help me in defending Quran

[المشتاقة للرحمن]

وكان رده وقتها كالاتي:


From: romckri <romckri@gmail.com>
To: hn forever <hn_forever@yahoo.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 7:37:00 PM
Subject: RE: --------


Hi Naswah



I am beginning to think you don’t really read my emails, I make sure I read yours please make sure and read mine, this is the second time I have to make this statement to you.



Why do you call these verses “Proofs that the Bible is corrupted” for even the Christians ask the same questions. You are reading a complex series of facts as it is being told truthfully in the Bible as the events happened, from different perspectives or points of view.



Matthew Henry responds to the question:



Question no. 1



I Chronicles 21:1





(v. 1): Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to do it. It is said (2 Sam. xxiv. 1) that the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David to do it. The righteous judgments of God are to be observed and acknowledged even in the sins and unrighteousness of men. We are sure that God is not the author of sin—he tempts no man; and therefore, when it is said that he moved David to do it, it must be explained by what is intimated here, that, for wise and holy ends, he permitted the devil to do it. Here we trace this foul stream to its foundation. That Satan, the enemy of God and all good, should stand up against Israel, is not strange; it is what he aims at, to weaken the strength, diminish the numbers, and eclipse the glory of God's Israel, to whom he is Satan, a sworn adversary. But that he should influence David, the man of God's own heart to do a wrong thing, may well be wondered at. One would think him one of those whom the wicked one touches not. No, even the best saints, till they come to heaven, must never think themselves out of the reach of Satan's temptations. Now, when Satan meant to do Israel a mischief, what course did he take? He did not move God against them to destroy them (as Job, ch. ii. 3), but he provoked David, the best friend they had, to number them, and so to offend God, and set him against them. Note, 1. The devil does us more mischief by tempting us to sin against our God than he does by accusing us before our God. He destroys none but by their own hands, 2. The greatest spite he can do to the church of God is to tempt the rulers of the church to pride; for none can conceive the fatal consequences of that sin in all, especially in church-rulers. You shall not be so, Luke xxii. 26.



Question no. 2



Matthew Henry’s The response



He was quite weary of it before he had done it; for the king's word was abominable to Joab, v. 6. Time was when whatever king David did pleased all the people, 2 Sam. iii. 36. But now there was a general disgust at these orders, which confirmed Joab in his dislike of them, so that, though the produce of this muster was really very great, yet he had no heart to perfect it, but left two tribes unnumbered (v. 5, 6), two considerable ones, Levi and Benjamin, and perhaps was not very exact in numbering the rest, because he did not do it with any pleasure, which might be one occasion of the difference between the sums here and 2 Sam. xxiv. 9.



(the truth is stranger than fiction, the truth in the Bible is stranger than the fiction found in other books)



Question no. 3



David was contented thus to justify himself, and did not any further animadvert upon Michal's insolence; but God punished her for it, writing her for ever childless from this time forward, v. 23. She unjustly reproached David for his devotion, and therefore God justly put her under the perpetual reproach of barrenness. Those that honour God he will honour; but those that despise him, and his servants and service, shall be lightly esteemed.



but he delivered up two of Saul's sons whom he had by a concubine, and five of his grandsons, whom his daughter Merab bore to Adriel (1 Sam. xviii. 19), but his daughter Michal brought up, v. 8. Now Saul's treachery was punished, in giving Merab to Adriel, when he had promised her to David, with a design to provoke him. "It is a dangerous matter," says bishop Hall upon this, "to offer injury to any of God's faithful ones; if their meekness have easily remitted it, their God will not pass it over without a severe retribution, though it may be long first." (6.) The place, time, and manner, of their execution, all added to the solemnity of their being sacrificed to divine justice. [1.] They were hanged up, as anathemas, under a peculiar mark of God's displeasure; for the law had said, He that is hanged is accursed of God, Deut. xxi. 23; Gal. iii. 13



Question no. 4
Adam Clarke’s comments
Verse 26. Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses-and twelve thousand horsemen.] In 2 Chron. ix. 25, instead of forty thousand stalls, we read four thousand; and even this number might be quite sufficient to hold horses for twelve thousand horsemen; for stalls and stables may be here synonymous. In 1 Kings x. 26; it is said he had one thousand four hundred chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; and this is the reading in 2 Chron. i. 14. In 2 Chron. ix. 25, already quoted, instead of forty thousand stalls for horses, the Septuagint has tessarev ciliadev qhleiai ippoi, four thousand mares; and in this place the whole verse is omitted both by the Syriac and Arabic. In the Targum of Rabbi Joseph on this book we have ham [bra arba meah, four hundred, instead of the four thousand in Chronicles, and the forty thousand in the text. From this collation of parallel places we may rest satisfied that there is a corruption in the numbers somewhere; and as a sort of medium, we may take for the whole four thousand stalls, one thousand four hundred chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
Some human made a mistake in the numbers it appears yet it goes unchanged in the Bible for people like you to point out. It’s a bad choice of words to say as it does above that it is a corruption it’s a mistake of some sort that has not been edited out or denied it continues to be repeated until today and no man falls away from Jesus Christ through it.



Question no. 5



Food provided for man, v. 29. Herbs and fruits must be his meat, including corn and all the products of the earth; these were allowed him, but (it should seem) not flesh, till after the flood, ch. ix. 3. And before the earth was deluged, much more before it was cursed for man's sake, its fruits, no doubt, were more pleasing to the taste and more strengthening and nourishing to the body than marrow and fatness, and all the portion of the king's meat, are now. See here, 1. That which should make us humble. As we were made out of the earth, so we are maintained out of it. Once indeed men did eat angels' food, bread from heaven; but they died (John vi. 49); it was to them but as food out of the earth, Ps. civ. 14. There is meat that endures to everlasting life; the Lord evermore give us this. 2. That which should make us thankful. The Lord is for the body; from him we receive all the supports and comforts of this life, and to him we must give thanks. He gives us all things richly to enjoy, not only for necessity, but plenty, dainties, and varieties, for ornament and delight. How much are we indebted! How careful should we be, as we live upon God's bounty, to live to his glory! 3. That which should make us temperate and content with our lot. Though Adam had dominion given him over fish and fowl, yet God confined him, in his food, to herbs and fruits; and he never complained of it. Though afterwards he coveted forbidden fruit, for the sake of the wisdom and knowledge he promised himself from it, yet we never read that he coveted forbidden flesh. If God give us food for our lives, let us not, with murmuring Israel, ask food for our lusts, Ps. lxxviii. 18; see Dan. i. 15.



Plus this was prior to the fall of man where things changed on Earth, practically all things changed after the fall so would the plant life on Earth





Question no. 6



Matthew Henry’s comments:



And the chapter which remains is purely historical, and, as some think, was added by some other hand.







Question no. 7



Matthew Henry’s comments:



Stand upon me, and slay me. He is now sick of his dignity and willing to be trampled upon, sick of his life and willing to be slain. Who then would be inordinately fond of life or honour? The case may he such, even with those that have no hope in their death, that yet they may desire to die, and death flee from them, Rev. ix. 6. Anguish has come upon me; so we read it, as a complaint of the pain and terror his spirit was seized with. If his conscience now brought to mind the javelin he had cast at David, his pride, malice, and perfidiousness, and especially the murder of the priests, no marvel that anguish came upon him: moles (they say) open their eyes when they are dying. Sense of unpardoned guilt will make death indeed the king of terrors. Those that have baffled their convictions will perhaps, in their dying moments, be overpowered by them. The margin reads it as a complaint of the inconvenience of his clothes; that his coat of mail which he had for defence, or his embroidered coat which he had for ornament, hindered him, that he could not get the spear far enough into his body, or so straitened him, now that his body swelled with anguish, that he could not expire. Let no man's clothes be his pride, for it may so happen that they may be his burden and snare. "Hereupon," saith our young man, "I stood upon him, and slew him" (v. 10) at which word, perhaps, he observed David look upon him with some show of displeasure, and therefore he excuses himself in the next words: "For I was sure he could not live; his life was whole in him indeed, but he would certainly have fallen into the hands of the Philistines or given himself another thrust." (2.) It is doubtful whether this story be true. If it be, the righteousness of God is to be observed, that Saul, who spared the Amalekites in contempt of the divine command, received his death's wound from an Amalekite. But most interpreters think that it was false, and that, though he might happen to be present, yet he was not assisting in the death of Saul, but told David so in expectation that he would reward him for it, as having done him a piece of good service. Those who would rejoice at the fall of an enemy are apt to measure others by themselves, and to think that they will do so too. But a man after God's own heart is not to be judged of by common men. I am not clear whether this young man's story was true or no: it may consist with the narrative in the chapter before, and be an addition to it, as Peter's account of the death of Judas (Acts i. 18) is to the narrative, Matt. xxvii. 5. What is there called a sword may here be called a spear, or when he fell upon his sword he leaned on his spear. (3.) However he produced that which was proof sufficient of the death of Saul, the crown that was upon his head and the bracelet that was on his arm. It should seem Saul was so foolishly fond of these as to wear them in the field of battle, which made him a fair mark for the archers, by distinguishing him from those about him; but as pride (we say) feels no cold, so it fears no danger, from that which gratifies it. These fell into the hands of this Amalekite. Saul spared the best of their spoil, and now the best of his came to one of that devoted nation. He brought them to David, as the rightful owner of them now that Saul was dead, not doubting but by his officiousness herein to recommend himself to the best preferments in his court or camp. The tradition of the Jews is that this Amalekite was the son of Doeg (for the Amalekites were descendants from Edom), and that Doeg, who they suppose was Saul's armour-bearer, before he slew himself gave Saul's crown and bracelet (the ensigns of his royalty) to his son, and bade him carry them to David, to curry favour with him. But this is a groundless conceit. Doeg's son, it is likely, was so well known to Saul that he needed not ask him as he did this Amalekite (v. 8), Who art thou? David had been long waiting for the crown, and now it was brought to him by an Amalekite. See how God can serve his own purposes of kindness to his people, even by designing (ill-designing) men, who aim at nothing but to set up themselves.



That is the last response I should provide for now.



It’s time we move on now, it’s my turn to ask questions of you so be polite and allow questions to come to you on your word, and your book and I hope you can respond as I did to all your questions thus far.



Thank you,



Rod

[المشتاقة للرحمن]

اما الايميل المقصود الذي طلبت منه الا يتجاهل الرد عليه هو الاتي:



--- On Sun, 7/12/09, hn forever <hn_forever@yahoo.com> wrote:


From: hn forever <hn_forever@yahoo.com>
Subject: my 1st reply
To: "romckri" <romckri@gmail.com>
Date: Sunday, July 12, 2009, 3:16 AM


Hi, Rod
how r u?
now i`m replying for your 1st e mail , in which you sent your answers about my proofs of corruption of Bible.
but let me comment on somethings before i begin :
1st thing; you accused me that i didn`t compelete reading your previous e mail , and this is not true , i did read every word in it , but it carry no answer for my question , i think it was introduction from you for defending Bible, and it`s something good .....but your introduction was not enough for me to convience me not to proceed in asking how Bible wasn`t corrupted inspite of the mistakes i sent it in my last e mail....so what i was needing from you , is to convience me that mistakes and contradictions i sent to you , isn`t true and i was wanting from you a clear direct specific reply to rule out my evidences.
so i don`t know why you were expecting from me not to sent my proofs after reading your previous e mail.
2nd point:
i told you in my last e mail that i`ve many proofs about corruption of Bible, and i told that i`would send it for you in groups to allow you to reply on it, then after we finished , we will exchange our chairs....
so i think it was clear from my words that i have more and more about the issue of corruption of Bible, and i was who asked you to exchange our chairs , so i think you may be in hurry to exchange chairs before i finished my evidences.....
so you are welcome in asking about Islam but you should know that i`ve not finished my evidences about corruption of Bible...
and i want to continue it , if you don`t mind.

now , i`m to comment on your reply on my evidences:
Question no. 1



I Chronicles 21:1

your reply is very nice , and i was to agree with you in this point , but when i read the verse again , i found that :

the verse saying :

And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

so if the verse meaning as you claim , he could say it as the following :

And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to go, number Israel and Judah.

please also notice the word "Go" , note the capital letter , which means that it was what God said to him.


Question no. 4
you told here , that some human make a mistake in numbering , and here i`d like to say something :
there`s a very big difference between the 2 numbers ,
4 thouthands and 4 hunderd thousands
i think the 2 numbers is widely different
i can`t mistake in numbering 4 thouthands to say that they are
40 000.
so here the information the verses give it , is too different coz the numbers is too wide apart.

also , the Bible is supposed to be the words of God , so such mistake in this information is not allowed , and it point that mistakes can be present in Bible (the word of God)....so who can i trust in information Bible giving me , while i`m seeing this great different in the information.
Book of God must not carry any mistakes.
so if accuracy is not necessary in writting Bible , it means that it may be other so important verses in which christianity rely on may be not accurate enough , which arise so many questions.

Question no. 5
your reply in this point was too long relative to ur target...
i think your last comment in this point was ur suitible answer as you told ;

Plus this was prior to the fall of man where things changed on Earth, practically all things changed after the fall so would the plant life on Earth
but my reply on you here , is that your comment you added for it is invalid
why it`s invalid?
because in this chapter , God was talking to Noah and his sons (and not before the fall of man)... and God directly was talking to them about their food after flood.
and please don`t claim something scientific without a proof... do you have scientific proof for that?
also i`d like to show you the following:
Chapter X.—Simon’s Explanation of the First Two Books of Moses.

The river, therefore, he says, which proceeds out of Edem is divided into four principles, four channels—that is, into four senses, belonging to the creature that is being born, viz., seeing, smelling, taste, and touch; for the child formed in Paradise has these senses only. This, he says, is the law which Moses appointed; and in reference to this very law, each of his books has been written, as the inscriptions evince. The first book is Genesis. The inscription of the book is, he says, sufficient for a knowledge of the universe. For this is (equivalent in meaning with) generation, (that is,) vision, into which one section of the river is divided. For the world was seen by the power of vision.



Question no. 6:

your reply was the following:




Matthew Henry’s comments:



And the chapter which remains is purely historical, and, as some think, was added by some other hand.



dear Rod , we are talikng about a holey book ,this holy book is the words of God , so who can we accept that a chapter to be added to him , by some other hand

some other hand????

how can we accept that unknown hand add or delte to the words of God.

it is not accepted that anyone add to it or play with it.

it`s very strange and astonishing thing that we included in book of God , a chapter , even not known who wrote him?

so why you don`t believe me when i told you that Bible was played with and corrupted...

if you were in need to this historical chapter , is it must to add to God words?

so it `s clear that Bible was subjected to other hands....and the more miserable , that these other hands are unknown persons....



i didn`t yet read your other e mail but i promise to reply on it , in the nearest time .... may be today or tomorrow (God willing)
lastly i remind you i`ve more and more in the issue of (corruption of Bible)

with my best wishes,
Nashwa

[المشتاقة للرحمن]

شكرا لكي اختي محبة الله

جزاكي الله كل خير


اخواني واخواتي في الله
ارجو ان اري ردودكم وتعليقاتكم وانتقاداتكم لردودي

وارجو افادتي
جزاكم الله كل الخير


اللهم اهدنا واهد بنا واجعلنا سببا لمن اهتدي

اللهم ارزقنا الاخلاص

[المشتاقة للرحمن]

الذين يشاهدون محتوى الموضوع الآن : 2 ( الأعضاء 2 والزوار 0)
‏نشوي السماك , ‏المحبة فى الله


السلام عليكم اختي الفاضلة

ارجو ان تكوني بخير

هل لي ان اطلب منك ان نتواصل عبر الايميل؟؟؟؟


ايميلي:
hn_forever@yahoo.com

[ابو علي الفلسطيني]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
بارك الله فيك اختي الفاضلة على الرد المفحم
اود هنا ان اثير بعض المسائل عن اخطاء الانجيل وممكن ان ترسليها له لتطلبي رايه وانا متاكد تماما انه قد يهرب من الاجابة لان هذه عادتهم عندما لا يستطيعون الدفاع عن عقيدتهم الهشة

Jesus accaused his dicsiples as uneducated people "Do you still not understand" matthew16:8
Also he accaused them of "unbelevers" as it is mentioned here "he told them it was because of your little faith" matthew17:19
Also when Jesus was cruciefied his dicsiples ran away. "then all the disciples left him and fled"matthew26:56
after all how can i trust those disciples after they left jesus??? how can i accept the massage of christianity from those students who were unfaithful to their "lord"
moreover, it was mentioned in the bible that jesus had brothers. "isn't this the carpenter the son pf mary and brother of james , joses,judas and simon? mark 6:3
if jesus had brothers are they "gods"like him or not? did Mary have birth after jesus was born?
it was also mentioned that "Again,the divel took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world"matthew4:8
is their a mountain in the world that if i stand on it i will see all the kingdoms and the countries of the world!!!

انا متاكد انه سيهرب من الاجابة على هذه المجموعة فقط من الاسئلة مع العلم ان الاخطاء في دينهم تحتوي على ما هو اكثر من ذلك
والله الهادي الى سواء السبيل

[مسلم عن حق]

السلام عليكم و رحمة الله و بركاته
أختى فى الله,
جزاك الله خيرا على دفاعك عن الاسلام و على مناظرة هذا الشخص حتى يرى الحق, وشكرا لك على إتاحة الفرصة لنا لمشاركتك فى هذا الثواب:
بداية أحب ان أذكرك أن السبب لمثل هذه النقاشات هو دعوة الناس للهداية لدين الحق سبحانه و تعالى, دون أى رغبة شخصية فى تحقيق إنتصار أو أى شىء اخر, و أنه من يهتدى فلنفسه و من يتولى فإن الله غنى حميد, فإذا شعرتى أنه لا جدوى من محاورة هذا الشخص توقفى فورا و لا تضيعى وقتك معه فهو فى الغالب أحد المنصرين.
أما بالنسبة للإيميلات بينك و بينه فإليك من هذه التعليقات لعلها تفيدك فى مناقشته و لعل الله ينفعه بها:
You began your email by saying we can’t use the Bible to criticize the Quran when it is the Bible and the Bible alone that proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that the Quran cannot possibly be from the same God found in the Bible!
Before telling us that, he has to tell you which Bible is he indicating?
The bible that contains 73 books or the one who contains 66 books, ask him if the book of Daniel that he reeds contains 12 or 14 chapters. Ask him which bible and which books from these books are God’s words, and why you should believe him (as I think he is Protestant) neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox
Before telling us that, he has to tell you which Bible is he indicating?
The bible that contains 73 books or the one who contains 66 books, ask him if the book of Daniel that he reeds contains 12 or 14 chapters. Ask him which bible and which books from these books are God’s words, and why you should believe him (as I think he is Protestant) neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox

your logic, wisdom and reasoning tells you otherwise, so using those tools cannot get to the bottom of the situation alone.
Here he is trying to escape from the logical inconsistency of the bible and this is probably his week point and he is trying to turn you away from it. So don’t be deluded. You can find a lot of documentation on the internet regarding the bible contradictions that can help you.
which is telling the truth historically consistently.
Did Jesus die on the cross as described in the Bible or not? What does the Shroud of Turin tell us for example,
The Shroud of Turin can’t be a prove or a disprove for the crucifixion of Jesus in any way, because even if we prove that this shroud is date in the first century we are still not sure that it belongs to Jesus, and if we prove otherwise also it can’t be a clear disprove, but let us investigate the credibility of this shroud,
First a carbon dating test was done by three different research centers (University of Oxford - Swiss Federal Institute of Technology- University of Arizona) and they gave three independent results, and all the three dated it between the 13th and 14th century.
Second examining the biblical description for the shroud of Jesus we find that it was in strips not in one (14x4 feet) piece of cloth.

John: Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.
About Jinns, in the Quran Jinns means Devils as you told him, but I’ld like to aيd to you this Quranic reference as you can find in Sura Kahf 50:
“” We said to the angels; "Prostrate to Adam." So they prostrated except Iblis (Satan). He was one of the jinns; he disobeyed the Command of his Lord””.


أحب أن اضيف إليك أنه بالرغم من أن موضوع نقاشق معه هو مصداقية الكتاب المدعو مقدس فهو يحاول أن يشتتك ببعض التفاهات التى لا ترتقى لمستوى فكر الأطفال عن القران, و فى نفس الوقت يرفض أى دليل تأتى به كدليل على تحريف كتابه, و لهذا عليك أن تسأليه عن الدليل الذى يثبت لديه أن كتابا ما و ليكن القران هو ليس كتاب سماوى حتى نستطسع أن ندينه من فمه و نستخدم حجته عليه. مع العلم أنه قال أن القران يستخدم الخرافات الفلكلورية ككلمة الجن فماذا عن مطابقة المسيحية للبذية فة الخلاص و الفداء و المخلص و الصلب و تطابق قصة مخلصهم يسوع المصلوب مع قصة كرشنا و مع الديانات الفرعونية, فى المخلص و أبن الله و الصلب و حتى الافخارستيا هل يقبل بهذا كدليل؟
و الان إليك شهادات علماء المسيحية عن تحريف الكتاب المدعو المقدس:
هذا كتاب شهادات علماء المسيحية (أقوال علماء المسيحية فى كتبة أسفارهم)
http://www.eld3wah.net/books/mase7ey...t_el3olama.rar
Ask him is this verse written by God:

"It seemed good to me (Luke) also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, (Luke 1:3)"
Ask him who wrote the first verse and who wrote the second one:
1-Genesis 17:13 “13He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant”
2-Galatians 5 “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.”

[Here Paul is saying:” I paul not, God say or, the Holy spirit say, or i say inspired by the Holy spirit, But a clear I say, and he said what? he changed the covenant of God.” While God said:
Judges 2:1 “and I said, I will never break my covenant with you.”
Deuteronomy 7:9 “Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations”

Another thing is the use of the third person instead of the first:
Deuteronomy 34:5-10 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.
6And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.
7And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.
8And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days: so the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended.
9And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the LORD commanded Moses.
10And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face,

Is this the Torah that prophet Moses received in the 40 days, does Moses describes his death and what happened after his death, and why should Moses say: “Moses was” “e buried him” “the Lord commanded Moses”.
Matthew 9:9 “And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him”.
Why should Mathew say “he saw a man, named Matthew” and “and he saith unto him”. The writer I both verses must be an outsider narrator.
Another thing is these strange salutes of Paul that are posted inside the Bible as the word of God:

Romans 16
3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus
6 Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us.
8 Greet Amplias my beloved in the Lord.
9 Salute Urbane, our helper in Christ, and Stachys my beloved.
10 Salute Apelles approved in Christ. Salute them which are of Aristobulus' household.
11 Salute Herodion my kinsman. Greet them that be of the household of Narcissus, which are in the Lord.
12 Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord. Salute the beloved Persis, which laboured much in the Lord.
13 Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.
14 Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them.
15 Salute Philologus, and Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints which are with them.
16 Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.
21 Timotheus my workfellow, and Lucius, and Jason, and Sosipater, my kinsmen, salute you.
22I Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord.
A First Question and you must insist on it, are those Salutes words of God?
Second what divine significance do these salutes and greetings mean?
What is the importance or the lessons beyond these greetings?

[ام عمر و سارة]

GOD BLESS ALL OF YOU

[Abou Anass]

the best web site for english langage:

http://www.sultan.org


good luck

[ابو علي الفلسطيني]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

جزاك الله خيرا اخانا الفاضل ابو انس على هذا الموقع العظيم الذي عرضته

بالفعل انه من افضل المواقع التي تتحدث عن الاسلام بالانجليزية

بارك الله فيك اخانا الحبيب

[المشتاقة للرحمن]

جزاكم الله كل خير جميعا
بجد افادتوتي جدا
واستكمالا لموافاتكم بالايميلات التي يرسلها وارسلها
اليكم الايميل الذي رد به علي ايميلي
وطبعا كالعادة احب ان اعرف ردودكم عليه قبل ان اصيغ الرد

وع فكرة لا تنسوا انا كنت بعتت له المرة السابقة اطلب منه الا يتهرب من ايميلي الذي انتقض فيه الكتاب المقدس
ارجو مراجعه الايميل السابق قبل قراءة رده
واترككم الان مع رده

How are you hope all is well with you and that you are enjoying your summer. I received both you emails but before we continue I would like to say the following:













There is a verse in the Bible that states that everything in its time.



Ecclesiastes 3
1To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

2A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

3A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

In time I will respond to your questions, but now I am asking myself and you a question. I am trying to understand the foundation of Islam the religion that questions Christianity. I noticed a significant thing when I began to understand Islam’s foundations or any religions foundations but in this case Islam.



In Christianity God Himself deals with teaching men his Laws, rules and Word for which we must follow. As I have said to you before but it seems you missed the point completely so I will say it again. Angels never teach men God’s Word, angels may bring a message to Mary for example which you point out but the angel who spoke to Mary did not teach Mary anything, the angel only delivered a message and was gone. Angels do not teach men God’s Word. You need to stop and understand this statement properly. It’s important because its foundational, it’s a foundational concept in Islam.



What you and all Muslims need to understand is that no angel has the right much less the commandment from God to deliver God’s Word to men, and this is so from the beginning of time and is still so today. You will never find at anytime in the history of God communication with humans God allowing any angel to deliver His Words to men.



God does not use angels to speak his Words to men, beyond a short message as with Mary and others but I cannot stress enough Never his Words, Never his Teachings God never allowed any angel to teach men His Words!



Therefore if Muhammad has stated that he received the message from an angel (any angel) teachings from an angel then that teaching cannot be from God because God does not deliver His teaching through angels, He never has and He never does. God speaks with men directly as shown throughout the Bible.



This then is a foundational principle that must be properly understood.



My point is this, if in Islam the message came from an angel then that message cannot be from God, and if that message cannot be from God then why am I defending my message which is from God, with that which is from an angel. Who is the greater of the two?



When does what any angel says outrank what God has said? The teaching in the Bible was said to come from God Himself and not any angels who should we believe, what was said to come from God or what was said to come from an angel?



I need to know, how can what was said to come from an angel any angel be more valuable than what comes from God especially knowing that this have never happened in the history of the entire world, at no time in history do we ever see angels teaching men ever! No angel can teach men the Word of God as I have stated for that is for He who is called the Word of God and it is only He who communicates Gods word to men!



And if that is the case than Islam has no ground to stand on whatsoever, and until you or anyone can show me what right Islam has to its claims then why am I defending what came from God from what did not.



This is the fact of the matter. I need your comments and I hope you properly consider what you are about the say, for this will determine how we proceed. Don’t mix up what I have said and don’t assume I am going to accept any response. Please make sure to state what right Islam has based on what was delivered to them by who they identify as an angel over what was delivered in the Bible by God. For example the Bible states that God the Father Himself states that “this is my son in whom I am well pleased” for men to hear for themselves yet you are being told a story told to you by what someone said Muhammad was told by an angel that God has no son, who do you think is not telling the truth? For no one but Muhammad heard what was said and this was said by an angel, which do you think is harder to believe, it is clear to me, one was the voice of God Himself heard by all who was with Jesus and written down by eyewitness and the other story is told by those who did not hear, did not see and were not even around at the time of whatever was said and it was told by an angel in a cave (as they say). How can whatever that angel said be more important than what God said Himself as written down by those who hear it?



If you fail to see or understand what is clear then what is the point, you can lead a hoarse to water but you can’t make him drink.





This is the time to break down and the time to build up, break down the teaching of Islam and build up the teaching of God through Jesus!





I read your email, but I need you to respond to my point now for I need to know if this hoarse plans to drink or not!



Have a good day!