@olabowale,

olabowale:

@4Him: The god of the bible, in Old Testament is One God. But when he got to New Testament, while Jesus was still preaching, it was still One God. But after jesus was raised up, all of a sudden he became 3! You are right.

The God of the Old Testament was known as "FATHER". When we get to the New Testament, while Jesus was still preaching, the same God was also known as "FATHER" - and after the resurrection of Jesus, God was still known as "FATHER"!

E da kun, oga olas, we learnt that a couple of centuries later came a Quraish prophet - and suddenly, fiam! - God was no longer known as FATHER! What Muslims have called "the last testament" suddenly denies all the previous Testaments, even though there are verses in the Qur'an that says Muslims should believe in all the previous revelations of the Biblical prophets!

Can you explain the magical art of such Arabian wayo?

@therationa,

therationa:

Anyone looked at this one yet?

Well, while answers are being offered at the others which you floated, one wonders if you have carefully looked at them and offered sound counter-argumnents to sustain your premises. Have you done so? Care to begin to do so in all of your previous threads?

therationa:


Some of my other threads

How many of such threads have you debated issues on a serious note?

therationa:

Above list taken from Truth - Truth Can set You Free, Clarence Williams, Pages 92 - 93. http://www.sometimestruthhurts.com/

Thanks for leaving us the link - and no, I won't be brash to allege "plagiarism" here!

Anyhow, the list you re-posted to form "your" thread does not say anything about your own reasoning. Nonetheless, Clarence Williams may need to edit his fallacies for a seasoned debate if he hopes to sustain his arguments.

For example, this:

therationa:

6) Bring back the hearts of the fathers to the children (Mal 3:24)

Malachi (abbreviated as 'Mal') has only 18 verses to chapter 3, and not 24! As I do not want to be forward, could you kindly get in touch and enquire what he meant?

therationa:

2) Gather all Jews to the Land of Israel (Is 43:5-6) In addition all Jews will know the Torah without study (Jer 31:33)

Jeremiah 31:33 does not teach that all Jews will "know the Torah without study". Infact, here is what it says:

[list]But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.[/list]

Certainly, the next verse (34) says that no one would need to be taught to know the LORD, for they all shall know Him. This again does not mean that they would "know the Torah without study", for it is one thing to know the Torah and quite another thing to know the LORD! One may have knowledge of the Torah and yet be spiritually bankrupt in knowing the LORD - did Clarence Williams understand that at all?

When you feel in good spirits to debate or discuss these issues, I have my answers waiting.

Cheers.

@therationa,

therationa:

4HIM, with respect, we are talking about Isaiah 7, not the stuff you just posted.

I think we should be willing to be open enough to discuss issues - which is why I think 4Him's rejoinder is applicable here as a pointer to one of the things I offered earlier when looking at the nature of Biblical prophecies.

However, let me look at yours:

therationa:

In verses 10, 11 and 12, the LORD is asking Ahaz to ask the LORD for a sign, but Ahaz is reluctant to ask the LORD for a sign, for fear of putting the LORD to the test.

In verse 13, Isaiah, steps in and urges Ahaz to ask the LORD for a sign, lest the LORD's patience be tried

In verse 14, Isaiah says, "the Lord himself will give you [Ahaz] a sign.

And the sign is that "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."

The birth of the virgin was given as a sign to Ahaz, correct? Well, that is what the text says. From this analysis, this sign was meant to happen in the lifetime of Ahaz or his generation, at the very most.

I understand your ideology; but I think you're missing the point.

First, you'd have to understand the context of the prophecy which Isaiah declared in the presence of Ahaz; and that it was declared directly to him does not necessarily mean that it was about him or that it would happen in his time.

When prophets make pronouncements that were particularly in direct refrence to an individual (whether Kings, men in authority, nations collectively, single families, etc), it is not difficult to see the context and understand the prophecies. An example that was directed specifically to Ahaz is found in verse 17 of that same Isaiah 7 -

"The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people,
and upon thy father's house, days that have not come,
from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah;
even the king of Assyria."

The "days which have not come" were specifically pronounced to come upon specific individuals and their relations - and we do not have to be hard pressed for answers to seek out who was intended there. That is just an example of the kind of prophecy that you had inferred.

However, looking at Isaiah 7:10-14 collectively can only be understood when we begin to read from the very first verse and also go on till we get to verse 16. In brief, the events that led to this prophetic declaration was broader than merely Ahaz! That is attested to by verse 13 that declares that the prophecy was to "the house of David"! It was to the entire nation and not just to a mere King Ahaz!

Read verses 13 and 14 collectively now:

¹³[/b]And he said, Hear ye now, [b]O house of David; Is it a small thing
for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
¹⁴[/b]Therefore the Lord himself shall give [b]you a sign;
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall
call his name Immanuel.

See? It was directed to the whole house of David which was indicative of the nation of Israel. This is why we find the Bible saying that salvation is of the Jews (John 4:22).

When we come to verse 16, then we understand clearly that it was[b] not[/b] directed as an event to occur in Ahaz' day. How do we know that? Let me point it out in verse 16 --

"For before the child shall know to refuse the evil,
and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest
shall be forsaken of both her kings."

Here is the answer we are looking for - the epoch when the prophecy was to occur! It says that before the child would mature to be able to distinguish between good and evil (a parabolism referring to moral development), the land that Ahaz abhorred shall be forsaken of both her kings! What does this mean? It simply means that foreign (Gentile) powers would then be in place! The verse following (verse 18 through to 25) describe the events, peoples and effects of the occurence of this prophecy of verses 13 and 14.


I could go on; but I hope the foregoing has helped to clear the air about two things:

(a) who was it intended or directed at? - not merely to Ahaz, but to the whole house of David!

(b) when was it to occur? - not in Ahaz day; but at a time beyond his day, when Gentile powers would rule over Israel.

therationa:

I am asking questions, you guys respond with insults - a characteristically christian behaviour as I have observed.

The insults aside, we have often been willing to address your questions. Perhaps it does not speak well of our friends to decline such invitations and hear us out.

Cheers.

@olabowale,

olabowale:

(4); There was never an idol called God. There was idol called allat, and that is very different in writing, even though Arabic was an Oral tradition, yet they are pronounced differently.

Well, if there was never an idol called "Allah" (which I guess was what you intended to write), how then do you explain this assertion from Wikipedia? Here:

[list]The pre-Islamic Arabia, Allah was not the sole divinity. He was however a creator-god, possibly the supreme deity. Allah had associates and companions, whom pre-Islamic Religious Arabs considered as subordinate deities. Meccans held that a kind of kinship of between Allah and the jinn existed. Allah had sons and the local deities of al-'Uzzā, Manāt and al-Lāt were his daughters. The Meccans possibly associated angels with Allah. Allah was invoked in times of distress. The Great Prophet's father name was 'Abdallāh meaning the “servant of Allāh.”

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God#In_pre-Islamic_Arabia[/list]

I don't think it was merely a matter of what word was pronounced by "oral tradition" - at least, we know that The Great Prophet's father was not named 'Abdallā[b]t[/b]', but rather 'Abdallā[b]h[/b]' and strengthens the fact that 'Allah' was previously known as one of the deities of the Meccans!

olabowale:

Go and read about Qur'an. I will recommend Jamaal Sarabozzo's book; Introduction to the Science of Qur'an to you. Dont be shy or timid to read it now. It will do you a lot of good.

In just the same way, please go and read the Bible itself. Don't be shy or timid to read it now - and try not being so sarcastic and derisive before you actually have read it. It sure will do you a whole lot of good.

@focused,

focused:

I would advise you to stop exposing your advance ignorance.

Actually, people like Femi 1 may not know what to make of those passages, and there is a descripancy between 4,000 (four thousand) and 40,000 (forty thousand) by a margin of 36,000 (thirty six thousand).

It is not as if there are no answers or that the texts are in contradiction. Good enough that you advised Femi 1 to read the texts contextually by referring to preceding verses - at least, we can be honest enough to invite a discussion and provide answers - if and only if such people are not going to (predictably) manifest a ridiculous spirit.

I'd be waiting for the same Femi 1 to see how he demonstrates that he is able to hold his own forté in discussions rather than trying to be deliberately sarcastic against the Bible.

However, just to demonstrate that he has missed the message in the texts he cited, I'd deal with the last one from Exodus 24 v 9-11.

@therationa,

therationa:

Well, it seems clear to me that the Isaiah 7 is talking about event within the lifetime of the characters in the narrative? Do you concur with that?

No, I don't concur with that - and my reasons are sevral, of which I'd try and be concies:

(a) the nature of Biblical prophecies

(b) the nature of its fulfillment

(c) the context of the prophecy in question.

These and more have proven helpful when reading any prophecy in the Bible; and that was what I applied in the passage dealing with the 2nd Coming as discussed earlier in one of your threads.

babs787:

Why is God in Hausa bible and also in Arabian bible?

Haha! Wonders shall never end! "God" is neither Hause nor Arabic - and I don't know where ypu find such English terms in those translations.

Type your word again, and gbam! . . .na "God" we go read!

Praise God forever and ever o jare! Now "Allah" has been dropped, and God takes center stage in our posts!


_{I guess another fatwa is on the way to pressure Seun into changing it again! Kudos to the perpetually infuriated!!}

@SysUser,

SysUser:

@stimulus,

when I said :
i actually meant it as a sarcastic statement,

I didn't mean to imply that we should actually sue seun or withdraw the use of english to the "arabic mullahs",

I was just trying to poke some fun, at the stupidity of demanding removal of certain words on the forumn, by those "terrorists (or terrorists in waiting) on the forumn",

Stimulus hope you get my drift,

Of course, I got your drift o jare! I wasn't meaning that you were canvassing or soliciting for any legal redress against Seun (I hope I typed 'Seun' and it doesn't change to some other name like "non-Great One"!

Bros, just leave these perpetually infuriated fellows who now enjoy the misnomer of 'great ones' and do not have the slightest clue what 'greatness' really means! They think it is by eradicating intelligent discourses offered in English that Middle-East "greatness" is achieved.

@babs787,

babs787:

I have been folowing this your thread but found it senseless and as a result will ask you some questions:

Does it make sense to you that typing 'Allah' should automatically be changed to 'God' or another word without the poster's asking?

babs787:

1. What does Northern Christian call GOD?

Northern Christians know that when they refer to God, they are not worshipping the deity that Muhammed preached.

babs787:

2. Have you come across Hausa bible? If you have, please what word is used for 'God' in that bible?

Have you come across the Greek Qur'an? Why does God appear there in Arabic rather than in Greek?

therationa:


Is the context set with events in the life-time of the main characters in the narration?

OR

Is it describing events (prophesying) many centuries hence?

How could a 'prophecy' be describing what is occuring as the speaker was declaring those words? If there's any reason why you would suppose that it could not have been pointing to events at a later period after Isaiah's day, please let's read it and then we shall oblige you a spirited discussion thereto.

One thing I ask (as I always do): please stay on course and don't scoot off to see this thread die prematurely! Do you care to oblige?

@MC Usman,

MC Usman:

I personally regard the KJV as a combination of the Word of God, Word of Jesus, and Word of Man / Historians.

Why is your inference about the Bible rested only on the KJV?

@ayinba1,

ayinba1:

@stimulus, which one be ya own? ta n pe e soro? Let david answer now, haba, falana gbo ti e

I didn't see you guys asking your Muslim brethren to "answer now" after they incessantly ducked the questions offered them. Why this complaint?

babs787:

@stimulus

You may raise the thread for that so as not to deflect this very one

Thanks - I'm not intending to entertain Muslims anymore with all the hypocrisies we have witnessed from the onset of their entry to Nairaland. My point was simple and straightforward, which was that MC Usman should be able to swallow his own crappola before assuming to demand it of others.

babs787:

I think Seun should please re-programme the two words to be in their original form so that a new person reading through posts will understand what everything is all about.

I agree - only that you should have offered your caution to the Muslim who offered Seun a "friendly" fatwa that informed the changes.

@babs787,

babs787:

@stimulus

Do you mind if you and I dig deep into the issue of trinity?

I offered you 3 simple questions on the Trinity thread - you never offered any answers to forward the discussion. If you can revisit that thread and answer those 3 simple questions, I will keep my promise to discuss the material you plagiarized from Ahmed Deedat. Do you care to answer those questions?

babs787:

Ogbeni, I didnt scoot away but left you when you werent saying anything meaning. You dodged my questions and asked another instead. If you care and really interested in religious debate, Babs is here for you.

Ducking twice from the questions I offered you is not happenstance; and perhaps you'd like to offer a reason why you'd scooted off deliberately and took a run-off exile therefrom?

The Muslim attitude of plagiarizing other people's articles and demanding people to answer your questions has been abrogated - it is no longer applicable; and until you sit down and present something of your own without stealing copping out arguments from others, you have no claim to demand anything from others.

babs787:

Can I still have where you offered Babs intelligent invitations and we continue from there?

Go over to the thread where I offered you those 3 simple questions.

babs787:

The ball is in your court.

It has been in your court ever since you ducked away from the Forum.

@therationa,

therationa:

Thanks for leading.

No, thanks for leading - as the OP. I was only asking you to resume your lead, so we can hold the torch for you.

therationa:

BTW, you are NOT obligated to respond, you know .

I know, and understand why you'd wish it so. It hasn't been my in my least interest to waste time with your unttenable ideas, which have met with sound answers.

therationa:

Just leave them alone for other people to learn from

Lol. . . that's another of saying "I don't want to see you address these matters!" Okay, you don't need to beg - at least, readers can now see how 'philosophical' you've been.

Next!

SysUser:

Na wa o, Seun , The great ones (Muslims) are gradually turning Nairaland into a great religious forumn where certain words and statement are not acceptable,

Na so we see am O! For someone to now claim that 'God' is an "inappropriate" word is a hint already - they are telling us gradually now that someday it will be a terminal serious offence to mention "GOD" anywhere on the globe!

If not that, one wonders that the name 'God' could be calligraphed on dirty street walls; but Nike must be in trouble already with the logo on one of its shows that the mullahs have transcribed to be read as 'God'; whereas the shoe company were trying to be in keeping with the logo of the Human Right's logo:

     #1. Human Rights logo

     [img]http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:FH_kh5Z762qM6M:http://www.cafra.org/IMG/jpg/humanrightstag.jpg[/img]


    #2. The offensive shoes!

     [img]http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:PPmZkGZQysYI_M:http://www.brusselsjournal.com/files/nike-arabic.jpg[/img]

But does anyone remember this other controversy? --

   #3. Poster for a movie

    [img]http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:G3uKaWnDWpejRM:http://www.pakistanlink.com/Community/2003/oct03/03/God%2520Allah%2520Billboard.jpg[/img]

SysUser:

maybe we Christians should sue you(Seun) and f.atw.a you and them (The Great Ones) from using the english language and likewise ban all mu.sli.ms from using the english language on the forumn.

Lol. . . we won't go that far! The English language is one of the things a Muslim discussant fears - and if Seun bans that one now, we no go understand whether them (Muslims) dey abuse our roots with Arabic sef!

therationa:

Is there evidence within the texts (the so-called internal evidence) themselves that could lead us to these answers.

Are there any independent non-christian documents that corroborate the events in the gospels?

@theration,

Again, possibly the best way to help your threads so they don't die prematurely is to ask you to lead. It's a very simple measure to adopt - you lead on with your premise, we hold the torch to clear the mist so you don't strike your foot. When you proffer your own arguments for your misgivings, then stay on focus as replies are offered to point you where you might have been swerving off course.

Your friend,
stimulus _{(tickling your bare feet with a feather and listening to your giggles)!}

bawomolo:

that only explains one of the contradictions. there are many more coming

At least you'd have to agree that there are answers; and I also hinted earlier that -

stimulus:

these seemingly "contradictory" lines could be taken up line-by-line, topic by topic, precept by precept (and they have been addressed in other threads and sites).

Anyhow, I'd be on the lookout as to when you and your friend are ready to take up my simple invitation.

therationa:

Anyone on this one?

You didn't disappoint me. Is this a mewling reaction to the other thread (Human Sacrifice in the Bible) on the very same thing?

therationa:


Some of my other threads

I knew you have been doing the very same thing I hinted at earlier - which is to litter the forum with assumptions which you have never stood to rationally defend even where you've been invited to do so. When will it occur to you that rational thinking is not about repeating the same noise and making duplicate threads under the pretence of being 'smart'?

SysUser:

Out of the feeling of need for self importance and fufillment of self desires even the blackmen in america ended up in a contraption called the nation of the great religion, once headed "Elijah Muhammad".

SysUser:

Maybe we should be calling some people "Ifa Joshua" or make that "Osama Theresa"

Lol. . . what a combination!

MP007:

The pastor was "shuking" the woman,

It was his wife (and not the pastor) that this story is about. And oh, the word "sex" is crossed out!

MC Usman:

@4Him.
Stop that crap about other contradictions answer the question. Was it 40,000 stalls or 4,000 stalls, this forum was specifically meant for you, stand up and be your self.

I have other contradictions to point out from the Qur'an; and if you assume that 4Him or anybody else is making crap because they point out the hypocrisy of the poster, then also Muslims should be answerable to the several questions that have been offered them and stop their own crappola!

It has become the norm for Muslims to demand answers from others without seeking to answer queries from others. When you begin to realize that this is a public forum, then provide answers to the questions offered to Muslims and let's move on.

We've seen worse things, and the rejoinder that makes sense to me just this once is this:

exu:

1. Infidelity is not a new phenomenon- even amongst the 'self-anointed'.

2. The breaking of marriage vows is something that takes place all over the globe- Lagos is not a factor in why this happened.

I'm not going to point accusing fingers at anyone - Christian or non-Christian. But I do understand why this seems to be big news for some people!

@MC Usman,

MC Usman:

Not only the word “Ester” that you can not find in the Bible,

True, 'Ester' cannot be found in the Bible; but we don't know what that word means!

Okay, was just teasing you - I guess you meant Easter!

MC Usman:

other Christian Dogma like Trinity, Christmas, Christianity, Christian & Hallelujah are all inserted through the numerous edition, re- edition and re-re- edition and re-re-re- ……………. of the Bible. .

Rather than make alleagtions, please pick up a Bible and read it!

Let me use the example of a word in your quote:  'Christian'. Two verses should encourage you to read it for yourself:

Acts 26:28
Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.

1 Peter 4:16
Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed;
but let him glorify God on this behalf.

You may allege all sorts of things against the Bible; but when you do so, please be rational enough to make sense where honesty is the watchword.

Now with regards to the Trinity, do you care to enter a discussion for a spirited debate theretto?

I have offered invitations several times to a few Muslims including babs787 and olabowale - and they have never disappointed me in typically scooting off and ducking that invitation. All I would require from you (if you'd be willing to enter that discussion) is that you gather yourself together and be man enough to stay your course instead of making roundabout excuses and then vamoose like the others have. Do you care for that, MC Usman?

Now when it comes to the exculpations of a word never appearing in the Bible, we don't make fusses about it. We can also argue that Muhammad is never in the Bible - and thereby use that same argument to show that the Qur'an is false in its claims that we should find Muhammed in any verse of the Bible. 

- - -
If the 'Trinity' is false because it is not a word that appears in the Bible, then 'Muhammad' is also false because he does not appear in the Bible as well!
- - -

Whenever you're using these cheap arguments of "this-that-and-the-other-word" is not in the Bible, then remember to also add that Muhammad is not in the Bible - and if those things are false because they are not in the Bible, then again Muhammad is false because his name is not in the Bible!!

I think you Muslims should learn to respect the fact that some Christians take exception to your incessant derision of Christian convictions - and if you do not like to read some disaffectionate remarks about Muhammad and Allah, then you ought to show deference and complaisance to Christian convictions - especially about the Trinity!

MC Usman:

By the way can anyone tell me the meaning of Halleluiah, (i.e. when Christian says Praise the Lord the invocation that follows) is it English, Greek? Hebrew or Spanish.

Pretending like you do not know? Can you tell me if 'God' is also Greek?

@KAG,

KAG:

If you're going to read Aquinas, anyway, I'd suggest getting a quick overview of Platonism, Aristotelean philosophy and Augustine's writings. Just a general framework should help.

How apt! I'd thought that such a notion was perculiar to me!

- - -

Now wey bawomolo?!? I know, I know. . . "philosophy is an oxymoron" - but for all that, it is still philosophy! Get to work ma guy!

@samba123,

samba123:

There are many philosophy Christian here still they mesmerizing about The Great Religion.

What exactly do you mean by "The Great Religion"? Islam is not to be confused for the Great Religion, because there are other religions out there that are known with such clichés. Besides, Christians are not mesmerizing about Islam, and I do hope that you'd be able to distinguish them.

samba123:

Those attitude are always exist when it come to Religion. When you talk about their Bible even there are many argument still they just swallowed it and continued to believe on it.

At least we don't issue fatwas and force Nairaland to change what you type free of charge without your asking! However, we don't just swallow anything and continue to believe anything. How many times have Christians debated a number of topics on this forum rather than swallow the assumptions that Muslims usually make?

samba123:

When we speak about Religion, Religion belong only to Almighty God, except manmade religion of the idolater and unbeliever.

And just who are the idolaters and unbeliever?

See? This is why we need to be clear in the things we post. Rather than make everyone's post say what they don't mean, people should be free to say what they mean and mean what they say (of course, we should not forget the usual disclaimers).

samba123:

Moreover, even whatever you explain to them still they depend and argue to their principle.

Perhaps you would need to defend yours with enough commons sense and convictions to hold your grounds and not appear impossibly laughable after you've made your allegations.

samba123:

We Great Ones Muslims prefer calling A-l-l-a-h, instead of the English word ‘God’.

Which demonstrates a hypocrisy that is unrivalled anywhere in the world - as I've pointed out above with the Greek translation of the Qur'an.

samba123:

The Arabic word, A-l-l-a-h is pure and unique, unlike the English word ‘God’, which can be played around with.

In what sense do you mean that Arabic is "pure"? Are you aware that there are several arabic dislects spoken by different people? Sample them:

Egyptian Arabic (the most widely understood and used "second dialect"
Maghreb Arabic (Tunisian, Algerian, Moroccan, and western Libyan)
Hassaniiya (Mauritania)
Andalusi Arabic (extinct, but important role in literary history)
Sudanese Arabic (with a dialect continuum into Chad)
Levantine Arabic (Syrian, Lebanese, Palestinian, and western Jordanian)
Hijazi Arabic
Najdi Arabic

You would have to let us know which of the Arabic you meant by "pure", and how they differ from Quraish!

samba123:

If you add ‘S’ to the word God, it becomes “Gods:, that is the plural of God. A-l-l-a-h is one and singular, there is no plural of A-l-l-a-h. if you add “dess” to the word God, it becomes “Goddess” that is a female God. There is nothing like male A-l-l-a-h or female A-l-l-a-h. A-l-l-a-h has no gender.

Then why not allow the Greeks an undiluted Greek translation of the Qur'an in their own language? Afterall, Greek is a very rich language and one can better distinguish ideas and concept in the Greek than from Arabic. The Greeks will be able to know what is singular and plural in their language, rather than to wait for someone to cheat them with Arabic.

And as regards the words "gods", I wonder what noise you're making here when your own Muslim translators have clearly used such words in the translations. Sample:

Sura 6 v 23 [Yusuf Ali]
There will then be (left) no subterfuge for them but to say:
"By God our Lord, we were not those who joined gods with God."

Sura 6 v 74

[Pickthall]
(Remember) when Abraham said unto his father Azar:
Takest thou idols for gods? Lo! I see thee and thy folk
in error manifest.

[Yusuf Ali]
Lo! Abraham said to his father Azar: "Takest thou idols for gods?
For I see thee and thy people in manifest error."

[Hilali-Khan]
And (remember) when Ibrahim (Abraham) said to his father Azar:
"Do you take idols as aliha (gods)? Verily, I see you and your people
in manifest error."

[Shakir]
And when Ibrahim said to his sire, Azar: Do you take idols for gods?
Surely I see you and your people in manifest error.

[Sher Ali]
And remember the time when Abraham said to his father, Azar,
`Dost thou take idols for gods? Surely, I see thee and thy people
in manifest error.'  

Em, could it be that these Muslim translators were playing a very dangerous game by using the English words "gods" if the Qur'an never so intended them to use such words? Afterall you said that "there is no plural of A-l-l-a-h"; and what was it that the Hilali-Khan translators were trying to paint from the word "aliha" which they referred to as "gods"?

samba123:

A-l-l-a-h is a unique word, which does not conjure up any mental picture nor can it be played around with.

But your Hadith says that Muslims will see Allah appear to them according to the mental pictures which they have been having about him! Are we missing something here - or we should simply assume that you don't have a good grasp of your own religion?

samba123:

Therefore the Great Ones prefer saying A-l-l-a-h, but sometimes while speaking to the non-Great Ones we may have to use the inappropriate word God for A-l-l-a-h. As reference to communicate it better and understand.

Over to you, Seun. You see wetin your machine dey cause? I'll be willing to bet my April wages that you're one of the "non-Great Ones" - transcribes free-of-charge!

Now my dear samba123, "God" is not an inappropraie word! Before you hope to make such semantic bloopers, do you care to show us how your arabic word 'allah' is a better and appropriate word to use in reference to speaking with other people?

And if you know that "God" is an inappropriate term to use, is it not true then that you are giving a false security to your audience by usuing what you call "inapproprite"? Is 'God' inappropriate to you?

@therationa,

therationa:

Apparently, it is God who is responsible for selecting the rulers of countries be they democratic or otherwise, dictators, tyrants or benign rulers. If this is the case, and given God's omniscience, you would expect God's selection procedure would ensure only the righteous and just are made rulers of their countries. However, this is not what really happens.

And why is it so that it is not what happens?

therationa:

From time immemorial, we have seen rulers pillage and destroy their countries, to the detriment of their own citizens; think of most of Africa. Nigeria is a case in point. One of the most religious nations on earth, with the level of privations not untypical of the 15 century. What is happening with God's ministration?

Did that question arise as a genuine effort to understand "God's ministration" or merely a typical quip to be derisive?

therationa:

In the light of the above, should an oppressed people seek to overthrow a corrupt and unjust ruler?

Interesting question. What would be your own recommendations, theration?

therationa:

And learning who to think freely, without being encumbered by superstitious beliefs.

Not that we have seen you think freely and been able to stand to defend your own assumptions. I keep asking you that one very thing - and I'm not disappointed that you have repeatedly ducked the offer to debate your misgivings.

When you do have the rational to discuss them, the invitations are still open. I'd like to see you sanely discuss issues without scooting off and seeing those threads dying prematurely or your resorting to wild remarks simply because you can't hold your views to spirited discussions.

therationa:

Does anyone have a good idea what these are about?

Perhaps if you lead, we may hold the torch to point you in clear path.

Do you have a good idea about what they are? Do you care to share with us what ideas you're proposing?

therationa:

But Lamentations 4:10, actually reports it as having happened. Check it out.

Lamentations does not assume that it has happened literally - anyone with a clear thinking would understand that Lamentations is more a book set in poetry in such expressions. It is just as much as as to disingenuously allege that Lamentations 2:2 is lietral when it says that: "The Lord hath swallowed up all the habitations of Jacob" - does that sound literal to you?

Now, the question of Lamentations 4:10. If you're seeking a passage where it does teach in the Bible that people have eaten their own flesh, please look at 2 Kings 6:29 - "So we boiled my son, and did eat him".

Does God recommend or command them to do this as part of their worship or devotion to Him? That is the question I have asked so many people - and never did get a sensible answer other than the rascal and irrational noise they make to force that idea in accusation against God and the Bible.

What does it mean? I have answered the question in the links I provided earlier; and just incase you only were too hot-headed to sanely read things through calmly, I could again answer the question.

The people had a choice to either obey God's injunctions as attested in the LAW unto them; or they would witness the effects of disobedience to His commandments. This is what is stated in Deuteronomy 28:1 as a warning - "And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the LORD thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth" - and we are sure the people rather would look forward to such a moment of glory which they would enjoy for the rest of their lives.

But what about the consequences of their disobedience? Here, my dear therationa, may I ask you what your "god" would have recommended? It doesn't have to be a civil or good "god", just simply tell us what it would have recommended.