Plainbibletruth's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Plainbibletruth's Profile › Plainbibletruth's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (of 29 pages)
Demmzy15:All that you are still doing is to state that you do what you do today because your prophets and people of old did it. The question you're yet to answer is: why did they do it? Why did Hagar run between two mountains? Is running between two mountains of any significance to you, if so how? What benefit is there in doing this and other rituals? Yes your forebears did it, but for what purpose? Simply stating that you do it because they did it doesn't answer the 'why?'. |
Demmzy15:It appears that until you resort to abuses you never feel normal. It is also obvious when you guys are not able to answer simple questions. Why don't you either simply cut and paste the answers or ADMIT that you don't have the answers? Lol! |
Rilwayne001:Demmzy15, Rilwayne001: Muslims would have us believe that their ritual are based on what older people like Abraham, Hagar, etc did. IT IS CLEAR that they agree that the earlier pagans practiced the same rituals they do today. What I find you guys repeating IS NOT EXPLANATION of why these rituals are being performed but merely restating that they've always been performed. So the questions still remain: 1. Of what SIGNIFICANCE is Muslims' ritual of running between two mountains SIMPLY because Hagar did it? 2. What does what Hagar did REPRESENT? 3. What is the VALUE in it? 4. If the pagan generations that practiced these things before Mohammed "replaced the same and other fabrications in dedication to their idols." how did Mohammed and Islam come to UNDERSTAND them? |
Indeed not everyone is manipulated by satan. So much incongruity in Islam! Do 'A', no, don't do 'A' You're allowed to do this, no, you're not allowed to do this. You can have 'B', no, you can't have 'B' How do they keep their heads in one piece? I wonder, I just wonder. Lol! and smh! |
. |
[size=5pt] haftob:[/size] So the Quran is incomplete then without the tafsir(commentary) since they are the reason behind the revelation. And another person had to also write this down from Mohammed's 'dictation'? BTW, since, like you stated, Mohammed 'dictated' both why were they not put together as one book? Or why didn't Allah just give Mohammed a simple version of the book in heaven that wouldn't require addendum. Remember too that the Quran is supposed to be easy to understand. |
haftob:First, this is an open forum! I hope you know what that means? Maybe next time you need to make clear and direct statements. You said: "it was his God that dictated the quran to him not that he wrote it on his own."what do you want any reader to get from that? Is it that they should be able to know that you did not mean Allah dictated it to him but that he sent " Angel to recite it to him" And also they should also know from that statement alone that he did not write it but "he was cramming it blah blah blah." What would it have taken you to say it as it was? BTW, can we be REALLY SURE that: 1. His cramming was recited correctly to those who wrote it? 2. Those who WROTE the recitations actually wrote down the exact things they heard? |
haftob:If you think it was Mohammed who PERSONALLY wrote down what was 'revealed' to him then you still have a lot to learn about your Quran and Islam. Maybe you should take time and study the origin of the Quran, the mode of compilation and how the current edition came to be. |
[quote author=Rilwayne001 post=35952508][/quote]Your posts: The jews mockingly say that. They do not believe. Man, that they call him the messiah doesn't mean they believe he is the messiah. They were mocking him.You said your Quran says the Jews mocked him. But that's not so. It was the Roman soldiers that did: From the Bible portion you quoted. You cannot "stamp" this portion of the Bible on the Jews. Trying to 'use' any passage of the Bible to justify your claims is deceitful. You failed here to show that what you said about the Jews is true; either from the Quran or the Bible. Your claim is just your mere speculation which you wanted to force into the whole picture. |
[size=5pt] Rilwayne001:[/size] Notice It was actually the soldiers that did this: Matthew 27: 27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the governor's headquarters, and they gathered the whole battalion before him. 28 And they stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, 29 and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on his head and put a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him, they mocked him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!" You can see how as a result of either misunderstanding, but more likely that of deliberately wanting to twist the truth, a portion of the Bible is taken out of context by you. |
[quote author=MizJanet post=35917938][/quote]From your initial conversation (whether real or imaginary) your purpose is to 'force' your meaning into the words of the passages you picked. "people say" .... but ...."brought forth" "but why are christians not consistent and straight forward ?" Your goal then is to arrive at a conclusion that will discredit the position of others. Incidentally you deliberately refused to respond to the post that showed you how the use of "brought forth" does not necessarily translate to "create" in Matthew 1:25. You know it will punch a big hole in your argument. What you seem to be doing is to say that Jesus Christ is not God. In spite of the supremacy of Jesus stated in the Quran and secular history it is amazing that many Muslims and atheists battle to reduce him to the level of other 'ordinary' prophets and would rather revere those other 'ordinary' prophets than Jesus. The Bible then becomes the battle ground where they seek to do this. How sad! Like NumberOne2 said: "A simple understanding of context would have spared us all this mess." And also that: "You CANNOT use the same context in ALL situations!" What you intend to do is cause confusion so that in the process you can attempt to invalidate the Bible. Take a lesson from that portion of Proverbs you "picked" from: "5 O simple ones, learn prudence; O fools, learn sense. 6 Hear, for I will speak noble things, and from my lips will come what is right, 7 for my mouth will utter truth; wickedness is an abomination to my lips. 8 All the words of my mouth are righteous; there is nothing twisted or crooked in them. 9 They are all straight to him who understands, and right to those who find knowledge." "35 For whoever finds me finds life and obtains favor from the LORD, 36 but he who fails to find me injures himself; all who hate me love death." |
RagnarLodbrok:Choosing an escape route then? Throwing in the towel? |
This relates to this topic: An Official Response From NIV publishers HERE IS AN OFFICIAL RESPONSE FROM NIV BIBLE PUBLISHERS! Dear, Thank you for checking on this before forwarding such false and misleading statements. It is good to see a Christian who uses their mind before simply believing such nonsense. These statements are false and silly and promoted either by those who don't know any better or who are intentionally trying to mislead. They have been promoted by some people for the last 40 years or so, but were refuted by good conservative scholars from the very beginning. First, the NIV does not remove ANY verses. Instead, like all good Bible translations, the NIV omits statements that were added later and WERE NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT. When the KJV was translated, the translators had only a few manuscripts of the New Testament available to them and these were very late (mostly from the Middle Ages). We now have hundreds of earlier and more reliable manuscripts. Scholars today recognize that we have a Greek text today that is much closer to the original than the KJV translators had available to them. So all modern versions (except the NKJV) use these older manuscripts. Even the NKJV puts the better readings in the footnotes (look for the abbreviation NU, which refers to the earlier and better manuscripts). Remember that the original books of the Bible had no chapter or verse divisions. These were added later. So to say that there are "verses" missing is wrong. What are "missing" are phrases or sentences that were added by later scribes and were not part of the original text. The NIV, like all modern versions, seeks to preserve what was originally there. Read the Preface to the NIV and some of this is explained. As far as the homosexual statement is concerned, this is simply false. None of the translators of the NIV were homosexuals (or Satanists!). All were conservative evangelical Christians fully committed to the inspiration and inerrancy of the text. For the names of the present and past committee members, see http://www.biblica.com/en-us/the-niv-bible/meet-the- translators/ http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv-translators.html Just check passages on homosexuality in the NIV and you will see that the NIV is not "soft" on homosexuality. Here are the main passages: Lev. 18:22 “ ‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. Lev. 20:13 “ ‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. Rom. 1:26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 1Cor. 6:9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1Tim. 1:9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine So you see, these accusations are false and slanderous. It is a shame that many Christians are out to attack others rather than to promote the good news. Thanks again for your question. Blessings, Mark Strauss |
[quote author=RagnarLodbrok post=35762600]Ahhh! Jesus Moses and every other prophet excluding the Abraham during the isra and miraj called Muhammad brother, not son, were they not born hundreds of years before, why do all muslims call each other brother?I thought you were asking yourself sometime ago why you're still here. Apparently you cannot resist the allure! Did you say here that Jesus called Mohammed 'brother'? Really? And you're stating all these to show that Allah, dictating to Mohammed, would refer to Mary the mother of Jesus as 'sister' of Aaron who lived hundreds of years before her rather than as 'daughter' of Aaron? I don't know how much clearer this needs to be.You cann't make it clearer because there's nothing for you to make clear. Uhhhm yes! If it wasn't a noble association why would it be used as a way to infer that an unholy act is not expected from her?Imram, the father of Aaron, Moses and their sister Miriam is not the father of Mary the mother of Jesus. The Quran confused issues here. Scholar was asking me questions about Joachim and Catholics and what not, why the hell should that be my problem? That is an issue of christian confusion. None of my beeswax.Added to these, truth is that: 1. Mary and Zachariah did not live in the same town. 2. Zachariah received the message about John and his wife was already pregnant for six months before Mary heard about it at all. 3. It was after this that Mary visited Zachariah's house in Judah to spend 3 months with his wife, Elizabeth who was Mary's relative. 4. Mary had already conceived before this trip to Zachariah's house. |
[quote author=RagnarLodbrok post=35758644][/quote]Look at what you wrote: It does not mean that here Qur’an calls Mary, the real sister of Aaron, the Prophet who was hundreds of years before her. Here she is only being called a female person of the family, from the Noble lineage of Prophet Aaron.Is it logical that Mary who was born hundreds after Aaron will be called 'sister' rather than 'daughter'? Here 'she is only being called a female person of the family' ![]() Even Jesus was referred to as 'son of David' not 'brother' of David. In the same Quran she is called 'daughter' ??Then this; In 19:27-28, Mary was clearly being reminded of her association with great patriarchs such as Prophet Aaron (pbuh) who according to Jewish sources, was considered the first High Priest of the Israelites and through whom the priestly decendancy of his tribe, the Levites continued.Is the Quran written hundreds of years after Mary 'reminding' Mary? Mary's lineage was clearly Judah so the Quran could have made this clear. And then: Mary was clearly reminded of her 'noble associations' with Prophet Aaron's (pbuh) noble descendants when the charge of being unchaste was levied against her. In this manner, she would have been referred to Prophet Aaron (pbuh) as connected to him by faith (as a sister) and not in lineage.So it's now the case of 'noble associations' with Aaron. Interesting, isn't it? And: No! Imran is the father of Mary mother of Jesus (pbuh). Not Mary sister of Moses.You now craftily try to insert a name into the father of Mary to make up your razzmatazz. And: That's none of our problem that's yours.Where you can find no 'trick' to use you shove it aside. Again, interesting! You can see how you've been doing your twists and turns! |
Rilwayne001: ![]() |
These guys know that the book they claim came down from heaven has a lot of flaws. In order to explain away the flaws they resort to looking for ways to confuse issues raised. If ALL the intelligent Muslim scholars cannot translate the archaic language that gives room for speculations of Muslim commentators into something more understandable then that speaks volume of their competence. A book which on one hand claims it makes things so clear and simple that anybody can understand and then on the other hand says no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah has set up itself as a deception. How do we know those portions that are 'clear and simple' and those that 'no one knows its [true] interpretation'? This then is confusion at it's heights for those who choose to go by it. As a result those trying to 'explain' it resort to all sorts of gimmicks in their attempts to 'interpret' it. This is what is happening here! First it's the Quran that is quoted. Then they run to the Bible. Thereafter it's resort to the Hadith. Where the Hadith is proven to go against the Quran they resort to explaining away which is superior and which is inferior. Quran quotes from Bible and we find the same words in the Bible today. So for some Muslim 'scholars' to doubt its authenticity is the height of arrogance. Isn't it strange that no Muslim ever fought to retain any copy of the Bible (in whatever form they were) that the Quran mentioned severally whereas copies of Islamic tradition materials were guarded with every fiber of their being? Any Muslim has the fundamental human right to continue with a lie with eagerness and face the ultimate result - hell, or choose the truth with the corresponding result of eternity with God. |
RagnarLodbrok:I can see how poorly you respond to simple questions. |
RagnarLodbrok:Thank you for admitting your ignorance! You should have just simply stated that the questions are beyond you or called on one of your partners to help you out. PS: Don't bother to respond if your brain cann't handle it. |
malvisguy212:Tell us these: 1. Where did the Quran give the genealogy of Mary? 2. Where is it in that Quran passage that: " after the Angels have already given her the news and were not present she then prayed to Allah after she got curious and an angel was sent."! 3. If, like you said about the Quran: "no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah" How do you now KNOW whether this your INTERPRETATION is "true"? In a bid to confuse issues you run from the Quran to the Bible but still claim the same Bible you quote is not quite right. Why not stick to the Quran and let's see the sense it would make. Do you see how you're starting to tie yourself up in knots? We are beginning to see who the real jester is! Aren't we? |
RagnarLodbrok:Where did the Quran state this your sequence dummy? The events have taken the following sequences: First: the angels went to Mary Then: Mary started wondering and prayed [Note: Here she didn't ask the angels but she prayed and asked Allah. This means that the Angels have already gone. If the Angels were still there then why she didn't ask them.?] whose footnote us this; yours or the Quran's? So you have craftily created A GAP between verses 45 and 47: angels were talking to Mary but according to you she never asked the angels what bothered her about their message. Was it out of fear or what? Maybe your 'creative' mind should tell us. Even though it's not there in the Quran you also added this: So, after she prayed and asked Allah sent one angel to Mary to give her His answer in the second part of verse (3:47) "… Finally: After a period of time Allah sent the angel Gabriel to grant her a pure child. This is in verse (19:19). Clap for yourself, dummy! |
[size=5pt] RagnarLodbrok:[/size] An "explanation" you 'cooked' up, dummy! When you have to "fill in gaps" for the Quran don't you think something is not quite right, bubblehead? |
[size=5pt] RagnarLodbrok:[/size] Maybe you should just have only quoted your last statement and left it at that. If it has to take 'explaining' away the plain meaning of words to understand the Quran that describes itself as clear and simple, don't you think something is wrong? This your 'explanation' will be debunked in details later. Your inability to face my questions is showing you for who you are - fakes! In a bid to run for cover you're now taking up more 'fanciful' monikers. Perhaps it's part of the plan for DECEPTION of the unsuspecting. |
malvisguy212:Waiting for Rilwayne001 & company to 'explain' this! Maybe Allah was still revising the Quran 73 years after Mohammed's death. |
malvisguy212:Indeed this is one of the several areas in the book that is said to have descended from heaven and still has the original in heaven; where well known historical facts were muddled up. Mary is said In sura 3:35-41 to be the sister of Aaron; having been given birth to by Amram's (Imram) wife who is the mother of Aaron and Moses. This is a disaster to Islam. Aaron and Moses his brother died over 1,000 years before Mary the mother of Jesus was born! The truth of the matter is that whoever wrote this part of the Quran mixed up the "Miriam" or "Mariam" sister of Aaron and Moses with the "Mary" the mother of Jesus whose name can also be called "Mariam". So, who made the mistake, Allah or Mohammed? This is a big question that awaits answers. Also, the Quran says Mary and Zachariah were present in the sanctuary when the prophecy about John was given. The truth is that: 1. Mary and Zachariah did not live in the same town. 2. Zachariah received the message about John and his wife was already pregnant for six months before Mary heard about it at all. 3. It was after this that Mary visited Zachariah's house in Judah to spend 3 months with his wife, Elizabeth who was Mary's relative. 4. Mary had already conceived before this trip to Zachariah's house. The Quran even contradicts itself as to how many angels visited Zachariah/Mary. Was it one or many? Sura 3:35-42 says "angels" but sura 19:17 says "our angel" (singular) appeared before Mary "as a man in all respects". Actually, one Jewish book of fables - The Protevangelion's James the Lesser -written before Mohammed around third century A. D. had all these tales. But Jews and Christians could differentiate between their scripture and folktales. Apparently the writer of this part of the Quran couldn't. This is one of the calamities of the book. |
Even in the face of facts there are those who will still choose to hold on to the contrary. A lie repeated well enough becomes accepted as true. The power of repetition has been used by many Muslims to fool other Muslims and even non-Muslims into accepting claims that are non-existent in the Quran. The Muslim has been made to repeat some things for so long that it has virtually become impossible for him to imagine the error of such statements or even think through such statements to see errors. Any honest Muslim who goes through the Quran carefully cannot but realize that even in the Quran Jesus is more than a prophet; indeed more than all the other prophets. No one can face a wrong direction and find himself in the right destination. |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (of 29 pages)

