oneGOD wrote:Hi,

And so the name 'Zaid bin Thabit al-Ansari' means:
Preacher (or follower) of those who firmly follow Mohammed's teachings
The article also commented on the hadith where Uthmann tells Zaid where you differ write it in the "dialect of the quraish" it suggested the "dialect of the Quraish" really should have been correctly interpreted "voice of the Quraish". The Quraish were the elite they obtained back their power after Mohammed died, it makes logically sense that the quran you have in your posession is a direct influence of the Quraish elite class who had their own version of the koran to say servitude to the ruling class, and had Uthmann burn the rest, makes a lot more sense for Uthmann to do this from political pressure from the ruling elite than "because their dialects were different"

Somehow through knowing that dialects don't change the meaning you made up an assumption that since Quraish was powerful they used their version of the Quran which is supposedly different because they have a different dialect

I didn't say this for the two posts in which you have replied you have a very strange manner of putting words I say completely out of context, read what I said about " voice of the Quraish".

Now you are taking my comments and the verse it is based on out of it's historical context, we are not israelites and the only reason the israelites attacked the Amalekites with nonchalance was because the amalekites had done the same to them with their old and their children, it was part revenge, no christian is ordered to act like this in this day and age.

I would like to remind you that all of this was done by the order of God, the so called so loving God (which he is, but you distorted it).

I reiterate we are christians we are not jews and we are not Israelites, if you are aware of christianity you would understand that some of the levitical laws were not ordained by God but came from the mind of men. Our faith is based on the life and fulfillment of Jesus.

Please your allah is no where near loving, he is as far away from the christian and jewish God as you can get, he has made some jinn and men as "fuel for hell" and some " are already presdestined to hell" he is the "best of deceivers", that is more akin to satan

You are running away from the answer, I recommend you read Deuteronomy and see the rulings and the laws concerning War, Slavery and many other things supposedly prescribed by God.

I have seen this tactic enough times to realise you want to play with your bone are you aware of one of the fundamental differences between jews and christians?. First of all since you are so sure these rulings for war, slavery and many others are in Deuteronomy do cite them for us. The best analogy of the difference between christianity and judaism I can give you regarding war et al is this, imagine for a second a world without penicillin and you get serious gangrene what do you do in a world without penicillin, obviously you cut off the limb to save the life, in a world with penicillin you treat the illness, this is what separates christianity from several aspects of judaism. I could elaborate some more but you have to understand jews are not christians.

On a side note dipping flies in soup to get rid of the disease and having complete strangers breast feed you so you may look upon them without a hijab has been ordained by your prophet.

and regarding the dowry do you know the dowry Mohammed paid Safiyah? It's a very important question.

quote me the Hadith please, I am not familiar with the name in English.

Her name is also known as Saffiyah/Saffiya surely you are aware of

Mohammed's jewish wife and how he obtained her, dowry is mahr

Our idea of inspiration is completely different from the islamic concept, fascinating how you have now come to the conclusion this is a genuine error and the verse really said "in my name" . Let us imagine for a second a verse says "all married women are foridden for you to have sex with except captives" and a modern translation then says "all married women are forbidden for you to have sex with except women who have run away from their disbelieving husbands" to you the verses really say the same thing!! but a reference from a priest that includes "in my name" and omits "the Father and the Holy Spirit" is a deceitful and purposeful omission the whole religion is now a pack of lies.

That is a possible rendering of the verse, it could be undetood that way and it also could be understood as captives of war. Thta is not the point and your comarison is invalid.

From your previous question I take it you are unfamiliar with the story of Safiyah in the book of Tabaqaat and the Sirat rasullah, if you were to read it along with the hadiths of Bukhari that mention Safiyah you would see exactly why the translator of that verse translated it the way they did, obviously his/her conscience must have been bothering him/her.

You now compared the Quran to the gospels

thats all we can do, what the scriptures say?

I was comparing the Hadith to the Gospels

You were comparing a note from Eusebius to the gospels and your hadith

3) what kind of inspiration do I not understan?
How about you make a research and prove me wrong?