the Bible VS the holy Qura'n

اقتباس:

---

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة محمد سني 1989

Apparantly you have not read your bible :

And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Exodus 32: 14

---

I can assure you I have read my Bible. It is you who does not understand the texts.. It seems to be the general state of muslims that only use the Bible to mine quote and constantly use verses out of context. The effort you all put into trying to prove the Word of God is not who He claimed to be and the message the Bible contains is corrupt is astounding. Apart from the fact you for the most part feel your experts on what Christians believe.. Even when Christians tell you otherwise you still don't get the point. Anyway I digress... Exodus 32:14...

A closer meaning to the Hebrew word used... nâcham..is to be sorry, or regret if we look at the whole of the context of Exodus we can easily see that the word "repent" is more accurately meaning sorry.. Or regret.

God never needed to repent as we use the term... As repent applies to sin in mankind. You may think that if is God omniscient would this be compromised by feeling sorry over some decision He has made. As God knows the outcome then just choosing another path would be an accepted course of action. Yet God's omniscience does not mean that God changes His character to pretend that everything is fine when human beings sin. The Bible has many examples of God being sorry because of the rampant sin that mankind had fallen into. ... Not because He could have changed the outcome but did not.. Or regretted not changing the outcome. Even though God knew what was going to happen, He was sad that human beings were thinking only about how to sin more and more. But we are given free will and make choices... Not all those choices are pleasing to God, yet God does not prevent us from making them. When you consider it we have the same reaction to our own children. We are sad when they make bad choices, although if we had it to do over, we would still have brought them into the world... And we still love them despite their mistakes. We hope they learn from their mistakes and do not repeat them.



Since God never sins... He has no need of repentance. God never changes His mind either... but God does warn rebellious people to give THEM the opportunity to change their minds before He judges them.

Peace to you.

اقتباس:

---

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة pandora

I can assure you I have read my Bible. It is you who does not understand the texts.. It seems to be the general state of muslims that only use the Bible to mine quote and constantly use verses out of context. The effort you all put into trying to prove the Word of God is not who He claimed to be and the message the Bible contains is corrupt is astounding. Apart from the fact you for the most part feel your experts on what Christians believe.. Even when Christians tell you otherwise you still don't get the point. Anyway I digress... Exodus 32:14...

A closer meaning to the Hebrew word used... nâcham..is to be sorry, or regret if we look at the whole of the context of Exodus we can easily see that the word "repent" is more accurately meaning sorry.. Or regret.

God never needed to repent as we use the term... As repent applies to sin in mankind. You may think that if is God omniscient would this be compromised by feeling sorry over some decision He has made. As God knows the outcome then just choosing another path would be an accepted course of action. Yet God's omniscience does not mean that God changes His character to pretend that everything is fine when human beings sin. The Bible has many examples of God being sorry because of the rampant sin that mankind had fallen into. ... Not because He could have changed the outcome but did not.. Or regretted not changing the outcome. Even though God knew what was going to happen, He was sad that human beings were thinking only about how to sin more and more. But we are given free will and make choices... Not all those choices are pleasing to God, yet God does not prevent us from making them. When you consider it we have the same reaction to our own children. We are sad when they make bad choices, although if we had it to do over, we would still have brought them into the world... And we still love them despite their mistakes. We hope they learn from their mistakes and do not repeat them.



Since God never sins... He has no need of repentance. God never changes His mind either... but God does warn rebellious people to give THEM the opportunity to change their minds before He judges them.

Peace to you.

---

Your whole answer is contrdictory not just with the context of the passage but with itself

First my answer was not based on whether god repented or not but rather as an answer to this statement of yours :

The Bible does not say YHWH makes mistakes. As YHWH is perfect making mistakes is not a possibility. You just believe the Bible says thus.. Because it suits your purpose to disbelief in its truth. YOU made this claim based on your misunderstanding of scripture.. Then you pass the blame for your short coming in this regard.

It does not work that way.

it is about whether the bible shows that god made a mistake or not !!!

Second your whole argument is based upon that repented means sorry or regreted

unfortunatlly for you sorry DOES NOT mean regret nor does it mean repent
sorry is fealing sad about someone , the context suggest that god REGRETTED what he wanted to do

so still in this meaning the bible shows gos as he have made a mistake !!!!!!

اقتباس:

---

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة محمد سني 1989

Your whole answer is contrdictory not just with the context of the passage but with itself

First my answer was not based on whether god repented or not but rather as an answer to this statement of yours :

The Bible does not say YHWH makes mistakes. As YHWH is perfect making mistakes is not a possibility. You just believe the Bible says thus.. Because it suits your purpose to disbelief in its truth. YOU made this claim based on your misunderstanding of scripture.. Then you pass the blame for your short coming in this regard.

It does not work that way.

it is about whether the bible shows that god made a mistake or not !!!

Second your whole argument is based upon that repented means sorry or regreted

unfortunatlly for you sorry DOES NOT mean regret nor does it mean repent
sorry is fealing sad about someone , the context suggest that god REGRETTED what he wanted to do

so still in this meaning the bible shows gos as he have made a mistake !!!!!!

---

I truly don't believe the Bible does say God makes mistakes. For sure, I'm sure you can rip a few verses out of context to make it appear that it does.. That won't make any difference to how I view God.. As perfect, supreme being, creator of all we are and all we can ever hope to be... Love personified. This view of God is what the Bible teaches and what His Word Jesus revealed... So although you seek to belittle the Bible.. I don't see my view of God is in any way lacking.. So the Bible can't be all bad as you seem to believe it is.

Peace

اقتباس:

---

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة pandora

I truly don't believe the Bible does say God makes mistakes. For sure, I'm sure you can rip a few verses out of context to make it appear that it does.. That won't make any difference to how I view God.. As perfect, supreme being, creator of all we are and all we can ever hope to be... Love personified. This view of God is what the Bible teaches and what His Word Jesus revealed... So although you seek to belittle the Bible.. I don't see my view of God is in any way lacking.. So the Bible can't be all bad as you seem to believe it is.

Peace

---

It is important in a debate to back your claims , I backed mine . Your answer here clearly states what YOU THINK, that itself is a belief or a claim without a proof . I think this comes from the fact that everybody who reads the passage WITHIN THE CONTEXT will come to the same conclusion

I urge you reread the bible

اقتباس:

---

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة محمد سني 1989

It is important in a debate to back your claims , I backed mine . Your answer here clearly states what YOU THINK, that itself is a belief or a claim without a proof . I think this comes from the fact that everybody who reads the passage WITHIN THE CONTEXT will come to the same conclusion

I urge you reread the bible

---

The same can be said to you concerning the Quran. You have proved or backed up nothing with this post. Remember the gospel came long before the Quran, and it was what was revealed to us as stated in the Quran; additionally, it is what we must stand on as stated in the Quran; finally, as stated in the Quran, it is all we are expected to do. This part of the Quran we obey and believe is correct. I urge you to read your Quran. the Quran wasn't revealed to us. We are the people of the Book; you are not. Now, if I read the Bible it tells me that if anyone preaches a different gospel than the one we have received, let him be accused. This context is clear. Is it clear to your? We know that people will try to corrupt the holy and central message of the gospel; Islam along with many other religions and cults does this perfectly in my mind's eye.

I urge you to read the Bible!

Peace be unto you.

اقتباس:

---

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة Burninglight

The same can be said to you concerning the Quran. You have proved or backed up nothing with this post. Remember the gospel came long before the Quran, and it was what was revealed to us as stated in the Quran; additionally, it is what we must stand on as stated in the Quran; finally, as stated in the Quran, it is all we are expected to do. This part of the Quran we obey and believe is correct. I urge you to read your Quran. the Quran wasn't revealed to us. We are the people of the Book; you are not. Now, if I read the Bible it tells me that if anyone preaches a different gospel than the one we have received, let him be accused. This context is clear. Is it clear to your? We know that people will try to corrupt the holy and central message of the gospel; Islam along with many other religions and cults does this perfectly in my mind's eye.

I urge you to read the Bible!

Peace be unto you.

---

trust me I have read the quran and listened to it and read its history , it is you who have not read his bible , this response of yours is just a smokescreen to cover your unabelling to answer if I can say . You say that the gospel is the word of jesus which have not been corrupted !!! you should read some basic history of the corruption of your gospel for example : the oldest manuscripts of the bible such as say Codex Sinaiticus

DOES NOT CONTAIN THE FULL RESURRECTION STORY IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK AND DOES NOT CONTAIN THE STORY OF THE ADULTRESS WOMAN there are many variations

As for what the Quran claims here is one example of some of the oldest gospels which says that jesus was not crusified :
The apocalyptic gospel of Peter, Gnostic second treatise of the great seth.


So instead of saying stuff try to back it for once

اقتباس:

---

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة محمد سني 1989

trust me I have read the quran and listened to it and read its history , it is you who have not read his bible , this response of yours is just a smokescreen to cover your unabelling to answer if I can say . You say that the gospel is the word of jesus which have not been corrupted !!! you should read some basic history of the corruption of your gospel for example : the oldest manuscripts of the bible such as say Codex Sinaiticus

DOES NOT CONTAIN THE FULL RESURRECTION STORY IN THE GOSPEL OF MARK AND DOES NOT CONTAIN THE STORY OF THE ADULTRESS WOMAN there are many variations

As for what the Quran claims here is one example of some of the oldest gospels which says that jesus was not crusified :
The apocalyptic gospel of Peter, Gnostic second treatise of the great seth.


So instead of saying stuff try to back it for once

---

As I mentioned, we know that the woman caught in adultery is not part of the original manuscripts, but it is a story that is consistent with the way Jesus handled situations. If that story isn't true the worse that happens is we lose an awesome story of God's wisdom in protecting a woman from the letter of the law.
These things you bring up are small potatoes, and it doesn't affect the central gospel message. Are you so desperate to bring up the apocalyptic gospel of Peter second treatise of the seth? If you believe that garbage, you might has well give up on all the Abrahamic faiths. The Christ supposedly makes statements claiming that Adam, Moses, and John the Baptist were all "laughingstocks". He said, "Neither he nor those before him, from Adam to Moses and John the Baptist, none of them knew me or my brethren. For a doctrine of angels is what arose from them, to keep dietary rules and bitter slavery. They never knew truth nor will they know it, for there is a great deception upon their soul..." Islam wasn't in existence at the time or he would have said the same about it.

This phony Christ says these prominent figures were "laughingstocks" because they believed that the Demiurge was the One True God, and did not know the Truth. Don't you see this fake Jesus you ascribe to as your support says the God of Abraham was Demiurge who is a false deity. God has allowed what he wanted us to have in the Scripture that came before. Please don't bring up 3 centuries heresies to support what hurts all Abrahamic faiths not just Christianity. If this 3 century garbage you brought up is true, then all religions are full of deception and Satan rules. Is that what you want to believe, because that is the direction you are taking us?

Now that you brought this up, it could be where the messenger of Islam got the idea that Jesus wasn't crucified: The author of this garbage appears to belong to a group of gnostics who say that Jesus Christ was not crucified. Supposedly, Simon was mistaken for Jesus and crucified in his place. With Jesus "laughing at their ignorance." Since this is 3 rd century, I am sure that is where your prophet got that information. According to these writing Jesus appears to be a laughing prophet, LOL!

The truth is that Jesus was prophesied to die the death He did, and Jesus predicted His own death 3 times in the Bible. The OT Bible corroborates this, and it is fulfilled in the NT Bible

اقتباس:

---

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة Burninglight

As I mentioned, we know that the woman caught in adultery is not part of the original manuscripts, but it is a story that is consistent with the way Jesus handled situations. If that story isn't true the worse that happens is we lose an awesome story of God's wisdom in protecting a woman from the letter of the law.
These things you bring up are small potatoes, and it doesn't affect the central gospel message. Are you so desperate to bring up the apocalyptic gospel of Peter second treatise of the seth? If you believe that garbage, you might has well give up on all the Abrahamic faiths. The Christ supposedly makes statements claiming that Adam, Moses, and John the Baptist were all "laughingstocks". He said, "Neither he nor those before him, from Adam to Moses and John the Baptist, none of them knew me or my brethren. For a doctrine of angels is what arose from them, to keep dietary rules and bitter slavery. They never knew truth nor will they know it, for there is a great deception upon their soul..." Islam wasn't in existence at the time or he would have said the same about it.

This phony Christ says these prominent figures were "laughingstocks" because they believed that the Demiurge was the One True God, and did not know the Truth. Don't you see this fake Jesus you ascribe to as your support says the God of Abraham was Demiurge who is a false deity. God has allowed what he wanted us to have in the Scripture that came before. Please don't bring up 3 centuries heresies to support what hurts all Abrahamic faiths not just Christianity. If this 3 century garbage you brought up is true, then all religions are full of deception and Satan rules. Is that what you want to believe, because that is the direction you are taking us?

Now that you brought this up, it could be where the messenger of Islam got the idea that Jesus wasn't crucified: The author of this garbage appears to belong to a group of gnostics who say that Jesus Christ was not crucified. Supposedly, Simon was mistaken for Jesus and crucified in his place. With Jesus "laughing at their ignorance." Since this is 3 rd century, I am sure that is where your prophet got that information. According to these writing Jesus appears to be a laughing prophet, LOL!

The truth is that Jesus was prophesied to die the death He did, and Jesus predicted His own death 3 times in the Bible. The OT Bible corroborates this, and it is fulfilled in the NT Bible

---

Again I am amazed by the level of your unknowledge and unfocus of the responses:

First : It does not matter whether the story is reflective or agrees with the doctrine of Jesus , the point here is the corruption of the gospel and the validity and authenticity. Somebody could come up tommorrow and decide to add another story of Jesus in the gospel , Whats to stop him !!!!??? I mean if we were going to allow additions according to one's preferences then this is not a book of good rather a book that reflects certain beliefs of what people want.

Second the apocaliptic gospel of peter is not gnostic HOWEVER THE POINT was to demonstrate that there were some certain christian sects who believed what muslims belief . The apocalyptic gospel of peter was written around: 100-200 AD this is a really early time

Third I am surprised by your contradiction , first you claim that islam is wrong about crusifiction because nobody stated what islam said for 600 years ,THEN you say islam is wrong because it probably borrowed it from the gnostic texts!!!!! DOUBLE STANDARD

اقتباس:

---

Let's say the Quran has the more correct term. It has had several hundreds of more years to get it right.

---

Not valid in the slightest bit at all . This fallacy of claiming yourself right because your religion showed up first is .. well , a fallacy . I can say the same about Hindus , Buddhists , and any and all other religions . Further more , this is to be considered of what the people of the book altered . And no , I'm not going to discuss it all over again . That's our belief .

اقتباس:

---

Show me a Bible that says Jesus didn't die and He didn't rise from the dead or that He wasn't born of a virgin or that says God is not a trinity or there is no tri unity pertaining to the one God or that Jesus is not the son of God or that Jesus is not divine and not coming back or His blood is not what cleanses us from sin.

---

While this has NOTHING to do with what you quoted of me , I just have the feeling that you'd be surprised to know what you're so sure of is actually not right . That's just a feeling though and thus I won't base any claims on it .

اقتباس:

---

ure, I find it odd that he ran his wife's business and over his lifetime despite being chosen as a prophet (your belief) he never thought that it be better to become literate the better to serve Allah.

---

In whole honesty , that makes about as much sense as a banana riding a tricycle . Further more , Quran answers you :

29:48 And you did not recite before it any scripture, nor did you inscribe one with your right hand. Otherwise the falsifiers would have had [cause for] doubt.

اقتباس:

---

Does not Allah wish for people to educate themselves?

---

Am I seeing hints of the claim that Islam forbids knowledge ? And for the record , it doesn't require a genius to know that you don't necessarily need to read and write in order to attain knowledge . There are other ways to do so than books . Of course I'm not saying you shouldn't learn reading and writing but I thought you had the basic Islamic knowledge of why the prophet peace upon him was illiterate . Oh , and here's a video as a gift of Ahmad Deedat :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXzFUeT2d9U

اقتباس:

---

Yes, his life was recorded in detail.. In the aHadith? Of which there seems to be a great quantity which are considered as authentic or not as the case may be.. Who decides what is authentic? And when was it decided?

---

Seeing how there's a science with the same name to know every single person in the chain of narrations all the way to the prophet peace upon him , I'd say that it's this science based on what Allah taught in Quran .

اقتباس:

---

In regards to his enemies not noticing.. Or people not mentioning something they disagreed with.. Well, you don't know for sure they did not notice... Maybe someone corrupted or changed the texts

---

Oooooh ! NOW it's ok to make the claim that the texts were corrutped and altered !?

اقتباس:

---

There must have been good reason for Jews and Christians of the time chose to reject Mohammed's claim as a prophet.. Otherwise they would have all been muslims.

---

Unfortuenately , this post of yours seems to be completely based on hypothesis based on nothing in addition to conclusions which ignore the remaining "possibilities" . Also , Quran answers you in this one as well :

27:14 And they rejected them, while their [inner] selves were convinced thereof, out of injustice and haughtiness. So see how was the end of the corrupters.

The context may be about Moses peace upon him but the point remains . And don't forget I can make the same claim about Christianity or any other religion since "there must be a reason not everyone became (X)" .

P.S : I swear if I keep hearing the flawed logic of "I came first ! I'm right !" ...

اقتباس:

---

المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة نصير الدين

In whole honesty , that makes about as much sense as a banana riding a tricycle . Further more , Quran answers you :

29:48 And you did not recite before it any scripture, nor did you inscribe one with your right hand. Otherwise the falsifiers would have had [cause for] doubt.

---

Really? :p018: Though I like your analogy banana.... Bicycle.. Personally for someone to deal with another's business transactions I would have thought being literate .. Even at a basic level would have made things easier. However, as much business at that time would likely have been through word of mouth and one could employ a scribe to do the necessary then I accept you can make allowances accordingly. I guess as long as you have absolute trust in your chosen scribes to record exactly what you say then no problemo..

So are you saying Allah ensured that prophet Mohammed remained illiterate so he wouldn't be accused of falsifying accounts ? Of what???? Reading the words it seems to say Mohammed did not read any scripture (so no possibility of plagiarism).. Nor did he write anything himself..by his own hand. Otherwise unbelievers? May doubt him or doubt the message? That's not clear. Surely if Allah had doubts on such a scale then he would have chosen another prophet. Besides the verse is giving an excuse why prophet Mohammed was illiterate.. It is not proof of the authenticity of his revelation. As many did doubt in his revelation and credentials as a prophet... Then I don't see what this verse is excusing or explaining.

اقتباس:

---

Am I seeing hints of the claim that Islam forbids knowledge ? And for the record , it doesn't require a genius to know that you don't necessarily need to read and write in order to attain knowledge . There are other ways to do so than books . Of course I'm not saying you shouldn't learn reading and writing but I thought you had the basic Islamic knowledge of why the prophet peace upon him was illiterate . Oh , and here's a video as a gift of Ahmad Deedat :

---

You really should not be so quick to read hints where there are none. I don't believe Islam in any way forbids education or in any way hinders the pursuit of knowledge. However, I do feel SOME muslims do, which has the unfortunate effect of giving the impression to non muslims who have not taken the time to study Islam.. That Islam does not promote knowledge.


I don't watch videos. Don't see they bring anything useful or better than the written word can.

اقتباس:

---

Seeing how there's a science with the same name to know every single person in the chain of narrations all the way to the prophet peace upon him , I'd say that it's this science based on what Allah taught in Quran .

---

Interesting.

اقتباس:

---

Oooooh ! NOW it's ok to make the claim that the texts were corrutped and altered !?

---

Oooooh ! What's the problem? You enjoy inferring the same for the scriptures that others hold in the highest esteem from their Holy God. Why should you object when the same question is levelled at yourselves? Besides with so many hadiths and authors can you be absolutely sure of your claims? Personally, it doesn't overly concern me, the revelation being transmitted perfectly is not proof that it's from YHWH. I have to admit that the more I see and hear.. I have sometimes cause to doubt we are actually talking about the same One True God. I have YHWH of the Bible who was worshipped by all the prophets and revealed in Jesus. You have Allah, maybe you can convince me we are actually talking of the same One True God.

اقتباس:

---

Unfortuenately , this post of yours seems to be completely based on hypothesis based on nothing in addition to conclusions which ignore the remaining "possibilities" . Also , Quran answers you in this one as well :

27:14 And they rejected them, while their [inner] selves were convinced thereof, out of injustice and haughtiness. So see how was the end of the corrupters.

---

Not sure what you mean here.

اقتباس:

---

The context may be about Moses peace upon him but the point remains . And don't forget I can make the same claim about Christianity or any other religion since "there must be a reason not everyone became (X)" .

P.S : I swear if I keep hearing the flawed logic of "I came first ! I'm right !" ...

---

Again... Not sure what you mean. Obviously God calls people in different ways.. It has nothing to be with being first ...God is not contained in any religion. It's about mankind's eternal state.. I see through Christianity God reaching mankind and giving us the means to make ourselves righteous so we can share in His divine love and Glory for eternity. Islam seems more like mankind's struggle to find God in the hope of achieving righteousness. I accept I am a sinner and cannot reach the level of righteousness by my efforts.. Ergo.. God in His wisdom and mercy gives me a saviour in Christ Jesus. You accept you are a sinner but may feel you can do something yourself in the hope you may mitigate any possible punishments. I feel this does not give God the highest importance in terms of holiness... And sorry... But I see much uncertainty there. However... We both rely on Gods grace. Each to their own.

Peace.