|
|
Post by enginterzi on Nov 3, 2010 3:18:02 GMT -5
86:7 human sperms originate from between the back and the ribs, which contradicts the science of embryology which stresses that sperms originate from the testicles. here is your answer Johnny (but please read carefully if you truly want to learn); www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showthread.php?t=2602 |
|
|
|
Post by enginterzi on Nov 3, 2010 9:06:50 GMT -5
4: 78, 79. Verse 78 says that all actions good or evil come from God while the verse 79 says that good comes from God while evil comes from humans, an obvious contradiction 4- 78. Wherever you are, death will overtake you, though you are in lofty towers, and if a benefit comes to them, they say: This is from Allah; and if a misfortune befalls them, they say: This is from you. Say: All is from Allah, but what is the matter with these people that they do not make approach to understanding what is told (them)? Johnny,GOD tests our obedience with hard times and that is what the verse above is about.the cause is by the permition of GOD but desicion to walk into this cause is ours. are harmful things created by GOD? yes ! everything is created by GOD.but does GOD tell us to commit harmful things or stay away from them? so, good and bad are created by same GOD,so they are from HIM but the desicion to choose between them comes from ourselves.we can not give credit to ourselves from the good things that happenned to us,we need to thank HIM for guiding us unto goodness so that is why goodness is HIS generosity while the sinning is our fault. so evil is allowed by HIM to test our obedience while the goodness is a gift from GOD. 79. Whatever benefit comes to you (O man!), it is from Allah, and whatever misfortune befalls you, it is from yourself, and We have sent you (O Prophet!), to mankind as a messenger; and Allah is sufficient as a witness. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on Nov 3, 2010 11:49:49 GMT -5
Devil is not from God in my opinion. Evil is merely the absence of good.
Yeah there is more ancient religions that have very smiliar and sometimes exactly the same stuff as my book or YOUR book have in it. Also the inconsistencies are in both. Do some research on Zoroaster and then compare about your books beliefs and mine. Keep in minde Zoroaster is more ancient than Jesus or your prophet. He was the first to write down about a supreme being.
His story states about him going on a journey to find the message of the gods. He finds that there are 2 the Lord of Light and the Prince of darkness, the Lord of light created everything and the Prince of Darnkess was at once an angel who got jealous etc........ starting to sound familiar. Do I believe this diproves what I believe no...... It merely reinforces my belief that God is older than writing....... I'll just leave my thoughts at that. You can't try an disprove one of my books by stating that it was based off of something else when you can clearly see the same stuff in Islam. Can't pick and choose which one to direct it at. Thats all i was making a point about. You have a good day my friend.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on Nov 3, 2010 11:52:14 GMT -5
God is one in the same you are correct but he can make himself flesh form so we are able to conceive some of his meanings. He loves us enough to where he came an walked as one of us. Who is to say he can't do what he pleases? God is beyond any book or thought or ideology we have on earth. He is beyond time itself we can't conceive that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on Nov 3, 2010 11:54:37 GMT -5
Most stuff in my religion or yours can be found to have seemingly been influenced by something that to us seems pagan. We weren't around at that time and God works in mysterious ways. His ways are unknown to us and the Devil is a trickster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on Nov 3, 2010 12:05:16 GMT -5
www.bible.ca/islam/islam-polytheism-moon-worship.htmThere are some examples of the paganism in Islam we can post link after link after link and I know what pops up in mine, but not sure if you know that it's your own religion that has paganism in it also................
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on Nov 3, 2010 12:07:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on Nov 3, 2010 12:16:17 GMT -5
I. Allah is never found in the Bible
Contrary to Muslim claims, the word "Allah" is never found in the Bible in either Hebrew and Greek. The closest two words we find are the Hebrew "alah" (which means to curse, mourn or rise, and is never applied to God) and the Hebrew word "Elah" (Strongs 425) which means has been translated either oak or turpentine tree. Isa 6:13. So apart form the superficial similarity in appearance arguing Allah is in the Bible because of similarities, is like saying Mormon is in the Qur'an because it looks like Muslim.
The first Arabic translation of the Bible came into existence about the 9th century. Nowhere is the name of Allah found in the Old or New Testament
"Oh Ya, Oh Allah, Oh Really?" Islamic apologists like Ahmed Deedat, falsely argue that Allah is a biblical name for God derived from Hallelujah which he initially misspells "Allelujah" then further misspells "AlleluYa". Deedat comments, "Then what is Alleluya? The last syllable "YA" is a vocative and an exclamatory particle in both Arabic and Hebrew meaning "OH!" In other words YA = OH, (the vocative); and YA = (!), a note of exclamation, or an exclamatory particle, or as is more commonly known an exclamation mark. The Semite, both Arab and Jew, begins with the exclamatory particle or exclamation mark. The Westerner, in his language ends with the exclamatory particle or exclamation mark, eg. Stop! Go! Fire! Bang! Let us repeat the above Tasbih (words of praise) as an Arab or a Jew: ALLE-LU-YA will be YA-ALLE-LU because, as explained above, YA is always at the beginning in both Arabic and Hebrew. YA ALLE LU would be YA ALLA HU: Meaning, "OH ALLAH!". (Allah in the Bible, What is His Name?, Ahmed Deedat, p 37). W. E. Vine comments: "Alleluia, without the initial H, is a misspelling". The Hebrew is literally, "hah-lay-loo-yah" = "[let us] praise the Lord". So the similarity is not only invalid, it is in the wrong part of the compound word. "Allah" corresponds to "let us praise" rather than, "YAH" which is the short form of "Jehovah". So Deedat misspells the Hebrew word, finds similarity in the wrong part of the word, misspells YA and says it means "OH", when in fact it is YAH, which is a shortened "Jehovah", and fails to recognize the word "Hallelujah" literally means, "Praise Jehovah", which is the universally accepted meaning for 3500 years, until Deedat comes along! This is not a credit to Deedat's alleged educational credentials.
"Eli or Allah?" Deedat also teaches that Jesus was calling upon the Muslim God Allah in Matthew 27:46, where the Greek reads: "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani". Meaning, "my God My God why have you forsaken me". Deedat says of this passage, " Can't they see that the cry is to Allah? "Eli, Eli - Elah, Elah, Allah, Allah!" (Allah in the Bible, What is His Name?, Ahmed Deedat) This kindergarten approach to similar sounding words is so wild, we need not even comment on it. But it is the best Deedat has!
In a silly attempt to show that the Islam word for God, "Allah" is superior to the word for God used by all other cultures because "you cannot make a feminine of Allah". Deedat pontificates: "This Arabic word, Allah, is never used in any other sense. There is no such thing as an "Allah-father" or an "Allah-mother" or a "Tin-Allah." ALLAH is a unique word for the only God. Arabic, like every other language, also has its rules of grammar, but in Arabic you cannot make a plural form for Allah, nor can you make a feminine of Allah. All this is very unlike the English word, God." (Allah in the Bible, What is His Name?, Ahmed Deedat) But this is deception because Deedat knows full well that in 600AD Allah, the moon God of the tribe of Muhammad, had a daughter named "Al-Lat", which is the feminine form of "Allah"! So the word "Allah" is like God and "Al-Lat" is like Godess! Arthur Jeffrey says, "The name Allah, as the Qur'an itself is witness, was well known in pre-Islamic Arabia. Indeed, both it and its feminine form, Allat, are found not infrequently among the theophorous names in inscriptions from North Arabia." (Arthur Jeffrey, ed., Islam: Muhammad and His Religion, 1958, p. 85.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on Nov 3, 2010 12:19:56 GMT -5
II. A Muslim attempt to find Christians to admit "Allah" is in the Bible:
The Scofield reference Bible argument:
In an incredible lapse of logic and common sense, Muslims actually use these two pages from the Scofield reference Bible as proof Allah is found in the Bible. With a sensationalistic headline: "Now you see Allah! Now you don’t", it tricks the reader into thinking there is some conspiracy going on. ("Muslims stay up late at night thinking up new conspiracy theories and readily embrace them regardless how ridiculous they really are!)
Here is why the Muslim proof of Allah in the Bible using the Scofield reference Bible as proof, is completely false and without any merit at all:
The Bible does not contain the word Allah, it is within a commentary section in the words of Scofield, where he uses the word "Elah" and "Alah".
Scofield’s comments do not prove Allah is used in the Bible, but are his own personal opinions. Muslims should understand that Scofield’s footnoted comments on the Bible are exactly the same as Yusuf Ali’s footnoted comments in the Koran.
Scofield does not use the word "Allah", but "Elah" and "Alah".
Commentators opinions are no proof Allah is in the Bible!
The fact remains that in the Hebrew original text of the Bible, the word "Allah" is never found!
Finally, it is obvious that the consensus of modern scholarship disagreed with Scofield’s opinion and for this reason, removed it from the revised edition. It is very unlikely they were thinking of Islam at all when they chose to remove the comments
|
|
|
|
Post by enginterzi on Nov 3, 2010 13:32:42 GMT -5
Devil is not from God in my opinion. Evil is merely the absence of good. Yeah there is more ancient religions that have very smiliar and sometimes exactly the same stuff as my book or YOUR book have in it. Also the inconsistencies are in both. Do some research on Zoroaster and then compare about your books beliefs and mine. Keep in minde Zoroaster is more ancient than Jesus or your prophet. He was the first to write down about a supreme being. Johnny,just because his known source is earlier than others it does not make him the first.as you read that deteuronomy had written long after Moses and it means that the original Torah is written lng ago but we do not have it. His story states about him going on a journey to find the message of the gods. He finds that there are 2 the Lord of Light and the Prince of darkness, the Lord of light created everything and the Prince of Darnkess was at once an angel who got jealous etc........ starting to sound familiar. Do I believe this diproves what I believe no...... It merely reinforces my belief that God is older than writing....... this story has nothing to do with neither Islam or Christianity,neither with the proven connections such as logos or mithra. |
|
|
|
Post by enginterzi on Nov 3, 2010 13:34:10 GMT -5
God is one in the same you are correct but he can make himself flesh form so we are able to conceive some of his meanings. He loves us enough to where he came an walked as one of us. Who is to say he can't do what he pleases? God is beyond any book or thought or ideology we have on earth. He is beyond time itself we can't conceive that. no one says he can not do something,HE HIMSELF says he is the ONE and ONLY and it can not be changed because of a 4. century doctrine. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on Nov 3, 2010 14:25:52 GMT -5
Ahh but it does Engin. Does not your religion teach that lucifer was once an angel who rebelled against God? Zoroaster said the same thing but before my or your book were ever written........... you gotta be blind to not see the similarities.
Jesus said he and his father are one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on Nov 3, 2010 14:30:06 GMT -5
Mohammed said he was not given power to perform miracle only inspiration to recite the Quran to his people. Despite the fact that he kept on calling it a book in his Quran it was never one until after the death of Mohammed when at the battle of Yakama where the Muslim suffered a great casualties that almost wipe out the Quran recitals when Othman the then Caliph commissioned Zaid to collate all the recitals into a book now known as the Quran. But this was not without burning several versions that were equally authoritative and used in different part of the Arabian Peninsular, thereby destroying any evidence of confirming the authenticity of the present Quran now being paraded as word to word from the mount of Mohammed a deceits that has reign for 14 centuries.
Interestingly this was not the case with the Bible in fact the four Gospels writings most of which were authored by the direct disciples of Jesus Christ were canonised and included in the Bible as scriptures which the Apostles and Earlier believers believed best accounted for the life and message of Jesus. These pool of witnesses no doubt gave credence to the Gospel narratives than the so called Glorious Quran which was not more than oral traditions passed from one person to another and collected into a book without any other witness or evidence that what one person-Othman considered as authentic was actually authentic since he burnt up the remaining versions.
We know that no rational being would accept a bunch of recitals passing from one brain to another brain as authoritative as against the written document from the beginning. Mohammed himself said the Quran escape faster than the run away Carmel which necessitated the abrogation verse in Q2:106 . Mohammed had earlier claimed that his Lord introduced himself as the one that taught men by the pen in his initial encounter with the spirit that tormented him but through out the 23 years of his ministry of memorisation and fighting the infidels his Lord never taught him by the pen. What a delusion!
Where then lies the miracle of the Quran?
1.The miracle is not in the historical accuracy of its account of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, since it contradicted these scriptures in no uncertain terms.
2.The miracle is not in the scientific revelation since most of the scientific statements are found to be wrong , like the earth is flat, the sun set in pool of murky water, as discovered by Alexandra the Great and those that appear scientific were already discovered before Islam.
3.The miracle is not in the accurate prediction of the future as a prophetic book since it contain no prophecy and the few statements that look like predictions where either written after the facts or found to be false.
4.The miracle is not in the beauty and poetic eloquence of the language of the recitals since poet before and after Islam did even better. The Psalms in the Bible is an example of a master piece of a poetic book if you must know.
5.The miracle is not in the new revelation since there was nothing new in the Quran. The Fighting, Terrorism, Polygamy, pagan prostration in prayers, pilgrimage to kaaba, veneration of blackstone, Ramadan fast, Circumbulation of kaaba, Zakat tax, Allah ,moon crescent symbol where all part of the culture of Arabs before Islam.
6.The miracle is not in the persuasive preaching since there was no new message to preach except pagan ritual religious practices, hatred, warmongering and terrorism which is as old as man.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on Nov 3, 2010 14:33:25 GMT -5
Black stones was worship and reverence as a god among the pantheons of Mecca before Islam
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnny Edwards on Nov 3, 2010 14:34:11 GMT -5
Allah was one of gods worships in Mecca before Mohammed wrapped it in the image of Yahweh the God of the Jews and Christians. This is from the testimony of the Quran and Hadiths
|
|
