₦airaland Forum

Annunaki:
The hausa muslims have completely lost their culture and traditions in their blind adherence to islam which dominates their culture, traditions, politics and beliefs.

Yes, it is the Hausas that are the true muslims, no wonder they don't pray behind a Yoruba leading prayer.

It is the Hausas that are actually following the words of allahh and his sole prophet, Muhammad. One of my wife's friends once lived in Zaria, Kaduna state. She said she had witnessed many Hausa muslims exchanging their wives. Allahh talks about exchange of wives in the quran. But ask a Yoruba muslim, he will say no.

Temporary wives (another name for adultery) as stated in the quran is also commonly practiced among the Hausas. Yet the quran condemns adultery. Which should muslims believe? Confusion.

One thing I have noticed about allahh, quran and muslims is that they are never consistent. Allahh would say something is bad today and say the same thing is good tomorrow. How do you follow that type of spirit? Is that not a clear deception? So, if allahh says no to marriage between father and daughter especially the one born outside wedlock, I wouldn't be surprised if he says yes in another verse of the quran.

Muslims' way of defending islam is using a contradictory verse to defend another contradictory verse. A verse says you can marry your daughter, another verse says no and when you say islam permits marriage with ones daughter and you quote the verse, muslims will jump out and say no, quoting a verse that doesn't support such an act as if both are not from the same quran.

Can you marry a non-muslim? Yes and no. See many of such contradictions here:

www.nairaland.com/2511448/contradictions-quran

This allahh self tire me o !!!

mustymatic:
see lies abeg...explain to is why then?

What does this mean?

faheez:
lest I forget,if you want any fact to be proved, come out reasonably with it... With evidence verses and explanation.

What fact do you still want to prove ?

Samiri is Samaritan, and that had been admitted long ago in this thread?

Samaritans are the descendants of Joseph who were among the Israelites led out of Egypt by Moses and at the time of the golden calf they were yet to separate into Samaria. They were no Samaritans then. Where did allahh see a Samaritan that wasn't existing? Allahh goofed on simple history. Can the all-knowing God be that ignorant?

Annunaki:
Islam is drawing Africa back, if more muslims are encouraged to renounce islam and convert to christianity, Africa will definitely be better off.

True talk.

mustymatic:
By hook or by crook

Islam must be demolished. I was surprised to hear this morning on AIT the number of Christian under age girls abducted by muslims. The moment they abduct them they take them to sharia commission from where they are forcefully converted to islam and marry them off to their abductors. Can the true God be in support if such? Don't tell me it is not islamic, you cannot say sharia commission do not understand islam, it is you who don't understand it.

This same thing Boko Haram did to Chibok girls yet muslims say book haram is not islamic. Hypocrites.

ISLAM IS FROM THE DEVIL

.

Nadheer15:
Why the lies? The substance it holds wants to make you cry, you're frustrated already!



I've done that already!

When

Where

Dodging !!!

Liar !!!

UBScirgerefa:
The moment you show me your proof that Islam is from this so-called "Devil", I won't vacillate to follow suit by showing you my proof as well...

Why do you still want me to give you proof that islam is from the devil when you have said it yourself? Refer to your post above. As an atheist, you are not in the position to defend islam as you don't believe in the existence of either Yahweh or allahh.

UBScirgerefa:
And who told you Yahweh doesn't fall into that category? Is Yahweh any better than Allah? You must be really naive to have dubbed the Bible inerrant and infallible, giving it a free pass, even though the facts are staring you in the face... are you a Bible illiterate? C'mon, face it... your argument against Allah is just as valid against the Christian God...

Provide proofs to substantiate your claim.

Nadheer15:
Just like the op, dumb and stup'd. Refute my posts rather than spew garbage from your dirty brown gworo teeth!

There is nothing to be refuted in your posts, they have no substance.

Answer my questions above if you can.

UBScirgerefa:
@Truthman2012... Muslims cling to Islam after compelling evidence showing that it is a product of an arab man's imaginations for the same reason that after Christianity has been proven to be a fraud, you still cling to it anyway... and hey, don't tell me you don't know all Abrahamic religions are from the devil (whatever that means)... so, why single out Islam?

Where is your proof that Abrahamic religion is from the devil.

UBScirgerefa:
@OP, tell me you're not insinuating that the presence of "mathematical errors" in the Quran, invalidates the veracity of the "Holy book" and the fact that it is divinely inspired, automatically throwing Islam into the toilet? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

What do you think it is, if allahh who claimed to be the creator of the world didn't know how many days it took him to create it ?

Nadheer15:
Trash giving you nightmares!



No comment!



I'm not, you are. Go back to all my posts and read carefully so as to not be confused



LOL, because the meaning refutes your stupidity right?! Samaritan is different from Samarian, olodo!



That is the point refuting you, stop making empty noises. The meaning refuted you!



Yes that's what I'm saying!



And I told you that the Samaritans never considered themselves to be inhabitants of Samaria. Is it too hard for you to accept, your bible contradicts history!



What are you saying?! They have nothing to do with Samaria, the Quran mentioned Al Samiri so as to know who in particular did made the Golden calf.

Then you're dumber if you can't comprehend!

Do you know the story of Joseph? If you do you wouldn't be saying the trash you are saying.

Now answer these questions:

Where were Joseph and his children before his descendants moved to Samaria?

When did the descendants leave where they were to settle in Samaria?

No muslims dare talk to refute the serious error discovered in the quran. Since that is the case, nobody should come here and say the quran is perfect. And again, nobody should ever say that allahh is God because if he is God if would have known the actual number of days it took him to create the world.

Nadheer15

I'm not talking about Samaria, we're talking about Samaritan. They're descendants of Joseph, Samaria is a land and people who live within it are called Samarians. The meaning of Samaritan is keeper or observant of truth! They're two different things!

Trash as usual !!!

Why are you moving from pillar to pole?

Look at your previous posts, you said you were talking of Samarians and now Samaritans. You are confused.

Nobody cares about the meaning of Samaritan, all cities have their meaning, and that doesn't change the fact that they are cities. You made no point by stating the meaning of Samaritan.

Are you saying the inhabitants of Samaria are not called Samaritans but Samrians? I have cited the Bible passage that says they are called Samaritans.

The point remains Joseph descendants never separated into Samaria at Moses time as they were among the Israelites he led out of Egypt.

The laymen also possess their traditional claims. They are all of the tribe of Joseph, except those of the tribe of Benjamin, but this traditional branch of people, which, the Chronicles assert, was established at Gaza in earlier days, seems to have disappeared. There exists an aristocratic feeling amongst the different families in this community, and some are very proud over their pedigree and the great men it had produced.
(J. A. Montgomery, The Samaritans The Earliest Jewish Sect: Their History, Theology And Literature, 1907, op. cit., p. 32.)

Of what relevance is that? What does that tell about when Samaria began existence? Just saying rubbish.

[

b]Nadheer15[/b]

I never disputed this fact, that's why I've maintained that the Samaritans descended from Joseph. So if the Quran refers to Samaritan, then it doesn't contradict history because this people are older than Moses.

You are yet to give me the name and the verse of their holy book where you got your trash. You are under a duty to show it because you said it.

If Samaritans are descendants of Joseph who is older than Moses, like I once asked, did they form Samaria in Joseph's lifetime? Do you know how long Joseph, his children and other Israelites spent in Egypt? They spent about 430 years before Moses led them out to Cannan. That shows Joseph descendants had not settled in Samaria as at Moses time as they were among the Israelites he (Moses) led out of Egypt. Joseph descendants were included among the Israelites who were involved in the golden calf saga. How could they have formed Samaria at that time when they were yet to be separated from the congregation of Israel ?Your point doesn't hold water.

When they say the people of Abeokuta are descendants of Oduduwa, does it mean Abeokuta existed in the lifetime of Oduduwa? In the same vein Samaria didn't exist in the time of Joseph who you said is older than Moses.

Where did allahh see Samaritan that had never existed in Moses time?

Nadheer15:
I'm not lying, you're!



If you went back to my previous post, I made everything clear. I won't be repeating any arguments, the Samaritans don't call themselves shomronim(Samarian), this is what the Bible stated, they call themselves shamerin(Samaritan) which is different from shomronim. I've quoted enough evidence and you didn't, you just keep making noise with your bible, as it is clearly shown that your bible doesn't know history.



I'm not twisting anything, I've given you proofs from numerous works with references so you can make your own researches. You've failed boy!



Don't cry, they're Samarians not Samaritans. Samaritans are different people who descended from Joseph, check their holy books, you've no right to argue about their origin when it is found in their books.



Looks like you want to cry! Anyways, sorry if it's hurting you. I've given my proofs and any objective person can see how truthful they are.

Cc Rilwayne001, lexiconkabir, yazach, etc come and see truthman2012 o, he wants to cry!

Nonsense !

You keep repeating the same trash.

The Bible calls people of Samaria Samaritans, you are saying they are called Samarians. Even the quran calls them Samiri meaning Samaritan (not Samarian) Are you now trying to prove you know better than the Books? I wonder your point of argument.

Where did you find Samarians different from Samaritans? Give a reference. Liar ! What is their holy book called and let me have the chapter and the verse of their holy book you are referring to.

I told you earlier that though there is nowhere Samarians are mentioned, the word Samaritan and Samarian are referring to the same people.

Keep deceiving yourself.

Allahh is ignorant of history, he is a liar as well. No wonder he called himself the best of deceivers.

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Michael Gleghorn

About the Author

Michael Gleghorn is a research associate with Probe Ministries. He earned a B.A. in psychology from Baylor University and a Th.M. in systematic theology from Dallas Theological Seminary. He is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in theology from Dallas Theological Seminary.

View all resources by Michael Gleghorn

Although there is overwhelming evidence that the New Testament is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, many people are still reluctant to believe what it says unless there is also some independent, non-biblical testimony that corroborates its statements.

In the introduction to one of his books, F.F. Bruce tells about a Christian correspondent who was told by an agnostic friend that "apart from obscure references in Josephus and the like," there was no historical evidence for the life of Jesus outside the Bible.[1] This, he wrote to Bruce, had caused him "great concern and some little upset in [his] spiritual life."[2] He concludes his letter by asking, "Is such collateral proof available, and if not, are there reasons for the lack of it?"[3] The answer to this question is, "Yes, such collateral proof is available," and we will be looking at some of it in this article.

Evidence from Tacitus

Let's begin our inquiry with a passage that historian Edwin Yamauchi calls "probably the most important reference to Jesus outside the New Testament."[4] Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome....[5]

What can we learn from this ancient (and rather unsympathetic) reference to Jesus and the early Christians? Notice, first, that Tacitus reports Christians derived their name from a historical person called Christus (from the Latin), or Christ. He is said to have "suffered the extreme penalty," obviously alluding to the Roman method of execution known as crucifixion. This is said to have occurred during the reign of Tiberius and by the sentence of Pontius Pilatus. This confirms much of what the Gospels tell us about the death of Jesus.

But what are we to make of Tacitus' rather enigmatic statement that Christ's death briefly checked "a most mischievous superstition," which subsequently arose not only in Judaea, but also in Rome? One historian suggests that Tacitus is here "bearing indirect ... testimony to the conviction of the early church that the Christ who had been crucified had risen from the grave."[6] While this interpretation is admittedly speculative, it does help explain the otherwise bizarre occurrence of a rapidly growing religion based on the worship of a man who had been crucified as a criminal.[7] How else might one explain that?

Evidence from Pliny the Younger

Another important source of evidence about Jesus and early Christianity can be found in the letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. In one of his letters, dated around A.D. 112, he asks Trajan's advice about the appropriate way to conduct legal proceedings against those accused of being Christians.[8] Pliny says that he needed to consult the emperor about this issue because a great multitude of every age, class, and sex stood accused of Christianity.[9]

At one point in his letter, Pliny relates some of the information he has learned about these Christians:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food – but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.[10]

This passage provides us with a number of interesting insights into the beliefs and practices of early Christians. First, we see that Christians regularly met on a certain fixed day for worship. Second, their worship was directed to Christ, demonstrating that they firmly believed in His divinity. Furthermore, one scholar interprets Pliny's statement that hymns were sung to Christ, "as to a god", as a reference to the rather distinctive fact that, "unlike other gods who were worshipped, Christ was a person who had lived on earth."[11] If this interpretation is correct, Pliny understood that Christians were worshipping an actual historical person as God! Of course, this agrees perfectly with the New Testament doctrine that Jesus was both God and man.

Not only does Pliny's letter help us understand what early Christians believed about Jesus' person, it also reveals the high esteem to which they held His teachings. For instance, Pliny notes that Christians "bound themselves by a solemn oath" not to violate various moral standards, which find their source in the ethical teachings of Jesus. In addition, Pliny's reference to the Christian custom of sharing a common meal likely alludes to their observance of communion and the "love feast."[12] This interpretation helps explain the Christian claim that the meal was merely "food of an ordinary and innocent kind". They were attempting to counter the charge, sometimes made by non-Christians, of practicing "ritual cannibalism."[13] The Christians of that day humbly repudiated such slanderous attacks on Jesus' teachings. We must sometimes do the same today.

Evidence from Josephus

Perhaps the most remarkable reference to Jesus outside the Bible can be found in the writings of Josephus, a first century Jewish historian. On two occasions, in his Jewish Antiquities, he mentions Jesus. The second, less revealing, reference describes the condemnation of one "James" by the Jewish Sanhedrin. This James, says Josephus, was "the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ."[14] F.F. Bruce points out how this agrees with Paul's description of James in Galatians 1:19 as "the Lord's brother."[15] And Edwin Yamauchi informs us that "few scholars have questioned" that Josephus actually penned this passage.[16]

As interesting as this brief reference is, there is an earlier one, which is truly astonishing. Called the "Testimonium Flavianum," the relevant portion declares:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he ... wrought surprising feats.... He was the Christ. When Pilate ...condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared ... restored to life.... And the tribe of Christians ... has ... not disappeared.[17]

Did Josephus really write this? Most scholars think the core of the passage originated with Josephus, but that it was later altered by a Christian editor, possibly between the third and fourth century A.D.[18] But why do they think it was altered? Josephus was not a Christian, and it is difficult to believe that anyone but a Christian would have made some of these statements.[19]

For instance, the claim that Jesus was a wise man seems authentic, but the qualifying phrase, "if indeed one ought to call him a man," is suspect. It implies that Jesus was more than human, and it is quite unlikely that Josephus would have said that! It is also difficult to believe he would have flatly asserted that Jesus was the Christ, especially when he later refers to Jesus as "the so-called" Christ. Finally, the claim that on the third day Jesus appeared to His disciples restored to life, inasmuch as it affirms Jesus' resurrection, is quite unlikely to come from a non-Christian!

But even if we disregard the questionable parts of this passage, we are still left with a good deal of corroborating information about the biblical Jesus. We read that he was a wise man who performed surprising feats. And although He was crucified under Pilate, His followers continued their discipleship and became known as Christians. When we combine these statements with Josephus' later reference to Jesus as "the so-called Christ," a rather detailed picture emerges which harmonizes quite well with the biblical record. It increasingly appears that the "biblical Jesus" and the "historical Jesus" are one and the same!

Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.[20] The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald ... cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."[21]

Let's examine this passage. You may have noticed that it refers to someone named "Yeshu." So why do we think this is Jesus? Actually, "Yeshu" (or "Yeshua" is how Jesus' name is pronounced in Hebrew. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus "was hanged"? Doesn't the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term "hanged" can function as a synonym for "crucified." For instance, Galatians 3:13 declares that Christ was "hanged", and Luke 23:39 applies this term to the criminals who were crucified with Jesus.[22] So the Talmud declares that Jesus was crucified on the eve of Passover. But what of the cry of the herald that Jesus was to be stoned? This may simply indicate what the Jewish leaders were planning to do.[23] If so, Roman involvement changed their plans![24]

The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?

Interestingly, both accusations have close parallels in the canonical gospels. For instance, the charge of sorcery is similar to the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons "by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons."[25] But notice this: such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus' miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery! Likewise, the charge of enticing Israel to apostasy parallels Luke's account of the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus of misleading the nation with his teaching.[26] Such a charge tends to corroborate the New Testament record of Jesus' powerful teaching ministry. Thus, if read carefully, this passage from the Talmud confirms much of our knowledge about Jesus from the New Testament.

Evidence from Lucian

Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist. In one of his works, he wrote of the early Christians as follows:

The Christians ... worship a man to this day – the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.... [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws.[27]

Although Lucian is jesting here at the early Christians, he does make some significant comments about their founder. For instance, he says the Christians worshipped a man, "who introduced their novel rites." And though this man's followers clearly thought quite highly of Him, He so angered many of His contemporaries with His teaching that He "was crucified on that account."

Although Lucian does not mention his name, he is clearly referring to Jesus. But what did Jesus teach to arouse such wrath? According to Lucian, he taught that all men are brothers from the moment of their conversion. That's harmless enough. But what did this conversion involve? It involved denying the Greek gods, worshipping Jesus, and living according to His teachings. It's not too difficult to imagine someone being killed for teaching that. Though Lucian doesn't say so explicitly, the Christian denial of other gods combined with their worship of Jesus implies the belief that Jesus was more than human. Since they denied other gods in order to worship Him, they apparently thought Jesus a greater God than any that Greece had to offer!

Conclusion

Let's summarize what we've learned about Jesus from this examination of ancient non-Christian sources. First, both Josephus and Lucian indicate that Jesus was regarded as wise. Second, Pliny, the Talmud, and Lucian imply He was a powerful and revered teacher. Third, both Josephus and the Talmud indicate He performed miraculous feats. Fourth, Tacitus, Josephus, the Talmud, and Lucian all mention that He was crucified. Tacitus and Josephus say this occurred under Pontius Pilate. And the Talmud declares it happened on the eve of Passover. Fifth, there are possible references to the Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection in both Tacitus and Josephus. Sixth, Josephus records that Jesus' followers believed He was the Christ, or Messiah. And finally, both Pliny and Lucian indicate that Christians worshipped Jesus as God!

I hope you see how this small selection of ancient non-Christian sources helps corroborate our knowledge of Jesus from the gospels. Of course, there are many ancient Christian sources of information about Jesus as well. But since the historical reliability of the canonical gospels is so well established, I invite you to read those for an authoritative "life of Jesus!"

Source:

www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources

Nadheer15

In the biblical verse you quoted!

Why must you lie?

This is the Bible verse I cited:


2 Kings 17:29 (KJV)

Howbeit every nation made gods of their own, and put them in the houses of the high places which the Samaritans had made, every nation in their cities wherein they dwelt.

Tell me, where did you see Samarians there? Have you no shame?

Look at the OP you claimed you have refuted by telling lies and twisting things.

Nope! Samaria is a city while Samarians are the inhabitants! Samaritans on the other hand are those who descended from Joseph through his sons, so they're older than Moses.

The inhabitants of Samaria are called Samaritans, not Samarians. See the Bible passage I cited. Stop lying.

You think you can just formulate any lie and claim you have refuted a thread? What do you take the readers for?

Nadheer15:
You're the one who's blind here!



I never claimed Samaria existed during Moses time, I only said Samaritans have existed way long before Moses. They're two different things, example, we have Yoruba today, but there was an empire in the middle east that was called Yaruba dynasty. This dynasty had nothing to do with Yorubas, just as how Samaritans have nothing to do with Samarians.



We're not discussing this here, let's iron out this issue before moving to another one!

Where is Samarians in this issue?

Who is talking about Samarians?

Samaria is the city while Samaritans are the inhabitants.

Samaria had never existed in the time of Moses, where did allahh get Samaritan at that time?

I am sure you are just saying something to appear you are refuting the OP.

Nadheer15:
Are you blind to see what you quoted that the answer is there, you refuse to read that's your problem. The post you quoted has your answer, I wrote it in italics.

Stop this blind argument. Samaria was not existing as at the time allahh said it was. That is just one of the many lies by allahh. See another one here:

www.nairaland.com/2989982/mathematical-errors-quran

Muslims, now that you have seen the quran is full of errors and lies proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it could not have come from the true God. It is only reasonable for you to renounce it. If you continue with it, you are deliberately worshiping a false god.

Since the quran cannot be trusted because of its errors and lies, it only shows what it says about Jesus Sonship is also a lie. What it also says about the Jews and Christians Scripture is a lie like other lies found in it.

Muslims think prayerfully and God will deliver you.

Nadheer15:
What does that mean?!



The biblical verse you provided talks about a "Samarian" which means "an inhabitant of the city of samaria", whereas the Quran speaks of "Samaritan" which literally means "keepers". They're totally different from each other, the Samaritans exists today and they claim they're descendants of Joseph, remember that Joseph was born 100s of years before Moses.

Wikipedia states:

Ancestrally, Samaritans claim descent from the Israelite tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh (two sons of Joseph) as well as from the priestly tribe of Levi

So truthman2012, Parisbookaddict, Annunaki, druxy, etc I ask you all, who came first- Moses or Joseph?!



Of course I didn't dispute that!



Low self-esteem, you've failed Mr. Man. Your foot soldiers must be disappointed in you, stop holding on to a feeble straw.

Read the OP again and again, may be you will understand the fact that history has it that there was no Samaritan until about 500 years after Moses.

If the Samaritans are descendants of Joseph, does that mean they had established Samaria during the time of Joseph? The Yorubas are descendants of Oduduwa, does that mean Abeokuta existed in the time of Oduduwa?

Good morning muslims.

I am sure all of you have been taught to believe the quran is error free because it was from allahh. But you must have discovered it is not so. Can God make a mistake as allahh did?

Something within you should be telling you that something is wrong with the source of islam, all things being equal anyway.

importexpert:
unfortunately you were to blind to see the proofs that samiri is an individual. i made enough proofs above. you can take 1minute and search on google "who was samiri during prophet moses". it will save you a lot of ignorance.


the level of understanding differ between diff individuals but the message in the qur'an remains one. look into my post, reason and criticize logically coz above is the direct message that you misinterpreted as a result of your ignorance. i work base on the sayings of the holy qur'an not the sayings of other Muslims so judge me with what i say not with what they say. or are you ashamed to now admit that the truth is out ? i respect other faiths in the house so i will not talk about Errors in their scriptures but when the need arises, this i may discuss for reference purposes only and not for condemnation.

Stop deceiving yourself. The matter is so clear. Samaria had never existed at the time of the golden calf issue. So there couldn't be a Samaritan at that time. Allah or Muhammad whoever it was, did not know simple history.

You said the Samiri is an individual, is it the whole city that would have led the Israelites to worship the golden calf? If it is said that a Nigerian led them to worship golden calf, would it be the the whole Nigeria? How do you reason?

teniyi:
This is very clear to any sincere reader of Quran that there I no contradiction there, but since you don't understand here. All the creation of Heaven, Earth and all between them are created in 6 days. The Earth alone is 2 days, the content of the earth such as mountains were created in another 2 days, making four days cumulatively and the heaven was created for 2 days making a total of 6 days. Remember this is not a Bible, it's a Quran and you can't find contradictions there at ALL.

Just check the content of Act of Apostle 3 Verse 13 and the King James and Revised Standard Version.

What do you mean there are no contradictions in the quran?

The whole quran is a bundle of contradictions as allahh was replacing his revelations with contradictory ones.

Educate yourself here:

www.nairaland.com/2511448/contradictions-quran

Nadheer15:




Why do you care? Do you know Arabic?!



I'm claiming to know more than them. We have Samaritans today in the state of Israel, they've never called themselves shomronim(Samarian). These people claim they're descendants of Joseph, so who are am i to believe? You or them?



Go back to the post and look at the underlined, that's the word there.

Islamic al-taqquah !

Nobody is talking about Samarian, I wonder where you got that from. The quran talks about Samiri, which is the Arabic word for Samaritan.

Stop introducing what doesn't exist as your defence.

Qpetz:
... Earth=2dayz... Earth+gradual manifestation of life on earth=4dayz...Meaning the 2dayz Earth was embedded in that verse.... The remaining 2dayz is clear enough...

What is clear enough ?

Earth = 2 Days (Qur'an 41:9)
Earth Nourishment = 4 Days (Quran 41:10)
Seven firmaments = 2 Days (Quran 41:12)
Total = 2+4+2 = 8

importexpert:
salam to everyone in the house. please never manipulate the holy qur'an just to achieve your own self interest. i just wish you know qur'an better so that we can dig into more light that proof qur'an is the light. for the verses you quoted above, samiri was clearly a person's name and not samarians as you manipulate it to be. let me proof to you:

[ Allah ] said, "But indeed, We have tried your people after you [departed], and the Samiri has led them astray. Q20:85

So Moses returned to his people, angry and grieved. He said, "O my people, did your Lord not make you a good promise? Then, was the time [of its fulfillment] too long for you, or did you wish that wrath from your Lord descend upon you, so you broke your promise [of obedience] to me?" Q20:86

They said, "We did not break our promise to you by our will, but we were made to carry burdens from the ornaments of the people [of Pharaoh], so we threw them [into the fire], and thus did the Samiri throw."Q20:87

And he extracted for them [the statue of] a calf which had a lowing sound, and they said, "This is your god and the god of Moses, but he forgot." Q20:87

he above clear shows that samiri is a single person. wait let me show you more obvious proofs

[Moses] said, "And what is your case, O Samiri?" Q20:95

i skipped 88-94 but you can reference to them here http://quran.com/20/85-95

He said, "I saw what they did not see, so I took a handful [of dust] from the track of the messenger and threw it, and thus did my soul entice me." Q20:96

above is another clear proof. samiri was asked a question and above was his answer. or are you too blind to see that?

[Moses] said, "Then go. And indeed, it is [decreed] for you in [this] life to say, 'No contact.' And indeed, you have an appointment [in the Hereafter] you will not fail to keep. And look at your 'god' to which you remained devoted. We will surely burn it and blow it into the sea with a blast. Q20:97

still referring to samiri above clearly shows you that samiri is a person.





if you need further clarification on who samiri was, kindly make a little more research on who was samiri during "prophet moses (Musa A.s). please stop misleading people on cheap lies.

Nonsense !!!

What did you explain now ?

Are you saying Samiri is not Samaritan ?

Please note that other muslims here have admitted that that Samiri is Samaritan.

If to you Samiri is not Samaritan, who was he (with proofs)?

Numerical contradictions

There are many numerical contradictions in the Quran. Can God make so much error in doing simple calculations?

How many days did it take to create Heavens and Earth ?

Quran 7: 54 Your gurdian-Lord is Allah who created the heavens and earth in Six Days

Quran 10: 3 Verily your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and earth in Six Days

Quran 11:7 He it is Who created the heavens and earth in Six Days

Quran-25:29: He Who created the heavens and earth and all that is between, in Six Days

The above verses clearly state that Allah created the heaven and the Earth in 6 days. But the verses below state:

Quran 41: 9 Is it that ye deny Him who created the earth in Two Days ?

Quran 41: 10 He set on the (earth) Mountains standing firm high above it, and bestowed blessing on the earth, and measured therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in FOUR DAYS…

Quran 41: 12 So He completed them (heavens) as seven firmaments in Two days and …

Now do the math: 2(for earth) + 4(for nourishment) + 2 (for heavens) = 8 days; and not 6 days

Nadheer15:
Low self-esteem, don't be scared, I won't crush yo



Here's the verse in Hebrew:
https://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/sam3.gif

The bible uses shomronim(Samarian), this is different from shamerin(Samaritan). So you're getting it twisted!



Samaritan means 'keepers" or "observers" while Samarian means an "inhabitant of Samaria". There's a difference between the two and your bible translated rubbish!



You haven't proved the Prophet Muhammad(SAW) to be wrong, you're just guessing and fooling around. Prove him wrong boy!

Trash !!!

Do you understand Hebrew?

You want to claim you know Hebrew more than the translators of the Bible. Nonsense.

Now, in that Hebrew writing you copied from an islamic site, pinpoint the word "Samarian",with proof by mentioning the alphabet.