to sing and pray for the blessings of abraham, the father of our faith. God made him very rich while on earth but he had greater blessings(riches) than that cos we are part of his heritage. Can you point out any of his worldly asset still standing today be it houses, servants etc.?[/quote
]AT THE BOLD LATTER.that is what am talkin about,jesus is rich because if he was not rich, he would'av told the disciples to look for work.but he became poor for us to be made rich IN HIM.you said jesus did not make anyone rich, I want you to know this.....he give us the assurance if we believe in HIM we will never lack.

seagulsntrawler: Nobody is disputing the fact that he had everything he wanted in heaven and could have chosen a lifestyle of opulence while on earth. But nothing about him potrayed wealth while on earth. He lived on charity all through. Rode on borrowed colt, was buried in a donated tomb. If the purse was overflowing, judas would have no motive for an extra income 'cause what they had in collections was really small. And this is from Isaiah. For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant,and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness: and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. Isa 53:2. It is a perversion of the gospel to promise people earthly and material things to believe in Christ.

you are right, but I want you to know that riches dos not mean excess wealth,do you know what it meant to be poor?God dos not created us to be poor,when God created adam and eve, he did not create them with money, but he give them everytin they ever would ever needed.even the bible say "God will provide for your need"

The op is very very confused. He though jesus is poor, he though that haven excess money is what God called riches,just check the life style of jesus and adam when he was still in the garden of eden, that is how God want us to live our life, though the both of them did not have money but they never lack anytin.

frosbel: It is obvious from many of the comments here that many so called believers are not followers of Jesus but followers of mammon and material riches.

Smh.

I get your point,and I understand were you are goin,jesus is not a poor man, he is rich,richness dos not mean have enough money.you will never lack that what richness mean.jesus never lack anytin,even the apostles were not poor.when jesus make this statement he was talkin of material wealth," the poor you will have with you always but ME you will not "he deny bein poor.bible say HE BECAME POOR SO THAT WE WILL BECAME RICH,dosent mean over riches like this pastor,meanwhile am not in support of this nigerian rich pastor.

The church I attend is military church, eat tithe money, you will know what will happen to you, nothin like first fruit or sow seed offering.