₦airaland Forum

Sweetnecta:
All our arrogance, our wit and more shall vanish on that Day. only the Truth of God that He is Alone shall be the Reality.

Don't worry - all your arrogance and wit and more ( _ _ _ _ fill in the gaps) have all vanished. Wake up tomorrow and look for new things to steal from Jews.

abubello:
Wordtalk
Please wich sect of christianity prostrate to God as done by all the prophets mentioned in the post, please tell me because i have never seen any christian prostrate to God in my life.

If you have never seen any Christian prostrate, it does not mean that no Christian ever does so in worship. That is why I posted those links for you to see for yourself.

Where did you get "bowing down" from certainly not from the post.

This is now ridiculous. Are you the only person on the face of the earth who does not know that to 'bow down' is the same as 'bowing down' as well as the same with 'prostrate'? If bowing down has a different meaning from 'prostrate', please show me the difference and I will take you up on that.

we are talking of prostration to God with your forehead to the ground you are claiming that christians also bow down, these are two different thing and you know it.

What is the difference, dude? Psalm 95:6 says: "O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the LORD our maker." If there is a huge difference between 'bow down' and 'prostrate', please show me where in your own quotes you find the word 'prostrate'  --

abubello:
1) JESUS
" and he went a little farther and fell on his face and prayed,”
(Matthew 26:39)

2) MOSES AND AARON:
"then Moses and Aaron went away from the assaembly to the entrance of the tent and fell on their faces, "
(numbers 20:6)

3) ABRAHAM
"And Abram fell on his face,
(Genesis 17:3)

4) JOSHUA
", and Joshua fell on his face to the earth and did worship, "
(Joshua 5:14)

Why didn't you use the word 'prostrate'? I think you're just complaining and making absolutely no sense at all.

You said formality is not important, well apparently your beleif is different from those of Jesus, Abraham, Moses and Joshua as they all did what you chose to call formality

Red herring! Christian worship is not a matter of the formality of knocking the head on the ground with kettle by your side, while mumbling 'alahu akbar' from empty heads and twice-emptied hearts like some muslims.

Jesus said: 'we worship what we know' (John 4:24); but Muhammad said: "I shall never worship that which ye worship" (Quran 109:4). This is why muslims should stop trying to steal everything out of the Bible - steal Jewish prophets, steal Jewish history, steal Biblical miracles, steal verses out of the Bible to fill gaps for your lost injil . . . steal everything - and blame the Jews for your lose! It is okay to go and worship whatever Muhammad wants to worship; but stop trying to look for something to steal from the Jews to add to the 99 names of allah.

Sweetnecta:
a white Muslim answering you;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZQqt3OAMNw&NR=1&feature=fvwp

a jewish rabbi describing you;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMi_-xqhBYw&feature=related

non muslim talking to you about the prophet [as];
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqzoF_zMX_A&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Haha!! You this sweetneck, please tell me: which one of those dramatists in the youtube vids above ever mentioned "wordtalk"?

abubello:
Now the issue is all the prophets mentioned prostrate to God how come christians dont prostrate to God?

1. It is not true that Christians don't prostrate to God - check carefully and you will find a lot of them that bow donw during worship. It is not a question of formality, but bowing down is a matter of the heart of the worshipper. See the following for pictures, if you care: here and here.

2. It is not only bowing down that you find in the worship of Jewish and Christian worshippers. Some worship included acts such as to rise up - 'all the people rose up and worshipped' (Exodus 33:10). Christians are not stuck to a rigid mode and have various ways of worshipping God.

3.  More to the point is that Jewish and Christian worshippers are not muslims, have never been, and nobody can confuse them for muslims.

abubello:
frosbell, wordtalk etc, kindly address the real issue: that you don't worship God in the same manner Jesus and other prophets of God did. If you worship God differently from Abraham , Moses , Jesus, Joshua etc certainly you need to explain why. Address the isssue please and stop derailing the thread

Ah, mazaje took it right out of my mouth -

mazaje:
Where in the bible does it say that the people you mentioned worshiped their God the same way the muslims do? Where does the word Allah appear in the bible and which among the people you mentioned says Allahu akbar when praying to their God?. . .Some Hindus and Buddhist also bow down while praying to their own Gods, so what exactly are you saying?. . . .

mazaje:
Even though I find it completely ridiculous that muslims hold such beliefs, christians need to understand that muslims come into the argument with the very strong belief that the Koran is the word of Allah and is completely true. . . .Since it is written in the Koran then they believe it must be true. . . .

There's no argument here that makes a strong case for the muslim in this case. This is not about whether they hold the Koran to be true, false, or lost altogether. This is about a most dubious claim that the OP is trying to make out of the Bible rather than from out of the Quran. If they want to make their argument based on the Quran, one should expect at the very least that they would be quoting their Koran.

abubello:
Wordtalk, i 've read your comments on prostration by the Sikhs and Jains. I must confess i know little about these groups but I know the Qur'an teaches that Messengers were sent to all communities; Qur'an 16:36 . .

Abubello, I like the tone in your rejoinder. You may not believe in Christianity, but that's okay. What I find quite outof joint is the claim that all prophets were muslims simply because you find references to people bowing down. That is not an intelligent argument - since there are many references of people of other religions doing the same: and yet they are not muslims, never have been muslims, and do not derive their religions from Islam. That is the whole point.

If the sikhs and the jains still prostrate, it means they must have retained some aspect of the teachings of the prophets sent to them and corrupted some aspect ove the centuries.

Let's just say that is what you want to believe, which is a different thing from reality. Do you have any solid evidence outside the Quran that the allah of Islam actualy sent any prophets to the Sikhs or Jains? Do you have any seriously solid sources (sss) to show that Jainism or Sikhism were drawn from Islam?

There's no ground you can stand on to make a claim of corruption in other people's religions so that you can feel better about Islam. Since islam is a late arriver on the religious landscape, what would be your reaction when the Sikhs or Jains show you how corrupt your prophet was or how muslims today have so corrupted original islam to the point that your religion is split into no less than 72 sects with everyone holding fundamentally different believes under the umbrella of islam?

There's hardly any religion today that has survived intact without some mode of developmental changes. What is important here is that the muslim claim charge of 'corruption' in other people's religion is unfounded, as long as muslims fail to see how wrangled their own belief system is.

According to you one of the names of God mentioned by Moses is ‘I AM”, Did Moses really said that or you took the liberty to translate into English because Im not sure Moses spoke English.

I have no problem whatsoever with translating documents from one language to another in order to aid better understanding. If you have a problem with translating texts, then you cannot argue anything from Islam on this forum. Why? Because most muslim translators assert that the Quran cannot be translated into another language!

Even if we do not allow for translations between langauges, please show me where allah is ever called by the same Hebrew names that Moses used for God. Pick any one - Yahweh, I AM, Jehovah, El Shaddai, Elohim, . . . which one appears in the arabic Quran? Allah is said to have 99 names, so WHICH ONE of those names is excatly as Moses used in his treaching in Hebrew?

If it is a translation it is wrong because you don’t translate a proper name.

Fine. Then please tell me why most muslims try to translate the name 'allah' since they say that 'Allah' is the proper name of the god worshipped in Islam.

I don't think your double standard here is worth any consideration.

toba:
sweetnecta i dont think u read very well what wordtalk was saying in his post

Leave him alone: he doesn't read at all - talkless of read well.

PS. I haven't forgotten you - I'll send you a mail sometime soonest.

Sweetnecta:
This freak is dumber than dumb.

You have a fine way of describing yourself.

And Moses was told by the One Who sent him, tell the children of Israel that 'I AM' sent you. This I AM did not call Himself; Father of any one. The disbelievers made things up parade it as reality. We do know better because Allah answered you and exposed your lies.

Okay, show me where Allah is ever called 'I AM' in the Quran. Please don't come back to play Abu Bakr Shuaib or play anything. Just show me where 'Allah = I AM'. End of.

I guess the jews, the first liars are truly liars because they use Yahweh for Him Who called Himself I AM instead of a proper and personal name.

In that case leave them alone. If they are liars, why are muslims desperate to steal almost everything from the Jews? You steal the Jewish prophets to patch up Islam; you steal Biblical miracles to patch up Islam (oh, I almost forgot that Muhammad did not perform ANY miracle!); you also steal from the Bible to augment for your lost Injil - what is it left from all your stealing? And then you have the nerve to call the Jews liars? What did the Jews steal from Islam, tell me?

The messiah has a proper and personal name; Jesus.

Great! Nobody has argued against that, so pass.

Jesus is truly more wrong that the jews because it is Eloi that the bible record from his lips. Jehovah, instead of I AM? Dishonesty of the highest grade.

Okay, 'Eloi - Jehovah - I AM' . . . which one of these names for God is used for Allah in the 99 names of your god? Where did the Quran use any of those names for Allah? Use any language in Arabic dialect you like - Quraish, Hassānīya, Dhofari, Shihhi or Bedawa - as long as you don't try to steal from those you accused as the first liars, please use any of the Arabic dialects you know to show us where in the Quran allah is ever called Eloi or Jehovah or I AM, afterall Muhammad gave 99 different names to allah, innit?

no jew who is a true jew worships Trinity; Jesus, Ghost and Jehovah. The jews are scared of meaning God's Name. Jesus came close to Muslim Allah by the Eloi or a variant of it. Definitely no one can formulate Yahweh, Jehovah or I AM from what Jesus on the cross is God.

Red herring. Leave other people's religion alone and stop stealing from them. Turn to your own Quran in any arabic dialect and show us where Muhammad referred to allah as Eloi, Jehovah or I AM. I know that Jesus used 'FATHER', and that one is a nightmare for muslims - so please again: don't play Abu Bakr Shuaib on this matter. Just don't play anything.

Jesus in defending his mother said, i am a servant of Allah, His Messenger and He has given me a book,

Please shut up. Jesus did not come with any book, and I don't fancy another 'Abu Bakr' tales this afternoon. These is how you guys go about formatting and formulating and re-formulating until you start foaming all over the place! After all the claims of 'a book', muslims will come back to shout from the minaret that they have lost their own injil! Yes, blame it on the Jews!

Faking intelligence all leave gaps for people to see that it empty, weak, useless.

As you have done, right? Nicely put. Now, please throw the Abu Bakr tunic aside, sit on your mat with your kettle nearby and say something intelligent for once!

my father was born in nigeria and he was the husband of my mother.

That's probably the most intelligent argument you have made so far.
And no, you didn't steal that from the Jews - so top marks!

those who claim God as their father do not see lies in what they claim, because in reality, their fathers are husbands of their mother and clearly God is the Creator of all.

Ah, yes. . . I read somewhere that muslims also regard allah as 'time'. Now, where is my dictionary of idiomatic expressions . . . suppose I opened to that page that says: "Procrastination is the thief of time" . . . perhaps now you'd be contacting those who blew up the UN in Abuja, no?

Edited for spelling:

vedaxcool:
all prophets a s r muslims because dey worshippd one God. Even jesus a s worshippd 1 God excluding d holy ghost an errand boy whose identitx remains unknown by christians no Jewish prophet worshippd d paganistic trinity which d followers of paul inventd. JEWISh prophet r muslims because they upheld lot of customs common to muslims like nt eating pork, bowing to 1 God, reject d display and worship of images etc Islam remains d genueine continuation of judaism and d ways of jesus which didnt abolish d law. How clear Allah makes guidiance to those berift of it.

^^ The vernacular of folks like you is irrationality. When you can't deal with an issue, then you hyperventilate. Nice.
On the whole, Quran 109 is clear - Muhammad did not worship the same God as Jews and Christians. That is why you guys are desperate to always - yes, ALWAYS - run to the Bible to fill up the gaps for your islam.

abubello:
Did Jesus and the other prophets prostrate to God or not (Just like muslims do everyday).

Prostrating or bowing down alone does not define who or what is a muslim. Like I said above, worship is identified by deeper issues - such as the One who is addressed in worship as well as the expressions used by the worshippers.

On the basis of those premises, we can know that none of the Biblical prophets were muslims. Here are the reasons:

WHO WAS BEING ADDRESSED?

(a) The Biblical prophets know God as 'FATHER' (Deut. 32:6; Isaiah 63:16) - but in Islam, allah is never confessed as 'Father'.

(b) The Biblical prophets use a personal name for God - 'Jehovah'. This is often translated in English Bibles as 'LORD', as in Psalm 95:6 - 'O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the LORD our maker.' Yet, Allah is not known as Jehovah in Islam.

As a matter of fact, while many muslims claim that they are worshipping the same God as the Jews and Christians worship, it was Muhammad himself who said in the Quran that muslims do not worship the same God (see Quran 109).

If you want to claim that all the prophets were muslims because of the one factor of bowing down, then you would as well have to claim that Islam worships Allah as 'FATHER'. Please show us a single verse where Allah is ever addressed as 'Father' in the Quran.

abubello:
From the above it is very clear that all the people mentioned above are muslims.

'On entering a Gurdwara, Sikhs will bow to the Guru Granth Sahib as the first thing they do, touching the floor with their forehead.' - Does this make them muslims too?

'I bow down to those who have reached omniscience in the flesh and teach the road to everlasting life in the liberated state' - one of the five daily prayers (Namaskara Sutra) in Jainism. Does this make the Jains to be muslims too?

People of all backgrounds have worshipped in different religions in more or less similar body postures and gestures - including standing up, bowing down, sitting down, kneeling, folding or raising and spreading out the hands, or leaning unto something. Although bowing down is found in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Jainism and several other religions, that act does not make the worshippers to be adherents of one and the same religion.

Worship is far more than body postures: it involves the One who is addressed in worship as well as the expressions used by the worshippers. These two premises (among several others) are the basic issues that identify the religion of a particular worshipper.

One cannot therefore draw hasty conclusions on only one factor (e.g., bowing down) as the basis for claiming that all the prophets were muslims. That is like saying that all drinkers of coffee are Brazilians!

garyarnold:
wordtalk needs to get a refund for whatever class in accounting he/she took.

I didn't take classes from you, so why's my view biting you?

I don't feel my teaching or position is at all threatened. So far today, my free book has been downloaded 26 times. I get email often from pastors, other ministers, Bible-study students, etc. who thank me for my truthful and accurate teaching. I need no endorsement from such losers as wordtalk.

Oh, poor you. You came back only to advertise your self-praise! Nice.
After all your complaints, you only managed to sling mud but showed nothing for your fallacies? Wheesht!

1. Don't try to tithe or even 'give' if it makes you feel guilty in any way.

2. Don't try to tithe or even 'give' as a formula for obtaining salvation.

3. Don't try to tithe or even 'give' in order to seek crowd approval.

garyarnold:
wordtalk must believe that the Israelite farmers tithed on their original crops and animals, and then again tithed on the proceeds they got when they sold the crops and animals.

Please quote me directly rather than try to advertise your blatant lies. What you're forcing into my comments do not appear in a single line. So show me where I made any such statement of a 'belief' you're carving for yourself in order to put into my post.

Now that does create a problem.

That's your own problem not mine. This is the thing about you and your folks - you make false claims, build strawmen that do not appear in other people's posts, and then attempt to knock them down as if that is what the other person has said! That is not just plain dishonest, but a very illiterate approach to rational discourses that appeals to irrational folks.

Since every tenth animal had to be set aside for the tithe, only the ones left could be sold, so now I guess wordtalk thinks that every tenth animal plus a tenth of the proceeds of the sale are the tithe.

Another red herring and a flat out lie! Continue.

wordtalk has no common sense.

I'm quite used to your use of such as your first-aid, so what's new?

wordtalk isn't even capable of taking a solid position on voluntary tithing.

I did - the difference is that I don't argue voluntary tithes on your caviling premise.

Just leaves it up to everyone to decide for themselves.

True - and no one has complained about that. I do not hold any authoritative hammer over anyone; that is why I share my views and let others draw what is helpful to them from such views. Holding everyone to your narrow view is not the same thing as allowing them the choice of a voluntary exercise.

Reminds me of someone who wants no one to tell them what to do, and he/she will tell no one what to do.

False analogy. I have shared what I do, also made clear that I learn from others; and yet I do not try to force my views on ANYONE! Try another red herring!

Not much of a teacher. In fact, not a teacher at all.

I did not claim any official status - if you're hungry for crowd approval, you will harvest loads of applause here and eslewhere. I'm not seeking your honour, so don't feel threatened.

PLEASE, those following this blog, take the time to study what has been said, and then compare it with scripture. TAKE A STAND. God lets us make our own choices, but we will be held accountable for them.

If you truly believe that God let's people make their own choices, why are you trying to force your own views on others? Why not be satisfied with letting others choose instead of shouting as if your career is all of sudden threatened?

In order to be a good steward, you must know what is being done with the money you give to the church. Don't just give it and say it is out of your hands. That is being a poor steward.

Let people choose to do what they will - refrain from setting up your narrow prerequisites for anyone. I don't imagine any reader being so infantile that they can't reason for themselves and need you to be their PAS in stewardship.

Try to be a good steward of 100% of what God gives to you. Don't fall for false religious doctrines. Give from the heart with NO expectation of getting anything back.

Hmm, mr teacher. . . does the Bible not teach us to actually expect blessings from our giving? What does Luke 6:38 teach for example?

IF you expect something back, it doesn't even meet the definition of a gift.

Hmm, this is how you set up your own fallacious "definitions" all over the place. If you're challenged on them, you begin to see the devil in other people's thinking processes.

garyarnold:
Have to reply to that wrong answer.

You really can't get over yourself, can you? I thought you just complained that you're done with wordtalk?

IF the crops and animals were INCOME, then what do you call the proceeds when the Israelites SOLD and/or barter exchanged their crops and animals? MORE INCOME?

Yes. Surprised? I can imagine. The problem with your mentality is that you only know of one level of 'income'. What you may not realise is that income is not linear but occurs in various ways - it is not restricted to what you obtain in monetray terms, it goes beyond that.

Afterall, you did say a while back that: "Just like the word income describes what you get when you work for wages", and wages among the Biblical peoples occur in various forms as well.

You show a total lack of understanding of what income is.

Is that why you have never been able to show any verse for your "asset"?

GOODBYE.

I won't miss a dot of you.

garyarnold:
I'm done with you wordtalk. You think you know more than those who translated to the KJV. THEY didn't select the word INCOME, but rather INCREASE, and only in Deut., NOT in Leviticus 27:30-33 where God defined His tithe as crops and animals.

I never claimed to know more than anybody. The KJV may not have used the word 'income', but I don't know as yet any other hebrew word than 'tebuah' (תּבוּאה) which is the same as the 'increase'.

And no, the word 'increase' translating the hebrew word 'tebuah' is not "only in Deut" - unless you have not read your Bible carefully enough. The same word is used in Numbers 18:30 as well. The word 'increase' may not appear in Leviticus 27:30-33 - but it does not contradict the other passages in Numbers and Deuteronomy.

You lack knowledge and I can no longer debate with a know-it-all who actually has shown that he/she knows no where near what he/she thinks he/she knows.

I do not know it all; but I know enough to not allow folks like you cheat with pedantic and legalistic arguments which you cannot show from Scripture.

I don't hide behind a name. You change yours frequently, and use different names on different blogs. You hide. I am out in the open.

That takes away nothing from the body of my arguments. Complaining like that is simply the weakness of a jingoist who resorts to argumenttative fallacies.

You remind me of the Pharisees. We will NEVER agree. I honestly believe the devil has taken over your thinking process. May God help you.

Nice. I'll remember that!

I hope those reading this blog can see through your dishonest double standards. May God help you.

Your accusing me falsely reminds me of Proverbs 10:18. If that fits you, you're welcome to continue with the slanders.

garyarnold:
And YOU, wordtalk, are using a man-made definition of tithing.

Oh dear! Relax. I am not a religious hermit or fundy who seeks only definitions that are narrow and calcified. The definitions I have used thus far are those which even your 'scholars' use - nothing new there. If you have another definition that 'scholars' use, please share them with us.

Just look in a modern-day dictionary for the definition of tithe and then compare it with what you teach. Look in a modern-day dictionary for the definition of the word income and compare it to what you teach.

As far as definitions go, there is nothing that has changed in the definition of the word tithe. This phenomenon did not originate in Judaism among the Jews - it has a history far predating them. So, if the "definition" no longer has the one we all know, please show us what it was defined as from its etymology an let's compare notes.

IF the crops and animals were NOT assets, just what were they, wordtalk? Please tell me.

INCOME. In hebrew, tebuah (תּבוּאה).

In the same format, please show us the hebrew word for ASSET.

garyarnold:
I see you have avoided commenting on post #25.

I could comment on it IF you want. The one thing I don't like to do is repeat myself on matters I have already dealt with. There's nothing new in your argument in #25, since your main point was this - "Tithing was never on income or GAIN". That is the same thing I have commented on and left you 3 simple questions that you have categorically evaded:

wordtalk:
Anytime you get off your high horse, just peep over here.

Gary, there would be no need for the back and forth. The one thing I see you doing is try to deliberately cheat unequivocally - and that's why I can't let you harangue others for their choice of an appropriate term (income) when yours (asset) is not likely to make sense here except to weaken your arguments.

Anyways. . .

garyarnold:
The word asset is not in any version that I have checked, but neither does many descriptive words we use appear in any version of the Bible.

Not so. The descriptive words such as INCOME appear in connection with the tithes - the Hebrew word TEBUAH is one that is commonly used to express income, and that presents no problem for many people. I have not made that the "ONLY" term to be used in tithing - but it would help to understand that "tebuah" is commonly understood as the expression for income. Again, I did not say anywhere that tithes were from 'ALL' incomes of Israel - but the point is simply that when you look up 'tebuah', it is not difficult to see that is one of the most commonly occuring words in connection with the tithes, as it is the one word I know for now that describes income.

If you know any Hebrew word defined as "asset" in those tithing verses, please share. I will consider and am open to reason with you. You cannot just plaster an assertion like that and run away with it. At least, I remember where you once said something like "an asset is an asset" - and that is surprising for someone who boast a career in accounting! I'm not an accountant, never claimed I was - but even having taken the course as an elective, I know for fact that financiers and accountants do not make such a blatant assertion!

This is why you would need to reason with people, rather than try to argue legalistically and then arrive nowhere. I also said I could help you make a reasonable argument on "assets", but that is only on the basis that we cannot assert that 'an asset is an asset'.

You use versions of the Bible to show that income was tithed on, but use version not recognized by any Bible scholar.

The versions I have used are recognized by scholars - unless those whom you describe as 'scholars' are unknown to theologians in established institutions.  

Snowwy:
@wordtalk,
its uncalled for to start using such words, please people are meant to learn from what is posted.

Noted, thanks.

garyarnold:
I don't think you even have a clue as to what I am saying or you wouldn't have answered with the above.  Of course money is an asset.  Did I say that ALL assets were tithable?  I merely said that crops and animals ARE assets, BY DEFINITION.  If you don't agree, you need to take another accounting class.

Dunce! What did you read in my rejoinder? Did the word ETYMOLOGY escape you? The crops and animals were NOT assets - unless you are begging to cheat by using dribbling all this under a contemporary usage (aka, your "man-made-definition". Cheat again!

garyarnold:
They were not assets - otherwise you would have found the verse in your KJV that uses that word expressly!

Then Abraham was not human - otherwise you would have found a verse in the KJV that uses that word expressly!

Is the KJV the ONLY English version that Christians read?

Dude, I'm not fastidious about these matters, so you can't hang me on the KJV. Consult other versions where you will find both HUMAN and INCOME.

Now please sir, where in any of those versions do you find ASSET?

garyarnold:
Please stop this nonsense! There's no way you can dribble the word "income" into ANY VERSE of the KJV! Period. You've been peddling that grub for eons and it's just about time you retired it.

Lol, when you run out of gas, you steal words from me to bandage your career of anti-tithing arguments.  
Dude, I have shown what Hebrew word conveys several meanings INCLUDING the word INCOME - see it here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-739830.0.html#msg8970086  

I've asked you 3 simple questions about INCOME and ASSET - you NEVER once were able to answer or try. I don't want to be responsible for an ambulance call for you, so I won't repeat them here. Anytime you get off your high horse, just peep over here.

garyarnold:
The word MONEY does appear in the KJV, many times.  Yet the ONLY times it is used in reference to the tithe is for REDEEMING the tithe and for selling the tithe for money and taking the money and then buy back the food with that money.  With all the times money is mentioned in the KJV, it is NEVER mentioned AS the tithe.

Did I argue anywhere that money was never used in reference to tithe? What is this desperate lecture you're attempting now? Please pass over or keel.

garyarnold:
@wordtalk,

The word human does not appear in the KJV of the Bible.  Does that mean that Jesus was not on this earth in human form?  Was Abraham human?

Certainly, you've done some check and I'm happy about that. Although the KJV appears not to have used the word 'human', it does appear in other English versions of the Bible, doesn't it? For instance, the GoodNews Bible (GNB), Literal Translation of the Bible (LITV), God's WORD version (GW), Young's Literal Translation (YLT), English Standard Version (ESV) and the New International Version (NIV) all have the word 'human'. in various verses.

The (GNB) says in Genesis 1:26 - "Then God said, "And now we will make human beings"; as well in 1 John 4:2 you find these words: "Jesus Christ came as a human being" (GNB). There are also "human nature" (Rom. 8:4), "human voices" (Rev. 18:22), "human origin" (Acts 5:38), "human approval" (John 12:43) etc. all in those versions.

HOWEVER, while some of those versions actually use the word INCOME in various places, NONE OF THOSE CITED VERSIONS CARRY THE WORD 'ASSET'! Your beloved KJV would no doubt have used the same "asset" you've been bandying around if you have any substance to your arguments.

The word assets is a description of the items tithed.  Just like the word income describes what you get when you work for wages.  They are descriptive words.

Sorry, the word "asset" is too broad a term to be used as descriptive for their tithes UNLESS you're begging us to allow you cheat along these lines. Is that not why neither your KJV nor any of those cited versions use the word "asset"? Besides, if INCOME does not serve the same purpose because you're having nightmares of tithes from money, then it might interest you to know that the word "asset" from its etymology involves and includes MONEY. Don't even try to cheat further by dribbling in some "man-made-definition" here to deny the fact.

I use the word ASSETS to DESCRIBE what the crops and animals were.  They were NOT income.

Sorry sir, but your use of those words are in the category of the "man-made definitions" you decry in other people's dicta! bring a Biblical definition - point out the verse, let us check the word for ourselves in the original languages and see where you find the word "asset". It just doesn't exist in what you're trying to dribble in there.

I am willing to allow you the use of that word IF you can also learn to allow people the use of the more appropriate term INCOME. I could even help you contextualize the word ASSET to make very good meaning for your argument - trust me. But you just want to overwhelm readers with the fallacy of your own narrow definitions and descriptions in order to prevent them fro using a more appropriate Biblical term

They were assets.  Plain and simple.  Not complicated except for those who wear blinders.

They were not assets - otherwise you would have found the verse in your KJV that uses that word expressly!  

Zikkyy:
lets even ignore the income bit for now, lev 27:30-32 does not even define tithe as a tenth

Leviticus 27:30-32 actually defines tithe as a tenth - it is the same basic definition that word carries all through Scripture.

cash paying 'tithers' don't pay 10%, THEY PAY 12%

And so, shall we conclude that 12% defines the word 'tithe' for you?

garyarnold:
VERY CLEAR. The tithe is on crops and animals which happen to be assets, not income.

Please stop this nonsense! There's no way you can dribble the word "asset" into ANY VERSE of the KJV! Period. You've been peddling that grub for eons and it's just about time you retired it.

vedaxcool:
Falsehood by its nature is bound to fade.

Yes, that is why yours is losing colour by the second!

vedaxcool:
I can decipher what exactly? or  has all that had been post eluded you? it seems the Holy Gaul functions in Christendom is to cover the eyes of the adherents from seeing facts.

You can't decipher nothing since the conundrum of Mary the "sister of" Aaron in the Quran remains a mystery to you. Try again!

Re editing your lie again? 

Do you know the meaning of "re editing"? What has changed in that quote from my earlier statement? This is where I quoted from: ( click here - post #5). Please quote that part and show what I have "re edited" between the two!

Again I quote them for you:
'Besides all this, it is not Arabic or Islamic culture during Mohammad's time to address people of different generations as "sister of"  or "brother of" - even where you think they did, the speaker would have left some explanation.'

I am aware of the use of such relationships that is why I said plainly that "even where you think they did, the speaker would have left some explanation". There are plenty of hadiths where such relationships are used, and it is in the hadiths that the speaker himself explains what he means. Let me give you an example from the very hadith even YOU have cited -

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 651:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "I am the nearest of all the people to the son of Mary, and all the prophets are paternal brothers, and there has been no prophet between me and him (i.e. Jesus)."

Like I said, even where such relationships are used, the speaker himself explains what he means - and that hadith ^^ concerning 'paternal brothers' is explained by the speaker himself (Muhammad) in other hadiths. Consider the following -

Sahih Muslim Book 030, Number 5836:

Abu Huraira reported many ahadith from Allah's Messenger (pbuh) and one is that Allah's Messenger (pbuh) said: I am most close to Jesus, son of Mary, among the whole of mankind in this worldly life and the next life. They said: Allah's Messenger how is it? Thereupon he said: Prophets are brothers in faith, having different mothers. Their religion is, however, one and there is no Apostle between us (between I and Jesus Christ).

You will also find an explanation in Number 5834 and 5835. As used in the earlier quote, "paternal brothers" is explained by the speaker himself in these other hadiths.


However, when it comes to Quran 19:28, what was Muhammad's explanation for Mary the mother of Jesus being called the "sister of" Aaron? Muhammad did not offer the same explanation! Rather he confused both himself, his community/communities (I hear they are divided now into more than 72!), and many of the Islamic mutilators of that verse! That is the one reason why you guys are taking galactic leaps between opinions and yet finding no explanation to that verse!

Did Muhammad "explain" that Mary as the "sister of" Aaron was a matter of brotherhood in one religion? NO!

Does the Quran offer that explanation? NO!

Do Muslim mutilators commentators find an explanation in the Quran for that verse? NO.

What is the best they can give to "explain" that verse? TOMES ΟF EXCUSES and REPETITIVE FALLACIES!

Not every body can understand simple English talk less of idioms!

I absolutely agree and feel sorry for you!! That is why you have never understood them! And that is why you keep running to people who don't understand them, like Islamic Awareness!!

In the Bible, Elizabeth was called daughters of Aaron(P). Was she literally a daughter of Aaron?

Repeating your fallacies is not first-aid for your redundacies!

The Bible never calls Elizabeth "the daughter[b]s[/b]" (plural) of anybody. The only people struggling to force that into Luke 1:5 are the same folks who do not understand English - Islamic Awareness again!

In English, "OF the daughters of" is simply describing ancestry. To say that somebody is "of the daughters of" another is not the same thing as calling that person "daughters of" that prson.

What you are doing is removing the first two words ("OF THE" so you can cheat by repeating your fallacies. Elizabeth was "OF THE daughters of" Aaron - she belongs to that lineage, but she (singular) is not called "the daughters" (plural). That is why other easier-to-understand English versions are available to help you grasp this simple expression (BBE, CEV, GW, ISV, ERV).

Of course, like you have shown, English is beyond your reach - little wonder that you often make yourself the casuality of Islamic Awareness!

So also is the simple statement Sister of Aaron has been made clear for the Talkers of Vanity to understand. But we know Mediocres can hardly rise above a certain level of intellectual engagement.

Yep - the 'talkers of vanity' have always run to Islamic Awareness, that is why you still end up confused and can hardly rise above their intellectual excreta! 

Mary in your Quran 19:28 is not described as "OF THE sisters of" Aaron - it clearly calls Mary "sister" of Aaron. That is an unmitigated fallacy where none of your desperate mutilators have been able to successfully disguise as an "idiomatic expression".

oh really! You need classes in answering questions coherently.

Oh shut up already!
Do you not have eyes and brains to see and understand that those chaps were short-changing you? Neither Quran 11 nor Quran 15 shows that Lot was referring to a so-called "women-folk" of anybody's community! The claim of "idiomatic expression" for Lot's actual daughters in those passages is a shark lie! Try another hat-trick!

ogajim:
Share more information with us if you have them as we can't see everything and not claiming to.

I don't have first-hand info. Those I am aware of are from second-hand sources. There are quite a number of African missionaries, evangelists, and church planters working in those places you highlighted. Some of them are said to be involved in deep controversies - others we may not know much about.

ogajim:
Why aren't they trying to convert folks in China, Eastern Europe, or the Muslim World?

^^

African Initiated Christianity in Eastern Europe:
Church of the "Embassy of God" in Ukraine

For an African Christian missionary to draw into a single church more than 20,000 eastern Europeans at the turn of the twenty-first century is a phenomenon that may well be interpreted best in the light of the promise of Jesus that those who listen to him and follow obediently will do "greater works".

http://www.strategicnetwork.org/pdf/kb20185.pdf

African Missionaries Take Religion to the West

"Maybe as African missionaries we can encourage them to be more exuberant about knowing God," said the priest, who worked in Mombasa before moving to England, which he had never visited before. African churchmen first started moving to Europe and the United States in the 1970s to minister to immigrants mostly from their own countries. But in the 1980s, African evangelicals -- including some Anglicans, Baptists, Lutherans and Methodists -- decided to take a more systematic approach toward reaching what they saw as an increasingly godless West. . . .

Nigerian pastor Sunday Adelaja pioneered the independent Embassy of God church in Ukraine, delivering rousing sermons and dancing in the aisles to some 25,000 mostly white members, making it one of Europe's biggest churches.

http://www.churchshift.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=70:african-missionaries-take-religion-to-the-west&catid=39:press-room&Itemid=60

vedaxcool:
I see no conundrum in referring mary as Sister of aaron,

Since you have not been able to decipher it direct from the Quran, it remains a conundrum - your excuses notwithstanding.

. . as first you lied by saying Muslims do not refer to people centuries apart as being Sisters or brother,

Red herring!
This is what I said: "Besides all this, it is not Arabic or Islamic culture during Mohammad's time to address people of different generations as "sister of"  or "brother of"

. . . then I added: "even where you think they did, the speaker would have left some explanation."

There is a world of difference between these two:

                 (a)  Sisters
                 (b) "sister of"

I already said that "we know of connections and relationships with expressions such as father, mother, son, daughter, in-laws, brother, brethren, family and house/household. Both the Bible and the Quran use most of these expressions in various places and nobody is in doubt as to what is meant."

Since you don't know the difference between (a) and (b) above, it remains a mystery to you - that is why you're trying ever so hard to cover up for "Islamic Awareness" by confusing the two! Most muslims (like LagosShia) already conclude that "INDEED" Mary the mother of Jesus, and Moses and Aaron were born by the same parents - that has been their thinking. Even Muhammad did not know, and that is why he could not offer any decent explanation that made sense.

This is why you had no excuse to cover up for the "idiomatic expression" posted by Islamic Awareness for Lot's daughters. We all know that was NO IDIOMATIC EXPRESSION. When you're caught sitting on your hands, you won't say a dot on such things, since that is not what your Quran says.

. .  if you like accept the simple fact or refute but rpeating the same question over and over again will only bring one result REPEATING THE ANSWER OVER AND OVER AGAIN!

You are only repeating your excuses - such behaviour is called a "fallacy" in logical argumentations. 

In the Bible, Elizabeth was called daughters of Aaron(P). Was she literally a daughter of Aaron?

Are you not confused? How can one person be called "daughter[b]s[/b]" (plural)? Luke 1:5 says that she was "of the daughters" - which in simple terms is referring to the pedigree or ancestry. That verse does not say that Elizabeth was called "daughters of Aaron", so trying to use that as cover up for the Quran's calling Mary the "sister of" Aaron is just a blackhole!

This is the same Luke 1:5 in another simpler version of the Bible - "In the days of Herod, king of Judaea, there was a certain priest, by name Zacharias, of the order of Abijah; and he had a wife of the family of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth" (BBE - Bible in Basic English).

And another - "When Herod was king of Judea, there was a priest by the name of Zechariah from the priestly group of Abijah. His wife Elizabeth was from the family of Aaron." (CEV - Contemporary English Version)

And yet another - "During the time when Herod ruled Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah. He belonged to Abijah's group. His wife came from the family of Aaron. Her name was Elizabeth" (ERV - Easy-to-Read Version)

And this also - "When Herod was king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the division of priests named after Abijah. Zechariah's wife Elizabeth was a descendant of Aaron." (GW -  God'sWord version)

And oh, this as yet - "In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly order of Abijah. His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth." (ISV - International Standard Version)

All the above^^ are to simplify them for people like you. The fact is that Elizabeth was not called "daughters" (plural); rather the text says that she was "OF the daughters of" - showing her ancestry! The problem is that folks like you will quickly latch onto the excuses you read from sites like Islamic Awareness and end up making yourselves the casualties of other people's quantum ignorance!

It good that you are writting all these, as your response continue to show your utter lack of regard for contextual reading of anything.

Excuse me, there is no other "context" you can dribble into Quran 11 or Quran 15 for Lot's "daughters". Your mutilators from Islamic Awareness pretended that was an "idiomatic expression" whereas it is obvious that the passages were talking about Lot's actual daughters and NOT the so-called "women folk of" anybody's community!

^^
That up there is possibly taken from the Islamic Awareness site - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/mary.html

Still, it does not make any sense whatsoever as it is a prevarication of the conundrum of referring to Mary as the "sister of Aaron". I could as well repost a counter argument from Answering Islam site - http://answering-islam.org/Silas/mary.htm
Actually, this article clearly shows that the one at the Islamic Awareness site is all but an excuse. But then, rather than base my rejoinder on that, I have wondered that you did not touch important matters.

You see, we know of connections and relationships with expressions such as father, mother, son, daughter, in-laws, brother, brethren, family and house/household. Both the Bible and the Quran use most of these expressions in various places and nobody is in doubt as to what is meant.

But when Muhammad claimed that Mary is the "sister of Aaron", such an assertion raised eyebrows! Have you asked why? It is not because such expressions were familiar - quite the opposite, because if they were familiar and it was only intended to be figurative, nobody in Muhammad's day would have questioned that expression.

Even Muhammad's answer in Sahih Muslim to the question does not bear any weight - rather than tell his enquirer that the people were mistaken and he was rather quoting them, he excused the fallacy by saying that people of old age used to give names after the names of Apostle and pious persons! That is simply an excuse - for if that is what we should find, then Muhammad's answer would have caused more confusion, since giving names of Apostles would make people wonder why Mary was not called "Aaron"!! Mary's name was "MARY", and the same Mary the mother of Jesus was NOT "sister" of Aaron.

Look back at several answers given: LagosShia was arguing between two poles by asserting that INDEED Mary was sister to Moses and Aaron by the same parents! C'mon dude! Other Muslim commentators argue that it was "PROBABLY" not to be taken literally - by PROBABLY they are not even sure what Muhammad meant! The fact remains that the idiom is UNKNOWN and UNFAMILIAR to Arab culture in Muhammad's day.

The above verse has used the word ukhtun in the second sense. This is not unusual as the Qur'an uses the same idiomatic expression in several earlier verses. In chapter 11 verse 78, Prophet Lot refers to the women folk of his community as my daughters.

And his people came rushing towards him, and they had been long in the habit of practising abominations. He said: "O my people! Here are my daughters: they are purer for you (if ye marry)! Now fear Allah, and cover me not with shame about my guests! Is there not among you a single right-minded man?" [Qur'an 11:78]

Another red herring!
Lot was NOT referring to "the women folk of his community" - he was referring to his own DAUGHTERS, the very ones he had through his own wife! Read Quran 11 from verse 76 onwards. What M S M Saifullah, Muhammad Ghoniem & Mustafa Ahmed of "Islamic Awareness" were claiming as "idiomatic expression" in that passage is mere excuse. The fact remains that the passage was using the term "daughters" for Lot's own actual children and not about the women folk of anybody's community! Read also Quran 15:71 - Lot was talking about his own actuall daughters, not womenfolk of any community. Any sane person can see the plain meaning there!

Mary the mother of Jesus was not the "sister" of Aaron.