-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Let's get some straight answers from Muslims (part 2)
- Thread starter peaceful soul
- Start date
jinkazama said:
Muhammad is not considered a better prophet. Jesus is placed very high in Islam. We believe he is the Messiah and will return(not ressurected) one day. This is very high status. Muhammad is regarded so high because he was the last prophet. He was sent for all of mankind while Jesus's message was intended for his people.
Upvote
0
originally posted by saladin1970
When you use this type of strategy to determine veracity of scripture, you are sliding down a slippery slope. You are equating uncertainty of Biblical text to accuracy and truth in the Qu'ranic text. There are several problems in this approach:
The Qu'ranic version can not be assumed true.
You have this view because of misunderstanding, lack of studying, or poor teaching. "rest" refers to the end of God's work of creation. He simply was done creating; so, He stopped any further creating at that time.
The Lord appeared to Abraham as 3 men. Did you conveniently leave that important fact out? The last time I checked, men do eat; so in that form, you would expect Him to eat. If not, what do you think Abraham would think if these men said that I do not eat food? Would it be reasonable that if God manifested Himself to you in human form, for example, would you not expect the predicted behavior to be typical of a man? You must not automatically assume that it was God who ate. Even if this were true, it does not show that God needed to eat in order to live. Where did you get that idea from?
Similar to the previous misunderstanding, Jacob was wrestling with a man (at least in form). It was not until near the end of the confrontatin that he sensed something was devine about this man. That again, does not really prove anything. God can manifest Himself however He wants. He did so with Moses as a burning bush. Would that also reduce God in some way. God revealed Himself in the dreams of many prophets and common people in various ways. Would that lessen God or prove Him mortal?
This was used as a prophetic sign. It would do you good to read the entire setting. I am posting it for you to read.
Isa 20:1 In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him,) and fought against Ashdod, and took it;
Isa 20:2 At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot.
Isa 20:3 And the LORD said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia;
Isa 20:4 So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.
Isa 20:5 And they shall be afraid and ashamed of Ethiopia their expectation, and of Egypt their glory.
Isa 20:6 And the inhabitant of this isle shall say in that day, Behold, such is our expectation, whither we flee for help to be delivered from the king of Assyria: and how shall we escape?
So far, I think you have struck out. If you are going to quote the Bible, be sure that you spend time to critically anlyze the scripture and your own personal opinion too. Failure to criticize your own understanding is to render yourself as a fraud, IMO. I don't see that any of what you have posted actually puts a dent in your assertion of the Qu'ran correcting the Bible. It is just a misunderstanding of the scriptures.
When you use this type of strategy to determine veracity of scripture, you are sliding down a slippery slope. You are equating uncertainty of Biblical text to accuracy and truth in the Qu'ranic text. There are several problems in this approach:
The Qu'ranic version can not be assumed true.
You have this view because of misunderstanding, lack of studying, or poor teaching. "rest" refers to the end of God's work of creation. He simply was done creating; so, He stopped any further creating at that time.
The Lord appeared to Abraham as 3 men. Did you conveniently leave that important fact out? The last time I checked, men do eat; so in that form, you would expect Him to eat. If not, what do you think Abraham would think if these men said that I do not eat food? Would it be reasonable that if God manifested Himself to you in human form, for example, would you not expect the predicted behavior to be typical of a man? You must not automatically assume that it was God who ate. Even if this were true, it does not show that God needed to eat in order to live. Where did you get that idea from?
Similar to the previous misunderstanding, Jacob was wrestling with a man (at least in form). It was not until near the end of the confrontatin that he sensed something was devine about this man. That again, does not really prove anything. God can manifest Himself however He wants. He did so with Moses as a burning bush. Would that also reduce God in some way. God revealed Himself in the dreams of many prophets and common people in various ways. Would that lessen God or prove Him mortal?
This was used as a prophetic sign. It would do you good to read the entire setting. I am posting it for you to read.
Isa 20:1 In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him,) and fought against Ashdod, and took it;
Isa 20:2 At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot.
Isa 20:3 And the LORD said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia;
Isa 20:4 So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.
Isa 20:5 And they shall be afraid and ashamed of Ethiopia their expectation, and of Egypt their glory.
Isa 20:6 And the inhabitant of this isle shall say in that day, Behold, such is our expectation, whither we flee for help to be delivered from the king of Assyria: and how shall we escape?
So far, I think you have struck out. If you are going to quote the Bible, be sure that you spend time to critically anlyze the scripture and your own personal opinion too. Failure to criticize your own understanding is to render yourself as a fraud, IMO. I don't see that any of what you have posted actually puts a dent in your assertion of the Qu'ran correcting the Bible. It is just a misunderstanding of the scriptures.
Upvote
0
originally posted by bless_sins
Here is what you need to focus on. The Qu'ran says that the Jews and Christians have a deficiency in understanding their scriptures which seems to include textual corruption. It would follow that the first thing Allah would do is to get the Jews and Christians the correct scriptures ASAP. Giving the unaltered form of the scriptures along with a prophetic voice (Mohammad), there would no longer be an excuse for Jews and Christians to not follow God in truth. Not having a full Torah and Injeel in the Qu'ran just leaves the door open to more confusion in determining the original truth of the previous revelations if the they had failed, which Muslims believe.
It is false to say the OT was for Israelites only. The early prophets before Abraham were not Israelites and were not under the Mosaic Law. That would also include Jacob and Isaac.
You are entirely dodging the question. We are not talking about other nations or groups of people. We are talking about Jews and Christians. God used them to give a message about HImself. If they erred in their scripture or understanding, it would be logical for God to correct them specifically. If you made a mistake, I would not go to your friends and correct them. Nor would I tell them to correct you. That would be not speak well of my integrity. It is about God's integrity that I bring up the question; so, try to think along those lines.
As far your question about Native Americals (formerly called Indians), I could say the same about Islam. Why didn't Allah take care of them first?
That still does not answer the question. Focus on the fact that God did not specifically correct the Jews and Christians. In other words, Allah did not show a true interest in whether they got their scriptures corrected or not. If Allah corrected the error of the Jews and Christians, then there would be no need to bring Islam, which is diametrically opposite of the scriptures you say it came to complete or expand upon (to be for all mankind). That notion can not be true. Even if the scriptures were somehow corrupted, the principles and concepts of these scriptures would have been still evident as a foundation for understanding the original. The fact is that Qu'ran does not indicate the specifics of what the other scriptures lacked and why. It does nothing, IMO, to specifically address the problems of the Jews and Christians. It just makes some blanket statements and primarily dealt with the pagan Arabs at that time - not the Jews and Christians.
Here is what you need to focus on. The Qu'ran says that the Jews and Christians have a deficiency in understanding their scriptures which seems to include textual corruption. It would follow that the first thing Allah would do is to get the Jews and Christians the correct scriptures ASAP. Giving the unaltered form of the scriptures along with a prophetic voice (Mohammad), there would no longer be an excuse for Jews and Christians to not follow God in truth. Not having a full Torah and Injeel in the Qu'ran just leaves the door open to more confusion in determining the original truth of the previous revelations if the they had failed, which Muslims believe.
It is false to say the OT was for Israelites only. The early prophets before Abraham were not Israelites and were not under the Mosaic Law. That would also include Jacob and Isaac.
You are entirely dodging the question. We are not talking about other nations or groups of people. We are talking about Jews and Christians. God used them to give a message about HImself. If they erred in their scripture or understanding, it would be logical for God to correct them specifically. If you made a mistake, I would not go to your friends and correct them. Nor would I tell them to correct you. That would be not speak well of my integrity. It is about God's integrity that I bring up the question; so, try to think along those lines.
As far your question about Native Americals (formerly called Indians), I could say the same about Islam. Why didn't Allah take care of them first?
That still does not answer the question. Focus on the fact that God did not specifically correct the Jews and Christians. In other words, Allah did not show a true interest in whether they got their scriptures corrected or not. If Allah corrected the error of the Jews and Christians, then there would be no need to bring Islam, which is diametrically opposite of the scriptures you say it came to complete or expand upon (to be for all mankind). That notion can not be true. Even if the scriptures were somehow corrupted, the principles and concepts of these scriptures would have been still evident as a foundation for understanding the original. The fact is that Qu'ran does not indicate the specifics of what the other scriptures lacked and why. It does nothing, IMO, to specifically address the problems of the Jews and Christians. It just makes some blanket statements and primarily dealt with the pagan Arabs at that time - not the Jews and Christians.
Upvote
0
origianlly posted by yaqovzadeek
Yes.
Well, I will have to say that Jesus prophesied that He would die and He did. Would that one count for anything? The Bible shows others who new their death was evident before they died. The rest of your quoted section is not really revelant. If you desire, you can look at a true critical analyses of the Biblical texts.
None of this really speaks to the issue. I can easily counter your claims, but that is not the purpose here.
Yes.
Sure. I will believe everything you tell me from no onward. Whey didn't any of the Hebrew people contest that the Torah was changed? Also, would it be reasonable that those who knew the Torah would raise opposition to any changes? There is no history of this happening; so, why should we believe otherwise?
Well, I will have to say that Jesus prophesied that He would die and He did. Would that one count for anything? The Bible shows others who new their death was evident before they died. The rest of your quoted section is not really revelant. If you desire, you can look at a true critical analyses of the Biblical texts.
None of this really speaks to the issue. I can easily counter your claims, but that is not the purpose here.
Upvote
0
originally posted by Oxy2Hydr0
I have not read the Qu'ran. My questions are logical questions that do not need the Qu'ran in order to be answered. You may use the Qu'ran to support your view, but it is mainly a question of logic. Reread the questions and then give an answer.
They still require an answer.
Question 1 is a filter to question 2. Question 2 has some aspects that question 1 does not have. I hope you can see that. Try to answer according to what is written and not to circumvent the questions. I think that I laid the questions out clearly. I am trying to force you to think without using the Qu'ran.
I have not read the Qu'ran. My questions are logical questions that do not need the Qu'ran in order to be answered. You may use the Qu'ran to support your view, but it is mainly a question of logic. Reread the questions and then give an answer.
They still require an answer.
If your fisrt question is answered then it will automoatically answer you second.
Question 1 is a filter to question 2. Question 2 has some aspects that question 1 does not have. I hope you can see that. Try to answer according to what is written and not to circumvent the questions. I think that I laid the questions out clearly. I am trying to force you to think without using the Qu'ran.
Upvote
0
seed757 said:
That is not present. What translation are you using? OK. If I take a vacation, I rest from work. That could mean that I was tired and wanted to take a break from work or it could mean that I have finished all of my work and will cease from working simply because I have finished. The other option would be that I did a combination of both. The context determines what is being implied.
KJV:
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.
It clearly says that God rested from His work He had done. It does not say that He got tired and needed to rest because the work was to much for Him to sustain Himself any longer. Perhaps you have a great imagination.
Upvote
0
seed757
fanatically balanced/radically compassionate
peaceful soul said:That is not present. What translation are you using? OK. If I take a vacation, I rest from work. That could mean that I was tired and wanted to take a break from work or it could mean that I have finished all of my work and will cease from working simply because I have finished. The other option would be that I did a combination of both. The context determines what is being implied.
KJV:
Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done.
It clearly says that God rested from His work He had done. It does not say that He got tired and needed to rest because the work was to much for Him to sustain Himself any longer. Perhaps you have a great imagination.
I'm sorry. Let us rewind a bit. You made the claim that saladin 1970 had an incorrect view of God "resting" due to "misunderstanding, lack of studying, or poor teaching". However, I made the counter claim that God was "refreshed" which gives the implication of first being weary. This is based on Ex 31:17 of the KJV bible. Saladin 1970, however, did not post the additional verses which support this claim namely: Exd 23:12Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.
and
2Sa 16:14And the king, and all the people that [were] with him, came weary, and refreshed themselves there. Now all three verses use the hebrew word "naphash" translated as "refreshed", and clearly as seen in 2 Sa16:14 weary is what is presented prior to being refreshed. So if "It does not say that He got tired and needed to rest " what else can weary possibly mean?
Upvote
0
Lol
what a misunderstanding !
Did you read what you quoted? - those verses refer to people not God.
Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.
I've bold the subject. You've quoted part of the Laws Moses gave to the people of Israel.
what a misunderstanding !
Did you read what you quoted? - those verses refer to people not God.
Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.
I've bold the subject. You've quoted part of the Laws Moses gave to the people of Israel.
Upvote
0
You're wasting your time: I dont know any translation that means refreshed from His work..... even verse that refers to God means "on the seventh day, he abstained from his work" .... abstained as in finished, or completed creation .... and didnt add to his work....
Upvote
0
Similar threads
