PDA

View Full Version : Muslims: You know Surah 2 rewrites Jewish history, so why do you trust it?



sotrktiv
09-14-2015, 05:05 AM
As a Christian who understands both Tanakh (Torah, psalms and prophets) and the Injeel (New Testament), as with all of the key historical data to serve as corroborating evidence for both, how is it that you accept an anachronistic take on Jewish history, and accept a "new" revelation that is full of contradictory accounts, whose authority is based on a man's word?

What evidence/ayat is Islam supported by?

CXC3000
09-14-2015, 05:45 AM
As a Christian who understands both Tanakh (Torah, psalms and prophets) and the Injeel (New Testament), as with all of the key historical data to serve as corroborating evidence for both, how is it that you accept an anachronistic take on Jewish history, and accept a "new" revelation that is full of contradictory accounts, whose authority is based on a man's word?

What evidence/ayat is Islam supported by?

Surah 2 is the longest one in the Quran. Would you care to point out the necessary Verses you refer to ? - since the subject matter (in that Surah) is varied ?

sotrktiv
09-14-2015, 06:00 AM
Without going into detail, and while taking the entire Surah into account, calling Abraham a "Muslim" before such a concept existed, this in place of him being labeled "a child of God" (which was the name of all faithful peoples since Adam, this opposed to Cains lineage) is problematic and anachronistic. Another example is the story of the yellow cow which doesn't exist in Torah, nor does it add anything useful to the original account, or, Paradise being somehow above whereas Genesis states it was on the earth (even if above is metaphorical) etc. Why would new data bring confusion to the old and have clear contradictions associated with it (God is not the author of confusion).

But these inconsistencies aside, what evidences do you base your faith on to know that what is being in the Qur'an is reliable?

illriginalized
09-14-2015, 06:07 AM
Without going into detail, and while taking the entire Surah into account, calling Abraham a "Muslim" before such a concept existed, this in place of him being labeled "a child of God" (which was the name of all faithful peoples since Adam, this opposed to Cains lineage) is problematic and anachronistic. Another example is the story of the yellow cow which doesn't exist in Torah, nor does it add anything useful to the original account, or, Paradise being somehow above whereas Genesis states it was on the earth (even if above is metaphorical) etc. Why would new data bring confusion to the old and have clear contradictions associated with it (God is not the author of confusion).

But these inconsistencies aside, what evidences do you base your faith on to know that what is being in the Qur'an is reliable?

OP..

Do you know what the definition of, "Muslim" is?


Please respond.

Alchem
09-14-2015, 06:07 AM
a. You don't have enough evidence that the accounts in the tankh and injeel are factual history or that they're a reliable source of history.
b. We believe in the accounts in the Qur'an because we're Muslim and believe that Islam is a true religion and that the Qur'an is the word of God.

sotrktiv
09-14-2015, 06:25 AM
OP..

Do you know what the definition of, "Muslim" is?


Please respond.

Yes, but its application is still anachronistic. Were they "Muslim" when the arabic language hadn't even been created yet? If yes, why create a new term that is inextricably attached to Islam when worthy and more suitable Jewish terms already existed, having different and more if not equally adequate meanings?


a. You don't have enough evidence that the accounts in the tankh and injeel are factual history or that they're a reliable source of history.
b. We believe in the accounts in the Qur'an because we're Muslim and believe that Islam is a true religion and that the Qur'an is the word of God.

A. I do

And B. This isn't an answer. I believe that Yahweh is the Savior of Israel because He said they would be returned to their land and have. I believe Yahshua/Isa is the promised one, because He performed miracles, explicated the Torah, foretold prophecies that occurred, and fulfilled duties that only He as the Word and Son of God could. I'm not trying to make obvious disagreements, I want to know what facts you base your faith upon...

illriginalized
09-14-2015, 06:44 AM
Yes, but its application is still anachronistic. Were they "Muslim" when the arabic language hadn't even been created yet? If yes, why create a new term that is inextricable attached to Islam when worthy and more suitable Jewish terms already existed, having different and more if not equally adequate meanings?





How are you defining, "the children of God"?

Actually this is my last post in this thread here's an update:

http://islamqa.info/en/26728

sotrktiv
09-14-2015, 06:54 AM
How are you defining, "the children of God"?

As per early Genesis and the holy lineage of faithful people who walked with God and obeyed Him. These same people did not become defiled with the wickedness of their time, and culminated in Noah, who's lineage through Shem begat Abram (Abraham). They could be called muslims if muslim is not a signifier of belonging to a specific religious tradition, but as soon as one wishes to apply a specific ideology and set of beliefs to this word (differing from what's already expressly written about these people), it becomes both anachronistic and problematic.

illriginalized
09-14-2015, 07:02 AM
As per early Genesis and the holy lineage of faithful people who walked with God and obeyed Him. These same people did not become defiled with the wickedness of their time, and culminated in Noah, who's lineage through Shem begat Abram (Abraham). They could be called muslims if muslim is not a signifier of belonging to a specific religious tradition, but as soon as one wishes to apply a specific ideology and set of beliefs to this word (differing from what's already expressly written about these people), it becomes both anachronistic and problematic.

So you don't know the definition of, "Muslim".

Let me help you:


Islam by definition means surrender and submission only to the one true creator. A muslim by definition means one who surrenders and submits to the laws of God.

As almighty God is the creator of the heavens and the earth and the creation in it, nothing in the creation works at its own free will...that is it follows a law and nothing can break or change that law unless the almighty wills.

Therefore we could say that gravity follows a law and we could call that law a muslim law since by definition it is obeying the created law of the almighty and never changes. In a similar manner when a child is born it is naturally 'muslim' as it has been born without its own control, that is by its surrender and submission to the law of God. When the earth spins about its own axis it is not controlled by man but by its surrender and submisssion to an external controler can by definition be a muslim. We can apply this to every naturally occuring situation which is beyond our control from the microscopic to the macro and come to a conclusion that to be muslim is to be natural by definition.

You can say that all the previous prophets and messengers were muslims by definition ie surrendered and submitted to God - from Adam, Noah, Lut, Abraham, Ishmail, Isaac, John, Jesus and Muhammed( may peace be upon them all)

Alchem
09-14-2015, 07:02 AM
A. I do
Explain.


And B. This isn't an answer. I believe that Yahweh is the Savior of Israel because He said they would be returned to their land and have. I believe Yahshua/Isa is the promised one, because He performed miracles, explicated the Torah, foretold prophecies that occurred, and fulfilled duties that only He as the Word and Son of God could. I'm not trying to make obvious disagreements, I want to know what facts you base your faith upon...
That's a whole other topic beyond the scope of this thread. There are many different reasons for why I believe Islam to be a true religion from God.

BalkanPrince
09-14-2015, 07:04 AM
You obviously do not understand the key concept of Islam. The Islamic faith believes that the Bible, and Torah have been corrupted with time by man, and many of it's scripture changed, leading to a fabrication of many stories. The Quran does not claim to contradict or change those stories or history, but rather to correct them. Muslims recognize that early Jews were real believers who believed in a real prophet (Prophet Moses Pbuh), but wondered off in the wrong direction with time. The same story applies to Christians.

sotrktiv
09-14-2015, 08:02 AM
So you don't know the definition of, "Muslim".

Let me help you:

You asked me a different question, and I knew the meaning of Muslim.


Explain.


That's a whole other topic beyond the scope of this thread. There are many different reasons for why I believe Islam to be a true religion from God.

The bold part is what I'm seeking answers for.


You obviously do not understand the key concept of Islam. The Islamic faith believes that the Bible, and Torah have been corrupted with time by man, and many of it's scripture changed, leading to a fabrication of many stories. The Quran does not claim to contradict or change those stories or history, but rather to correct them. Muslims recognize that early Jews were real believers who believed in a real prophet (Prophet Moses Pbuh), but wondered off in the wrong direction with time. The same story applies to Christians.

I do understand this, and I'm sure my prior posts exhibit this clearly. The issue is what proofs do you have that these re-telling's are accurate? Why should I or anyone believe anything that contradicts God's first revelation? Are you attempting to say that God in all of His mighty power would allow men to corrupt His pure revelation, and He would allow it to be perverted only to perfect it in the future by a man not of His chosen lineage or culture (who have eternal value in His sight)? If this is so, who is to say that the Qur'an isn't also polluted and will be revised in the future by another? I don't accept the "Qur'an as corrective" perspective because it doesn't fit with the Bibles perfection. What rules do you use to know if God can lie, or if His spirit is fallible, how do you know if God's word can fail or become corrupted by men? If you have no objective source to make these claims, such claims are without saying.

In truth, I don't see Qur'anic revisions as corrections (and this isn't because I'm blinded by Allah), it is because they throw the entire perfection of the Scriptures on there head. The Old and New Testament are actually one coherent document in every way, so any change however small resonates through both. And the changes of the Qur'an simply don't fit with the perfection of the puzzle that is the Scriptures in their entirety. So it cannot be as you say it is.

MuzzieChik786
09-14-2015, 08:09 AM
Came in to post what Illriginalized did above.

Muslim = one who submits to The One God
Islam = belief in only One God

That's why you'll hear Muslims say Adam was a Muslim, and Jesus, and Noah etc. PBUT.

The Old and New Testament are actually one coherent document in every way, so any change however small resonates through both. And the changes of the Qur'an simply don't fit with the perfection of the puzzle that is the Scriptures in their entirety. So it cannot be as you say it is.

Erm, what? There are MASSIVE differences between the Old and the New Testaments. What are you even talking about? Have you read them?

sotrktiv
09-14-2015, 08:17 AM
Came in to post what Illriginalized did above.

Muslim = one who submits to The One God
Islam = belief in only One God

That's why you'll hear Muslims say Adam was a Muslim, and Jesus, and Noah etc. PBUT.

The Old and New Testament are actually one coherent document in every way, so any change however small resonates through both. And the changes of the Qur'an simply don't fit with the perfection of the puzzle that is the Scriptures in their entirety. So it cannot be as you say it is.

Erm, what? There are MASSIVE differences between the Old and the New Testaments. What are you even talking about? Have you read them?

Why are you being rude?

WarrNation
09-14-2015, 08:22 AM
Without going into detail, and while taking the entire Surah into account, calling Abraham a "Muslim" before such a concept existed, this in place of him being labeled "a child of God" (which was the name of all faithful peoples since Adam, this opposed to Cains lineage) is problematic and anachronistic. Another example is the story of the yellow cow which doesn't exist in Torah, nor does it add anything useful to the original account, or, Paradise being somehow above whereas Genesis states it was on the earth (even if above is metaphorical) etc. Why would new data bring confusion to the old and have clear contradictions associated with it (God is not the author of confusion).

But these inconsistencies aside, what evidences do you base your faith on to know that what is being in the Qur'an is reliable?

Unapologetic Christian checking in.

1. Since the beginning of time, the term "child of God" was never exclusive to the descandants of Seth alone but rather to all who put their faith in God. Abraham's father, for one, was a full blown pagan who worhipped idols. The only holy lineage I am aware of is that of the spiritual kind (Matthew 12:46-50).

2. Paradise of God is in heaven as per the writings of our dear brothers Paul and John (2 Corinthians 12:1-5).

sotrktiv
09-14-2015, 08:26 AM
Unapologetic Christian checking in.

1. Since the beginning of time, the term "child of God" was never exclusive to the descandants of Seth alone but rather to all who put their faith in God. Abraham's father, for one, was a full blown pagan who worhipped idols. The only holy lineage I am aware of is that of the spiritual kind.

2. Paradise of God is in heaven as per the writings of our dear brothers Paul and John (2 Corinthians 12:1-5).

Not so, Abraham's family was faithful to God, this is why he took a wife for Isaac from there. Also, Heaven/paradise is upon earth in the end, see Revelation and New Jerusalem which comes down from heaven.

MuzzieChik786
09-14-2015, 08:29 AM
Why are you being rude?

I apologize. Was not my intention. I was just asking. If you look at Deuteronomy alone, there are huge differences between the guidelines prescribed there and those in the New Testament.

Anyways - will let you dudes chill. Goodbye. :)

sotrktiv
09-14-2015, 08:37 AM
I apologize. Was not my intention. I was just asking. If you look at Deuteronomy alone, there are huge differences between the guidelines prescribed there and those in the New Testament.

I'm not talking about particulars but coherence. For example, the Book of Revelations takes symbols from Isaiah, Daniel and Ezekiel etc. Christ and Paul reflect on Genesis and Exodus or use Deuteronomy in an expanded sense, nothing from the Old clashes with the New, and even when it seems to the Old transmutes into its spiritualized state. But, the Qur'an does not fit this mold, and if its pieces were injected into the Holy "puzzle", it simply creates a disaster. Old and New complement each other and are in perfect harmony, this is one evidence that the Bible is inspired.

illriginalized
09-14-2015, 08:39 AM
You asked me a different question, and I knew the meaning of Muslim.



.

So technically we can call every follower of God a child of God..

In the Bible.. it clearly states repeatedly who/what are the children of God.. not just the Prophets (pbut).


In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus said of those who believed in him:

“They are like the angels. They are God’s children since they are children of the resurrection.”

[Luke 20:36]

And in the Book of Isaiah:

“Bring back My sons from afar and my daughters from the ends of the earth”

[Isaiah 43:6]

And this is what was said describing God as the Father, as it is narrated in the Gospel of Matthew that the Messiah said to his students:

“If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.”

[Matthew 6:1]

In the Gospel of Luke:

“When you pray say, ‘Our Father, Who art in heaven…’”

[Luke 11:2]

In the Gospel of John:

“I am returning to my Father and your Father, my God and your God.”

[John 20:17]

The Christians do not say that the angels, the Children of Israel and the Disciples were sons of God in a literal sense, or that God was their father in a literal sense, rather they interpret that in a metaphorical sense, i.e., that He is a father to them in the sense of blessing them, being kind to them, protecting them and taking care of them, and they are His children in the sense that they worship Him, need Him and are dependent upon Him.

http://islamqa.info/en/26728

WarrNation
09-14-2015, 08:41 AM
Not so, Abraham's family was faithful to God, this is why he took a wife for Isaac from there.

Joshua said to all the people, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Long ago your ancestors, including Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the Euphrates River and worshiped other gods." - Joshua 24:2


Also, Heaven/paradise is upon earth in the end, see Revelation and New Jerusalem which comes down from heaven.

How does this condradict what I just said?

Alchem
09-14-2015, 08:44 AM
The bold part is what I'm seeking answers for.
a. The inimitability of the Qur'an
b. The fact that if you read Muhammad authentic biographies it would not be plausible to conclude that he's a liar or that he has a mental disorder, and the only plausible conclusion is that he was telling the truth.
c. The fact that the Qur'an can be traced back to the prophet and we have solid evidence for this. The same cannot be said for all the religions before Islam.

sotrktiv
09-14-2015, 08:46 AM
So technically we can call every follower of God a child of God..

In the Bible.. it clearly states repeatedly who/what are the children of God.. not just the Prophets (pbut).

http://islamqa.info/en/26728

Children of God, Sons' of God, Jews, spiritual Jews are all synonyms for those who follow Him faithfully, these are different from the sons of men (Gen 6), or sons of Disobedience, or sons of the devil etc. This isn't really the main point of discussion here. Why am I not seeing any evidences for the Qur'ans Holy origins apart from anecdotal asertion...

illriginalized
09-14-2015, 09:17 AM
Children of God, Sons' of God, Jews, spiritual Jews are all synonyms for those who follow Him faithfully, these are different from the sons of men (Gen 6), or sons of Disobedience, or sons of the devil etc. This isn't really the main point of discussion here. Why am I not seeing any evidences for the Qur'ans Holy origins apart from anecdotal asertion...

Because you've already made a mistake with your assertion regarding children of God's definition vs definition of Muslim.

Why go any further than that if you've already started off in bad shape. ;)

sotrktiv
09-14-2015, 10:03 AM
Joshua said to all the people, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Long ago your ancestors, including Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the Euphrates River and worshiped other gods." - Joshua 24:2

Gen 24:31, 50-51 is evidence that Abraham had family that faithfully believed in His God. The God of Abraham was well known before he was called. Genesis 1-24 displays this with clarity (God walked with men in those times often). A holy lineage did exist and Abraham was part, and Christ came from the same (See Christ's genealogy that returns to God). Apart from this, I mentioned son's/children of God as thesis to Cain's people, so making a point about this is moot.


How does this condradict what I just said?

Because paradise isn't in the sky, and Eden was never in the sky, or heaven, as Surah 2 seems to suggest. Such a suggestions contradicts the Scripture.

WarrNation
09-14-2015, 10:04 AM
Children of God, Sons' of God, Jews, spiritual Jews are all synonyms for those who follow Him faithfully, these are different from the sons of men (Gen 6), or sons of Disobedience, or sons of the devil etc. This isn't really the main point of discussion here. Why am I not seeing any evidences for the Qur'ans Holy origins apart from anecdotal asertion...

You do know God called Ezekiel "son of man" on numerous occassions right?

1. The OT phrase "sons/daughters of men" was given exclusively to those born of Adam. In other words, it was a synomyn for "human being".

2. The OT term "sons of God" was often a synonym for "angelic beings" (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7).

sotrktiv
09-14-2015, 10:13 AM
Because you've already made a mistake with your assertion regarding children of God's definition vs definition of Muslim.

Why go any further than that if you've already started off in bad shape. ;)

You have missed my point entirely, and now you are making a straw-man. I asked, why call the children of God muslim's if a term for them already exists (son's of God/children of God), this is unless the application of this term (muslim) is to stake claim on Holy men of God for purposes of trying to Substantiate Islam as if it were the original faith. Surely Surah 2 attempts to do this, and as I've said it's either a) anachronistic or b) an unnecessary redefinition.

If it is the application of a generic term, this makes any idea stating that Abraham originated Islam or believed in Allah opposed to Yahweh Elohim (these being different God's via their self definition) to be irrelevant.

sotrktiv
09-14-2015, 10:20 AM
You do know God called Ezekiel "son of man" on numerous occassions right?

1. The OT phrase "sons/daughters of men" was given exclusively to those born of Adam. In other words, it was a synomyn for "human being".

2. The OT term "sons of God" was often a synonym for "angelic beings" (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7).

Yes I am aware, but I'm also aware that when the sons' of God took the daughters of man for wives and begat tyrants/giants, that these sons' of God where not angels, but the holy children of Seth who took daughters of Cain for wives. So, the use of these terms must be taken in context. I'm also aware that Christ called Himself the son of man after Ezekiel's example, but just as leaven can have both positive and negative connotations, as with serpents, so can these terms.

WarrNation
09-14-2015, 10:34 AM
Gen 24:31, 50-51 is evidence that Abraham had family that faithfully believed in His God. The God of Abraham was well known before he was called. Genesis 1-24 displays this with clarity (God walked with men in those times often).

Tell me, how do you interpret Joshua 24:2?


A holy lineage did exist and Abraham was part, and Christ came from the same (See Christ's genealogy that returns to God). Apart from this, I mentioned son's/children of God as thesis to Cain's people, so making a point about this is moot.

There is no such thing as a holy lineage; Christ's earthly genealogy contained both good and evil people.

Also, just because Cain was evil and did detestable things before the LORD does not automatrically mean all his descendants were evil too. No such thing as an "evil gene" or genetic predisposition to evil.


Because paradise isn't in the sky, and Eden was never in the sky, or heaven, as Surah 2 seems to suggest. Such a suggestions contradicts the Scripture.

Yeah, it is. In fact, Paradise is also known as third heaven- the dwelling place of God.

Paradise (which is the inheritance of all those who put their faith in Christ) is currently being stored up in heaven waiting to be revealed at the end of time. Rev 21 speaks further on this.

spadelexus
09-14-2015, 10:36 AM
because if they didn't change things slightly, they'd all be jews...

Fast on Yom Kippur = Fast on Ramadan
Pray 3x's a day = Pray 5x's a day
Turn towards Jerusalem during prayer = Turn towards Mecca during prayer
Can't eat pig and shellfish = Can't eat pig

But Jews werent going to follow a false prophet so Mo' twisted Judaism enough that it was different but still familiar, which made it easier for Jews to convert to Islam.

Basically Mohammad was a master trick politician who would be sued today for copyright infringement.

WarrNation
09-14-2015, 10:43 AM
Yes I am aware, but I'm also aware that when the sons' of God took the daughters of man for wives and begat tyrants/giants, that these sons' of God where not angels, but the holy children of Seth who took daughters of Cain for wives. So, the use of these terms must be taken in context. I'm also aware that Christ called Himself the son of man after Ezekiel's example, but just as leaven can have both positive and negative connotations, as with serpents, so can these terms.

How did the sexual union between two humans produce giants (beings of great strength and stature)?

Goliath a descandant of these giants was said to be about 10 feet tall and had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot—twenty-four in all.


PS. Where in Genesis 6 does it say "daughters of Cain"?

sotrktiv
09-14-2015, 11:00 AM
Tell me, how do you interpret Joshua 24:2?

Exactly as it is written, but this doesn't mean they were pagans or heathens per say, it simply means they kept idols. These could have been idols to Yahweh like the golden calf, or idols for luck, they were polytheists as many in Babylon at the time were, but this doesn't negate their capacity to hold to the faith of their fathers (however erroneously).


There is no such thing as a holy lineage; Christ's earthly genealogy contained both good and evil people.

When I said holy lineage I didn't mean literally, I meant coming from Adam in an unbroken chain. The fact still remains thar Abraham walked with God and so did his sons, and these people come from Seth's line.


Also, just because Cain was evil and did detestable things before the LORD does not automatrically mean all his descendants were evil too. No such thing as an "evil gene" or genetic predisposition to evil.

All in the anti-deluvian world were killed apart from Noah and his family (of Seth), so I suppose it did. No there wasn't an evil gene, but evil people who taught evilness begot evil generations.


Yeah, it is. In fact, Paradise is also known as third heaven- the dwelling place of God.

Humans don't dwell there, so even if The paradise, it is not equivalent to eden or New Jerusalem as explained in Scripture.


Paradise (which is the inheritance of all those who put their faith in Christ) is currently being stored up in heaven waiting to be revealed at the end of time. Rev 21 speaks further on this.

Yes, but we don't dwell in it while it's in heaven, and so this connection between literal eden and heavenly eden doesn't work.

sotrktiv
09-14-2015, 11:04 AM
How did the sexual union between two humans produce giants (beings of great strength and stature)?

Goliath a descandant of these giants was said to be about 10 feet tall and had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot—twenty-four in all.

You should know Hebrew, nephalem [sic] means tyrant or mighty man or giant, just like Nimrod who was mighty before (or against) the Lord, these men were the same. They were not literal giants, they were giants in a power sense. Literal gigantism and birth defects are due to generics and have nothing to do with angels.

Edit: it says daughters of men. Read how Cain founded cities and spread evil across the land in the chapters before for context.

illriginalized
09-14-2015, 11:09 AM
You have missed my point entirely, and now you are making a straw-man. I asked, why call the children of God muslim's if a term for them already exists (son's of God/children of God), this is unless the application of this term (muslim) is to stake claim on Holy men of God for purposes of trying to Substantiate Islam as if it were the original faith. Surely Surah 2 attempts to do this, and as I've said it's either a) anachronistic or b) an unnecessary redefinition.

If it is the application of a generic term, this makes any idea stating that Abraham originated Islam or believed in Allah opposed to Yahweh Elohim (these being different God's via their self definition) to be irrelevant.

Probably, not saying factually.. but to confirm that there's no literal children of God.. as in God bares NO children. But rather we're children as in followers.

sotrktiv
09-14-2015, 11:14 AM
Probably, not saying factually.. but to confirm that there's no literal children of God.. as in God bares NO children. But rather we're children as in followers.

Christ is a literal Son of God, we are adopted.

illriginalized
09-14-2015, 11:18 AM
Christ is a literal Son of God, we are adopted.

Hence Muslim instead of "children of God" ;)

That being the correction and no confusion.

sotrktiv
09-14-2015, 11:19 AM
And I still haven't received any key evidence for why the Qur'an should be believed to come from Allaha. Why is this? Biographies aren't sound enough evidence even if they have lineage. Yahweh proves Himself through signs and wonders and fulfilled prophecies, do these exist in Islam?

WarrNation
09-14-2015, 11:21 AM
Exactly as it is written, but this doesn't mean they were pagans or heathens per say, it simply means they kept idols. These could have been idols to Yahweh like the golden calf, or idols for luck, they were polytheists as many in Babylon at the time were, but this doesn't negate their capacity to hold to the faith of their fathers (however erroneously).

Joshua said to all the people, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Long ago your ancestors, including Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the Euphrates River and worshiped other gods."- Joshua 24:2

Forgive me, but it's getting kinda hard to take anything you say seriously. It says right there that Abraham's papa worshipped other gods!

It could be more clearer.


When I said holy lineage I didn't mean literally, I meant coming from Adam in an unbroken chain. The fact still remains thar Abraham walked with God and so did his sons, and these people come from Seth's line.

What do you mean by unbroken chain?

Eh, not all of Abraham's sons walked with God. Esau, for one, strayed from the righteous path to follow his own way.


All in the anti-deluvian world were killed apart from Noah and his family (of Seth), so I suppose it did. No there wasn't an evil gene, but evil people who taught evilness begot evil generations.

Which line did the wives of Noah's sons come from? Tell me if you know?


Humans don't dwell there, so even if The paradise, it is not equivalent to eden or New Jerusalem as explained in Scripture.

No one besides God and His heavenly host dwell in Paradise (also known Heavenly/New Jerusalem or Mt Zion). It is only after the resurrection of the dead that all those who belong to Christ will be admitted into Paradise, so that they may finally dwell with God forever and ever. Amen.


Yes, but we don't dwell in it while it's in heaven, and so this connection between literal eden and heavenly eden doesn't work.

See above.

sotrktiv
09-14-2015, 11:22 AM
Hence Muslim instead of "children of God" ;)

That being the correction and no confusion.

I don't think this is the right answer, but nice try ;)

WarrNation
09-14-2015, 11:34 AM
You should know Hebrew, nephalem [sic] means tyrant or mighty man or giant, just like Nimrod who was mighty before (or against) the Lord, these men were the same.

I thought the word "nephelim" meant "to fall or fallen" in Hebrew?


They were not literal giants, they were giants in a power sense. Literal gigantism and birth defects are due to generics and have nothing to do with angels.

Tell me, why did the sexual union between two humans result in beings of great stature? It's pretty clear from the Scriptures, the Nephelims were not ordinary creatures:

We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them." - Numbers 13:33


Edit: it says daughters of men. Read how Cain founded cities and spread evil across the land in the chapters before for context.

The phrase "daughters of men" means just that. Those born of Adam.

Now how did you come to the conclusion that these daughters were actually the descandants of Cain alone?

sotrktiv
09-14-2015, 11:37 AM
Joshua said to all the people, “This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Long ago your ancestors, including Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the Euphrates River and worshiped other gods."- Joshua 24:2

Forgive me, but it's getting kinda hard to take anything you say seriously. It says right there that Abraham's papa worshipped other gods!

It could be more clearer.

Because you aren't focusing, I said they were most likely polytheists, but they had children that were monotheistic and towards the correct God, odd? Israel also worshiped other god's but they did so beside Yahweh usually, so what's so difficult to grasp about what I supposed about Abrahams father? Is your point that he was not holy? At one point he must have been if Abraham held the ancient faith.


What do you mean by unbroken chain?

Eh, not all of Abraham's sons walked with God. Esau, for one, strayed from the righteous path to follow his own way.

You act like you don't know the Scriptures, you know the accounts so why are you pretending not to know. Yahweh choose some and disregarded others, and one lineage became Israel while another didn't. The twelve tribes were the fullness of the promise in a national sense, and the people Israel/Judah took the place of singular persons.


Which line did the wives of Noah's sons come from? Tell me if you know?

It doesn't say, but judging by Ham's children, his wife was probably from Cain.



No one besides God and His heavenly host dwell in Paradise (also known Heavenly/New Jerusalem or Mt Zion). It is only after the resurrection of the dead that all those who belong to Christ will be admitted into Paradise, so that they may finally dwell with God forever and ever. Amen.

Yes, just as I've said. Eden/paradise is always terrestrial, even in eternity.

illriginalized
09-14-2015, 11:47 AM
I don't think this is the right answer, but nice try ;)

lol of course it's not.. because.. the only right answers you're looking for are those in your favor.

But nice try ;)

Anyways this was another waste of lovely time.

sotrktiv
09-14-2015, 11:53 AM
I thought the word "nephelim" meant "to fall or fallen" in Hebrew?

"4. giants—The term in Hebrew implies not so much the idea of great stature as of reckless ferocity, impious and daring characters, who spread devastation and carnage far and wide." The word also means Tyrant. 100% human.



Tell me, why did the sexual union between two humans result in beings of great stature? It's pretty clear from the Scriptures, the Nephelims were not ordinary creatures:

We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them." - Numbers 13:33

What you are doing is called eisigesis or reading into the Scripture. These people are not creatures, have you ever seen a creature before? Creatures and monsters and giants are fiction.

The idea of Angels and humans mating comes from Ginzberg Legends of the Jews, not the OT.


The phrase "daughters of men" means just that. Those born of Adam.

You are simply incorrect.


Now how did you come to the conclusion that these daughters were actually the descandants of Cain alone?

Because this dichotomy is one of the foundational dramas repeated in the Bible. And if you study Genesis and read that Noah was clean in all of his generations, this shows that he didn't mingle with the banished/Godless people and was therefore saved as a result. If the daughters were of Adam there would be no issue or tyrants or defilement of God's holy purpose, and no need for a flood.

WarrNation
09-14-2015, 01:19 PM
Because you aren't focusing, I said they were most likely polytheists, but they had children that were monotheistic and towards the correct God, odd? Israel also worshiped other god's but they did so beside Yahweh usually, so what's so difficult to grasp about what I supposed about Abrahams father?

Ever heard the saying, "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons"?

You cannot worship both Yahweh and Belial. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. No one can serve two masters.

So, forgive me if I fail to grasp what you are trying to say.

Fact: Abraham's father followed after other gods.


Is your point that he was not holy? At one point he must have been if Abraham held the ancient faith.

Abraham received his teaching about Yahweh from the Hebrew writings of his ancestors (Enoch and Noah). Abraham's father was, however, a pagan who worshipped other gods. It was one of the reasons God called Abraham out of his father's house and country.


You act like you don't know the Scriptures, you know the accounts so why are you pretending not to know. Yahweh choose some and disregarded others, and one lineage became Israel while another didn't. The twelve tribes were the fullness of the promise in a national sense, and the people Israel/Judah took the place of singular persons.

Is this what you meant by "unbroken chain"?


It doesn't say, but judging by Ham's children, his wife was probably from Cain.

Why would you say that? Are you one of those guys who believe all literal descandants of Cain are headed for destruction?

boseador
09-14-2015, 01:22 PM
Both books should not be trusted.

/end thread.

kennyr87
09-14-2015, 01:40 PM
Both books should not be trusted.

/end thread.

dont know, the quran > hebrew bible in terms of trustworthiness/authenticity.

there is at least some idea re the origin of and how the quran was created.

one of the oldest ones in Britan supports the view that the Quran we now have is more or less very close to the Quran as it was brought together in the early years of Islam.

the same cannot be said for the hebrew bible.

historians have no idea re the origin of and how the hebrew bible was created. there are two, count em two, creation stories. which one is the right one?

WarrNation
09-14-2015, 02:00 PM
"4. giants—The term in Hebrew implies not so much the idea of great stature as of reckless ferocity, impious and daring characters, who spread devastation and carnage far and wide." The word also means Tyrant. 100% human.

"It is not clear where the name Nephilim comes from. There are a few possibilities, and scholars argue about the likelihood of each of them. First of all, the word nephilim is a plural and the single form, נפל (npl), does not occur in the Bible (which by itself is not at all unusual). In another context, however, the word נפל (nepel), which is spelled identical but pronounced slightly different, means untimely birth or abortion. It comes from the verb נפל (napal), to fall or be cast down"

http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Nephilim.html#.VfctW5faSW0


What you are doing is called eisigesis or reading into the Scripture. These people are not creatures, have you ever seen a creature before? Creatures and monsters and giants are fiction.

By "creature", I simply meant a creation of God. Both humans and animals are referred to as creatures.


The idea of Angels and humans mating comes from Ginzberg Legends of the Jews, not the OT.

Genesis 6:1-4 and the Book of Jubilees seems to strongly suggest that angels (sons of God) did indeed mate with the daughters of men. This unnatural union between the two different species brought forth the heroes of old, men of renown. This is probably were the Greek legends of Hercules, Achilles etc are derived from.

It is said that the angels who disobeyed God (i.e left their proper place of authority and took human wives for themselves) are currently imprisoned in Tartarus awaiting the Great Day of Judgement (2 Peter 2:4, Jude 6).

The LXX, otherwise referred to as the Septuagint, seems to agree with my position, since it renders the term "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2 as "angels of God".


You are simply incorrect.

Enlighten me.

Who are the "daughters of men" mentioned in Genesis 6 if not the descandants of Adam?


Because this dichotomy is one of the foundational dramas repeated in the Bible. And if you study Genesis and read that Noah was clean in all of his generations, this shows that he didn't mingle with the banished/Godless people and was therefore saved as a result. If the daughters were of Adam there would be no issue or tyrants or defilement of God's holy purpose, and no need for a flood.

You are not making sense. Who else did the daughters belong to, if not Adam and Eve?

EDIT: Wait a min, do you believe that Cain was literally begotten by Satan?

WarrNation
09-14-2015, 02:07 PM
dont know, the quran > hebrew bible in terms of trustworthiness/authenticity.

there is at least some idea re the origin of and how the quran was created.

one of the oldest ones in Britan supports the view that the Quran we now have is more or less very close to the Quran as it was brought together in the early years of Islam.

the same cannot be said for the hebrew bible.

historians have no idea re the origin of and how the hebrew bible was created. there are two, count em two, creation stories. which one is the right one?

Well, that's probably because the Tanakh is way way ancient as compared to the Koran.

Also, there is only one creation story in the Hebrew bible. One story told from different point of views.

uwootm8
09-14-2015, 07:30 PM
Coz the Qur'an is the word of God, the bible is riddled with source/transmission issues, all in all i have no reason to trust the latter anyway so why would this be a problem to me

uwootm8
09-14-2015, 07:31 PM
Well, that's probably because the Tanakh is way way ancient as compared to the Koran.

Also, there is only one creation story in the Hebrew bible. One story told from different point of views.

I always lol@ when people say this

Authorship issues of the OT can be waved away by saying "oh it's just different viewpoints"?

uwootm8
09-14-2015, 07:33 PM
OP here's evidence that the Qur'an is more historically reliable than the OT when it comes to specific moments of Jewish history, eg the exodus

Read in this order to understand the full argument

http://quranic-musings.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-exodus-in-quran-bible-and-history_13.html
http://quranic-musings.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-exodus-in-quran-bible-and-history_20.html
http://quranic-musings.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-exodus-in-quran-bible-and-history_29.html
http://quranic-musings.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-exodus-in-quran-bible-and-history.html
http://quranic-musings.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-exodus-in-quran-bible-and-history.html

sotrktiv
09-14-2015, 09:19 PM
Ever heard the saying, "You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons"?

You cannot worship both Yahweh and Belial. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. No one can serve two masters.

So, forgive me if I fail to grasp what you are trying to say.

Fact: Abraham's father followed after other gods.

Abraham received his teaching about Yahweh from the Hebrew writings of his ancestors (Enoch and Noah). Abraham's father was, however, a pagan who worshipped other gods. It was one of the reasons God called Abraham out of his father's house and country.

According to Moses, Shem was righteous and when Nahor the father of Terah was born he (Shem) was only 257 years old (He lived 500+ years Gen 11:11). So if both Nahor and Terah being Shem's grandchildren became (pagan, this being a term that didn't yet exist) while he was still alive, and yet they still taught their children the faith of Yahweh, I don't see how this could make them part of the unfaithful (those who didn't walk with/ believe in Yahweh).

I am fully aware that idolatry is wrong, be it spiritual or actual and this wasn't my point... My point was that there are times when people worship diverse gods in ignorance, and in ancient Ur, each city had a deity of its own, and it was not uncommon for people to be polytheists. Being a polytheist doesn't mean Yahweh was not Terah's supreme El, but it simply means he believed in idols while holding to faith in Yahweh as well (these gods could have been lesser gods to do with rain, crops, municipal power, all having been a part of culture, just as superstition was in Christ's time). Does this make Terah's idolatry good? No, but it makes sense both historically and narratively. Also, if Yahweh was concerned that Abram was going to be defiled by "paganism", do you think He would wait 70 years before calling him to relocate? And as with the evidence I've already shared, Abraham's siblings believed in Yahweh which supports familial knowledge of the true God.


Why would you say that? Are you one of those guys who believe all literal descandants of Cain are headed for destruction?

I say that because Canaan was cursed, and the Canaanites were identical to the offspring of Cain before the flood. And no I don't, as I've said behavior dictates judgment.


"It is not clear where the name Nephilim comes from. There are a few possibilities, and scholars argue about the likelihood of each of them. First of all, the word nephilim is a plural and the single form, נפל (npl), does not occur in the Bible (which by itself is not at all unusual). In another context, however, the word נפל (nepel), which is spelled identical but pronounced slightly different, means untimely birth or abortion. It comes from the verb נפל (napal), to fall or be cast down"

http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Nephilim.html#.VfctW5faSW0

That site is biased,

"giant

Or nphil {nef-eel'}; from naphal; properly, a feller, i.e. A bully or tyrant -- giant.

see HEBREW naphal "

Given the context, and knowing that angels cannot sin, it's impossible for them to be the sons of God in Gen 6. Proof that angels can't sin? Sin cannot exist in God's presence. Also, angels are immutable spirits, and if they were made holy, they cannot change. Some say once an angel makes a mistake to become evil they are stuck this way (an unbiblical assumption, and I say, if angels were once Holy and even once practiced Holiness, they were also stuck that way).



Genesis 6:1-4 and the Book of Jubilees seems to strongly suggest that angels (sons of God) did indeed mate with the daughters of men. This unnatural union between the two different species brought forth the heroes of old, men of renown. This is probably were the Greek legends of Hercules, Achilles etc are derived from.

It is said that the angels who disobeyed God (i.e left their proper place of authority and took human wives for themselves) are currently imprisoned in Tartarus awaiting the Great Day of Judgement (2 Peter 2:4, Jude 6).

As I've said, I don't believe in fallen angels, and I also don't believe in demons. The Angels/Greek: ággelos/ Meaning: messenger or delegates that are reserved in Tartaros (a mythical non literal place) are those who were swallowed up by the earth when they opposed Moses in the wilderness (Num 16:31-33)


The LXX, otherwise referred to as the Septuagint, seems to agree with my position, since it renders the term "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2 as "angels of God".

The word used in the LXX for son in Gen 6:2 is "huiós", and it means human male offspring, and holds no connotation to angels. I don't know which LXX rendering you are using...


Who are the "daughters of men" mentioned in Genesis 6 if not the descandants of Adam?

I distinguish the lineage of Cain different from that of Adam, just as God does. So when I say not daughters of Adam that's how I mean it. The same goes for how the lineage of Esau is not the lineage of promise, exactly the same concept.


Wait a min, do you believe that Cain was literally begotten by Satan?

No, I also don't believe the serpent in the Garden was satan or even a literal snake for that matter.

WarrNation
09-15-2015, 08:54 AM
According to Moses, Shem was righteous and when Nahor the father of Terah was born he (Shem) was only 257 years old (He lived 500+ years Gen 11:11). So if both Nahor and Terah being Shem's grandchildren became (pagan, this being a term that didn't yet exist) while he was still alive, and yet they still taught their children the faith of Yahweh, I don't see how this could make them part of the unfaithful (those who didn't walk with/ believe in Yahweh).

I am fully aware that idolatry is wrong, be it spiritual or actual and this wasn't my point... My point was that there are times when people worship diverse gods in ignorance, and in ancient Ur, each city had a deity of its own, and it was not uncommon for people to be polytheists. Being a polytheist doesn't mean Yahweh was not Terah's supreme El, but it simply means he believed in idols while holding to faith in Yahweh as well (these gods could have been lesser gods to do with rain, crops, municipal power, all having been a part of culture, just as superstition was in Christ's time). Does this make Terah's idolatry good? No, but it makes sense both historically and narratively. Also, if Yahweh was concerned that Abram was going to be defiled by "paganism", do you think He would wait 70 years before calling him to relocate? And as with the evidence I've already shared, Abraham's siblings believed in Yahweh which supports familial knowledge of the true God.

No offense, but your point is just plain ludicrous.

If Yahweh was really Terah's supreme God, then why did he partake at the table of demons? Terah's detestable actions only proved that there was no truth in him. His decision to bow to idols only showed he never knew Yahweh.

Whoever says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person.- 1 John 2:4

They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.- Titus 1:16


PS. Honest question. Why is it so hard for you to accept the fact that Abraham's father, Terah, was a pagan who worshipped other gods as the Scriptures states?


I say that because Canaan was cursed, and the Canaanites were identical to the offspring of Cain before the flood. And no I don't, as I've said behavior dictates judgment.

Identical in what way?


That site is biased,

"giant

Or nphil {nef-eel'}; from naphal; properly, a feller, i.e. A bully or tyrant -- giant.

see HEBREW naphal "

Given the context, and knowing that angels cannot sin, it's impossible for them to be the sons of God in Gen 6. Proof that angels can't sin? Sin cannot exist in God's presence. Also, angels are immutable spirits, and if they were made holy, they cannot change. Some say once an angel makes a mistake to become evil they are stuck this way (an unbiblical assumption, and I say, if angels were once Holy and even once practiced Holiness, they were also stuck that way).

Where are you getting your definition of the word "nephilim"?


As I've said, I don't believe in fallen angels, and I also don't believe in demons.

You don't believe in fallen angels and demons? Can't say I'm surprised at this point.

Anyway, how do you interpret Matthew 8:28-34 and James 2:19?


The Angels/Greek: ággelos/ Meaning: messenger or delegates that are reserved in Tartaros (a mythical non literal place) are those who were swallowed up by the earth when they opposed Moses in the wilderness (Num 16:31-33)

Can you prove that those swallowed by the earth were actually messengers of God (angels)?


The word used in the LXX for son in Gen 6:2 is "huiós", and it means human male offspring, and holds no connotation to angels. I don't know which LXX rendering you are using...

The Codex Alexandrinus reads "angels of God".

What manuscript of the LXX do you use?


I distinguish the lineage of Cain different from that of Adam, just as God does. So when I say not daughters of Adam that's how I mean it. The same goes for how the lineage of Esau is not the lineage of promise, exactly the same concept.

Oh.

I take it you don't believe that Adam is the father of all mankind? Who do you think fathered Cain?

WarrNation
09-15-2015, 08:55 AM
OP here's evidence that the Qur'an is more historically reliable than the OT when it comes to specific moments of Jewish history, eg the exodus

Read in this order to understand the full argument

http://quranic-musings.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-exodus-in-quran-bible-and-history_13.html
http://quranic-musings.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-exodus-in-quran-bible-and-history_20.html
http://quranic-musings.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-exodus-in-quran-bible-and-history_29.html
http://quranic-musings.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-exodus-in-quran-bible-and-history.html
http://quranic-musings.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-exodus-in-quran-bible-and-history.html

Do you actually believe that Mohammed knew more about ancient Jewish history than the Jews themselves?

Harbinger
09-15-2015, 10:30 AM
This is hilarious!

spadelexus
09-15-2015, 11:01 AM
600,000 Jews witnesses the revelation at Mt. Sinai. The entire nation. They've been passing down the details of this event from generation to generation for more than 3000 years.

About 1500 years after the event, an ambitious bedouin emerges from - a cave - and twisted the history in order to fulfill his ambition of world domination. He took the story of the Jews, who were one of the predominant religions of Arabia at that time, and took the story of the Christans, whose population was multiplying like wild fire, and twisted both religions to form his own, claiming he is the "final prophet"....

He then went on to attract followers, appealing to the pagan Arabs, who were "different" to both Christian and Jew, and - who he knew would be fierce warriors he could use to spread his religion. And since his religion took elements of both judaism and Christianity he was able to use this a marketing tool to attract Jews and Christians too.

After its all said and done, there is no question that Mohammad was a brilliant politician, strategist, salesman, visionary and leader. But at the end of the day, 600,000 Jews witnessed the revelation at Mt Sinai, which was the entire nation.

How many Muslims saw Mohammad leave the cave?


What happened at Mount Sinai?

To answer quite simply, the Jewish people -- every man, woman and child -- had an encounter with God.

It was a totally unique event in all of human history. The Bible itself states in Deuteronomy 4:33 that this never happened any place else. You can check all history books; you'll never find a similar story of God speaking to an entire people.

All other claims about revelation in human history are based on the experience of one individual or at best a small group of initiates. For example, Islam is founded on the teachings of Mohammed who said that God spoke to him in a cave and revealed the teachings contained in the Koran to him.

The notion of an entire people having an encounter with God is unique to Judaism. And it's the one claim that cannot be faked. So for example, I can claim that I had a vision last night and God spoke to me, and if I'm charismatic enough and you are gullible enough you might believe I am a prophet. But I can't convince you that you saw something that you know you didn't see.
http://www.aish.com/jl/h/cc/48932202.html?mobile=yes
https://bible.org/seriespage/moses-leads-people-out-egypt-exodus-14

illriginalized
09-15-2015, 11:38 AM
600,000 Jews witnesses the revelation at Mt. Sinai. The entire nation. They've been passing down the details of this event from generation to generation for more than 3000 years.

About 1500 years after the event, an ambitious bedouin emerges from - a cave - and twisted the history in order to fulfill his ambition of world domination. He took the story of the Jews, who were one of the predominant religions of Arabia at that time, and took the story of the Christans, whose population was multiplying like wild fire, and twisted both religions to form his own, claiming he is the "final prophet"....


lol are you seriously going to pretend Jews don't look at Christians the same way.. about twisting your religion and creating their own?

Cot damn you're such a typical Israeli cuckold, sucking that Christian dick in front of them, but behind their backs they're chit.

Yeah I know you won't admit that type of chit in public.

lol @ you for being such a cot damn cuckold. Pathetic.

uwootm8
09-15-2015, 03:59 PM
600,000 Jews witnesses the revelation at Mt. Sinai. The entire nation. They've been passing down the details of this event from generation to generation for more than 3000 years.

About 1500 years after the event, an ambitious bedouin emerges from - a cave - and twisted the history in order to fulfill his ambition of world domination. He took the story of the Jews, who were one of the predominant religions of Arabia at that time, and took the story of the Christans, whose population was multiplying like wild fire, and twisted both religions to form his own, claiming he is the "final prophet"....

He then went on to attract followers, appealing to the pagan Arabs, who were "different" to both Christian and Jew, and - who he knew would be fierce warriors he could use to spread his religion. And since his religion took elements of both judaism and Christianity he was able to use this a marketing tool to attract Jews and Christians too.

After its all said and done, there is no question that Mohammad was a brilliant politician, strategist, salesman, visionary and leader. But at the end of the day, 600,000 Jews witnessed the revelation at Mt Sinai, which was the entire nation.

How many Muslims saw Mohammad leave the cave?


http://www.aish.com/jl/h/cc/48932202.html?mobile=yes
https://bible.org/seriespage/moses-leads-people-out-egypt-exodus-14

Too bad that the 600k (men- add their families and you triple the figure) figure is clearly historically inaccurate as that would entail a significant portion of egypt's population just leaving, causing national collapse (which didn't happen) or at the very least a mention in historical records that such a massive population left the country (only a mention of a small handful of runaway slaves)

aka it didn't happen. sorry bud

uwootm8
09-15-2015, 04:00 PM
Do you actually believe that Mohammed knew more about ancient Jewish history than the Jews themselves?

exactly

spadelexus
09-15-2015, 05:21 PM
lol are you seriously going to pretend Jews don't look at Christians the same way.. about twisting your religion and creating their own?

Cot damn you're such a typical Israeli cuckold, sucking that Christian dick in front of them, but behind their backs they're chit.

Yeah I know you won't admit that type of chit in public.

lol @ you for being such a cot damn cuckold. Pathetic.

Typical "Israeli"? In front of "them"? First off, I'm an American. Second I have blood relatives that are Christian. Third, I grew up with Christians, mostly Italians who are Catholic, some I've kept in touch with and remain friends with till this very day.

I stopped debating religion with my friends in high school. At the end of the day, if what you believe guides you to do good, and be a good person, that's all that really matters...

And that's why I question your belief. You insult me by calling me names?! You question my loyalty to my own blood and best friends!!? Are you serious? You don't even know me man...

Why are you confrontational??? Is this behavior coming from your core religious belief? Did your prophet instruct you to attack your fellow man with curse words?

Maybe if you rechanneled all that built up aggression into saying or doing something creative instead of saying and doing things that are destructive, you could join me and my Jewish and Christian friends as contributing members of society, with meaningfull lives and you just might make a positive impact on your family, community and country.

Until then you are just a washed up old thug, who first heard of mecca from a 90's rap song, who is now scrounging up change from between the sofa cushions so you can buy some more creatine...

sotrktiv
09-15-2015, 07:05 PM
No offense, but your point is just plain ludicrous.

If Yahweh was really Terah's supreme God, then why did he partake at the table of demons? Terah's detestable actions only proved that there was no truth in him. His decision to bow to idols only showed he never knew Yahweh.

Whoever says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person.- 1 John 2:4

They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.- Titus 1:16

According to what law? Show me where Idol worship was condemned in the times of Terah via sacred decree, and I will agree that his actions made him exempt from worshiping Yahweh as his supreme Diety. Was Abraham judged for marrying his half sister and having multiple wives? This is my point. I am aware that Yahweh's character is His Law, but where there is no law there is no judgment. I could make an argument for a law being in existence against idolatry, but it would be somewhat tenuous.

Further, you cannot take laws given in the future and apply them to occurrences in the past, where no such laws existed. In fact, because idols and false gods are "non things" according to the Hebrew mind, the worst aspect of worshiping these, apart from venerating stones, is committing the sin of ignorance, or leaning on your own understanding. Worshiping anything above Elohim is blasphemy because you are worshiping the created over the creator. Again, I am not saying one can be a faithful follower of Yahweh and worship false god's, but I am saying that one can believe they are faithfully worshiping Yahweh while also worshiping idols. And if one is worshiping idols in ignorance, while being a Christian lets say, their idolatry would not erase their "Christianity", it would simply pollute it.


PS. Honest question. Why is it so hard for you to accept the fact that Abraham's father, Terah, was a pagan who worshipped other gods as the Scriptures states?

Because 1) pagans didn't exist, all people were in a sense uncircumcised.
2) In Joshua 24 God mentions Terah's likeness to those who were idolators so Israel would be humbled because they came from roots similar to their enemies. It wasn't to say that Terah was a pagan and this is why he was chosen (because such a statement contradicts Genesis and the lineages and their behaviors), but it is to tell Israel that they aren't special or immune to failure because of their heritage.


Identical in what way?
Ungodly behavior and conduct.


Where are you getting your definition of the word "nephilim"?
From a source that supports the giant theory, and is therefore unbiased. Google it to find exact link.


You don't believe in fallen angels and demons? Can't say I'm surprised at this point.

Anyway, how do you interpret Matthew 8:28-34 and James 2:19?

Mat 8:28-34 is speaking about a man or men who have psychological issues. They believed they were possessed by a legion of pagan deities (demons), or the spirits of the dead, as was a common belief in 1st century Palestine. Because they believed this doesn't make it true, just as one with schizophrenia's belief that they can fly is true. This mental illness was transferred to the swine, and in their insanity they ran off a cliff. If you want explanation and evidence for this, it's a hefty study. All you need to do is study the Greek etymology of demon to know that they didn't always have a bad association. Demons were seen as wise men who passed away and helped the living, which contradicts the Bible (Dead people can't act or think: Ecclesiastes 9:6 etc).

James 2:9 could be talking about the pagan's or Jews with mental illness that feared the Messiah and believed He came from God (thinking He came to harm them "have you come before the time", seen many instances in the Gospels). It could be a metaphor for the idol's fearing God, given the history of God versus false deities (this being a joke of sorts). It's your job to find out why this verse is sandwiched between two others that talk about faith without works being dead. Most likely this verse is talking about mental illnesses or difficult diseases in a personified form fearing God because He has cast them out as a sign of the Apostles faith/arriving Kingdom (Luke 9:1 etc). The same is said when satan falls from heaven which was not literal but a hebraism for a haughty thing being humbled (sin and death being defeated).


Can you prove that those swallowed by the earth were actually messengers of God (angels)?

That they weren't or were?

Evidence that they were not is derived from the context. The words "cast them down" is not in the original text, it actually says "messengers not spared, but chains of darkness in tartarus delivered" (literal from Greek) unto final judgment. Both verses before and after speak of human's that were false prophets or those who tried to lead Israel astray. What makes it totally clear that it is human's is Verse 2:9, "The Lord knoweth (5758) how to deliver (5738) the godly out of temptations, and to reserve (5721) the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished (5746)", in this verse, and based on what came before, there is absolutely no reason to leave messanger untranslated as if it were angels. But again, if you look at the order of events as a sequence in time, one would naturally infer this binding in tartarus to come before the flood, but when we look at Jude 1:5-6 we see a parallel account that shows this same event being after the exodus. Also, Jude 5-6 when translated without bias talks about men who left their first positions and committed sin and were punished, exactly as the story of Korah and his followers had been.


The Codex Alexandrinus reads "angels of God".

What manuscript of the LXX do you use?

Show me the greek word being used there and not the English rendering.



Oh.

I take it you don't believe that Adam is the father of all mankind?

How do you come to this conclusion from what I've expressly said?

WarrNation
09-16-2015, 05:40 AM
According to what law? Show me where Idol worship was condemned in the times of Terah via sacred decree, and I will agree that his actions made him exempt from worshiping Yahweh as his supreme Diety. Was Abraham judged for marrying his half sister and having multiple wives? This is my point. I am aware that Yahweh's character is His Law, but where there is no law there is no judgment. I could make an argument for a law being in existence against idolatry, but it would be somewhat tenuous.

Further, you cannot take laws given in the future and apply them to occurrences in the past, where no such laws existed. In fact, because idols and false gods are "non things" according to the Hebrew mind, the worst aspect of worshiping these, apart from venerating stones, is committing the sin of ignorance, or leaning on your own understanding. Worshiping anything above Elohim is blasphemy because you are worshiping the created over the creator. Again, I am not saying one can be a faithful follower of Yahweh and worship false god's, but I am saying that one can believe they are faithfully worshiping Yahweh while also worshiping idols. And if one is worshiping idols in ignorance, while being a Christian lets say, their idolatry would not erase their "Christianity", it would simply pollute it.



Because 1) pagans didn't exist, all people were in a sense uncircumcised.
2) In Joshua 24 God mentions Terah's likeness to those who were idolators so Israel would be humbled because they came from roots similar to their enemies. It wasn't to say that Terah was a pagan and this is why he was chosen (because such a statement contradicts Genesis and the lineages and their behaviors), but it is to tell Israel that they aren't special or immune to failure because of their heritage.


Ungodly behavior and conduct.


From a source that supports the giant theory, and is therefore unbiased. Google it to find exact link.



Mat 8:28-34 is speaking about a man or men who have psychological issues. They believed they were possessed by a legion of pagan deities (demons), or the spirits of the dead, as was a common belief in 1st century Palestine. Because they believed this doesn't make it true, just as one with schizophrenia's belief that they can fly is true. This mental illness was transferred to the swine, and in their insanity they ran off a cliff. If you want explanation and evidence for this, it's a hefty study. All you need to do is study the Greek etymology of demon to know that they didn't always have a bad association. Demons were seen as wise men who passed away and helped the living, which contradicts the Bible (Dead people can't act or think: Ecclesiastes 9:6 etc).

James 2:9 could be talking about the pagan's or Jews with mental illness that feared the Messiah and believed He came from God (thinking He came to harm them "have you come before the time", seen many instances in the Gospels). It could be a metaphor for the idol's fearing God, given the history of God versus false deities (this being a joke of sorts). It's your job to find out why this verse is sandwiched between two others that talk about faith without works being dead. Most likely this verse is talking about mental illnesses or difficult diseases in a personified form fearing God because He has cast them out as a sign of the Apostles faith/arriving Kingdom (Luke 9:1 etc). The same is said when satan falls from heaven which was not literal but a hebraism for a haughty thing being humbled (sin and death being defeated).



That they weren't or were?

Evidence that they were not is derived from the context. The words "cast them down" is not in the original text, it actually says "messengers not spared, but chains of darkness in tartarus delivered" (literal from Greek) unto final judgment. Both verses before and after speak of human's that were false prophets or those who tried to lead Israel astray. What makes it totally clear that it is human's is Verse 2:9, "The Lord knoweth (5758) how to deliver (5738) the godly out of temptations, and to reserve (5721) the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished (5746)", in this verse, and based on what came before, there is absolutely no reason to leave messanger untranslated as if it were angels. But again, if you look at the order of events as a sequence in time, one would naturally infer this binding in tartarus to come before the flood, but when we look at Jude 1:5-6 we see a parallel account that shows this same event being after the exodus. Also, Jude 5-6 when translated without bias talks about men who left their first positions and committed sin and were punished, exactly as the story of Korah and his followers had been.



Show me the greek word being used there and not the English rendering.




How do you come to this conclusion from what I've expressly said?

Thanks for the wonderful discussion but I believe we are at an impasse.

Shalom.

spadelexus
09-16-2015, 12:14 PM
Too bad that the 600k (men- add their families and you triple the figure) figure is clearly historically inaccurate as that would entail a significant portion of egypt's population just leaving, causing national collapse (which didn't happen) or at the very least a mention in historical records that such a massive population left the country (only a mention of a small handful of runaway slaves)

aka it didn't happen. sorry bud

But you believe Mohammad split the moon?

See this is exactly the 'twist' I was referring too. Mohammad cherry picked the stories, events, and beliefs from Judaism (and Christianity) and added his own spin on things to justify his claim as the final prophet. It was Ishmael not Issac who God blessed. Of course it was Ishmael! (Since all the Arab pagans weren't from Jacob...obviously)