@olabowale,

olabowale:

@Stimulus: Adulators; Great Ones or christians? Its got to be the Christians!

Where have Christians been plagiarizing Ahmed Deedat? Or are you such an empty head now that you are trying so hard to deflect this thread? Please don't even try to patronize me with this nonsense - from start to finish, the Muslim rascal and illiterate attitude you guys have been putting up is about to end! By the time we get there, you will see Muhammad for the false prophet that he was.

olabowale:

No wonder, there is no shame in your vocabulary.

I've tolerated your nonsense for far too long, olabowale. Since you cannot contain yourself any longer after several appeals to show deference in your language and have seen it as your birthright to constantly slur the Trinity, this is the one thread I intend to discuss that subject in detail and demonstrate the fallacies in Deedat's argument to show up the Muslim propaganda in your arguments. Please stay on course.

olabowale:

I guess you no christian told you that the core message of The Great Prophet was Laa ila ha ilallah. Only this was his objesctive for 13 years in Makka.

Then it must have been a poor errand he ran for 13 years! No wonder after you guys have been knocking your heads on the ground for over 14 centuries, you still haven't been cured of your illiterate rants. Now you're grovelling about my language and the otiose Laa-la-la yada-yada that has done no man any good!

olabowale:

Before I continue, I need to translate that to a language that you understand, your mother tongue, lest you accuse the Great Ones of sticking to Arabic alone: Ko si oba to to sin afi Oba Oluwa nikon! The Great Prophet never stopped there, but the last 10 years after Makka, in Madina, The Great Prophet never stopped and he died on this principle.

Don't make me laugh, olabowale! Your "great prophet" died with his curses upon himself! This is what exactly happens to false prophets who try to disparage the biblical prophets and want to murder people for their beliefs. What about the redemption of his soul? Have you forgotten what I posted to you in the other thread about the meaning of God being known as FATHER (creative, redemptive, and covenant rights of God over His people)? Muhammad rejected the only means of his redemption by qualifying himself as a false prophet - and this thread will lead you step by step to see his sad adventures.

olabowale:

And for good indication of the iconoclastic quality of The Great Religion towards idol worshipping, at conquest of makka, the only toppled, were the 360 Idols stockpiled into ka'aba. Then al Uzza was destroyed and the person who was behind it was killed.

Yea, and for all that, The Great Prophet retained one of his choice idol from Kaa'ba - allāh! No wonder Muslims have lied for eons about the Kaa'ba being traced to Adam or Abraham and yet they cannot show how this has been so as a historical fact! Make una continue to face East and get more confused.

olabowale:

And the leasership of Makka was not replaced whereas we see that before then and after this conquest, every victory, always replaced the leadership of the vanquished people who they toppled. We see how the You. S. replaced saddam Hussein, upon victorious of the Iraqi Army.

What has all this harrumph got to do with the Greek that you cannot decode on John 1:1? You think you're smart by trying ever so hard to deflect this subject? You will need an Arabian miracle to shift the focus of this thread - and it does not matter how many of you will swarm this thread with endless stories and cover-up tactics, just let me warn you ahead of time: NONE of your gimmicks will prove effective in this thread!

olabowale:

If all the Great Ones foundamentally do worship One God whose proper name is God in Arabic,

"God" is not an Arabic word - I keep telling you guys that! See how the efforts of your bellicose and billigerent Muslim brothers threatening fatwa on Nairaland has helped us to drop 'Allāh'? I will say it again -- 'allah' has been dropped from Nairaland and now we are reading "God" all the more! Just type 'Allah' in your posts, and gbam! - you no go see am again!

olabowale:

I wonder how you will explain or what will you call your christian religion but Idolatry, since you worship more than one god, but gods, who you claim were all there in existence before the beginning of creation?

Thank you - this is how to discuss! You slur my Christian faith as 'idolatry' and expect me to swallow that, abi? Then you come back complaining about my language! Good. Olabowale, you go see pepper for this thread - I haven't started with you yet!

If you want to discuss, make your points without recourse to slurring the Christian faith! Failure to heed this call will help us show you in like manner what exactly Muhammad and his god were!

This is the last time I will offer that warning - it's up to you to school up or continue to be such a retard!

olabowale:

It is ironic that the action of Ibrahiim who destroyed all the gods of his people but putting the axe on the shoulder of the biggest and the only remaining god, though noble and just, kind of remind me of your claim that your small god was also killed, yet the world did not come to an end.

Thank you for the "small god" appellation - a fine way to address my faith. The tales of Muhammad are insignificant to my discourses, so I'll just throw that garboil out and bring you back on course.

olabowale:

Nothing happened upon this sudden death. You know what except that there was no death and he was not a real God. You see the Great One god, which is One, does not die, never tired, and never fatigued.

Your 'Allāh' was a wussy who was crying that the (unnamed) son of Adam had "hurt" him (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 6, Book 60, Num. 351). You may claim all sorts for this 'allah'-coverup about not growing tired or fatigued, etc. . . but can you explain why the same wussy was whimpering along with his slave Muhammad so much so that the slave had to plot the murder of someone (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 52, Num. 270)?

I don tell you, olabowale - your slurring of the Trinity will only invite what will make you go home and weep with your wussy 'Allah'. You want to discuss, do so; but if your aim is to be derisive and then show up your empty skull on this subject, no wahala!

You're using such panic measures to try ever so hard to deflect this thread - as if that will atone for the fact that Deedat, you and all who have plagiarized him are dunces. You can't mangle another man's language and pretend a scholarship you clearly do not possess, and then celebrate a huge LIE from place to place! That lie is what you will find exposed in this thread; and no matter how vexed you can be with your illiterate remarks, you will not be able to divert the discussion to something else.

olabowale:

This is the different between between us, who serve a real God, unlike you who worship many gods. I guess in this case largeness in number does not mean truth.

Was it not your own Muslim bother who was boasting about largeness of numbers in the other thread? You guys are so inconsistent - and if your 'Lai-la-la-yada-yada' is all you can produce for your dense IQ, you are about to wake up from a rude sleep!

@Wordsmith,

Wordsmith:

Simply take a look at his pattern of writing and that of the plagiarised material. 't ain't hard to tell. . .

Of course, I knew he was rubber-dubbing the material from some site or the other - and that's why I so thanked him for it! Unlike his predecessors, he was generous enough to post a larger portion of Deedat's rants, which I had already seen in these cites:

Sbeel-al-I'slam,

[url=http://www.jews-for-god.org/Jews-and-Great Ones-Agree/no-trinity.htm]Jews-for-Allāh[/url],

Answering-Christianity.com.

My style is not to scuttle here and there looking for materials to cop-out from anyone (unless where it was necessary for me to help them verify the points I was making - as in the case of Wiktionary on "logos".

Just to help them stay steady and on course with this subject, I've decided to help them curtail their truancy with this small assignment:

Which of these Greek terms between theos (θεος) and theon (θεον) were used in the following texts:

   John 3:16    John 8:41
   John 14:1    John 3:17
   John 21:19   John 3:21

These verses will help us see the huge gaps in Deedat's arguements!

Certainly, if they are smart enough, they would give it a try - but we can be sure they won't even attempt it, because they'd then see the cheat that Deedat was!

Of course, those are not the only verses in the New Testament that I hope to examine on the Greek terms for God; but by the time we get somewhere along in the discussion, dem go see Muhammad for wetin he actually be!

@olabowale,

olabowale:

We have to realise that Moses father was under the bondage also in Egypt. Could this condition of Moses father be indicated that God was under bondage, and it was His son Moses who emancipated Him? Never.

I think you are letting your ribald thinking run ahead of you and leading you further from common sense and truth. The argument that you are supposing is not even taught at all in the Bible, so where do you get the idea that Moses might have been supposed to go to Egypt to deliver "the Father" of whom he spoke in Deuteronomy 32:6?!?

You see why you Muslims continue to cheapen your scholarship in order to whip up every kind of otiose argument which often you cannot defend from either the Bible, the Qur'an, or the hadiths?

This is why all the other otiose remarks you have made simply went over my head - and I'd rather not make you go home and weep some more if I should reply to them.

On the whole, here's a subscript that I should not pass by:

olabowale:

God says in His book that he turned the disobedient Children of Israel to Pig and some to Ape as a means of their punishment.

What book of fairy tales are you referring to - the Qur'an?

And please sir, when and where in history did that ever happen (apart from Muhammad's arabian tales)?

Is that why Muslims have been perpetuating this hate-mongering against Jews and Christians by teaching their Muslim school children to foster such seething animosity against Jews and Christians?

olabowale:

And we also read that in the Bible that after the golden calf incident, some people from the tribes of the children of Israel were killed out.

Does that translate as the arabian tales of Jews and Christians being turned into apes and pigs?

olabowale:

Whats your point really?

My point was to help you apply some common sense when you argue out issues. Go back and read what exactly were your comments that spurred my response in providing those links. I'm actually disappointed, really - because I thought you'd come back and deny them brazenly, and then I would have posted the other more serious scenario of what highly placed Muslims are doing to foster this hate-mongering against Jews and Christians.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

As long as you are not violent with me. I still carry the whole 32; molars, premolars, canines and incisors. No cavity,Alhamdulillah.

I'm not trying to be violent with you, that's why I observed that you should open your molars with some caution.

olabowale:

I guess my hypocricy has not stopped you from calling me all names in the book. But I would not mind if you concentrate on Trinity, here or in the thread opened on it. I will not let you divert our dialogue to another matter.

You should not start out by trying to disparage other discussants and then come back whimpering the way you do. The Trinity has been my focus long before you started filling the threads with your long-winded tales.

olabowale:

If God 'made thee,' and yet still a father, how then He is not the Maker/Creator of Jesus?

You're trying to force the Bible to say what it does not teach while denying what it actually teaches! The Bible never supposes that Jesus as the divine Son was ever "created" or "made" by the Father.

olabowale:

Whyat is different in the case of Jesus?

The difference is that the Bible teaches throughout that the Messiah Himself is deity!

olabowale:

Yet He made Adam, Noah and His friend Ibrahiim, is He also their father?

God is known both as "the God of the spirits of all flesh" (Num. 27:16) as well as "the Father of spirits" (Heb. 12.9), which demonstrates that He is both the Creator and Father of all mankind.

olabowale:

Is father just a word of respect and closeness in respect to God and not meaning the father who sire?

Now this is what you Muslims need to have asked a long time ago, and here is why you all miss the meaning of God being known as "FATHER".

The Bible does not teach in any one verse that God "sired" anybody by sexual relations with anyone. Not in one verse will you find that idea espoused. If you look at the various meanings and contexts of the use of "Father" in reference to God, you will find what is being meant. Let's quote a few:

Deuteronomy 32:6 - "Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not He thy FATHER that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?"

You notice that Moses did not use the term "Father" for God with the idea of "siring" anyone in his audience! Rather, the underlined words give us the clue of what he meant - God was the 'FATHER' by redemptive rights ('thy Father that hath BOUGHT thee'), by creative rights (He 'MADE thee'), and by covenant rights (He 'ESTABLISHED thee'). These are the clues that you need to be looking out for before assuming that 'FATHER' in reference to God would suggest His siring anyone!

Again in Isaiah 63:16, the prophet makes it clear in his supplication that 'FATHER' was in reference to redemptive rights which God had over them - "thou, O LORD, art our FATHER, our Redeemer; thy name is from everlasting". In Isaiah 64:8, he makes it clear that God was their 'Father' by rights of His being their Creator: "But now, O LORD, Thou art our FATHER; we are the clay, and Thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand."

These themes:

Creator rights
Redemptive rights
Covenant rights

run through the Bible in those verses where God is referred to as 'FATHER'; and not in one instance do we read any idea of 'Father' in connection with 'siring'. Please, if you find such a verse that states otherwise, let us read it!


Which brings me to a very important point: Muhammad's mistaken idea that the Trinity and divine Sonship of Jesus were a matter of sexual connotation. That is why he supposed wrongly that the Trinity involved the Father, the Son and MARY! You can be sure that the moment he denied the true God who revealed Himself as 'FATHER' to the Biblical prophets, at that instance he showed himself to be a false prophet!

If Muhammad was actually a true prophet sent by that same God, he certainly would have been able to recognize that God was "al-ab" ('the FATHER'). There is no excuse under the sun that would atone for his fallacy here, for in denying the revelation of God in the prophecies of the Biblical prophets, he had once and for all sealed his fate!

@olabowale,

olabowale:

@Stimulus: As usual, I know you will take the bait;
The same place you go to get your information. If they are wrong, about ton theon, then definately you are wrong.

Ha! You simply are a laugh! I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how "ton theon" could mean "God fearer" - have you done that? I just took one look at the garboil you posted and laughed so loud at yet another illiterate attempt to scuttle and drown your obvious confusion. Was this not your remarks earlier? --

olabowale:

I wonder how you, Stimulus, will explain Theos; any deity, including God. Yet TonTheon is described as God fearer and Ibrahiim (as) as Great Religious Hanifan is used to illustrate it.

Now, oga olas, just relax and explain HOW in the universe "ton theon" is used (by who?) to describe "God fearer" - I just want you to clear that harrumph first, and then I'll show you what your rank-xeroxed article has failed to point out.

Do you care to show me how you connect "ton theon" to mean "God fearer"?

I'm waiting!

@holythug,

holythug:

well, you're in darkness & will never undastand

I'm not in darkness, as you can see from my rejoinder just above. If you can show me how you or any other person would bend the rules of Greek grammar to throw out the true meaning of "Θεός, Θεού, θεον, Θεώ, Θεέ, θεοίς, θεοί, and Θεών" (which are all terms for "God", then you may have made an impact! That indeed would require that you inform the Greeks that they never knew their own language until Ahmed Deedat opened his mouth and confused the Muslims who have been celebrating his false assertions!

Do you care to demonstrate the true meaning of the following Greek terms:

Θεός,

Θεού,

θεον,

Θεώ,

Θεέ,

θεοίς,

θεοί

Θεών ?!?

Do you care to please show me what they mean, and point out the verses in the New Testament where they have been used?

You see, I would like to answer your questions - if and only if you are genuinely interested in finding out the truth! The dubious attitude of folks like olabowale will make me tell them to their face that they need to go and weep for their lies!

However, even though you have tried to offer some definitions and lexical explanations of some Greek terms for deity (which may be interpreted as "god, goddess" etc. depending on the tenses and context), I would like you to know that the general definitions do not provide the contextual meaning of each term. If you are to apply the rules of Greek grammar, what would you post as the Greek equivalent of the following terms:

godfearing (or 'god-fearing')?

godly (or godliness)?

godforsaken?

godless?

godlike?

I think you need to calm down and look again at two things when discussing Greek translations:

(a) application

(b) context

To argue from a general definition does not mean that you have arrived at the answers to very intriguing questions! That is what I am confident of dealing with in this query on John 1:1!!

Now if you make an example of applying a Greek term for "God" and say, you want to state the following:

glory be to God on high

. . . how would you express that in Greek, and what Greek term for "God" would you use? If you are willing to find out the gist of my discussion on this, please consult any sincere Greek speaker or literate person, and he/she would point out to you that the statement "glory be to God on high" is written in Greek this way:

δόξα εν υψίστοις Θεώ!

Why is this so? Because I have applied the correct grammatical rule of Greek (in this case the 'Dative' - Θεώ) so that the Greek speaker or listener is not confused about what I just said. Certainly, I would not say "δόξα εν υψίστοις τον θεον" - and if you wrote that to any Greek literate person, he is bound to wonder if you're insane - because you would have used the 'accusative' case (θεον) to make yourself the "God" in that statement!

Later on, I'll show you guys how simple Greek really is! I'm just too amazed that Muslims who pretend a scholarship they do not possess have been using such illiterate rants to deceive and dehumanize their audience!

Shalom.

@holythug,

Bo, thank you for attempting an intelligent answer o jare! This Muslim attitude of trying to mesmerize people with illiterate remarks is the reason why I no longer pay folks like olabowale any attention with long, winding stories to cover up his retard games. How do you explain his penchant to continue ridiculing the Trinity even when he's not saying anything that amounts to an intelligent input? Not to mention that I've severally appealed to him to show deference to other people's convictions! When Muslims are deriding other people's beliefs, how do they expect to read some respectful remarks about Muhammad after refusing several time to heed the call to be mature in their inputs?

Now let me help you see what you guys have continued to miss.

First, I had to deal with Ahmed Deedat's false premises, because his articles and arguments have always been celebrated as "scholarly" - and no Muslim has exercised the dicipline to carefully examine whether or not Deedat was being honest to the facts on ground.

There were two basic issues to be settled in Deedat's rants:

(a) the meaning of "logos" (λογος) in ancient Greek

(b) the Greek terms for God in John 1:1

As regards (a) above, Deedat denies that "logos" (λογος) in ancient Greek means "word"; rather he asserts that "word" is a corrupt modern translation; and as I have demonstrated, Deedat was cheating his audience because we all know that he was not telling the truth. The source from Wiktionary shows indeed that "word" is one of the several meanings of "logos" in ancient Greek!

And as regards (b) above, the terms theos (Θεός) and theon (Θεόν) both mean "God". What Deedat had tried to do is yet cheat his audience again by making only "ton theon" or (ho theos) the "proper way" of referring to "God"! That is as absurd as any cheat can make it sound - because he has not carefully examine Greek grammar rules; nor does any one of his adulators understand Greek!

This is why I left those teasers earlier so that anyone who has the basic understanding of Greek with its grammar rules can then see how false Deedat was! Do you care to take this assignment to test your knowledge of Greek:

stimulus:

Which of these Greek terms between theos (θεος) and theon (θεον) were used in the following texts:

[list] John 3:16 John 8:41
John 14:1 John 3:17
John 21:19 John 3:21[/list]

These verses will help us see the huge gaps in Deedat's arguements!

By the time you examine those verses, you will find indeed the surprising this is that there are several Greek terms used for "God" rather than just those two that we have been examining!!

The question to ask is WHY these various Greek terms instead of just one? The reason is simple enough for those who understand Greek - they are derived from the Greek tenses; and below are examples of a few of these terms:


Nominative Θεός

Genitive Θεού

Dative Θεώ

Accusative θεον

Vocative Θεέ

These are just a few of those Greek terms for "God"; and you can see that so far, we have only been looking at two Greek terms - the 'Accusative' (θεον) and the 'Nominative' (Θεός) cases in John 1:1. This is why I requested that we examine other verses in the same John's Gospel and see why Deedat and co have been cheating people all along!

I never boasted of being a Greek expert - but I know enough Greek to expose the fraud that Muslims have been noising about all this while! That is why I have thrown the challenge to any - I mean, any - Muslim scholar who boast the basic of the Greek language to come forward and let's examine the Greek translation of the Qur'an!! Is that too hard for you guys? For someone as dunce and dense as olabowale to keep slurring the Trinity and then castigating me on what he does not have a clue about, is the reason why I will no longer put up with such illiterate behaviour from him!

@4Him,

4Him:

which "christians" in mecca? Is it not true that NO INFIDEL (which includes christians) are not allowed into mecca and medina?

Just allow these mentally-challenge footsoldiers of Allāh continue to confuse themselves. I wonder why duplicity and mendacity are often the prime celebrations among Muslims!

@olabowale,

While you are biting your fingers and getting even more confused about John 1:1, what have you said about the fact that the term "logos" (λογος) actually means "word" in ancient Greek? Why did Deedat LIE so assertively to deceive you Muslims and you have been celebrating that lie on Allāh's behalf?

What have you said about the fact that Deedat was WRONG about the meaning of theos and theon in John 1:1? It was easy for him to have deceived you - because there's nothing better than celebrating lies and denials in Islam!

If you think that this is about stooping down to Muhammad's denials, I'm sorry for you! You haven't met the gist of exactly who Muhammad was! There is no panic measures of story-telling that will atone for your emptiness here - and until you smart up and attend to the subject, don't even try to entertain or patronize me with the nonsense you have often used as first-aid to cover up your mewling arguments.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

I wonder how you, Stimulus, will explain Theos; any deity, including God. Yet TonTheon is described as God fearer and Ibrahiim (as) as Great Religious Hanifan is used to illustrate it.

You're even denser than I had thought! How on earth could ton theon mean "God fearer"?!? You're just being stupid, and the rascal illiterate noise you and babs787 have been making here about the Greek terms will be laid to rest.

All the lengthy posts you have come back with have said nothing intelligent - and your continued confusion about what term applies to which translated term will show how much of a scholar Deedat was! You cannot deflect the simple questions I asked in the other thread - go there and attend them if you care; and until you do so, your panic measures are not going to atone for the fact that Muhammad will be shown for the false prophet that he was!

Keep getting confused about ton theon - you never start yet!

My dear olabowale and holythug,

You guys should really be ashamed of yourselves. After plagiarizing Ahmed Deedat's illiterate arguments, I took the time to debunk his holy lies about the meaning of LOGOS, THEOS and THEON - and all I see is the intellectual harrumph and story telling that you came back with? Shame. Is illiteracy the hallmark of Islam?

Now, if you don't mind, I have answered the questions that your Muslim apologists and propagandists have been noising abroad all this while by refuting Deedat on John 1 v 1. In fair return, I left a few questions for your assignment:

stimulus:

Which of these Greek terms between theos (θεος) and theon (θεον) were used in the following texts:

[list] John 3:16 John 8:41
John 14:1 John 3:17
John 21:19 John 3:21[/list]

These verses will help us see the huge gaps in Deedat's arguements!

Please I want answers to those questions, and until you provide the answers, don't try to defelct this thread with your illiterate comments. Nothing is going to atone for your lying adventures for Allāh, and this is one subject where I intend to put your cowardice to sleep once and for all. By the time we are through, we shall see the demon that Muhammad has cheated you with! For this Quraish prophet to say that every Muslim has a demon attache is not surprising that he came preaching another deity.

I warned you olabowale especially - you don't joke with the Trinity. This thread will show you who has been hiding behind that name "Allāh" that Muslims worship. No detractions with your silly illiterate comments - just stay on course and deal with the subject.

stimulus:

Do you care to go through John's Gospel to find those verses?

Perhaps we may make it more interesting by asking you to take this assignment:

Which of these Greek terms between theos (θεος) and theon (θεον) were used in the following texts:

[list] John 3:16 John 8:41
John 14:1 John 3:17
John 21:19 John 3:21[/list]

These verses will help us see the huge gaps in Deedat's arguements!

Psalms 7:17

I will praise the LORD according to his righteousness:
and will sing praise to the name of the LORD most high.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

@Dafidixone: The Ibrahiimic God is not the same as Christian gods: I will not know which one of your three Christian gods that you will equate or call the God of Ibrahiim? Is it the Son god? Or holy ghost god? Or father god? In each of the three, none was referred to as God by Ibrahiim, the hanifan. You Christians put your own spin on the name or title "God" and think it means anything.

Abraham knew God, drew near to Him, and spoke with Him. The same Abraham was not a Muslim, never worshipped any 'allāh' in any Kaa'ba, and did not make the pronouncements that Muhammad made regarding every Muslim having a demon attache! You can spin from now till the dust in Medina becomes a hurricane, but it will not change the fact that Muhammad did not know the God of Abraham.

olabowale:

No, my man, you and the Christians, in all those generations and till the end of time, who believed Jesus to be a diety and also that holy ghost is a diety and then call your Creator father, and finally rejecting the final prophet of God, the only one to all mankind and therefore, not being from the religion of The Great Religion (The Great Religion is from Silmi and Salaam), you have nothing to dowith Ibrahiim and his concept of God; the Only Deity worthy of all and every worship.

We have everything to do with Abraham - unfortunately, Muhammad rejected the revelation of Moses who referred to God as "FATHER". By rejecting that confession, Muhammad qualified himself as a false prophet, and that is why we reject him an will cntinue to do so. If Muhammad wished you and the rest of the Muslim world a demon attache, good for you - that is another reason why we reject him and continue to do so because the prophets never taught that nonsense!

olabowale:

I can say the same about the Children of Israel who now call themselves Jews.

God recognized that they are Jews - so did the Biblical prophets; and not even Muhammad could deny that they are Jews!

olabowale:

(How can a less noble clan absorb a greater one: The Yusuf clam who was a prophet, his clan was absorb by Judah's clan. Afterall, Judah and all his brothers and parents prostrated their faces to Yusuf, in Egypt!). The Jews turned their god to a clanish God. It is as if they are the only one who have a hold on God and the rest of us have no relationship with God, the Almighty Creator. fterall their is none that Created except Him alone. The Jews makes their tribe the only tribe that has exclusivity on God. I should know their opinions: I have many associates among them. Their relation with God and always questioning His authority, wisdom and blaming Him if anything happens to them show the lack of true believe in Him

You see what I mean about the disease of Muslim illiteracy that is taking too long to cure? We have been over and done with this false allegation of the Jews making God into a tribal deity - and you hypocritically brought that same otiose argument here! When will your conscience stop this false adventures for Muhammad's 'allāh'?

olabowale:

Unlike the Great Ones who in the Qur'an are warned not to behave like the generations that have passes (The people who had earlier revelations; Jews and Christias are examples here).

Sorry, it is the other way round - we have been warned to not behave like the false prophet who come denying the revelations of the Biblical prophets.

olabowale:

The Great Religion is a religion that requires a complete belief and submission, while still having a complete human quality and dignity. For example, one is encouraged to eat first before prayer if hungry and the food is already set, but the time for salah is in. Further one is encouraged to walk in good measured paces, but not run to join the Salah prayer, even though it is in process. Your intention is very important here and one is to be in complete calm when entered Salah, which will not be the case, if you had raced to it.

Salah will not save nobody! That is why I asked you to throw your kettle away and fold your mat to one corner, the begin to open your conscience to the LORD so that he can save you from your lies!

Having pointed out the fallacies in your plagiarized articles, I’ll go on next to show you how very flawed Ahmed Deedat was in his summations on John 1 v 1.


John 1 v 1 – Theos (θεος) and Theon (θεον): GOD

As we have just seen, one of the meanings of the Greek term “logos” (λογος) is “word” (from Wiktionary), and there is no need wasting time arguing out Deedat’s false premise on that. Rather, we shall go on now to examine the Greek terms for ‘God’ in John’s Gospel; and in the transliteration of John 1:1, I’d be using “word” for “logos” (λογος) for a more accessible reading.

Greek of John 1 v 1:

εν  αρχη  ην  ο  λογος
και  ο  λογος  ην  προς  τον θεον
και  θεος  ην  ο  λογος


Transliteration:

en arche en ho logos
kai ho logos en pros ton theon
kai theos en ho logos

(kai theos en ho logos – ‘and God was the Word’)

The English translation of John 1 v 1 as given in the KJV is:

'In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.'

Most other English translations and versions (such as ASV, NIV, Darby, ESV and several others) agree with the KJV’s rendering of that verse.

Please observe that the English word 'God' appears twice in that verse, and there are tw[/b]o Greek terms used for this:

~ Θεόν ([b]theon) - in "the Word was with God"
~ Θεός (theos) - in "the Word was God"

Do these two Greek terms (Θεόν and Θεός) represent two "Gods" in John's Gospel? Certainly not. Both words are translated in English as "God"; and in the context of John 1 v 1, they simply mean that the Word (Logos - λογος) was essentially the same as 'God'.   

Now for some reason, Muslim apologists have tried to configure these Greek terms to the idea that only one of the terms actually means ‘God’ while the other is not. Citing babs787’s copped-out quote again:

babs787:

So the part which is written solely on its own as "theos", could be implying just any random diety, of course with ton theon written before in the sentence we automatically assume that we're still talking about the same God.

On the contrary, “theos” (even when written solely on its own) is used to refer to ‘God’. Not only so, but it is remarkable that both words (Θεόν and Θεός) are used in the rest of the Gospel of John (as well as in other NT references) to refer to ‘God’. John 1 v 1 is not the only verse where one finds Θεόν (theon) and Θεός (theos); and in other verses where we find them, it is even more remarkable that both are used to refer to the very same ‘God’.


Now, I would kindly ask you gentlemen to go through the Gospel of John and find a few verses where those two terms are used. Failing to do so, I'll understand even more that you lot and Deedat rolled into one are olodos! John's Gospel has both Greek terms - and several other terms for GOD! The reason why that is so is what I will be sharing with you in subsequent posts.

Do you care to go through John's Gospel to find those verses?

@samba123,

samba123:

We will continue discussing this issued that have been brought by SYS USER. And i think he can depend the word God of his own word and without teasing one another.

I agree with you that our aim should not be to tease people on their beliefs as we discuss these issues. But I think we've been all teased enough with the paradigm of automatic word-changes in our posts!

samba123:

STIMULUS,

I trying to explain the proper Use of A.l.l.a.h as a single word and now your comparing the word of ‘Aliha’(‘gods) its simple you can see the difference it is obvious to explain.
Aliha is a plural word when you use it in a sentences.

You're not offering an explanation here, ma guy! Your categorically asserted that there is no plural word of "gods" in the Arabic language, and my rejoinder following yours was to debunk that idea and point out clearly that there certainly are words in arabic denoting "gods" - and your translators have used such terms in their translation works on the Qur'an.

samba123:

If you insist how you Pluralize the word A.L.L.A.H?

I just did - go back to my previous reposte and read it - carefully!

samba123:

Without using the bowel and changing the word by adding, those letter of the Arabic alphabets?. Let us see what the word will come out?

Lol, I'm not the one you should be complaining to - because there is no Qur'an translation by Stimulus, you hear? Those you should be querying and yada-yada-ing to are your Muslim translators!

(This is why e pain me say olabowale refused to discuss the Greek translations of the Qur'an! Kai! E pain me, no be small!! Oga olas for see pepper!! )

samba123:

A.L.L.A.H is unique name nothing comparable can you draw or added when you say ‘God’ the ‘non Great One’ were recognize immediately that you are a ‘Great One.’

You're not making sense here. 'Allah' has been dropped - na "God" we go read from henceforth - and that is why this thread says they are NOT the same!

samba123:

While if you use the common name GOD that everybody knows, which God do you means for that the God of the Christian or the Jews God.

Jews and Christians have never quarrelled or cursed themselves on religion - does that not tell you something about the God they worship as revealed in the prophecies of the Biblical prophets? Now when you sit down and apply some thinking, you will find that no Muslim ever refers to Muhammad's deity as "Allāh al-ab (الله الآب)" - which means "God the FATHER" and which is the appellation that Arab Christians use when addressing God!

Both Jews and Christians down through their histories have known and confessed God as FATHER. Do you care to show us where Muhammad asked you to say "Allāh al-ab (الله الآب)"?!?

samba123:

Can you explain also your God so that when can discuss it here?

Do you care to go over to this thread: John 1 V 1 – λογος, Θεόν, Θεός - Word And God?

@therationa,

therationa:

True, nothing new. But they still pull the crowd and audiences who get fleeced.

And. . .?

therationa:

What is wrong with warning people against the likes of the Copelands? That was the point of my post.

Did you READ what I said earlier? Again:

stimulus:

Before these guys emerged, the Bible has warned that we should watch out for people who are overtly concerned with materialism as the focus of their ministries (Col. 2:8; 2 Pet. 3:17).

There are several warnings in the Bible that people are asked to watch out against - and materialism/fleecing ministries/prosperity gospels are NOT THE ONLY issues that those warnings have been made against. Infact, another verse that directly warns against greed for materialism is this:

Luke 12:15
And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness:
for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things
which he possesseth.

May I remind you that believers have also been warned against the kind of exercises and attempts characteristic of your several threads. A few of such warnings:

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,
after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world,
and not after Christ.

Now therationa, I'd like you to understand something. When you raise threads questioning the claims of theistic beliefs (especially Christianity), the reason why we have tried to offer answers is to share the rationale for our convictions - just as Peter says:

1 Pet. 3:15-16
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready
always to give an answer to every man that asketh you
a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:
Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you,
as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse
your good conversation in Christ.

Many times, you will find that the sort of arguments that you have put forward do not lead to the persuasion that you were looking for genuine and intelligent discussions - else, we would have seen you stay your ground and be able to rationally and reasonably defend your assumptions.

However, we offer answers to help you see that even when Christians are accused of all sorts of things under the sun, the accusers really should examine their own hearts! The goal is that we may all come through with clear consciences and understand that being a Christian does no harm to anybody. Would you examine your conscience and reconsider the love and grace in Jesus Christ?

Not new. There are others who have done worse things - we read them, seen them, heard about them.

Before these guys emerged, the Bible has warned that we should watch out for people who are overtly concerned with materialism as the focus of their ministries (Col. 2:8; 2 Pet. 3:17). So what is new about this case that we have not seen or heard of before?

@Femi 1,

Femi 1:

According to Jesus, he said my people perish because they lack knowledge,

Do you care to quote the verse where you read that, please?

Femi 1:

If A.llah is an evil spirit then that means the christians that are in mecca also worship evil spirit because they called there God they worship every sunday A.llah,

Is that so? Let's see what the Christians in the Arab world call their God:

[list]"As the Arab Christians today have no other word for 'God' than 'Allah', they for example use the term Allāh al-ab (الله الآب) meaning God the father." -- Wikipedia[/list]

When Arab Christians worship God by the term "Allāh al-ab", they know they are not worshipping an evil spirit, nor are they worshipping the deity preached by Muhammed who said that every Muslim has a demon attaché (Sahih Muslim, Book 039, Num. 6757).

Do you care to show us where any Biblical prophet said that every believer has a demon attaché?

Arab Christians who worship God by the term 'Allāh al-ab' (الله الآب - God the Father) know that they are worshipping the same God who was preached by the Biblical prophets - such as Moses who referred to God as 'FATHER' (Deut. 32:6), the prophet Isaiah whose declaration was even more denotative (Isaiah 64:8 & 63:16 - 'Thou, O LORD, art our FATHER, our Redeemer; Thy name is from everlasting'), and the Lord Jesus who taught Christians to know God as 'Our FATHER' (Matt. 6:9).

Do you care to show us where Muhammad referred to Allāh as 'FATHER'?

Femi 1:

Indeed illerate is a disease.

Illiteracy is a disease - and it seems you guys take too long to be cured from it.

Femi 1:

A.llah is just an arabic meaning of God. Still 4Him you are trying to dodge away from these contradictions, i need good and perfect aswer for them 1). "Solomon had forty thousand stalls for his horses and twelve thousand calvary horses". 1king 4v26. But 2chronicle 9v25 says" King solomon also had four thousand(4,000) stalls for his horses and had twleve thousand calvary horses".
The new testerment says no one has ever seen God ".John 1v18. But old testerment says Jacob have seen God"I have seen God face to face, and i am still alive", Gen 32v30 . Please explain that to me.

Probably the reason why 4Him has left you to endlessly make this noise about 'contradictions' is because you seem to enjoy making a fine sport of your disease - illiteracy. Pardon me, but there are so many threads already on the so-called "contradictions" in the Qur'an and Bible - and one of the things you had noised about concerning Exodus 24:9-11 is also a recycled subject! Why do Muslims delight themselves in plagiarizing recycling materials? And how have you answered to Exodus 24:9-11? You probably give 4Him more scenario to laugh at your desperations without even knowing it!

Femi 1:

4Him, let me tell you what you don't know about the is.lam, You can find some contradiction in some hadiths, because God did not make a convenant that he will safe guard it , that is why anybody can write anything he likes and say that its Mu.hammed that says it. How we know the true sayings of Prophet mu.hammed is if the hadith contradict the Qur'an that means the hadith is not from Mu.hammed. God said in the Qu'ran that he will assurdely guard the Qu'ran that no one will be able to change or add to it. That is why you can never find any contradiction in the Qur'an, the hadith may be contradicted but the Qur'an can never be contradicted. If you believe that there is contradiction in the Qur'an then paste them as a reply then i will explain them to you, Jesus said that "you will know the truth and the truth shall set you free.

Not true. Your own Muslim scholars are the ones who told us that the Hadiths which are called "Sahih" are authentic - meaning that they are authoritative and received as true and genuine without question! There are threads which have discussed the colossal contradictions between what is stated in the Qur'an and what we find in the "Sahih" ahadiths (like Bukhari and Muslim)!! You cannot come here at this late hour after over 14 centuries to apologise for those colossal confusion!

Just one more thing before going on to other concerns:

babs787:
So Over all though, logos does not mean word in ancient Greek, and the translation of logos to word is a corrupt modern translation of the meaning for word.

In the first place, Ahmed Deedat offered only one out of several meanings of “logos” in ancient Greek which we find in your earlier quote of John 1:1 - “λογος (reason/intellect)”.

He makes such dubious cut-and-run claims as in the above quote that “logos does not mean word in ancient Greek”; whereas we all know that “word” is actually one of the several meanings of “logos” (λογος). Let me quote the Wiktionary entry that clearly resolves this issue and shows indeed that one of the several meanings in translation of “logos” (λογος) is actually “word” –

Etymology 1

From Ancient Greek λόγος (logos)
“speech, oration, discourse,
quote, story, study, ratio,
word, calculation, reason”

from λέγω (lego) “to speak, to converse, to tell a story, to calculate”.

Source: (Wiktionary on logos).


Please verify the above by accessing the source, which should help you see that Ahmed Deedat’s claim on “logos” is false.

In ancient Greek, ‘logos’ was also known as “word” (as shown above) and is[b] not[/b] a “corrupt modern translation” as Deedat asserted. For Deedat to have claimed that the translation of logos to word was “a corrupt modern translation” is a dishonest Muslim effort to win cheap applause for Islam. Perhaps, you may also want to see the Wikipedia article on Logos for more.

It was essential to clarify these two misconceptions in your copped-out post about “logos” and the Greek terms “theos” and “theon” for ‘God’.

As we have seen, Ahmed Deedat was cheating his readers with colossally false assumptions! Unfortunately, as always is the case with Muslims, they only tend to celebrate and endlessly recycle the illiterate assumptions of Muslim propagandists without the discipline to check them out! What an utter shame!

@babs787 and olabowale,

Before proceeding to examine the Greek terms for ‘God’ (both in John 1 v 1 and other verses throughout the NT), a few misconceptions highlighted in your previous quotes (as also earlier copped out and posted by babs787 here) need to be cleared from the onset. In that quote, pilgrim.1 had asked babs787 to “look again at your argument for TON THEOS” (here) – but it didn’t seem he was humble enough to take her advice.

This was his initial quote (same as olabowale has reposted in this link):

(A)

babs787:

εν (at) αρχη (first) ην (is/was) ο (the) λογος (reason/intellect) και (and) ο (the) λογος (reason/intellect) ην (is/was) προς (towards/facing/with) τον (the) θεον (god) και (and) θεος (god) ην (is/was) ο (the) λογος (reason/intellect)

. . . followed by this comment:

(B)

babs787:

The problem with that verse in Greek is that we see theos being written as just theos (god/diety) and not as o theos or ton theon, which are proper ways of saying God (or the god). . .

. . . but babs787 immediately contradicted the above when he again stated:

(C)

babs787:

In the verse above, the first time the word God is used, the Greek is "TON THEON", which means "a god".

Here’s where the problems appear in your reasoning:

(1) The first time the word ‘God’ appears in that quote it was written as “τον (the) θεον (god)”. You cannot make two contradictory statements sound the same by making  “TON THEON” to mean “a god” [ in your statement: "TON THEON", which means "a god" – quote (C)] whereas you already made ton theon to mean “(the) (god)”[ in your statement: “o theos or[b] ton theon[/b], which are proper ways of saying God (or[b] the god[/b]”]!

If your initial comments quoted as in (B) directly and categorically contradict your second comments in (C), then are we to assume that you don’t know the difference as to whether “ton theon”  means:

[list][li]God (or the god); [/li][/list]
         or
[list][li]"a god"?[/li][/list]


Obviously, the two meanings cannot both be derived from the same “ton theon” –  do you mind showing us which is the correct meaning of that Greek term? (This was why I had asked those 3 simple questions which babs787 constantly evaded – (a) here; (b) there; and (c) here again!)


(2) When you stated that “o theos or ton theon” are “proper ways” of saying God (or the god), does it then mean that the word “theos” when written solely on its own is not also a proper way of saying “God” in Greek in that same Gospel of John? That seems to be the deliberate inference made in this part of babs787’s quote:

babs787:

So the part which is written solely on its own as "theos", could be implying just any random diety, of course with ton theon written before in the sentence we automatically assume that we're still talking about the same God.

What that implies is that your Muslim scholar assumes the following:

a. "theos" written solely on its own would mean “just any random deity”;
b. while “ ton theon” would be implying “the same God”.

Rather than plagiarize Ahmed Deedat’s illiterate article, have YOU (babs787 and olabowale) carefully checked to see that the same “theos”  is used as a proper reference for “God”? We shall see this consequently.

Meanwhile, you gentlemen are only confirming that Muslim hypocrisy is rivalled by none! People like Ahmed Deedat may argue painfully that “o theos or ton theon”  are ‘proper ways of saying God (or the god)’, and yet Muslims who have translated the Qur’an into the Greek language avoid using the correct Greek terms! Rather, they have used the Arabic [‘Allah’] in the Greek translations of the Qur’an while carefully and systematically avoiding the Greek terms (theos or theon) in such translations! Since we all know that ‘Allah’ is NOT Greek, what then is that Arabic term doing in the Greek translations of the Qur’an while hypocrites like Deedat were busy trying to malign the English translations of John’s Gospel?

It’s easy to argue disparagingly against the Greek terms for ‘God’ and ‘Word’ in John 1:1 as Deedat has done - because he capitalized on the fact that his readers have no clue about Greek and so were gullible enough to swallow his fallacies wholesale, even though he confuses and contradicts his premise and meanings as have been demonstrated just above.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

The verse (John 1:1) in its original Greek Contex is written as this:

εν (at) αρχη (first) ην (is/was) ο (the) λογος (reason/intellect) και (and) ο (the) λογος (reason/intellect) ην (is/was) προς (towards/facing/with) τον (the) θεον (god) και (and) θεος (god) ην (is/was) ο (the) λογος (reason/intellect)

so once we translate the whole verse we're basically seeing:

At first is/was the reason/intellect and the reason/intellect is/was towards/facing/with God (ton theon) and god is the reason/intellect.

The problem with that verse in Greek is that we see theos being written as just theos (god/diety) and not as o theos or ton theon, which are proper ways of saying God (or the god = al ilah = God). So the part which is written solely on its own as "theos", could be implying just any random diety, of course with ton theon written before in the sentence we automatically assume that we're still talking about the same God.

Over all though, logos does not mean word in ancient Greek, and the translation of logos to word is a corrupt modern translation of the meaning for word. Funny thing is the Greek word for Dictionary is Lexilogio, which is a combination of two words Lexi (word) and logio (logos = reason/intellect) so you can't say that lexilogio means wordword, it must means word-intellect, and the purpose of a dictionary is for the knowledge of words. The ironic thing is though, St John of Damascus who apparently had a high position during one of the Khalifa's reign during 747(?) is that he translated the Arabic word for Word from The Great Book's verses as 3:45 and 4:171 as Logos into the Greek.

I've just taken this part of your plagiarism to a neat thread - see it here:

John 1 v 1 – λογος, Θεόν, Θεός - WORD and GOD

@babs787 and olabowale,

I decided to bring this discussion to a neat thread so that we may have the opportunity of examining your misconceptions about the Greek terms for ‘God’ in the Gospel of John. It is not as if your queries are difficult in any way, nor as if there are no answers to proffer. Rather, babs787 has been in the habit of plagiarizing other people’s articles without even exercising the discipline to carefully check if he could defend their assumptions at any level. Anyone can do exactly what you both have done in copping out Deedat’s argument  – which is to go to those same websites and glom their articles to dubiously present as their own argument on Nairaland. That attitude puts the plagiarist far below any thinking man, because it confirms that you’ve never sought to present anything original of your own; not to mention how scared olabowale has been the last few hours in being asked to examine the texts in Greek.

The one reason why I would even oblige you here is to help you understand what you clearly do not have any scholarship on – and by so doing, bring your attention to the fact that constantly lifting the same unscholarly arguments from those websites and pretend them as your own on Nairaland will only ridicule the pretended scholarship of your Muslim propagandists.

First, let me run through your misgivings about the articles which you  had plagiarized (mainly from Ahmed Deedat) in arguing this subject. Many Great Ones have copied that article without first reasoning them through before recycling them all over the internet. A few of such Great One websites include Sbeel-al-I'slam, [url=http://www.jews-for-god.org/Jews-and-Great Ones-Agree/no-trinity.htm]Jews-for-Allāh[/url], and certainly your favourite Answering-Christianity.com. No wonder: because they have no basic understanding of the Greek language, and so are unable to verify Deedat’s assumptions before recycling them.

Unfortunately, Ahmed Deedat did not demonstrate even a basic understanding of Greek; and from that weak position, he had tried to mislead his readers on the subject he clearly had no knowledge about while pretending to have examined John’s Gospel in the Greek.

This is the part that I will be dealing with in my discussion, as has been reposted by olabowale:

olabowale:

The verse (John 1:1) in its original Greek Contex is written as this:

εν (at) αρχη (first) ην (is/was) ο (the) λογος (reason/intellect) και (and) ο (the) λογος (reason/intellect) ην (is/was) προς (towards/facing/with) τον (the) θεον (god) και (and) θεος (god) ην (is/was) ο (the) λογος (reason/intellect)

so once we translate the whole verse we're basically seeing:

At first is/was the reason/intellect and the reason/intellect is/was towards/facing/with God (ton theon) and god is the reason/intellect.

The problem with that verse in Greek is that we see theos being written as just theos (god/diety) and not as o theos or ton theon, which are proper ways of saying God (or the god = al ilah = God). So the part which is written solely on its own as "theos", could be implying just any random diety, of course with ton theon written before in the sentence we automatically assume that we're still talking about the same God.

Over all though, logos does not mean word in ancient Greek, and the translation of logos to word is a corrupt modern translation of the meaning for word. Funny thing is the Greek word for Dictionary is Lexilogio, which is a combination of two words Lexi (word) and logio (logos = reason/intellect) so you can't say that lexilogio means wordword, it must means word-intellect, and the purpose of a dictionary is for the knowledge of words. The ironic thing is though, St John of Damascus who apparently had a high position during one of the Khalifa's reign during 747(?) is that he translated the Arabic word for Word from The Great Book's verses as 3:45 and 4:171 as Logos into the Greek.

There are just two basic issues that inform this thread:

(a) that ‘logos’ (λογος) in ancient Greek actually means ‘word’
(b) that there are several valid Greek terms for ‘God’

Your argument has sought to deny those basic facts; and since your premise was to repeat the same unfortunate fallacies from your Muslim apologists (such as Ahmed Deedat), my answers will be demonstrating how colossally they have cheated their readers in that regard.

@olabowale,

Let me quickly run through yours, even though midway you had to duck behind Deedat's argument that no Muslim has been able to sustain. How this is so, I'll demonstrate in just a moment.

olabowale:

@Stimulus: I think you are to juvenile to be taken serious. My answer is there for everybody to see, but I was correcting your Bible, especially, when John 1;1 is translated directly, word for word to English.

You cannot correct the Bible, unless you're such a dunce to make such assertions and yet be unable to read Greek! How did you translate the Greek of John 1 v 1 that you still missed the point and was dancing between three opinions of which is the proper term for God? You should learn to contain your brigand and supercilious bilgewater when you engage me in these discussions and not make the mistake of furthering your pretended scholarship that amounts to zero.

olabowale:

Now we will actually see the 'Olodo rabata,' between you and Me (I do not use I here for obvious reason).

Please zip up your molars until you're able to say anything reasonable.

olabowale:

Did you see where I suggested that O Theos or Ton Theon was a proper and better word that what your Greek Bible put, which could have meant any diety, including david Kuresh of the branch Davidian of Weco Texas fame?

Are you so daft as to repeat the same illiterate rants from Deedat? I'm not disappointed that up until now you still do not have any clues of the Greek language - and typically you'd perpetuate the same retard garboil from Deedat.

olabowale:

The first premise here is that the Bible, in general, be it in any language, including Greek is corrupted.

The first premise here is that the Qur'an is book demonstrating Muhammad as a false prophet! I have warned you to respect the views of other discussants, and i'm not going to be putting up with such stupid remarks while you assume the unbridled rascality to be deliberately derisive of the Bible.

olabowale:

And I am a greek and I do not care too much for it as a language.

Since when did you become a Greek, olabowale? Are you so desperate to win your illiterate argument by switching over to lies again?

olabowale:

I have too many greek blooded people in my life to defer to a Yoruba man as a greek Tutor.

Don't take a heart attack. Yes, I'm a Yoruba man, and the pride that you've been showing off on this forum will crash soon enough!

olabowale:

I do not read Yoruba translation of the Qur'an and it will be useless to go for a Greek translation with you.

Ahh! Now I am disappointed - deeply disappointed! After all the noise you made, I was actually looking forward to the challenge to enter into a debate on the Greek translation of the Qur'an; but this bruhaha you've offered just shows what a weakling you can be! Haa! Indeed, I over-rated you sir!

olabowale:

I speak English, and I am not in a greek speaking society and the benefit to me is not significant, so why would I want to discuss Qur'an in Greek with you?

Four reasons why I offered that challenge to you and babs787:

- to demonstrate that I know what I'm arguing in Greek

- to demonstrate that the Greek translation of the Qur'an is a ridiculous garboil

- to demonstrate the fact that Deedat's arguments were false, wrong and illiterate

- and to demonstrate that it's about time you shut your megaphone on your puerile rants!

Each of these points will be well demonstrated if and only if you dared to examine your own Greek translation of the Qur'an so I could show you how your Muslim scholars have cheated the Greeks by mangling their language just to please Muhammad!

The invitation is still open - do you care to read the Greek translation of the Qur'an to see the garboil it actually is?

olabowale:

I can see that you want to deflect the issue of the Trinity. But I will not make it easy for you.

I'm not asking you to make it easy at all - infact, I've directly challenged you to go one step further and prove your mettle in reading the Greek translation of the Qur'an! The argument plagiarized by babs787 from Deedat on John 1:1 will be discussed subsequently; and I'm going to sit back and luagh at your redundancy in the language you've been making so much empty noise about!

olabowale:

You gotta stay on it. And I left your confusion intact above to show your instability. I have already answered #2 and there is no reason to label #3 as #2, again.

Already scared to cunter my points?

olabowale:

If you want us to use Greek Bible, stay with it. that is the call.

Why are you so scared of the Biblical languages, olabowale? What are you so scared of?

olabowale:

You can not change Bible.

I never hinted I was going to do that; but I'm indeed going to change your noise making to a mewling waste!

olabowale:

Unless you are saying that you are not certain of 'a Bible.'

Stop all this childish rants and deliver the goods! Ha! At your age, you complain like a market woman selling kerosine in Medina! What's all this harrangue about?

olabowale:

Just exactly what the great ones have been saying; You ain't got nothing.

Somebody help call ambulance for olabowale O. . . I can't help his hyperventilations simply from Greek!

olabowale:

So chose your poison. Unless you want to be the Snake oil sales man, but will not work with me.

Do you mind not excusing yourself away even before I start?

olabowale:

So how many languages do you need to discuss TRINITY with me? Three Languages and English?

OLABOWALE, what is scaring you about the languages of the Biblical documents? Do you mind refraining from this infantile drivel and let's deal with the real issues? I'd very much appreciate if you stopped this silly complaints - you sound worse than a mentally challenged crank!

olabowale:

So if you have gulls enough as a Christian stay with Greek Bible and i will cream you with your own Bible!

It will be interesting to see you do so - inspite of having shown how daft you can be with all the complaints! Ha!

olabowale:

I will meet you in measures; foot length by foot length and arm length by arm length. Don't think too much of yourself. Empty barrels make the loudest noise. I will stand toe to toe with you and God willing, I will deck you on your "Bible."

I'll just laugh on this one - you're a child!

olabowale:

Below, Stimulus is John 1 Verse 1 in Greek (In a word for word translation in English). Of course, you do not have an opportunity to ever seen the Aramaic or hebrew Bible before. That will not interest you, except that you settle for a second run.

The verse (John 1:1) in its original Greek Contex is written as this:

εν (at) αρχη (first) ην (is/was) ο (the) λογος (reason/intellect) και (and) ο (the) λογος (reason/intellect) ην (is/was) προς (towards/facing/with) τον (the) θεον (god) και (and) θεος (god) ην (is/was) ο (the) λογος (reason/intellect)

so once we translate the whole verse we're basically seeing:

At first is/was the reason/intellect and the reason/intellect is/was towards/facing/with God (ton theon) and god is the reason/intellect.

The problem with that verse in Greek is that we see theos being written as just theos (god/diety) and not as o theos or ton theon, which are proper ways of saying God (or the god = al ilah = God). So the part which is written solely on its own as "theos", could be implying just any random diety, of course with ton theon written before in the sentence we automatically assume that we're still talking about the same God.

Over all though, logos does not mean word in ancient Greek, and the translation of logos to word is a corrupt modern translation of the meaning for word. Funny thing is the Greek word for Dictionary is Lexilogio, which is a combination of two words Lexi (word) and logio (logos = reason/intellect) so you can't say that lexilogio means wordword, it must means word-intellect, and the purpose of a dictionary is for the knowledge of words. The ironic thing is though, St John of Damascus who apparently had a high position during one of the Khalifa's reign during 747(?) is that he translated the Arabic word for Word from The Great Book's verses as 3:45 and 4:171 as Logos into the Greek.

Good - another plagiarized effort from Deedat. I'll deal with them and help you see how dense Deedat was. Just dress warm and get your anti-depressants nearby to hand!

olabowale:

Strangely enough though, he was a scholar of Christianity whose opinion of The Great Religion was that The Great Religion was a heretic form of Christianity and as we all know that's incorrect and not what the The Great Book refers to itself, for it does not call itself Christianity. He was probably the earliest critic of The Great Religion, of course who knows how this man was allowed to function as he did while working for the Khalif.

We go see how far. . . cool down! The scholar you supposed Deedat was, you go sorry for both the guy and yourself!

@olabowale,

olabowale:

@Stimulus: You have such a Big Mouth. And you need to learn when it is not necessary to open it.

You should realize yours is a mega-size, and I'll help you zip your molars long before you advise anyone else.

olabowale:

My proipblem with you is not your dishonesty. You are entitled to your own amount of fraud: Afterall you are a Christian.

Because I am "afterall a Christian", therefore by default my arguements are tantamount to fraud? You're a waste! This is the kind of hypocrisy that I don't put up with - you learn how to be disrespectful towards others, but cannot endure your own ribald lingo. Well done.

olabowale:

My propblem is that you are not ashamed of any of your absurd statement: Which of the Prophets before Christianity referred to God as Father? (Adam, Noah, Ibrahiim, Isiaq, Yaquub, Yusuf, Musa, Daud,Sulaiman, Eliyas, Yunusa, yahya, Zakariyyah, etc?). Name one?

Musa (same as Moses) referred to God as FATHER - how many times will you blidn yourself to that fact?

[list]Deuteronomy 32:6 -- Do ye thus requite the LORD, O foolish people and unwise? is not He thy FATHER that hath bought thee? hath he not made thee, and established thee?[/list]

How many times has this very fact been pointed out to you? If you're in the habit of deliberately blinding yourself to facts, please do so by all means - but blinding yourself does not change the facts.

olabowale:

And am sure you will deny that Hitler was not a Christian. You shameless thing. (I have to tone down my voice). The Germans will be happy to hear that an African denied their Christianity.

Oga, please show me where you found Hitler as a Christian. Just show me.

olabowale:

If prophet The Great Prophet hated the Jews so much how did Abdasalaam accepted The Great Religion, along with so many Jewish clan men? How did we have so many Jews converting today? I have friends among them, so be careful about your falsifications.

Muhammad hated Jews and Christians and cursed them until his last breath - this is a fact in your hadiths, and no sensible Muslim would deny that except you! Second fact is that his own curses returned upon him, and that is why you guys are perpetually infuriated to send fatwas all over the world at the slightest irrational idea that you can fathom!

olabowale:

As to the Christians, that was no brainer: Salma Al Farsi and others were Christians before the converted. And of course have you ever heard of Al nagash, the king of Ethiopia? Little do you know.

You have started this silly rivalry again! Do you want a list of Muslims who have left Islam and become leading Christians today? Even on this forum where some lady opened a thread about whether there were any former Muslims, I was surprised to find several others stand out clearly to attest to that. If you want to boast of numbers, go and weep and snivel on your mat - the Christians on nairaland far outnumber Muslims any day and any weather!

When you make puerile arguements that you can't sustain, then you begin to cry about your old age!

olabowale:

What happens to the Biblical verse which says salvation is of the Jews?

It is still there as a fact!

olabowale:

Could you put that in contest of Non tribal and let me see how you can make that fit?

That salvation is of the Jews does not mean that salvation was meant ALONE for Jews! Through the Jews, salvation would come to the entire world - for it is through the Jewish nation that the Messiah would be born!

Can you explicate why Muhammad tried to cheat everyone with a tribalistic deity that must be called 'Allah' to which everyone has to speak arabic because that deity understands no other language? Can you esxplain to me the rational behind why the Qur'an is no longer the word of Allah as soon as it is translated to another language? Can you explain what tribalistic rational excuses Muhammad's prejudice to make everyone bend to the arabic culture in order to please his 'allah'? And yet, you sidon there and start accusing the Jews with such hypocrisy. Go weep in the corner of your cubicle.

olabowale:

Or try the New Testament verse where Jesus was reported to say that he was not sent but only to the lost house of Israel and other similar verses, which prohibited him from preaching to other people and evn referred to them as "dogs?" I wonder where Gentile, a derogative word to describe non Jews came about, except to emphasis the tribal differencs? Matt 15 verse 26: It is not right to take the children's bread and give it to the dog, sound very much Tribalistic to me.

We've been through those issues before - and unless you're forcefully blind, you should have seen the needlessness of whipping it up here as an excuse in defence to fill space!

In the same way, Muhammad referred to the Jews as pigs - and Muslims in the Middle East have textbooks for school children having such appellations to the Jews. What do you make of these reports -

[url=http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23384657-details/We+do+use+books+that+call+Jews+'apes'+admits+head+of+Islamic+school/article.do]We do use books that call Jews 'apes' admits head of I'slamic school[/url]

[url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244561,00.html]Australian Mu'slim Cleric Sparks Outrage by Calling Jews 'Pigs'[/url]
(and Encouraging Jihad)

Is'lamic reprieve for pig tales

Saudi Textbooks Still Teach Hate, Group Says

A BRITISH Muslim school is teaching children that
Jews are “repugnant apes” and Christians “pigs”,
a former teacher claims.

There are even worse cases; but the above are a few attestaions of various facts on ground that Muslims have been perpetrating this hate-mongering infestation from Muhammad; and it's only cowardice and ignorance that would make you try to deny these facts in a public Forum!

olabowale:

So Jesus did not fit in the christian mode? Did he instruct anybody to start a religion after him? I doubt if you know the diffrerence between Children of Israel and Jews? Moses was not a Jew by religion, and I am not sure if he was a tribal Jew, either.

Is that you mewling excuse for the fact that you were confused about the meaning of the term 'Christian'?

olabowale:

Now lets deal with trinity and let me see what you got. I will try to wear Elephant type Thick skin. I will ignore your abuses. It is very typical of you.

No, you have never abused anybody - not even in the reply you posted above? I've put up with your penchant for the ridiculous for long - but there ought to be a time when you will swallow your own syrup.

olabowale:

Remember what I said about Therationa? This is the exact thing I am seeing you do here with me.

Stop hooting for him - unless you're trying to show how dense both of you are! Intellectuals don't humour the public with illiterate posts and plagiarized articles, so what's all this nonsense about therationa all of a sudden? What has he said or argued that made any sense anywhere in his duplicated posts?

olabowale:

I will take it as long as I can and then I may just refuse it any time, that I think you are taking me for granted and blatantly disrespecting me.

Olabowale, I'm not a kid. If you are going to be sane and safe, simply show the respect you desire others to accord you. Just one rascally adventure of the mundane from you, and you will regret ever engaging me on Nairaland!

That is no threat - just a friendly warning against your rants.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

@Stimulus; I answered your three 'special' questions in Trinity. Please lets get to it. I don't you to cop out now.

How do you expect me to scoot away like babs787? When have I ever done that?

olabowale:

Even though i could have given you many answers, but I will defer my opinions till your respond at the TRINITY Thread>

Fair enough - I've just countered your argument there, and it would be nice to see how much Greek you know! Please impress me so I could add to my understanding of the language.

olabowale:

I am wondering how you are going to defend TRINITY, a foreign word in the Bible by digging up 'Ideas' and i hope you will be gullible enough to use John 1;1 to garnish the 'idea!'

Oh, let me give you a hint: I intend to defend the Trinity in a different style from what you guys have always expected - and that is this: you will not find me plagiarizing any material from anybody! My style is to open the texts, read it in the languages, see what it is saying exactly, and then argue out my points from there without trying to play any Islamic politics of bending ideas or grammar rules. I expect you to do the same and show me precisely where I might be wrong in my submissions by demonstrating a sound knowledge of the language.

olabowale:

@Stimulus: Its your show. Am helping you to run it. You want answers, I will give you plenty.

No wahala - just be sure that the answers you give me do not make you a consistent "olodo rabata"!

olabowale:

I will not behave like you who will just come up with a mundane one liner, and yet not saying much with it. Lets stay on topic. Lets go to TRINITY.

Fair enough - and as you may have noticed, I never waste my time trying to go through a lot of noise, least especially yours! My arguements are s[/b]easoned, [b]s[/b]ane and [b]s[/b]erious enough to make good [b]s[/b]ense; and it would be a waste of [b]your time and resources to attempt jading me with unnecessary voluminous harangue.

@olabowale,

Just cool down, I never even start!

olabowale:

@Stimulus: Let me me kill your enthusiasm before it began.

You've just infact woken it up!

olabowale:

If you want to deal with me be consistent.

I've always been consistent, so you can end that lullaby.

olabowale:

You want to use Greek, use Greek and stay with it. Don't run from Pillar to post with me, by switching to Hebrew or Aramaic whenever you hit a brickwall in your Greek.

I'll read the texts in the languages in which they were given. Where we find them in Greek, then Greek it shall be; where it is Hebrew, I'll post them in Hebrew; and then Aramaic also will be in Aramaic.

That is how to be consistent and not try to bend another man's language to the peghole of Arabic or any other lanaguage.

Your problem is that you're too scared to stand out honestly enough to accommodate the texts as they appear in their languages. Is it not remarkable that Deedat was making so much noise about the Greek texts of John 1:1 - why should we then acquiesce to your boohoos here about not going to Greek or any other language of the texts?

If you're not prepared well enough to discuss this issue, take a break and go and prepare soundly. I don't intend to be as condescending as you're hoping of me - and when I start, nothing will be left untouched that needs to be examined in all the core issues of Deedat's arguments which babs787 has plagiarized gleefully.

Relax, I won't bite you. Rather, I'll just help you zip up and make less noise about what you have no clues to debate!

@olabowale,

I appreciate your attempt to answer the questions I posed, even though babs787 has proven himself unable to hold his grounds in this plagiarized material.

My questions #1:

stimulus:

(a) which of the Greek terms in John 1:1 is properly used for God?

Your response #1:

olabowale:

(a) Theos, but it shout be O Theos or Ton theon, which should have referred to "God" in a better way.

You are playing a dice game here. My question is simple and straightforward: "which of the Greek terms in John 1:1 is properly used for God?"

Now to answer that it is "Theos" and then put a "but" to say that it should be "O Theos or Ton theon" is actually to confuse your answer and arrive at nowhere! It is like saying you're confused as to which of those three terms is actually your answer between:

[list][li]Theos[/li]

[li]O Theos[/li]

[li]Ton theo[b]n[/b][/li][/list]

Which of those terms is properly used for God in Greek? You cannot be dancing between all the terms and yet arrive at no single word between them.

Meanwhile, since you're crying about your inability to examine the Greek language, how do you know which term to choose? Is this the inconsistent game you want to start playing at the onset?

- - - - - - -


My questions #2:

stimulus:

(b) what is the meaning of "ton theon"?

Your response #2:

olabowale:

(b) Ton Theon is "God" in a proper sense.

So what happens to your answer #1 to my question #1 where you just stated that it was "Theos"?!? You see how confused you and babs787 can be? At least you tried to offer answers, even though you're confused. As for the blabbing machine, he has been too scared to defend his plagiarism of Deedat!

Meanwhile, you have just simply contradicted both babs787 and Deedat. Go back and read what they said about "ton theon", and then come back and lick your fingers before you type again O!


- - - - - - -


My questions #3:

stimulus:

(c) what does theos mean?

Your response #2:

olabowale:

(c) Theos is any deity: For example Ogun, Shango, Makumba, Yamaya, Obatala, (Whats my girls +Osisi Igbo traditional deities' names).

Lol, you're dead wrong! I wouldn't blame you much, as you've always been scared of the Greek! Rest assured, theos is Greek for "God" - and as we progress on this discussion, I'll show you numerous examples where theos was used properly in reference to God!

Just understand something here: this is not an Arabic class! And you have to be careful when trying to read Greek and make it bend to the rules of Arabic grammar - you just can't bend it that way; and no wonder that your Muslim translators cheated on many occasions in translating the Qur'an from Arabic to Greek! The copy I have read is a completely ridiculous garboil, and any Greek-Muslim scholar who applauds that translation would be a shameless dunce! I know what I'm saying, and if you want to read the Greek translation of the Qur'an with me, I'd be just too delighted to take you and babs787 on that challenge after I walk you through the fallacies in Deedat's sad arguements about John 1:1. Do you care to read the Greek translation of the Qur'an after this?

olabowale:

Now that I have answered your 'special questions,' what now? Where is the beef?

You've tried - but scored zero over 10! Olodo rabbata!

I dey wait for babs787 O! Una eye go see pepper with Deedat's noise about John 1:1. Olodo both of you!

@olabowale,

Predicatably, you'd fill the whole page with empty drivel. I should have been surprised if you'd tried to summarize your noise into a neat, sensible package - but that would require the miracle of changing your name!

olabowale:

@Stimulus: Naive soul you are. You made a statement without given any reason (cogent or not) for it and not even an effort to support your off-the-wall statement. Let me show you something: When the Great Ones talk about your 3 god pesons in 1 god, we use your Bible first, to argue our case against you. Take the case of mark 12 Verse 29, which everyone of you have been avoiding to deal with. This Bible verse is attributed to Jesus and all the Christians the world over accept it. But that verse speaks directly that God and Lord is refering to the God of Jesus who is also the God of the people following Jesus. This is how to argue and not the evasive mumbo jumbo that you slapped together. I am niot interested in any ying yang. Come correctly or not at all.

First, I am not a naive soul; and anyone who is willing to wash their brain with ice-cold gutter water can believe your trash about Muhammad! I asked simple questions, and all you had in answer was your irate arabian rants?

Interestingly, I've offered you repeated invitations to enter into a discussion on Mark 12 and any ancillary worries about the doctrine of the Trinity - but as usual, you ducked them all and have the temerity to make the usual Muslim pretences here? Even so, who was it that was crying the bruhaha about being too scared of examining the Greek and Hebrew languages of the verses? Is that how to argue - to grovel about excuses for your inability to examine a case intelligently? If you have no better thing to do, zip your molars - I said so before.

olabowale:

The preaching against disbeliefs covers in addition to Jews, and Christians, the direct Idol worshippers: Hindus, etc and the non believers of anything Atheists and Agnostics. However true belief is not what Christians have. Afterall, your god is 3 god personalities. How can that be true god, when one of them dies off and yet that death is so erronous in concept, but it can't guarantee what you guys claim its purposed to do! Let me help you under your Bible properly: Will all Christians go to heaven, if only they believe in the death on the cross, the ressurrection, etc? If your answer is yes, what happens to Adolf Hitler, Mussollini, etc? All the tyrants who had ever lived but were Christians?

You're beginning to sound like a broken record. Shame. How many times have you been corrected about Hitler and Stalin not being Christians? And when it comes to have an established, coherent belief, you cn be sure that people are more willing to listen to and discuss with Christians than they would even concern themseklves with the harrumph of Islam that people like you have to offer. And you usual gibberish all the more confirms the case.

olabowale:

Further, my Prophet (as) did not have any hatred for Christians or Jews, individually, except that he and everyone of us have hatred for your dishonest beliefs: You slice God into three, as Christians, making jest of His Majesty by making Him incomplete in knowledge; afterall, it is part of the christian mantra that God had to come to earth as a human to understand the plight of human. Is that really necessary, when He is the Almighty Creator, Knower of everything?

Lying the way you do really puts me off; but not enough to ignore your puerile chants. Muhammad hated people (JEWS and CHRISTIANS) rather than express disdain for their beliefs (JUDAISM and CHRISTIANITY). He cursed these people (Jews and Christians) until his very last breath - and he died with his curses upon himself!

Trying to offer the sacrifice of liars to cover up this dishonest claim about your prophet will not change the facts! That is why today, Muslims are busy hating and murdering Jews and Christians - is that something you want to also lie about?

olabowale:

In The Great Religion God says in His Book that He will not burden a soul more than that soul can bear. He further says that He will not be unjust to His creations. And as to the Jews, they turned God to a tribal God, excluding everyone else!

The Jews did not turn God into a 'tribal God' - go read the Bible as to how God instructs them to relate with the strangers and foreigners:

[list]Exodus 12:48 -- And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

Exodus 12:49 -- One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

Leviticus 19:33 -- And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.

Leviticus 19:34 -- But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Leviticus 24:22 -- Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God.

Numbers 9:14 -- And if a stranger shall sojourn among you, and will keep the passover unto the LORD; according to the ordinance of the passover, and according to the manner thereof, so shall he do: ye shall have one ordinance, both for the stranger, and for him that was born in the land.

Deuteronomy 10:17-19 -- For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward: -- He doth execute the judgment of the fatherless and widow, and loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment. -- Love ye therefore the stranger: for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.[/list]

Olabowale, I know that you've been listening to too much mullah drivel for your own good; and if you mind dropping your illiterate assumptions, you'd have the integrity to see that your misgivings are at best ignorant of the real issues. Contrary to your allegation against the Jews, they did not hold or turn God into a tribalistic deity! If they did, you should be thankful that Muhammad borrowed extensively from the Biblical prophets, even though he made so many false claims thereto.

olabowale:

Are they more than creations? God says in His Book that He created all, and man will be judged according to individual effort (in true believe and worship and in good deeds according to capability). The Theology of The Great Prophet (as) is in line with the theology of all previous Prophets:

If the theology of Muhammad was in line with the theology of all previous prophets, where then did Muhammad refer to 'Allah' as FATHER? The rirect quote would suffice, please - and don't give me another thesis of several pages amounting to empty excuses. If you cannot find that verse for me, then know this day that Muhammad was indeed a false prophet!

olabowale:

Jesus was not a Christian (I want you to get that into your system and never forget it. If this is the only thing your get from me), and Moses was not a Jewish in religion.

How could Jesus have been a "Christian" when you have no clue what the term means? The word 'Christian' simply means "belonging to Christ", and how do you expect Jesus to have been regarded as "belonging to Christ" when He was THE CHRIST? Yous ee how stupid you can sound many times?

On the other hand, Moses was also a Jew - and this has been dealt with earlier.

olabowale:

Although both of them were from the Tribes of the Children of Israel. But neither, as well as The Great Prophet preached three or Multiple gods, but to worship in total submission the True One God, in the way he commands. That way is never changing. That way of worship is what the Great Ones follow. You Stimulus abandoned it and worship in the way you and your christian community desires. And that is wrong.

I'm sorry, I did not abandon the revelations of the Biblical prophets who knew God as FATHER in order to embrace the denials and fallacies of the Quraish prophet who had no clue about God being known as FATHER! Until you can find me one verse where Muhammad confessed God as FATHER, the remainder of your rants are simply repeated harrumph that have become tedious for your otiose grade to be entertained by.

Cheers.

@SysUser,

SysUser:

@Stimulus, you are right I understand what you are saying, although I must say that I get carried away sometimes and thus I am also guilty of not turning the other cheek, just as the bible requires a christian to do in


However although I agree with you that we should endeavour to be civil during discussions because of the very sane and responsible ones who should not be at the receiving end of such reactions for the irresponsible behaviour of the few ,

Nonetheless I still am convinced that sooner rather than later , the truth should still be spoken (truthfully in love and bluntly in love) to so the called "sane mus.lims" . This is because even though it might hurt their feelings in doing so, yet its better to risk annoying the "sane mus.lims" than to not mention an information that would help them understand why what they believe in is not true.

This is because the truth of the gospel is not a pleasant thing to the ear of any sinner (sane mus.lims included) whether sane , moderate or not. It was not a pleasant thing to me when I came to the point of no return! The truth is that at times I sometimes wish I had earlier known those things i now know.

I will try to take to your advise to refrain from statements with unpleasant, since I know that its is written in the bible that we must make sure we refrain from being harsh or unpleasant to those that do the same to us.

Yet, please note that although those statements from me quoted by you, might have undertones, yet the truth still remains that:

1. [b]all.AH is not God., thus all.AH is most probably a demon or the devil himself in disguise (Whether or not that blunt truth offends hearing mos.lems)

2. Records, point to the fact that "moh.ammed" was a peadophile (Whether or not that blunt truth offends hearing mos.lems)[/b]

The only way I can get across those two information without offending the "sane" mus.lims is by not mentioning it at all (something i consider to be self censorship),

So in as much as I understand that its good to "Speak in Love", yet I also understand that it is also required to "Speak the Truth in Love" even with the danger of offending a certain section of the listeners.

I feel you, bro. Peace.

morenike09:

who's the you? masturbate? now, plz get your miind out of the gutter while typing the word of the Lord. Amen!!

Hehaha! Comic relief!

MC Usman:

Your semantic gymnastics - equivocating, diversion intensional distraction and playing with words - is amazing!

This is hilarious! Have you not been the high-priest of the same offering as outlined above?