Muslim gladiator wrote:
Anyways, let us see what is here.
Quote:
Kai replies:
I fail to see that falsehood has vanished
Could you please show me from Scripture where it says Allah has a wife; otherwise the Koran is making claims of serious errors against the Christians.
First of all Quran never tells a lies. Have not you gotten it yet?
Kai replies:
Well answer me this question:
Does the sun orbit the earth?
Muhammad stated in Sahih Al-Bukbari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 421: as Narrated by Abu Dharr:
The Prophet asked me at sunset, "Do you know where the sun goes (at the time of sunset)?" I replied, "Allah and His Apostle know better." He said, "It goes (i.e. travels) till it prostrates Itself underneath the Throne and takes the permission to rise again, and it is permitted and then (a time will come when) it will be about to prostrate itself but its prostration will not be accepted, and it will ask permission to go on its course but it will not be permitted, but it will be ordered to return whence it has come and so it will rise in the west.
And that is the interpretation of the Statement of Allah: ‘And the sun Runs its fixed course for a term (decreed). That is The Decree of (Allah) The Exalted in Might, The All-Knowing.’" (36.38)
This is further verified by the Koran:
“Seest thou not that God merges night into day and merges day into night; that He has subjected the sun and the moon (to his law), each running its course for a term appointed; and that God is well acquainted with all that ye do? (Sura 31: 29)”
“(God is) the one Who created the night, the day, the sun and the moon. Each one is travelling in an orbit with its own motion” (Sura 21: 33).
By the Sun and his (glorious) splendour; By the Moon as she follows him…(Sura 91: 1-2)
It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day: Each (just) swims along in (its own) orbit (according to Law)(Sura 36: 40).
Of course there is always room for poetry, that a holy book simply engages in a human observation; yet in this case there are too many details, and Muhammad himself interprets the Koranic passages.
Hence any true Muslim, even you Muslim gladiator needs to accept the Islamic proposition not the scientific one.
Secondly Muslim gladiator
Does the sun set in a muddy water?
Until, when he reached THE SETTING OF THE SUN, he found IT SET IN a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness"… Until, when he came to the rising of the sun, he found IT RISING on a people for whom We had provided no covering protection against the sun (surah 18:86)
Thirdly bro
Was Joseph sold for a number dirham (sura 12: 20)?
As far as I understand, there were no dirhams in Joseph’s time, but that is not the problem; I accept that the Koran uses a language which was suitable for its contemporaries.
The problem remains however, that the dirham did not even exist in Muhammad’s life time, when the Koran was supposedly revealed; how then did the dirham enter the Koran? Was this possibly a later addition?
Whatever it is, it is an error!
Muslim gladiator:
It seems to me you are kind of Protestants (there are many kinds of Protestants). Anyways,
I will not reply you this time, I will let a Scriptural and Rabbinic Scholar, who has been a hermit for the past thirty-one years from the Catholic Church, replies you.
Kai replies:
Go ahead
Muslim gladiator writes:
Marriage to the Holy Spirit
We also have to take into consideration that when Mary was told by the archangel Gabriel "Behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus" (Lk 1:31), he also added that this was to come about because "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the Holy one to be born shall be called the Son of God" (Lk 1:35).
By stating it in those terms the archangel declared to Mary that God would enter into a marital relationship with her, causing her to conceive His Son in her womb, For "to lay one's power (reshuth) over a woman" (Targum to Dt 21:4) was a euphemism for "to have a marital relationship with her."
Kai replies:
Really where on earth do people arrive to such ideas?
The phrase power over is used frequently in the Old Testament without necessarily referring to marital relationship.
And then again, in what sense does the context of the New Testament reveal that Mary and God (or the Holy Spirit) were married. The error you and your Rabbi friend are committing here, is overstating a phrase or a word, reading your own speculation into it and exclude the context; virtually, not impressive, if we consider academic.
Muslim Gladiator wrote:
Likewise "to overshadow" (Lk 1:35) by spreading the "wing" or "cloak" over a woman was another euphemism for marital relations. Thus, the rabbis commented (Midrash Genesis Rabbah 39.7; Midrash Ruth Rabbah 3.9) that Ruth was chaste in her wording when she asked Boaz to have marital relations with her by saying to him "I am Ruth you handmaid, spread therefore your cloak ( literally, "wing": kanaph) over your handmaid for you are my next-of-kin" (Ruth 3:9).
Kai replies:
In other words you trust your entire polemic on Jewish Rabbis who lived approximately 2000 years ago.
I would be please do debate with you about the Rabbis here. But have you have done studies on the Talmud and the Midrash? If you did, have you ever noticed the speculation, the overstatements, the contradictions of ideas between one rabbi and another.
Yet again, lets consider the text, where do you even read about wing or cloak in the Luke 1.35?
Simply because a passage utilizes the word overshadow, there is no indication even, that the passage refers to marital relationship.
Again you need to look at the analogy, in what sense is Mary married to Holy Spirit in the New Testament, does the context reveal that?
In the book of Ruth (and now I hope you possess some knowledge of the Old Testament Law and narrative), the particular scene in Ruth reveals no sexual or even marital indication.
Ruth says to Boaz: “I am your servant Ruth” she said “spread the corner of your garment over me, since you are a kinsman-redeemer” (Ruth 3: 9). Nothing in the text reveals anything but the fact that Ruth asked Boaz to cover her with a part (the corner of his garment); all it indicates is that
Ruth was cold or needed to be covered and even more significant in this way indicated that she wanted acceptance. Exactly how this indicates marriage or sex, or how this relates to Luke 1 makes no sense! What I mean is: Boaz garment is spread over Ruth and the Holy Spirit comes over Mary; exactly where is the reference to marriage, marital relations or sex? In what sense do these to narratives relate to each other? Please expound on this gladiator!
In the context the Ruth may have used the words as a way to get to Boaz, but there is simply no evidence except from a rabbis speculation that the word refers to marital relations. And even though it did, in what sense does the reference link to Luke one?
Let me also point out that overshadowing in its Old Testament context, when we exclude later rabbinical speculation, was often a sign of protection or defence, among a range of other meanings (Psalms 17: 8; 36: 7; 57: 1; 63: 7; 91: 1).
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Tallith, another Aramaic-Hebrew word for cloak, is derived from tellal = shadow. Thus, "to spread one's cloak (tallith) over a woman" means to cohabit with her (Kiddushin 18b, see also Mekhilta on Exodus 21: .
Kai replies:
Except that the Holy Spirit did not cohabit with Mary, neither did he marry her or engage in sexual relation with here! Do you see how ridiculous your proposition is; as I have already pointed out, you elaborate on a word, and what the ancient root of it original could have been used, and state that its root and particular use in a particular situation, must then point out the same conclusion in any occasion when the word is used; the rest is eisegesis (reading in chunks of theory in the text); not highly convincing Muslim gladiator.
Secondly, only because a word derives from a certain root, it does not mean that the word in its immediate use referred to its original meaning; words change by the decades; even in the ancient world.
Are we then to say, that shadow or overshadow in every reference, is any indication to marital relations.
Should we then conclude that the word wind, always refers to farting? I simply fail to see the logic here!
Thirdly, where in the context do we see that the Spirit is spreading his cloak over Marry?
Fourthly let me point out that the actual marital relation in Ruth does not inaugurate until chapter 4, after Boaz has conferred with Ruth’s closest next of kin. Hence the previous incident in chapter three, had nothing to do with marital relations.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Did not the Lord say to His bride Israel: "I am married to you" (Jr 3:14) and "your Maker is your husband"? (Is 54-5:5; Jr 31:32)? And what is more intimate than what the Lord said to His bride: "You developed, you grew, you came to full womanhood; your breasts became firm and your hair grew... you were naked... and I saw that you were now old enough for love so I spread my cloak over you... I gave you My oath, I entered into a covenant with you and you became Mine, says the Lord God" (Ezk 16:7, .
Kai replies:
Look at the context of this symbolic. Why does he spread his cloak over her? Because she is naked, not because he wants to marry her!
Muslim gladiator wrote:
And if you want more about this subject check this link,
http://catholicapologetics.net/apolo_154.htm
Have you asked yourself before why Catholic Church defined Mary like that
The Blessed Virgin Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, the mother of God?
Kai replies:
First and most in what sense do you associate the above with the Catholic theory?
In what sense does the above connect with the phrase Blessed Virgin Mary. Does the theory not indicate the exact opposite of what you are proposing?
The title mother of God is also a Catholic term, which is unbiblical, but on the other hand, if you maintain the idea that mother of God refers to the carrying of the entire Godhead rather than the humanly revelation of God, then you are seriously in error.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
The Translation of the Meanings of the Quran by Pickthall
[17]
{Glorified is He, and High Exalted above what they say!}
La elaha ela Allah.
Anyways for more about this subject go for this link:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm
Something else about this subject,
Allah replies all of these lies in His Book,
The translation of the Meanings of the Quran by Pickthall
[6]
{The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a child, when there is for Him no consort, when He created all things and is Aware of all things ?}
Allah has no consort, so how can He have a son?
Allah has no wife, So how can he has a son? If Allah had a son, He would have a wife like Him. So, it is impossible to have a son.
Kai replies:
Now I am kind of lost here!
Exactly what do you understand by the term Son of God? Christian do not believe in a literal son-ship of God; we certainly do not believe that God has a wife! These ideas you bring up are all Biblical.
The only reason why you possess these wrong concepts of Christianity, is because the author of the Koran failed to grasp the actual doctrines of the Christians---so much for your claim that the Koran is free from all errors.
And what is your book but lies, when it actually proposes misconception; are when then not more correct to assume that the fault and the lies are Koranic rather than Biblical?
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Look at the translation of the Meanings of the Quran by Pickthall,
[19]
{It befitteth not (the Majesty of) Allah that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is}
Or go and read the Orginal Manuscript in Arabic if you can. It is so smiple, why God had a son like the way you are talking about? It is so smiple, if He wants something , He say the term "Be" and it is.
Kai replies:
And as I have already pointed out, I agree; we Christians do not believe that God created a second divinity
Muslim gladiator wrote:
The Translation of the Meanings of the Quran by Pickthall
[23]
{Allah hath not chosen any son, nor is there any god along with Him; else would each god have assuredly championed that which he created, and some of them would assuredly have overcome others. Glorified be Allah above all that they allege.}
It is so simply, if there are many gods some of them should surely come over each other.
Why God should have son? Does he feel lonely? If yes? Why He does not have more than one? Whatever you tired to assure it, will not win.
Kai replies:
Good questions! Yet these questions are totally unfitting for a Christian context; why don’t you bring these questions up with a polytheist?
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Job 25:4 (New International Version)
{4 How then can a man be righteous before God?
How can one born of woman be pure?} [/i]
In The New Living Translators could not translate it like how other versions did, they knew that it is impossible for God say that the man who born will from a woman will be unpure then He came to go through the same operation.
That is how the translation according to the New Living Translation,
Job 25 (New Living Translation)
{4How can a mere mortal stand before God and claim to be righteous? Who in all the earth is pure?}
In Arabs world we analysis the words so well. The main Place of Eastern Catholics in Egypt. They just have one Bible. They do not understand that there are Bibles for kids and others for Adults. Anyways
They could not translate the meanings like how it should be,
That is their translation?
Job 25 : 4 (Arabic Life Application Bible)
4 فَكَيْفَ يَتَبَرَّرُ الإِنْسَانُ عِنْدَ اللهِ، وَكَيْفَ يَزْكُو مَوْلُودُ الْمَرْأَةِ؟
I will not add any comment. Ask who reads Arabic how the meaning is far away from the English meanings.
Kai replies:
Certainly Job is correct, at least when it concerned his time! Yet (and here again we come to the matter of studying correctly and within the context) who spoke these words?
Where they a divine revelation from heaven, stating that Jesus would not be born as a holy? Or do these words reveal the general correctness of a godly man, in which the Bible refers to his wording as narrative and not necessarily as a divine revelation from heaven.
Secondly, just for the sake of elaborating on the matter, if Job’s words were a revelation or divinely inspired statement, it becomes a matter of fact, that revelation of certain time, does not necessarily apply to any time, and hence every person.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOU QUESTION?
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Anyways, Here blow the story of the Birth of Isa or Jesus (Peace of Allah be upon him and his pure Mother) in the Quran and the Bible,
According to the Quran
19: 16- 21 The translation of the Meanings of the Quran by Pickthall
{[19]
And make mention of Mary in the Scripture, when she had withdrawn from her people to a chamber looking East,
[19]
And had chosen seclusion from them. Then We sent unto her Our Spirit and it assumed for her the likeness of a perfect man.
[19]
She said: Lo! I seek refuge in the Beneficent One from thee, if thou art God-fearing.
[19]
He said: I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may bestow on thee a faultless son.
[19]
She said: How can I have a son when no mortal hath touched me, neither have I been unchaste ?
[19]
He said: So (it will be). Thy Lord saith: It is easy for Me. And (it will be) that We may make of him a revelation for mankind and a mercy from Us, and it is a thing ordained.}
According to the Bible,
Luke 1:28-35 (King James Version)
{28And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
29And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
30And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.
31And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.
32He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
33And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.}
Please be honest and tell me which one do you prefer to choose for your sister or your daughter or yourself to read it?
Kai replies:
Of course I prefer the Gospel of Luke more than a deceptive book, that simply has borrowed the story.
DID IT EVER OCCUR TO YOU THAT THE AUTHOR OF SURA 19 IS HIGHLY DEPENDED UPON LUKE 1; WHY IS THAT? ESPECIALLY WHEN WE CONSIDER THAT LUKE IS THE ONLY COMPILER WHO IS NOT AN APOSTLE. WHY DID THE KORAN NOT REFER TO MATTHEW ONE AND TWO? DID IT THEREFORE EVER OCCUR TO YOU, THAT WE ARE OBSERVING PLAGIARISM HERE?
As to your question, I simply do not see any problem, as you have simply asserted a speculative pre-supposition, which depends upon the POSSIBLE root of a word, or how a word was used in a certain time and under certain circumstances.
Nothing you have pointed out, proves that the Holy Spirit married Marry, lived with her, or had sex with her; is your proposition not internally contradicted by the fact that Marry was in fact a virgin?
In fact I challenged you to look at the New Testament context and point out how your presupposition relates to the context and narrative!
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Quote:
Kai replies:
How do you know whether the term 'ten' was not existent in the main manuscript and how do you know whether it was asserted later or not?
I really wish to know if it was really in manuscript or not. But who knows, some have it and others not.
Kai replies:
Incorrect bro, some translations have it and some have not! AS I HAVE TRIED TO EXPLAIN, BUT WHICH YOU SEEM HAVING A DIFFICULTY IN TAKING IN, HEBREW LANGUAGE BECOMES QUITE FLEXIBLE IN TRANSLATION; MUCH SIMILAR TO THE KORAN!
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
The second is,
The term "ten" is still in the main manuscripts and the translators for the ECV omitted is in purpose. And in this case we should know why
?
Kai replies:
I do not get your point here! Please clarify the sentence!
Muslim gladiator wrote:
I was just putting the probabilities for why the term "ten" exist in some versions rather than others. Because if you find a problem in translate it, so how could you find it easy to translate the other words?
Kai replies:
Because we know the Hebrew language! And we know which words are flexible and which are not! We also know the various ways in which these flexible words can be translated!