Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Back Breaker
#16
""Furthermore, a book which purports that the earth is flat is clearly not from God. Sura 18:86 says ???Till, when he [the traveller Zul-qarnain] reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it going down into a muddy spring??? and Sura 18:90 says ???Till, when he reached the rising-place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had appointed no shelter from it.??? Paul, I can guarantee you that what is written here, as being true, is silly. This traveler never reached a ???muddy spring??? where the sun sets. ""

Hi there,

Is it possible this is an Arabic idiom?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.AramaicPeshitta.com">http://www.AramaicPeshitta.com</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.RaphaelLataster.com">http://www.RaphaelLataster.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#17
Not that I'm pro-Islam or anything, but just I ask because since studying Peshitta-type stuff I see how easy it is to find "contradictions" when idiom is involved.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.AramaicPeshitta.com">http://www.AramaicPeshitta.com</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.RaphaelLataster.com">http://www.RaphaelLataster.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#18
bar-hhela Wrote:Accept my challenge, Paul. Search the Qu'ran to find ONE CONTRADICTION or logical inconsistency.


Oh please, Akhi. Give me a BUR-REAK.

Sura 67:5 Wrote:And certainly We have adorned this lower heaven with lamps and We have made these missiles for the Shaitans, and We have prepared for them the chastisement of burning.

There are lamps which are going to turn into missiles for the "Satans", to chastise them with burning? Is this part of the scientific accuracy of the Quran?
+Shamasha Paul bar-Shimun de'Beth-Younan
[Image: sig.jpg]
Reply
#19
Beloved,

Quote:Oh please, Akhi. Give me a BUR-REAK.

If I wanted a Chicken sandwich, I'd go to McDonalds. <!-- sTongue --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/poketoungeb.gif" alt="Tongue" title="Poke Tounge" /><!-- sTongue -->

Quote:There are lamps which are going to turn into missiles for the "Satans", to chastise them with burning? Is this part of the scientific accuracy of the Quran?

Only if you can scientifically prove the existence of the Satans and test their composition.
???Do not give up, for that is ignorance and not according to the rules of this art... Like the lover, you cannot hope to achieve success without infinite perseverance.???
Reply
#20
Quote:Furthermore, a book which purports that the earth is flat is clearly not from God. Sura 18:86 says ???Till, when he [the traveller Zul-qarnain] reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it going down into a muddy spring??? and Sura 18:90 says ???Till, when he reached the rising-place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had appointed no shelter from it.

Yes, Sura 18:66 is idiomatic.

???Till, when he reached the setting place of the sun??????, means that Zul Qarnain followed a route until he reached the furthest point that could be reached in the direction of the sun???s setting, which is the west of the earth. It does not say that Zul-Qarnain reached the place where the sun sets LITERALLY, rather it means here that Zul-Qarnain was facing the direction in which the sun is setting.

???he found it setting in a muddy spring?????? means that he saw the sun as if it were setting in the ocean. This is something that everyone who goes to the coast or beach can see: it looks as if the sun is setting into the sea, but in fact it never leaves its path in which it is fixed.The Qur'an is obviously describing what Dhul-Qarnain saw. What Dhul-Qarnain saw was the image of the sun setting in a dark body of water. Since the Qur'??n is clearly describing this from Dhul-Qarnain's direct point of view (the Qur'an is quite explicit here in doing that), there is in fact no problem with the description of what Dhul-Qarnain saw.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://oz.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/1996-06-30/sunset.jpg">http://oz.irtc.org/ftp/pub/stills/1996-06-30/sunset.jpg</a><!-- m -->

What does the sun look like it's doing?

Matthew 12
42. The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.

This statement is just as silly or just as idiomatic. After all, "a book which purports that the earth is flat is clearly not from God."

Quote:Paul, I can guarantee you that what is written here, as being true, is silly.

Don't lie to Paul.
???Do not give up, for that is ignorance and not according to the rules of this art... Like the lover, you cannot hope to achieve success without infinite perseverance.???
Reply
#21
Keith,

You will address me directly. Do not throw an arrow without expecting me to launch a thousand back at you!

Quote:One hardly knows how to respond nor where to begin to the charge that there are no contradictions in the Koran. Obviously there are both internal and external contradictions in the Koran, any book written by a man is prone to this. How could it be otherwise? Let me give you a few brief examples, only a few of many contradictions found. My quotes are from ???The Meaning of The Holy Qur???an??? by Abdullah Yusuf Ali (a book I own).

Watch hopelessly as I tear you down.

Quote:Sura 39:4 ???Had Allah wished to take to Himself A son, He could have Chosen whom He pleased Out of those whom He Doth create: but Glory Be to Him! (He is above Such things.) He is Allah, The One, the Irresistible."

Sura 6:101 ???Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth; How can He have a son when He has no consort? He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things.???

These Suras agree in that they teach that God (Allah) does not have a son however the point is that Sura 39 says that it is possible for God (Allah) ???to take to Himself a son???. In other words, it is possible for God (Allah) to have a son ???had Allah wished???. On the other hand Sura 6 as the rhetorical question ??????How can He have a son when He has no consort???? This question requires the answer ???no??? to the question. Sura 6 asks a good question, however the clear message of the writer of this Sura is that it is impossible for God (Allah) to have a son.

Paul, the point is simple. One Sura says it is impossible for God to have a son (Sura 6) and another says it is possible for God to have a son, if God wished. Don???t let this young man fool you into believing that the issue of these two verses has to do with ???whether or not God has a son???. The issue is one of possibility not reality.

There is no contradiction here:

Sura 39:4 ???Had Allah wished to take to Himself A son, He could have Chosen whom He pleased Out of those whom He Doth create: but Glory Be to Him! (He is above Such things.) He is Allah, The One, the Irresistible."

According to this verse, Allah could have take to Himself a son if He willed, for He is able to do all things. Then it says "He is above such things." This is clearly negating the possibility.

100. Yet they make the Jinns equals with Allah, though Allah did create the Jinns; and they falsely, having no knowledge, attribute to Him sons and daughters. Praise and glory be to Him! (for He is) above what they attribute to Him!

Sura 6:101 ???Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth; How can He have a son when He has no consort? He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things.???

Allah is speaking of those who attribute to Him sons and daughters. Here it is necessary to pose and contemplate on the arguments presented by the Church with regards to their claim that Jesus is the son of Allah. One of the arguments used by the Church is that Jesus, being born of a virgin mother, had no human father. For that they claim that his father is God in heaven.

Allah is making a mockery of such logic. This is an explanation of what He is saying:

'If you believe that everybody must abide by the laws of reproduction that God ordained for human beings (i.e. for anyone to have a son, one must first have a wife, and that every child must have a father and a mother), and you deduce from that that since Jesus had no human father, then his father must be God in heaven, then by the same logic that you use, how could God have a son when he did not have a wife first ?'

It becomes evident that in 6:101, Allah is not addressing the possibility of having a son or not, but actually making a mockery of the poor logic used by those who make Jesus the son of Allah because he did not have a human father, instead of realising that it was a miracle decreed by Allah who is able to do anything He pleases

The first verse is saying if He wanted to, He could have had a son if He chose for He is able to do all things. Then it negates the possibility. 6:100 negates the possibility then goes on to refute the logic of those who claim Jesus is the son of God.

You must have found it convienant to pick at one verse in isolation to the previous verse.

Quote:Furthermore, a book which purports that the earth is flat is clearly not from God. Sura 18:86 says ???Till, when he [the traveller Zul-qarnain] reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it going down into a muddy spring??? and Sura 18:90 says ???Till, when he reached the rising-place of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had appointed no shelter from it.??? Paul, I can guarantee you that what is written here, as being true, is silly. This traveler never reached a ???muddy spring??? where the sun sets.

I've addressed this in a previous post.

Quote:How???s this one? Sura 12:41 says that the Patriarch Joseph said ???O my two mates of the prison! as for one of you, he shall give his lord to drink wine; and as for the other, he shall be crucified, so that the birds shall eat from his head, the matter is decreed concerning which you inquired.??? Suppose you were the ???mate??? who was to be crucified; wouldn???t you have said ???Hey, Joseph wait just a cotton picking minute, what the heck is a crucifixion???? The Persians were the first to utilize this form of execution not the Egyptians and certainly not during Joseph???s time.

and Pythagaras was the first to use the Pythagorean theorem.

Genesis 40
19 Within three days Pharaoh will lift off your head and hang you on a tree. [1] And the birds will eat away your flesh."

Oh look at that, Keith! We're on the same boat, aren't we? Now you provide evidence.

"Crucifixion was one of the most cruel and barbarous forms of death known to man. It was practiced, especially in the times of war, by the Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Egyptians, and later by the Romans. So dreaded was it that even in the pre-Christian era, the cares and troubles of the life were often compared to a cross" J. D. Douglas, M. C. Tenny, The New International Dictionary Of The Bible: Pictorial Edition, 1987, Regency Reference Library (USA) & Marshall Pickering (UK), p. 242.

"Crucifixion was in used among the Egyptians, Ge 40:19; the Carthaginians, the Persians, Es 7:10; the Assyrians, Scythains, Indians, Germans, and from the earliest times among the Greeks and Romans. Whether this mode of execution was known to the ancient Jews is a matter of dispute. Probably the Jews borrowed it from the Romans. It was unanimously considered the most horrible form of death" Smith's Bible Dictionary under "Crucifixion".

The most ancient form of crucifixion was on trees:

(Pharaoh) said: "Believe ye in Him before I give you permission? Surely this must be your leader, who has taught you magic! be sure I will cut off your hands and feet on opposite sides, and I will have you crucified on trunks of palm-trees: so shall ye know for certain, which of us can give the more severe and the more lasting punishment!" [Qur'an 20:71]

The Jews (immediately out of Egypt) rarely used the method:

If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree, you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse. You must not desecrate the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance. [Deuteronomy 21:22-23]

He hung the king of Ai on a tree and left him there until evening. At sunset, Joshua ordered them to take his body from the tree and throw it down at the entrance of the city gate. And they raised a large pile of rocks over it, which remains to this day. [Joshua 8:29].

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia of Archaeology of the Cross and Crucifix:

The penalty of the cross goes back probably to the arbor infelix, or unhappy tree, spoken of by Cicero (Pro, Rabir., iii sqq.) and by Livy, apropos of the condemnation of Horatius after the murder of his sister. According to H??schke (Die Multa, 190) the magistrates known as duoviri perduellion is pronounced this penalty (cf. Liv., I, 266), styled also infelix lignem (Senec., Ep. ci; Plin., XVI, xxvi; XXIV, ix; Macrob., II, xvi). This primitive form of crucifixion on trees was long in use, as Justus Lipsius notes ("De cruce", I, ii, 5; Tert., "Apol.", VIII, xvi; and "Martyrol. Paphnut." 25 Sept.). Such a tree was known as a cross (crux).

This form of state terror, widespread across the Roman Empire which included Europe, North Africa and Western Asia, originated several centuries before the Common Era continuing into the fourth century CE when the practice was discontinued by Constantine, the emperor of Rome. Hengel, in his monumental work on the subject entitled Crucifixion (1989:22-23) writes that while authors generally regard it???s origin as in Persia due to the writings of Herodotus it???s practice was found among the Indians, Assyrians, Scythians, Taurians, Celts, Greeks, Seleucids, Romans, Britanni, Numidians, Carthagians the latter who may have transferred it???s knowledge to the Romans. While its origins are obscured in antiquity it???s clear that the form of capital punishment lasted for nearly 900 years beginning with Darius???s (550-485 BCE) crucifixion of 3,000 Babylonian captives in 519 BCE (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1993, Vol.3, p.762) and ending with the Roman emperor Constantine in 337 CE, thus tens if not hundreds of thousands of individual victims were subject to this cruel and humiliating form of punishment" (Crucifixion in <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="Antiquity-http://www.joezias.com/CrucifixionAntiquity.html">Antiquity-http://www.joezias.com/Crucif ... quity.html</a><!-- m -->)

From this article, we can induce that the art of crucifixion was universal to various nations--some of which were never in contact to each other (i.e. the Assyrians and Celts). But it is clear that we do not know the various forms of crucifixion that existed in antiquity, particularly in Egypt. More research needs to be conducted regarding crucifixion in Egypt.
???Do not give up, for that is ignorance and not according to the rules of this art... Like the lover, you cannot hope to achieve success without infinite perseverance.???
Reply
#22
Metal,

Quote:I have the documents of Nicea and Ephesus and there is not one word about which Gospels to use or the Peshitta.

Go to the source to substantiate claims of this sort.

You're right. Here are the sources:

The Muratorian Canon
The Canon Of Origen (A.D. c. 185 - 254)
The Canon Of Eusebius Of Caesarea (A.D. 265 - 340)
A Canon Of Uncertain Date And Provenance Inserted in Codex Claromontanus
The Canon Of Cyril Of Jerusalem (c. A.D. 350)
The Cheltenham Canon (c. A.D. 360)
The Canon Approved By The Synod Of Laodicea (c. A.D. 363)
The Canon Of Athanasius (A.D. 367)
The Canon Approved By The 'Apostolic Canons' (c. A.D. 380)
The Canon Of Gregory Of Nazianzus (A.D. 329 - 89)
The Canon Of Amphilochius Of Iconium (d. 394)
The Canon Approved By The Third Synod Of Carthage (A.D. 397)

The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.The Catholic Encyclopedia Online Edition.

Versus-

"With reference to....the originality of the Peshitta text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision."

Syriac Church: Syriac Churches used the Diatesseron, the four-in-one Gospel, introduced by Tatian, and was read in the Syriac Churches for quite some time before it was replaced by Peshitta. Peshitta has again a different number of Books in the New Testament. This represents for the New Testament an accomodation of the canon of the Syrians with that of the Greeks. Third Corinthians was rejected, and, in addition to the fourteen Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews, following Philemon), three longer Catholic Epistles (James, 1 Peter, and 1 John) were included. The four shorter Catholic Epistles (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude) and the Apocalypse are absent from the Peshitta Syriac version, and thus the Syriac canon of the New Testament contained but twenty-two writings. For a large part of the Syrian Church this constituted the closing of the canon, for after the Council of Ephesus (431 CE) the East Syrians separated themselves as Nestorians from the Great Church.

Versus--

Athanasius issued his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle not only in the Greek but also in Coptic, in a slightly different form - though the list of the twenty seven books of the New Testament is the same in both languages. How far, however the list remained authoritative for the Copts is problematical. The Coptic (Bohairic) translation of the collection knowns as the Eighty-Five Apostlic Canons concludes with a different sequence of the books of the New Testament and is enlarged by the addition of two others: the four Gospels; the Acts of the Apostles; the fourteen Epistles of Paul (not mentioned individually); two Epistles of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; the Apocalypse of John; the two Epistles of Clement.

Yet both claims to be Apostolic:

Coptic Church: An Ancient Christian Church. It is one of the most ancient Churches in the world, having been founded by Saint Mark the Apostle, the writer of the second gospel, in the first Century. The word 'Coptic' comes from the ancient Egyptian word ???hekaptah' meaning 'Egypt', and thus 'Coptic' merely means 'Egyptian.' As a conservative Church, the Coptic Church has carefully preserved the Orthodox Christian Faith in its earliest and purest form, handing it down from generation to generation, unaltered and true to the Apostolic doctrines and patterns of worship.

Versus:

The Church of the East began during the missionary activity which took place in the Apostolic Age. Written records have been traced to the late second century of the Christian era. The numbers of people who belonged to the Church at that time, and the broad area it covered, would indicate that there had been a long period of development and growth, possibly reaching back into the first century and the time of the Apostles. Tradition in the Church of the East dates its founding in the middle of the first century.

Two different dogmas
Two different canons
Same Apostles.

One or both Churches are either lying or later fell into envy, thus creating a schism. After all, there can only be one "earliest."

ahem: The Syrian Orthodox Church and the Church of the East
cough: Peshitta and Peshitto
sneeze: theological disputes
bless me: final split
sneeze: two Patriarchs claiming authority from Peter.

There is something wrong here, Metal.
???Do not give up, for that is ignorance and not according to the rules of this art... Like the lover, you cannot hope to achieve success without infinite perseverance.???
Reply
#23
Bar-khela,

You still assume a superior intellect than anyone else on this forum. You are mistaken. You are barking up the wrong tree with your insults and attacks. First finish college, mature, and then attack; until then ask non-insulting questions.

There is a direct contradiction about the ability for God to have a son. That is what the Koran says. You may try to obfuscate the facts but the facts remain. Go back and reread these two Suras. I'm not interested in your understanding of the meaning of those two Suras. What does your Holy Book say?

The Egyptians did not practice crucifixion during the patriarch Joseph's lifetime. There is no evidence to support the Koran. That this is an anachronism is without dispute.


Keith
Reply
#24
Keith,

Quote:You still assume a superior intellect than anyone else on this forum. You are mistaken.

For me to say that I have a superior intellect is to say that I am without challenge (which is far from the truth). I never stated what you accuse me of. Let me assure you that I do not fear you and I will blaze everything you throw at me. Either stop or continue.

Quote:You are barking up the wrong tree with your insults and attacks. First finish college, mature, and then attack; until then ask non-insulting questions.

Note to the forum: When your opponent is unable to directly refute your argument, he or she will use logical fallacies to appease his or her crowd. Keith is using the most common of logical fallacies known as ad hominem. An ad hominem is the attack of one's opponent's background instead of his or her argument.

Note to Keith: I will ask what I choose. I encourage the same.

Quote:There is a direct contradiction about the ability for God to have a son. That is what the Koran says. You may try to obfuscate the facts but the facts remain. Go back and reread these two Suras. I'm not interested in your understanding of the meaning of those two Suras. What does your Holy Book say?

Sura 39:4 ???Had Allah wished to take to Himself A son, He could have Chosen whom He pleased Out of those whom He Doth create: but Glory Be to Him! (He is above Such things.) He is Allah, The One, the Irresistible."

Translation: He could taken for Himself a son, but no, He is above such things.

Sets it up, then negates it.

100. Yet they make the Jinns equals with Allah, though Allah did create the Jinns; and they falsely, having no knowledge, attribute to Him sons and daughters.Praise and glory be to Him! (for He is) above what they attribute to Him[b]

Direct refutation of the Christian and Pagan arguments. They attribute sons and daughters to Him. He says He is above what they attribute to Him.

Negation.

Sura 6:101 ???Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth; How can He have a son when He has no consort? He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things.???

Many Christians argue that since Jesus is without a father, he is the son of Allah. This verse is a refutation of such logic and also a negation by "how can He have a son when He has no consort?" Allah has no wife, so how could He have a son? This is negating the possibility of God having a son in accordance to a specific argument. Nevertheless, it is a negation.

And whose understanding of these two Suras would you prefer if not the rhetoric and logic of answering islam (a Christian site clearly biased and bent on "obfuscating the facts")?

There is no contradiction here.

Quote:The Egyptians did not practice crucifixion during the patriarch Joseph's lifetime. There is no evidence to support the Koran. That this is an anachronism is without dispute.

"This is what it means," Joseph said. "The three baskets are three days. Within three days Pharaoh will lift off your head and [b]hang you on a tree.
And the birds will eat away your flesh." [Genesis 40:18-19]

The same "error" is in the Bible. Either crucifixion did exist in Egypt or the Bible is not the word of God since it contains such a gross error.

???Crucifixion was an extreme punishment used by peoples around the Mediterranean basin for about 1,000 years,??? said David Cook, assistant professor of religious studies at Rice University. ???It was a public and ??? degrading punishment designed to deter.???

He said it was first mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi about 1700 B.C. but was brought into popular use about 500 B.C. by the Persians and then the Carthaginians. In the fourth century B.C., Alexander the Great is believed to have spread the use of crucifixion to Egypt. The Romans are believed to have picked it up from the Carthaginians.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.atrium-media.com/rogueclassicism/2004/02/21.html">http://www.atrium-media.com/rogueclassi ... 02/21.html</a><!-- m -->

The majority of scholars conclude that Joseph entered Egypt during the time of the Hyksos. The Hyksos belonged to a group of mixed Semitic-Asiatics who infiltrated Egypt during the Middle Kingdom and became rulers of Lower Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period (c. 1674-1553 BC).

According to the article, Alexander the Great spread the use of crucifixion to Egypt in the fourth century BC. Joseph entered Egypt in the second century BC.

Now what, Keith?
???Do not give up, for that is ignorance and not according to the rules of this art... Like the lover, you cannot hope to achieve success without infinite perseverance.???
Reply
#25
Bar-khela,

I said-???You still assume a superior intellect than anyone else on this forum. You are mistaken.???

To which you replied ???For me to say that I have a superior intellect is to say that I am without challenge (which is far from the truth). I never stated what you accuse me of. Let me assure you that I do not fear you and I will blaze everything you throw at me. Either stop or continue.???

You may want to reread what I actually said. I said ???you assume?????? You said ???I never stated?????? This is correct you never stated that, you assume it. There is a big difference. You may want to start posting without the emotion of hatred in your heart. Please calmly read what others say then reply. I would ask that you would reply courteously and without your salutation ???Don???t challenge me. It???ll cost your pride???.

I said ???You are barking up the wrong tree with your insults and attacks. First finish college, mature, and then attack; until then ask non-insulting questions.???

You replied ???Note to the forum: When your opponent is unable to directly refute your argument, he or she will use logical fallacies to appease his or her crowd. Keith is using the most common of logical fallacies known as ad hominem. An ad hominem is the attack of one's opponent's background instead of his or her argument. Note to Keith: I will ask what I choose. I encourage the same.

You may want to read a couple of dictionary definitions about ???ad hominem??? attacks to get a good feel for what one actually is. A good debating class in college will also help you understand what this is and what this is not. My refutation of your argument follows my suggestion and is reiterated below. I suggest you mature before you attack.

An example of an ???ad hominem??? argument follows. "Bar-khela, your point is silly and useless because it is based on a dysfunctional childhood and an estranged relationship with your father." That would be an ???ad hominem??? argument. There was no factual refutation in that statement just an accurate description of your childhood placed in a context which is hurtful to you. That statement is ???ad hominem??? and has nothing to do with a refutation.

I said ???There is a direct contradiction about the ability for God to have a son. That is what the Koran says. You may try to obfuscate the facts but the facts remain. Go back and reread these two Suras. I'm not interested in your understanding of the meaning of those two Suras. What does your Holy Book say????

After I expressed that I don???t care what your understanding of this verse is you gave me your understanding. My question of ???what does your ???Holy Book??? say???? stands.

You said ???Sura 39:4 ???Had Allah wished to take to Himself A son, He could have Chosen whom He pleased Out of those whom He Doth create: but Glory Be to Him! (He is above Such things.) He is Allah, The One, the Irresistible."

Then you gave us ???your understanding???. You said ???Translation: He could taken for Himself a son, but no, He is above such things. Sets it up, then negates it.???

Me again- If that explanation is your way of justifying to yourself the obvious contradiction found in the Koran I???m ok with it. However, let me reiterate that the Koran says ???Had Allah wished to take to Himself a son, he could have chosen whom he pleased out of ?????? This is what it says. Either the plain written word means what it says or it has no meaning. The Koran further asks this about Allah ???How can He have a son when He has no consort????

One Sura says God cannot have a son and another says He can. No amount of mental gymnastics can change the printed word.

I said ???The Egyptians did not practice crucifixion during the patriarch Joseph's lifetime. There is no evidence to support the Koran. That this is an anachronism is without dispute

You said ???"This is what it means,"

Me- No it does not. This fellow was probably hanged. He was not crucified. I would ask that before you accept any professor???s statement at face value that you do independent research to confirm or refute it. Cook is wrong. The Knight-Ridder newspaper article you quote without reference is far from authoritative. ???Hammurabi???s Code??? does not mention crucifixion. Check it out for yourself.

Finally you said ???Joseph entered Egypt in the second century BC.???

Me- Check your facts again. When do you believe that Joseph enter Egypt?

Your last question is profound ???Now what, Keith????

I hope you are sincere with that question. If you really want an answer, here it is. I would ask that you cool your jets. No one here is your enemy. Your flamboyance has a way of irritating many people. That group of people includes me. Why not participate in dialogue rather than accusations and threats? Your questions are legitimate and I (as well as many others) would like to answer them without the hatred you have brought to this forum.

I hope you take this post without an emotion of hatred. It was not posted with that intent.
Keith
Reply
#26
Keith Wrote:Bar-khela,

Quote:I said-???You still assume a superior intellect than anyone else on this forum. You are mistaken.???

To which you replied ???For me to say that I have a superior intellect is to say that I am without challenge (which is far from the truth). I never stated what you accuse me of. Let me assure you that I do not fear you and I will blaze everything you throw at me. Either stop or continue.???

You may want to reread what I actually said. I said ???you assume?????? You said ???I never stated?????? This is correct you never stated that, you assume it. There is a big difference. You may want to start posting without the emotion of hatred in your heart. Please calmly read what others say then reply. I would ask that you would reply courteously and without your salutation ???Don???t challenge me. It???ll cost your pride???.

I will try, Keith.

Quote:An example of an ???ad hominem??? argument follows. "Bar-khela, your point is silly and useless because it is based on a dysfunctional childhood and an estranged relationship with your father." That would be an ???ad hominem??? argument. There was no factual refutation in that statement just an accurate description of your childhood placed in a context which is hurtful to you. That statement is ???ad hominem??? and has nothing to do with a refutation.

You've cited an abusive ad hominem this time. Last time, you, at least, implied a circumstantial ad hominem. You stated that I needed to finish college and mature before I try to attack. Here, you seem to be discrediting my argument because I have not finished college.

I'm eighteen and in my first year of college. But Jesus was twelve.

Quote:I said ???There is a direct contradiction about the ability for God to have a son. That is what the Koran says. You may try to obfuscate the facts but the facts remain. Go back and reread these two Suras. I'm not interested in your understanding of the meaning of those two Suras. What does your Holy Book say????

After I expressed that I don???t care what your understanding of this verse is you gave me your understanding. My question of ???what does your ???Holy Book??? say???? stands.

You said ???Sura 39:4 ???Had Allah wished to take to Himself A son, He could have Chosen whom He pleased Out of those whom He Doth create: but Glory Be to Him! (He is above Such things.) He is Allah, The One, the Irresistible."

Then you gave us ???your understanding???. You said ???Translation: He could taken for Himself a son, but no, He is above such things. Sets it up, then negates it.???

Me again- If that explanation is your way of justifying to yourself the obvious contradiction found in the Koran I???m ok with it. However, let me reiterate that the Koran says ???Had Allah wished to take to Himself a son, he could have chosen whom he pleased out of ?????? This is what it says. Either the plain written word means what it says or it has no meaning. The Koran further asks this about Allah ???How can He have a son when He has no consort????

You've cited the two Suras out of context and in isolation from the verses that precede them. I've explained the two verses in a concise, logical sense. However, you do not want to accept "my understanding" of these two verses. You'd rather cling to your preception without any proper usage of Qur'anic exegesis. OK.

For convienance's sake, let's go on to another so-called contradiction in the Qu'ran.

Quote:Me- No it does not. This fellow was probably hanged. He was not crucified.

Deuteronomy 21
23 you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse. You must not desecrate the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

Galatians 3
13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

Then so was Jesus. Jesus was either crucified or lynched.

Quote:I would ask that before you accept any professor???s statement at face value that you do independent research to confirm or refute it. Cook is wrong. The Knight-Ridder newspaper article you quote without reference is far from authoritative. ???Hammurabi???s Code??? does not mention crucifixion. Check it out for yourself.

You're right.

Quote:Finally you said ???Joseph entered Egypt in the second century BC.???

Me- Check your facts again. When do you believe that Joseph enter Egypt?

Forget the whole Alexander the Great part. It was just an idea I jumped on to refute you. However, it is baseless.

Quote:Your last question is profound ???Now what, Keith????

Quote:I hope you are sincere with that question. If you really want an answer, here it is. I would ask that you cool your jets. No one here is your enemy. Your flamboyance has a way of irritating many people.

Name them

Quote:Why not participate in dialogue rather than accusations and threats?

I haven't threatened anyone on this forum, Keith.

C'mon, buddy.

Stop being so dramatic.

Quote:Your questions are legitimate and I (as well as many others) would like to answer them without the hatred you have brought to this forum.

Do not confuse boldness with hatred.

Aunty Christ exemplified hatred, threats, accusations, etc. Not me.
???Do not give up, for that is ignorance and not according to the rules of this art... Like the lover, you cannot hope to achieve success without infinite perseverance.???
Reply
#27
Thank you Bar-khela, for your kind reply. Good luck in your years in college.

Keith
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)