₦airaland Forum

@olabowale,

olabowale:
FIRST I JUST WANT TO SAY TO YOU, +OSISI THAT THIS IS MY FIRST ENTRY,TODAY. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT IS ON THE SCREEN AS EARLIER ENTRIES BY ME, TODAY. IT WAS NOT ME. I HAVE CLOSED SOME DOORS AND I WILL NOT REOPEN THEM. INSHAALLAH. WHOEVER USES MY NAME SHOULD STOP USING IT.

Just one small matter: the post #131 in this thread was made by olabowale - when? TODAY. If that post was not made by you, can you explain what it is doing in your personal profile page?

There is only one olabowale on Nairaland - there are not two of them. Claiming it is not you will not make up for the excuses you later reposted to cover up the issue about the various versions of the Qur'an.

All the same, we are (or should I say rather "I am" willing to believe your claim about post #131 not made by olabowale TODAY. It is not such a big issue. The crux of the matter here is simply this: the case of the Muslim denials about the "translations, versions and editions" of the Qur'an has been laid to rest.

Lol. . . @goodguy,

How body?

goodguy:
Na Cele own dey vex me pass!

Well, I don't even know where to start from. If I contest that one now, e be like say I fit make you vex pass that! So, I go just maintain jeje.

Some kain titles dey amaze me sef:

~ the "Right" Reverend (others may not be so "right")

~ the "Very" Reverend (e fit pass the above)

~ the "Most" Reverend (na im senior dem all!)

There's more; but I just keep wondering where these titles emanate from and what they have to do with ministers among God's people?

@olabowale,

Can you try to be a gentleman and comply with his request as stated below:

SysUser:
SO OLABOWALE, BABS787 ETC i would appreciate and be grateful if personal taunts and jest, and unneccessary deviation from the topic of the thread is avoided.

If his request is not within your perview, can we remind you that you also in particular have never sought a genuine discussion and never really sought to answer questions presented to you - because you always have come to the end of your road?

Dear olabowale, please drop all these unfruitful taunts. That is not the way to find a relationship with God.

Dear SysUser,

How's the going?

SysUser:
Pilgrim.1 I would really appreciate if you and some other christians not only pray for Seun, but also to try and chip in posts that contain useful information as at when due , in other to answer is numerous questions.

. . . .

Pilgrim.1 please don't fall for the trap and trick of the devil to constantly want to engage in arguments about flimsy excuses and questions which by the devil (through his children muslims and co). My believe is that by making us very busy with the job of ARGUING , we then have less time and energy to spend on actually preaching the gospel to those that are willing to hear.

You're right. I'll comply accordingly.

Blessings.

Proverbs 1:5

A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels.

@D-reloaded,

That was a great post you made there - and I agree to a high degree. I've promised to come back and make some meaningful contributeions as well (which I'll do), but so many other things have come my way.

I'll keep the various persuasions in mind as I revisit the thread, though. It seems we're all agreed this subject needs to be discoursed meaningfully, rather than hush it under a santimonious aura that seldom ends in . . . (well, we know).

Cheers all.

@imhotep,

Thanks for sharing.

@luvus,

luvus:
@pilgrim

. . .

i gree wel wel and may God Continually open our eyes and thiers too,

Amen O. . . MAny blessings.

@olabowale,

On the other hand, I will not pretend to not have noticed the other issue you raised - and it may only be fair for me to comment on it.

The discrepancies between the Catholic Bible and the one used by Protestants are well noted - we cannot pretend about that issue. I've come a long way (since becoming a Christian) to look at the real issue in that regard; and my findings are simply that the "apocrypha" (14 books included in the Vulgate [except for II Esdras]) have never in history been regarded as part of the Canon of Scripture by godly Jews! That is a huge case to consider, because we can understand that the Catholic Church paticularly favours the Vulgate - and I have demonstrated much earlier that there are serious problems related to the Vulgate!

Let's understand that the "Vulgate" is also a translation of the Bible; it is the Latin edition of the Bible translated from Hebrew and Greek by St. Jerome at the end of the 4th century. It was also revised in 1592 and consequently adopted as the official text for the Roman Catholic Church.

It is remarkable to note that the many deliberate distortions in both the Vulgate and the other translations derived from it do not represent the Biblical message faithfully. Again, an example that I have pointed out and repeated in another thread to clear this misconception:

---

[list]Now a word as to translations of the Bible. It is important that we understand the revelation of God in His WORD as He has given it. Translations in many instances do not convey the accurate reading of the texts in their original languages - and we have seen this time and again.

The fact that even the Catholic Church has not been satisfied with a single English translation of the Bible is the reason why she has sponsored several translations in English - including the New American Bible (NAB, 1970), the Jerusalem Bible, JB 1966 [which was subsequently revised to produce the New Jerusalem Bible, NJB 1985), the Douay-Rheims (DRB, 1582-1610), and the Challoner-Rheims (1752, a revision of the DRB) which heavily reflect Roman Catholic slant of doctrines than fidelity to the Biblical texts.[/list]

Let me give you an example. In Genesis 3:15 of the Doauy-Rheims (Catholic) version, we read the following:

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman,
and thy seed and her seed:
SHE shall crush thy head,
and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel." [Douay-Rheims]

Now compare this with a common translation such as the ASV on the same verse:

"and I will put enmity between thee and the woman,
and between thy seed and her seed:
HE shall bruise thy head,
and thou shalt bruise his heel." [American Standard Version]

It is not merely a matter of semantics that we should be concerned with here. Rather, what the Douay-Rheims version says is radically different from what we find in the ASV. While the latter (ASV) teaches that it is the seed of the woman that would crush/bruise the head of the serpent, the Catholic Douay-Rheims says that it is rather the woman herself that would vanquish the serpent. The basic question here would be: WHO does Scripture say would defeat the enemy - the woman (MARY) or the Seed (CHRIST)?

Of course, we know certainly that Genesis 3:15 clearly teaches that it is the Seed (CHRIST) that would bruise the head of the serpent - i.e., destroy him (see Gal. 4:4 and Heb. 2:14). Even the Catholic Popes and Bishops cannot deny this truth - for in one of the Homilies of Pope John Paul II [Sunday, 2 February 1997] as an example, he acknowledged this fact indeed in the following quote:

[center][list][list]

'In that 40-day-old infant it sees the “light” destined to illumine the nations, and presents HIM as the “glory” of the people of Israel (cf. Lk 2:32). It is HIM who must conquer death, as the Letter to the Hebrews proclaims, explaining the mystery of the Incarnation and Redemption: “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature” (Heb 2:14), having taken on human nature.'

[/list][/list][/center]
. . .read more here

---

You see, what is perculiar to the Catholic Church does not actually mean that is the way God had intended it. The Vulgate is NOT the same thing as the original manuscripts of the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek!

One simple way of trying to understand the difference between the "apocrypha" and the Bible is this: just think of the argument between the Sunnis and Shiites on the completeness and incompleteness of the Qur'an!!

Well, I hope you can see the point of this whole argument? My point here has been just one thing all along: Muslims should end their attacks on the Bible merely on translations, versions and editions. There are as many "translations, versions and editions" of the Qur'an as well - and where some are trying to deny the fact, we have seen again and again that such denials are inconsequential.

Cheers.

_{Lol. . . my connection has been slow; but we are getting there anyhow.}

@olabowale,

Continuing with what I tried to distinguish above, I would like you to understand that it is quite unfair for Muslims to keep attacking the Bible based merely on the translations, versions and editions that are available today in many languages.

Before I left Islam and became a Christian, these unfair attacks were the propaganda tools of Muslim apologists that prevented me from reading the Bible for myself. But when I discovered to my chagrin that most Muslim scholars were deliberately misrepresenting facts as well as not being honest in what they taught Muslims, that was the day I resolved to pick up the Bible and read for myself. I'm sure that these same propaganda tools are responsible for the reason why multiplied millions of Muslims have never sought to read the Bible for themselves and find out what it truly says - which is why we understand your misconceptions when you try to argue out your case.

At any rate, we should understand that the Qur'an as well has been produced in many translations, versions and editions. What is far more unfortunate is that the inconsistencies and errors are far more multiplied in translations, versions and editions of the Qur'an - and I only used that example of Sura 2 v 138 as a very minor case in point! It is not my style to deliberately seek to hurt the feelings of people (since the last time you and I had a chat on YIM, I have learnt my lessons enough). Otherwise, I'm sure many Muslims would have been left so embarrassed if I used the more serious errors and inconsistencies of the translations, versions and editions of the Qur'an.

My point in all this is simple: Muslims should end their deliberate and callous attacks on the Bible based merely on a matter of translations, versions and editions. . . for there as far more serious inconsistencies in the b]translations, versions[/b] and editions of the QUR'AN!! Because not many people understand the distinction between these matters, that was why I entered the discussion of this thread to dispel the unnecessary argument on these issues that Muslims have been propagating.

Dear olabowale,

Thanks for your comments.

As you may well recall, the sole reason why I entered this thread to discuss anything was to dispel the Muslim argument based merely on translations of the Bible. We all know that translations are bound to have their problems, and it doesn't have to be only with the Bible - which was why we had to examine the same inference by looking at translations of the Qur'an.

In the same way, one may come across various "versions" of a particular translation. This is the reason why we have such various versions in the English translations of the Bible like the KJV (King James Version), the ASV (American Standard Version) and the NIV (New International Version). These versions do not necessarily mean that the BIBLE itself is wrong, corrupt, or perverted - they only demonstrate the effort of the translators of the Bible so more English speakers may be able to better understand the Biblical message.

What about editions of the Bible? Of course, there are as many editions of such translations. For instance, we have the KJV in several editions - from the KJV of 1611 to the other editions of the same KJV (the editions of 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769). Again, it does not mean that these various editions of the KJV render the Bible itself to be a "corrupt" Book!

Now look carefully again: there are -

       ~ translations

       ~ versions, and

       ~ editions

. . . and we have to very carefully understand what we mean by these terms. The problem with Muslim apologists is that they often seek to maliciously attack the message of the Bible by basing the attacks merely on "translations, versions, and editions" of the Bible. Christians have never at anytime denied that there are translations, versions and editions of the Bible; but we have constantly read how Muslims try to deny that there are "translations, versions, and editions" of the Qur'an as well!! Why would Muslims be engaged in such unfruitful exercises?

Hi again @olabowale,

olabowale:
@SysUser: Stop your kissing up! You forgot to add JESUS. Hence, it is "THERE IS A GOD(GOD OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC, JACOB,, JESUS). I am making this statement based on the word of Jesus himself.

If you were making any statement based on the word of Jesus himself, where did He ever say what you asserted?

olabowale:
Please read Mark 12 Verse 29 and receive salvation!

Welcome! Since when did Muslims start to receive salvation from a Bible they have endlessly accused of being a "corrupt" Book?

So many people have said it - your time to receive Jesus as your Lord and Saviour is fast approaching.

olabowale:
There is only ONE GOD! There are no other(s)!

Good. Go and find out what Jesus Himself said about who He is - in the same Mark's Gospel.

olabowale:
You the adviser, should take your own advice an get out of a fly trap, otherwise known as "TRINITY."

If the Trinity has been your deathknell all your life, it may help do you a world of good to humbly find out WHO Jesus said He actually was - in that same Gospel of Mark.

olabowale:
That concept will never give you salvation.

Neither would Muhammad's denial bring you salvation. He denied that God IS FATHER - and that denial sealed his end.

In the same Mark's Gospel that you are wont to always quote, Jesus said this:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;
but he that believeth not shall be damned.
~ [Mark 16:16]

The question is: in WHOSE NAME are believers to be baptized? Those who believe are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19) - the 'NAME' (not "name[b]S[/b]". You may believe only one verse in Mark's Gospel. . . but if you fail to properly respond to God's offer of salvation according to Mark 16:16[b]a[/b] (believe and be baptized), then you get the result in the b-part of that same verse (shall be damned)! Holding unto Muhammad's denials is not going to help your misconception about the Trinity, olabowale.

Further, your Muslim translators of the Qur'an have tried to smuggle the idea of baptism into Muhammad's abrogated Qur'an!! (e.g., check Yusuf Ali and M. H. Shakir on Sura 2 v 138)! Only heaven knows how they came about that idea, knowing quite well that no such concept is found in Islam! Were they beningly acknowledging that without being baptized (according to Mark 16 v 16), they faced the b-part of that verse?

Other Muslim translators came to the rescue by inserting the words "system" or "religion" or "dye" or "colour". Haba! Wetin dey confuse una like that?

Bros, in one word: if you fail to believe in what Jesus taught while busy quoting Mark's Gospel, the b-part of Mark 16 v 16 is inevitable! Just a friendly warning, olabowale.

@olabowale,

olabowale:
@D_D: If there is a single Christian in hellfire, then the redemption that you stated above is only a fluke!

Sorry, there won't be a single Christian in hellfire.

olabowale:
Then tell me, what is the fate of Adolf Hitler, a Protestant?

Not everyone who claims to be a "Christian" is actually one. By their works, we shall know them.

olabowale:
What is the fate of Mussollini, a Catholic? Are they going to hell or paradise? Remember that they both believed in the 'death,' which you used as your foundation of spiritual death/sin redemption.

To believe in death does not mean the same thing as having faith in Jesus Christ as one's Saviour.

Lol. . . in what way have I tried to deny Jesus? Sorry, I don't belong to Muhammad's ummah who denied that God is FATHER.

If you have anything fresh to present, do so; otherwise if they are the same recycled products that have been thrashed, save them.

@ricadelide,

I wan shout "oga" jus now when I see sintin wey make me hold on:

ricadelide:
. . .they kind of sound alike, ill and heal, especially if you're from Yoruba land where the leading 'H' can be dispensed at will

Shéy na our people you wan take make yeye?

ricadelide:
(no dissing, but still smiling sha)

Okay. . . forgiven! Now I can smile!

Haha!

ricadelide:
Lol this your new name wey be like Islamic transliteration of your name so, they don convert you?

Infact sef, when I saw the ID and the special effect. . I submit fast!

ricadelide:
_{runs from thread}

_{Me sef run from thread jare. Anyhow, good to see ya, "Dāwīḏ "}

@luvus,

luvus:
dear babs

on a serious note, we are not denying that we don't have various versions, translations but we also want u to also accept same that MUSLIMS HAVE VERSIONS, TRANSALTIONS AND EDITIONS. then from there we can continue and we believe since we (including u muslims) have agrreed on that point, then lets continue else u have no bases to accuse the bible as confused etc

Lol. . . you try!   Honestly, I initially did not want to enter this thread and would rather have been reserved as usual anytime babs787 came up with his problems about the "translations" of the Bible.

But this same premise has to be addressed as well when it comes to the "translations" of the Qur'an - and that is what the Muslim is scared of. WHY? I don't know - but we know already how jittery they become when any reference to the translations of the Qur'an are made. That is when you find Muslim denials in full display!

What is the big deal about "translations" anyway - whether  translations of the Qur'an or the Bible? We know that errors in translations are bound to occur in almost any book - whether religious or secular! We know that Muslims themselves claim that any translation of the Qur'an is NOT the Qur'an anymore - is that not a worse scenario already?

The one thing that we should understand here is this: anytime a Muslim comes up with this project of a dunce in seeking to attack the Bible merely on "translations", let it never move the Christian. The Muslim is too scared to find even the slightest shift of a dot in the Qur'an - and yet, we have Muslims themselves telling us that there are other versions of the Arabic Qur'an (Warsh, Qalun, al-Duri, Hisham, Hafs, etc.). Oh, they say, all these versions of the Qur'an contain "slight" sontin here or there. "Slight" koo. . . "sleight" nii! The moment you look at those "slight" sontins in the various translations of the same Qur'an, then wahala wey big pass "slight" go happen!

Yeye worry them all!!


Bo, when it comes to the Bible, the message is clear. It is not the "Book" that God wants us to worship - rather, He invites everyone everywhere to receive His love - freely offered in Jesus Christ!! I am still looking at over 108 English versions (which are merely TRANSLATIONS) of the Bible - and I have not come across any one of them which denies the fact that Jesus' death and resurrection brings us salvation!! The day God touched my heart with His saving grace, I wondered what I had been doing in Islam all my life and denying the very grace that would save me!!

But then God today. . . The Bible may be accused of all sorts of things, BUT (a huge "BUT". . . the message that God has given us in the Bible about His love and grace are NOT abrogated, substituted or omitted!!

The Qur'an can remain an abrogated book for all I care! Let them abrogate everything sef - what is my worry? One thing I know is that none of Muhammad's abrogating abrogations in the abrogated book called the Qur'an can actually abrogate the love of my Saviour, Jesus Christ! QED!!

@babs787,

babs787:
@pilgrim.1

You are trying to deflect the thread and it wont help you at all.

Have you any other cry-song?

babs787:
1.
Since you are denying the greek word for god in that verse, please was the bible written in greek or not?

I didn't deny or confirm anything. I simply pointed out the basics for this discussion - and if you would not comply, you yourself are the one closing the gate for a genuine discussion. For example, asking me if the Bible was written in Greek or not sounds like discussing with a child. Seriously. And if you want to buy time (perhaps more than 15 days), no worries - simply ask!

If it too much for you to present a mature discussion, then I can as well tease you endlessly until you have another cry song for your gimmicks. Try this one: the Bible was not written in Quraish!

Babs787, if you have a genuine concern to present, do so - and then when you invite a mature discussion and not this comic relief, I shall oblige you. If you are being so callous, you can expect to keep your entertainment and sport on as usual, afterall. , it's only your own resources you would be burning.

babs787:
2. If there is greek bible, what is the greek word for 'god' in that verse and what is also the greek word for God in john 1 v 1?

Are you asking about 2 verses now. . . or one?

luvus:
Now all u out there i therefore deliver a judgement and accepted by all including (olabowale and babs) that we have VARIOUS VERSIONS, TRANSALTIONS, EDITION OF THE KORAN, SO CASE CLOSED _{that is if they will accept}

It is not a common commodity for Muslims to understand English - and to ask them to find out the meaning of the following words (abrogate, substitute, translations) is like asking a primary school pupil to sit an exam in Cambridge University!

@babs787,

babs787:
@pilgrim.1

Is that from the bible or Quran?

From 4 veriable sources"

(a) the Bible

(b) the Qur'an

(c) the Hadiths

(d) history.

Now, which of these sources can you deny?

babs787:
Jesus spoke of his coming as well or will you deny that?

Whose coming?

babs787:
Is that from the bible or Quran?

From the same sources as above.

You're already beginning to sound ever more childish, babs787. Can I ask you to simply say that you have no real issues so that you save your internet resources?

babs787:
It is very glaring that it can never be for holy spirit

Who then is it for?

babs787:
He is and will always be because the verse mentioned another comforter meaning that Jesus is already one and 'another' means one similar to Jesus and in what way os Holy spirit similar to Jesus?

Don't cheapen your scholarship, please. We already know that Muhammad had no siginificant "similarity" to Jesus. QED.

The Holy Spirit as the parakletos had remarkable evidence of tessellating with what Jesus described Him as.

babs787:
The holy spirit has been in existence since creation and cannot be the 'another' comforter coming. The 'another'comforter would be a fresh being that would be like Jesus

"Another" does not mean "a fresh being" . . . take style dey fabu O! If it means "a fresh being", please show us from the Greek, abeg eh?

babs787:
and if you still try to smuggle in Holy spirit, how many would we be having since one was in existence when Jesus made that statement?

(a) I did not smuggle in the Holy Spirit into John's Gospel. That the Comforter is the Holy Spirit is already made clear in John 14:26.

(b) the one who has been trying to smuggle in Muhammad is not me, but you and your poor and desperate Muslim apologists - sad that they all have failed to convince even you with evidence for their poor reading skills.

(c) the word "another" does not mean that it refers to someone who never existed before that time - if it did, Muhammad never existed before that time; nor was Muhammad being referred to there.

babs787:
Read my above explanation.

It was rather an excuse than an explanation - unless you have where anyone called Muhammad by those terms.

babs787:
Did Jesus not say that he didnt come to annul/[b]abrogate??[/b]

I have addressed this issue in the relevant thread. People like olabowale tried to smuggle that issue in here to save face for the Muslim cover up.

@babs787,

babs787:
@pilgrim.1

Here is my question again:

Didnt Jesus say that he didnt come to annul any law and what is another word for annulment?

The verse reads:

Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

I deliberately left the verse as it is without highlighting any word, and I don't see how that verse says that Jesus came to ABROGATE, SUBSTITUTE, or OMIT any verse of the Bible.

The translation I used was KJV. Please check any other translation and let us know any where in the Bible He claimed that He came to ABROGATE, SUBSTITUTE, or OMIT any verse of the Bible. Can you simply do that, babs787?

@olabowale,

olabowale:
@Focused: Focused, tell me how do you have the idea of [size=14pt]3 godhead(s)[/size] in 1 singularly god, yet you have verses like Mark 12;29 in it? They are so opposite to each other. Which one is to be believed,Mark 12;29 that was spoken by jesus or the trinity concept that was peddled by someone else. Which one 'ABROGATED the Other?'

Give me an answer please.

You won't get an answer, because:

(a) your are being dishonest about the plurality of godheads - the Bible does not speak of "3 godheads" (plural) - and that has been made clear every single time you posted it. If you find it so, please post the verse, do you care to?

(b) there are NO ABROGATION in the Bible, thank you.

You can remain embarrassed forever that Allah abrogated, substituted and whatever else with his qur'an - but unless you have a verse in the Bible where God said He abrogated any verse, please save the hat-tricks.

@babs787,

babs787:
@pilgrim.1

It is very true that Allah never referred to him as the holy spirit

Thanks for the honest acknowledgement - at last. If you may, please take the bold step further to desist from ascribing things to Muhammad.

babs787:
but can you please tell me if the holy spirit has been in existence since creation or not?

He has - and I don't see why you keep pretending like you don't know!

babs787:
If you are trying to say holy spirit would be coming after Jesus, how many would we be having since one is already in existence?

Please, babs. . . please. This is soooo soo comical; but let me cool down for you.

That He (the Holy Spirit) is coming does not confuse the fact that He has always existed. These are two different things, but not to be confused.

Now, the Holy Spirit has always been in existence - but He had not been given to those who believed on Jesus (see John 7:39). That the Holy Spirit would "come" was in fulfillment of prophecies made about His coming (Joel 2, for instance); but that does not mean that His existence before His coming could be questioned!

Let me use an illustration:

   (a) Jesus existed before Muhammad was born - FACT.

   (b) Muhammad spoke of Jesus second coming - FACT.

   (c) even if Jesus has not yet "come", it is FACT that He still exists - FACT.

Can you see why your question about the existence and coming of the Holy Spirit really does not bear any weight here?

If it does, it still does not divert the FACT that:

    (a) Muhammad is NOT the Comforter

    (b) the Holy Spirit is the Comforter

    (c) Muhammad was never referred to by anyone as either:
             the Holy Spirit, or
             the Comforter.

These are as simple as anyone can get.

Cheers.

What do you have for me - recycled questions that have been thrashed? Can you do better than that? Please save them if you have run out of materials to plagiarize.

@babs787,

babs787:
@pilgrim.1


You are denying the abrogation in the bible just because God didnt mention it and please my question again:

Babs787, please stop ducking behind your finger. Only one request I made - quote the verse where God said He abrogated any verse of the Bible - then we take it from there. Don't force those terms into the Bible where they do not exist.

If you have the verse where God made that statement, please post it - othewrwise save the illiterate posts that make us wonder if Islam has only duckers for scholarship.

@babs787,

babs787:
@Pilgrim.1

Why not quit playing game with me? Can you please tell me the greek word for God used in John 1 v 1 and when God told Moses that he would make him god. If Moses didnt speak greek, you should still be able to tell me the greek word for god in that verse.

Is this your own dribbling gimmick of tersely admitting your blooper of Moses speaking Greek? Grow up babs787, your posts are sounding ever so childish - and until you have a firm grip on yourself, there's no need wasting scholarship on you.

It's simply that you don't have any real issues - we know, because Muslims have played that games for eons, so nothing new there.

babs787:
Do you have the languages the bible was written before that of English language?

Do you know what languages they were written before your blooper about that Moses speaking Greek?

@babs787,

babs787:
Good. If Jesus was referring to only one spirit, how come another is coming when we have one existence.

That was simply to show that He was not referring to any other than the same Holy Spirit.

If you have where He was referring to more than one, please post it.

babs787:
Since you claimed that the prophecy is for holy spirit being the comforter, has it been in existence since creation or not?

Did the Bible claim otherwise, babs787? I am not the one claiming - I have asked you to go there and read and let us know what the Bible says. Is that too hard for you? Or are these such a wasteful exercise to cover up your sad worry that Muhammad was not the Comforter?

So sad. . . Allah never referred to Muhammad as the Comforter nor the Holy Spirit;

. . . the Qur'an never called Muhammad by those terms;

. . . nor did anyone in any hadith refer to Muhammad as such!!

Where did Muslims harvest this smuggling habit of trying to make Muhammad what Allah never made him?

@babs787,

babs787:
@pilgrim.1

You are making me laugh here. You are confused just because Allah mentioned abrogation but Bible didnt do that.

You can laugh all you want, but please be mature and don't let your post continue to look so pitiful as you have done all along.

The implications of any term you use is important. I'm sure no Muslim would come and say that the word "abrogate" and "substitute" were a mistake in the Qur'an. God nowhere "abrogated" or "substituted" any verse in the Bible - just as 'Allah' in the Qur'an clearly did so!

Since you are so desperate to cover up this conundrium of the ABROGATED Qur'an, it could help your worries if you simply find ANY TRANSLATION of the Bible where God claimed that He abrogated any verse or substituted them!

Allah's qur'an is an abrogated and substituted book, abi? Good.

The Bible does not bear any abrogations. If you can find me those claims where God must have said so, please quote the verse directly and save all the hat-tricks to cover up, thank you.

babs787:
@pilgrim.1

Your brother raised it and you may help him out by telling me how many spirits we would be having since one was and still in existence.

The simple questions to address is this:

How many "Comforters" was Jesus speaking of in the Gospel?

WHO was He referring to as the "Comforter".

The answers to these simple questions settles your query. . . unless you are hell-bent on excusing the facts so you can remain comforted in the fact that Muhammad was not the one being referred to.

babs787:
Did Jesus really die on the cross?

Do you have a fresh discussion on the subject?

babs787:
@focused



From the verses, we learnt that the holy spirit would come after Jesus. If holy spirit is being referred to as the comforter to come after Jesus,

has the holy spirit not been in existence and still in existence
How many spirits will we be having since it has been in existence before creation and another one is coming.

Babs-babs! Since you have left your arguments in the dust, is this the best you can afford to do? Rather than sweat this out, simply find out who in John's Gospel is referred to as the Comforter.

We have been through this until you sadly had to quietly and evasively see that your attempts to smuggle Muhammad into the Bible were a waste. Your answer to that one question will setle your misgivings, if you care.