Print Page | Close Window

IS MOHAMMED A DESCENDENT OF ISHMAEL?

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Discription: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=15171
Printed Date: 22 October 2014 at 8:50am


Topic: IS MOHAMMED A DESCENDENT OF ISHMAEL?
Posted By: Shibboleth
Subject: IS MOHAMMED A DESCENDENT OF ISHMAEL?
Date Posted: 06 August 2009 at 7:45pm
Muslims believe that Mohammed is a descendant of Ishmael, that's a very serious claim. Where can I find that information?

What proof is there that the ancestors of Mohammed were really the descendants of Ishmael?

***Except for the lineage of Jesus, which was documented by written books of the Holy Bible through the centuries, no other family in history has ever accounted for their ancestors over a period of 2,000 years.***

The genealogy fabricated by Ibn-Ishak contradicts the sayings of Mohammed, who expressed his ignorance about his ancestors prior to his 17th ancestor.

Ibn Ishak was considered by the Muslim scholars of his time as being guilty of forgery and fabricating false genealogies


**Mohammed, himself, rejected all of these false genealogies, and he put limits regarding the genealogy of his ancestors. Regarding Mohammed’s own rejection of the false genealogies, Amru bin al-As wrote:

Mohammed genealogized himself regarding his ancestors until he reached al-Nather bin Kinaneh, then he said, “anyone who claimed otherwise or added further ancestors, has lied.

By this, Mohammed confessed that neither he, nor anyone else, knew about his ancestors beyond al-Nather bin Kinaneh. Nather bin Kinaneh is the 17th ancestor in the genealogy which Mohammed recognized as true. Other narrations of the customs, or sayings, of Mohammed, called Hadiths, show Mohammed refused to be genealogized prior to Maad,  معدwho some suggested, was the 4th ancestor prior to al-Nather bin Kinaneh.


Remember, Islamic genealogies only began to appear in the 8th century A.D which endeavor to connect Mohammed with Ishmael. That’s waaaaaaaay after the ‘Messengers’ death.  

His closest contemporaries and followers considered the genealogies appearing at his time to be false. Among the people who reported Mohammed’s opposition to such genealogies were his wife, Aisheh, and his cousin, Ibn Abbas, one of the most important reporters of Mohammed’s Hadith.

Ibn Ishak altered the genealogies listed by Moses in Genesis; he inserted Arabic names from his time and contradicted the history regarding Amalek and many others.

Is their at least ONE record between Mohammed and Ishmael which would support the Islamic claim that Mohammed is descended from Ishmael?

If not, then Ishmael received no spiritual call from God. ‘If’ he thus received no call from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would that then make him a false prophet? 

Isn’t it interesting that not even ONE, not one of the historical twelve tribes of Ishmael make mention of a Mohammad let alone a prophet, a VERY  important "Prophet" unlike ant other.

What documents can any Muslim provide to support that the Bible was tampered with, which means then there would be an original document that says otherwise.

Were there any witnesses around to support his ‘Revelation’ from the angel Gabriel?

My heart goes out to my Muslim friends who continue to trust their eternal destiny to a claim which is against logic, proof and history solely based on what was written years and years and years after the ‘Messengers death to make YOU dear reader a believer.

 

 

 







-------------
“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)



Replies:
Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 07 August 2009 at 5:34am
Twelve sons were born to Isma'il from his marriage with the Jurhum girl.These were the ancestors of the twelve tribes of Arabized or Northern Arabs.On their mother's side there were related through Jurhum to the Arabizing Arabs,the sons of Ya'rub ibn Qahtan.They were also related to Egypt through their grandmother on their fatherside,Hagar,which was a close relation indeed.Through their grandfather Ibrahim,they were related to 'Iraq and Palestine, his old and new abodes.Jews regarded themselves as descendants of Issac.


Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 07 August 2009 at 5:47am
Topics discussed in this Verse:
[Abraham:religion of] [Allah's attributes:Protector] [Allah's friendship (to the believers)] [Muhammad:nearest of kin to Abraham] [People of the Book:relationship to Muslims]


3:68 (Y. Ali) Without doubt, among men, the nearest of kin to Abraham, are those who follow him, as are also this Messenger and those who believe: And Allah is the Protector of those who have faith.


Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 07 August 2009 at 5:52am
Prophet Ibrahim(As)is the father to all 3 of the great religions.He(As)and Prophet Adam(As)are our heavenly fathers.Prophet Adam(As)is the father of man kind.


Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 07 August 2009 at 2:43pm

First, let me say that I agree with your statements. But let me be more specific, what proof is there in the “Torah” the ”Psalms” and (or) the “Gospel”  that the ancestors of Mohammed were really the descendants of Ishmael? They confirmed “Jesus” ancestry, not Muhammad.   

When Moses, the first Bible writer and first prophet to be sent to the descendants of Jacob, went to Israel he was well fortified with miracles to prove his divine mission. See Exodus, chapter 4. Likewise, when Christ Jesus came, he performed so many miracles that all those who had not let themselves be blinded with selfishness had to admit that he was sent of God,—John 7:31; 10:37, 38; 14:11.

Anyone could claim to be sent of God. Moses and Christ proved it by the performance of many miracles, but where were Muhammad’s  miracles? He confessed in the Quran to having none.—See Suras 2:118; 10:38; 11:13; 6:109, Ali.

*I will get into the Alhadith or Hadis in another topic I will post.

Historians say that the family of Mohammed was a  family which lived in Saba-Yemen. In the 5th century A.D., Qusayy Bin Kilab, the 8th ancestor of Mohammed, gathered an alliance of many Yemeni families forming Quraish, the tribe from which Mohammed later came.  These families only came to occupy Mecca in the 5th century A.D. The city of Mecca was built by the tribe of Khuzaa'h in the 4th century A.D.

Mohammed’s family is not connected to any Ishmaelite tribe because Mohammed’s family didn’t leave Yemen until the 5th  century A.D., and that’s about  1,100 years  after the Ishmaelites disappeared.

The genealogy fabricated by Ibn-Ishak contradicts the sayings of Mohammed, who expressed his ignorance about his ancestors prior to his 17th ancestor. Ibn Ishak was considered by the Muslim scholars of his time as being guilty of forgery and fabricating false genealogies.

Long before Ibn Ishak, Muslims who lived in Mohammed’s own time also fabricated genealogies in an attempt to connect Mohammed to the descendants of Ishmael.  Mohammed, himself, rejected all of these false genealogies, and he put limits regarding the genealogy of his ancestors. Regarding Mohammed’s own rejection of the false genealogies, Amru bin al-As wrote:

Mohammed genealogized himself regarding his ancestors until he reached al-Nather bin Kinaneh, then he said, “anyone who claimed otherwise or added further ancestors, has lied.

By this, Mohammed confessed that neither he, nor anyone else, knew about his ancestors beyond al-Nather bin Kinaneh. Nather bin Kinaneh is the 17th ancestor in the genealogy which Mohammed recognized as true. Other narrations of the customs, or sayings, of Mohammed, called Hadiths, show Mohammed refused to be genealogized prior to Maad,  معدwho some suggested, was the 4th ancestor prior to al-Nather bin Kinaneh.

Many versions of Hadith of Mohammed coming from the followers of Mohammed all report that Mohammed opposed to be genelogized until Ishmael. All his closest contemporaries and followers considered the genealogies appearing at his time to be false. Among the people who reported Mohammed’s opposition to such genealogies were his wife, Aisheh, and his cousin, Ibn Abbas, one of the most important reporters of Mohammed’s Hadith.[iv]  Ibn Ishak went against what all these people had said by creating genealogies which connect the ancestors of Mohammed with Ishmael.

We urge Muslims to study history, and to compare the facts to what they have been told in the Qur’an and in Islamic tradition. The claims of Mohammed, the Qur’an and Islam are clearly unfounded. Even if such historical errors were accepted by the followers in Mohammed’s time, we now have so much more evidence which proves them in error. How can one embrace these enormous mistakes, when a simple study of history demonstrates how misinformed they are.

There is no evidence apart from the later Muslim traditions that Ishmael ever married a Jurhumite woman, the Torah indicates that he married an Egyptian. Muslims do accept the Torah. On the other hand the Hadith claims that after settling in Mecca Ishmael married twice, and both of his wives were of Arab descent. (Now you see why I must discuss the Hadith at another posting!)

If TRUTH is to be imparted please open your heart to these sincere sayings, because…..

I am bearing witness to everyone that hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things which are written about in this scroll.

 “He that bears witness of these things says, ‘Yes; I am coming quickly.’”

“Amen! Come, Lord Jesus.”-Revelation 22: 18-20



Posted By: Nur_Ilahi
Date Posted: 07 August 2009 at 8:54pm
Originally posted by Shibboleth

Muslims believe that Mohammed is a descendant of Ishmael, that's a very serious claim. Where can I find that information?

What proof is there that the ancestors of Mohammed were really the descendants of Ishmael?

***Except for the lineage of Jesus, which was documented by written books of the Holy Bible through the centuries, no other family in history has ever accounted for their ancestors over a period of 2,000 years.***





From http://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salasilah_keturunan_Nabi_Muhammad_SAW

Nabi Muhammad s.a.w. (Muhammad bin Abdullah)
Abdullah bin Abdul Mutallib
Abdul Mutallib bin Hashim
Hashim bin Abdul Manaf
Abdul Manaf bin Qusai
Qusai bin Kilab
Kilab bin Murrah
Murrah bin Kaab
Kaab bin Luay
Luay bin Ghalib
Ghalib bin Fahr
Fahr bin Malik
Malik bin An-Nadr
An-Nadr bin Kinanah
Kinanah bin Khuzaimah
Khuzaimah bin Mudrikah
Mudrikah bin Elyas
Elyas bin Mudar
Mudar bin Nizar
Nizar bin Ma'ad
Ma'ad bin Adnan
Adnan bin Add
Add bin Humaisi
Humaisi bin Salaman
Salaman bin Aws
Aws bin Buz
Buz bin Qamwal
Qamwal bin Obai
Obai bin Awwam
Awwam bin Nashid
Nashid bin Haza
Haza bin Bildas
Bildas bin Yadlaf
Yadlaf bin Tabikh
Tabikh bin Jahim
Jahim bin Nahish
Nahish bin Makhi
Makhi bin Ayd
Ayd bin Abqar
Abqar bin Ubayd
Ubayd bin Ad-Daa
Ad-Daa bin Hamdan
Hamdan bin Sanbir
Sanbir bin YathRabi
YathRabi bin Yahzin
Yahzin bin Yalhan
Yalhan bin Arami
Arami bin Ayd
Ayd bin Deshan
Deshan bin Aisar/Aizar
Aisar bin Afnad
Afnad bin Aiham
Aiham bin Muksar
Muksar bin Nahith
Nahith bin Zarih
Zarih bin Sani
Sani bin Wazzi
Wazzi bin Adwa'
Adwa' bin Aram
Aram bin Haidir
Haidir bin Ismail (Son of Ismail also called Kedar in the Bible)
Ismail bin Ibrahim (Ishmael bin Abraham - Prophet Ismail)
Ibrahim bin Azar (Prophet Ibrahim

----------------

A more detailed graphic to the lineage of Prophet Muhammad please click this link.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/family_tree.htm


 






-------------
Ilahi Anta Maksudi, Wa Redhaka Mathlubi - Oh Allah, You are my destination, Your Pleasure is my Intention.


Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 07 August 2009 at 9:58pm
Please read my above post regarding what Mohammed himself said about his ancestry, as well as many versions of Hadith.



Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 08 August 2009 at 1:37pm
As Salamu Alaikum, Nur.JazakAllah Kheiran for the link.He's been very buisy and you know how important it is for us to clear up these misconseptions they put out about our deen,I feel it's all of our duty because, it's very little that they can tell us about Christianity,no offense but,personally to me it's all about the dunya and western society and their politics more than religion some say to me I cant be Muslim because my family is Christian everybody I know are Christians. I cant wear hijab or kufi or throbes,or I like pork to much,Muslims cant drink or get high.every reason not to embrace Islam has to do with the dunya and its Western society,(The reason for me stating that personal opinion of mine) it comes from personal experience.Again no offense to any Christians.


Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 08 August 2009 at 1:48pm
Salams,Nur.Correct me if im wrong but I use to think that it was common Knowledge that everyone in the Middle Eastern Region at lest back then are or were descendents of Ishmail or Jacob(i.e Arabs and Jews)


Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 08 August 2009 at 8:33pm
According to the Torah writing by Moses, Ishmaels mother Hagar (Geneses 16:16)  was Egyptian (Hamitic) and his father Abraham was Hebrew (Shemitic)  Hagar then found an Egyptian wife for her son, and he in time fathered 12 sons, chieftains and family heads of the promised “great nation” of Ishmaelites.

Thus, the Ishmaelites as a race were originally predominantly Egyptian not Arabian, not Jewish. According to Islamic sources that came many, many years later unfortunately tells otherwise. Their range of camping sites at times took them near Egypt’s border.—Genesses 25:13-18.



Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 09 August 2009 at 12:53pm
Salams,Shibboleth.May Allah Reward you for your efforts.We can argue who is from where all day,but what is the point it seemes that your real objection is to decredit Islam and the Qur'an,I thught you were different shame on me.The Prophet Muhammad(SAW) never put emphasis on his ansestry and neigther should any Muslim. Muhammad(SAW) would say that He is Muslim first.


Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 09 August 2009 at 12:59pm
Originally posted by Shibboleth


Ishmaelites as a race were originally predominantly Egyptian not Arabian, not
Jewish.


It is common Knowledge that everyone in the Middle Eastern Region at lest back then are or were descendents of Ishmail or Jacob(i.e Arabs and Jews) Did you not read this?Middle Eastern Region includes Egypt. pre·dom·i·nant·ly
Pronunciation: \-nənt-lē\
Function: adverb
Date: 1681
: for the most part : mainly

This doesnt mean not or none at all or no where else as you quoted.For further reffernces concerning the Hadith of Prophet Muhammad(SAW), some are concidered to be weak.the study of Ahadith is a science.If you find one that says one thing from one book whose book and who said it and how reliable is the source of info and if there are many books how many say the same thing and how many dont. [IMG]smileys/smiley2.gif" align="middle" />


Posted By: Nur_Ilahi
Date Posted: 09 August 2009 at 6:31pm
Originally posted by Shibboleth

Please read my above post regarding what Mohammed himself said about his ancestry, as well as many versions of Hadith.



Please quote your source.

By the way, welcome on board Shibboleth, one of the many 'armies' sent to attack Islam. However none could be found to stay for long.

Haqq (Truth) stays eternal and strong forever.


-------------
Ilahi Anta Maksudi, Wa Redhaka Mathlubi - Oh Allah, You are my destination, Your Pleasure is my Intention.


Posted By: Nur_Ilahi
Date Posted: 09 August 2009 at 6:46pm
Originally posted by Akhe Abdullah

Salams,Nur.Correct me if im wrong but I use to think that it was common Knowledge that everyone in the Middle Eastern Region at lest back then are or were descendents of Ishmail or Jacob(i.e Arabs and Jews)


Salamalaikum Akhe,

As you can see from the graphic at the link I posted, most of the descendents of the Middle Eastern people are the descendents of Ismail and Ishaq, the two prophets, sons of Prophet Ibrahim. What modern terminology considered as Semitic People. These Prophets as stated in the Quran worshipped One True God, The Creator of the whole universe. However some had deviated from the True Teachings of God and as a Sign of God's Mercy, He had sent numerous Prophets in their midst as a reminder to worship The One True God.

Allah Al-Aleem 'preserved' the seed of Muhammad in the lineage of Ismail and sent these people in the barren deserts of Makkah, away from the stubborn and devious people of the Jewish tribe.

But whatever it is, in Islam, Allah do not look at race, colours or status. Because all these will be left behind in this world when we die. But the one that is eternal is our Souls/Spirits. The Inner Being that is in us that need to be purified before we meet the Purest of All that is Allah Al-Quddus - The Purest.

And the basic purification of the Souls/Spirits is to acknowledge that there is no other Being or God worthy of being worshipped but ALLAH and that Muhammad is His Messenger - The Best example of a human being.

Simple but Precise.



-------------
Ilahi Anta Maksudi, Wa Redhaka Mathlubi - Oh Allah, You are my destination, Your Pleasure is my Intention.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 09 August 2009 at 8:36pm
Originally posted by Shibboleth

Muslims believe that Mohammed is a descendant of Ishmael, that's a very serious claim. Where can I find that information?
Why is it a serious claim?

What proof is there that the ancestors of Mohammed were really the descendants of Ishmael?

I will give that after I refute the veracity your following claim?

***Except for the lineage of Jesus, which was documented by written books of the Holy Bible through the centuries, no other family in history has ever accounted for their ancestors over a period of 2,000 years.***



Let's see how good is your claim.....And if you have any sense of shame for ignoring the discrepancies or just being ignorant and arrogant is your way of barging in here .....


 Anyways  either you are blind follower of Xtianity true to your ID; cuz either you have not read the genealogy of Jesus or really understood the flaws of the Bible writers... they apparently overlooked the coming of modern times of quality checking of their writing and now they are in trouble for what they put down on paper...
Dr. Bucaiille took his time to say whatever you have in the NT is utterly unscientific and fun part is Jesus born of virgin mother is assigned Joseph as his dad LOL...The whole thing is absolutely pathetic....So here goes the dissection of;
 

THE GENEALOGIES OF JESUS

The two genealogies contained in Matthew's and Luke's Gospels give rise to problems of verisimilitude, and conformity with scientific data, and hence authenticity. These problems are a source of great embarrassment to Christian commentators because the latter refuse to see in them what is very obviously the product of human imagination. The authors of the Sacerdotal text of Genesis, Sixth century B.C., had already been inspired by imagination for their genealogies of the first men. It again inspired Matthew and Luke for the data they did not take from the Old Testament.

One must straight away note that the male genealogies have absolutely no relevance to Jesus. Were one to give a genealogy to Mary's only son, who was without a biological father, it would have to be the genealogy of his mother Mary.

Here is the text of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, 1952:

The genealogy according to Matthew is at the beginning of his Gospel:

"THE BOOK OF THE GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST,
THE SON OF DAVID, THE SON OF ABRAHAM.

Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Judah
Perez
Hezron
Ram
Amminadab
Nahshon
Salmon
Boaz
Obed
Jesse
David
Solomon
Rehoboam
Abijah
Asa
Jehoshaphat
Joram
Uzziah
Jotham
Ahaz
Hezekiah
Manasseh
Amos
Josiah

 

 


 

Jechoniah
Shealtiel
Zerubbabel
Abiud
Eliakim
Azor
Zadok
Achim
Eliud
Eleazar
Matthan
Jacob

was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of

at the time of the deportation to Babylon.

 


After the deportation to Babylon:

was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
was the father of
of whom Jesus was born, who

Isaac
Jacob
Judah and his brothers
Perez and Zerah by Tamar
Hezron
Ram
Amminadab
Nahshon
Salmon
Boaz by Rahab
Obed by Ruth
Jesse
David the king
Solomon by the wife of Uriah
Rehoboam
Abijah
Asa
Jehoshaphat
Joram
Uzziah
Jotham
Ahaz
Hezekiah
Manasseh
Amos
Josiah
Jechoniah and his brothers

 






Shealtiel
Zerubbabel
Abiud
Eliakim
Azor
Zadok
Achim
Eliud
Eleazar
Matthan
Jacob
Joseph the husband of Mary
was called Christ.

 

So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations". (Matthew, I, 1-17)

The genealogy given by Luke (3, 23-38) is different from Matthew. The text reproduced here is from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible:

"Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the sOn of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Ami, the SOD of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."

The genealogies appear more clearly when presented in two tables, one showing the genealogy before David and the other after him.

GENEALOGY OF JESUS, BEFORE DAVID

According to Marrhew                      

Matthew does not mention
any name before Abraham.

  1. Abraham
  2. Isaac
  3. Jacob
  4. Judah
  5. Perez
  6. Hezron
  7. Ram
  8. Amminadab
  9. Nahshon
  10. Salmon
  11. Boaz
  12. Obed
  13. Jesse
  14. David
According to Luke
  1. Adam
  2. Seth
  3. Enos
  4. Cainan
  5. Mahalaleel
  6. Jared
  7. Enoch
  8. Methuselah
  9. Lamech
  10. Noah
  11. Shem
  12. Arphaxad
  13. Cainan
  14. Shelah
  15. Eber
  16. Peleg
  17. Reu
  18. Serug
  19. Nahor
  20. Terah
  21. Abraham
  22. Isaac
  23. Jacob
  24. Judah
  25. Perez
  26. Hezron
  27. Arni
  28. Admin
  29. Amminadab
  30. Nahshon
  31. Sala
  32. Boaz
  33. Obed
  34. Jesse
  35. David                           


GENEALOGY OF JESUS, AFTER DAVID

According to Matthew

14 David
15 Solomon
16 Rehoboam
17 Abijah
18 Am
19 Jehoshaphat
20 Joram
21 Uzziah
22 Jotham
23 Ahaz
24 Hezekiah
25 Manasseh
26 Amos
27 Josiah
28 Jechoniah

Deportation to Babylon

29 Shealtiel
30 Zerubbabel
31 Abiud
32 Eliakim
33 Azor
34 Zadok
35 Achim
36 Eliud
37 Eleazar
38 Matthan
39 Jacob
40 Joseph
41 Jesus

According to Luke

35 David
36 Nathan
37 Mattatha
38 Menna
39 Melea
40 Eliakim
41 Jonam
42 Joseph
43 Judah
44 Simeon
45 Levi
46 Matthat
47 Jorim
48 Eliezer
49 Joshua
50 Er
51 Elmadam
52 Cosam
53 Addi
54 Melchi
55 Neri
56 Shealtiel
57 Zerubbabel
58 Rhesa
59 Joanan
60 Joda                    
61 Josech
62 Semein
63 Mattathias
64 Maath
65 Naggai
66 Esli
67 Nahum
68 Amos
69 Mattathias
70 Joseph
71 Jannai
72 Melchi
73 Levi
74 Matthat
75 Heli
76 Joseph
77 Jesus

 

 

VARIATIONS IN THE MANUSCRIPTS AND IN RELATION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT

Apart from variations in spelling, the following must be mentioned:

a) Matthew's Gospel

The genealogy has disappeared from the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis, a very important Six century manuscript in both Greek and Latin. It has completely disappeared from the Greek text and also a large part of the Latin text. It may quite simply be that the first pages were lost.

One must note here the great liberties Matthew has taken with the Old Testament. He has pared down the genealogies for the sake of a strange numerical demonstration (which, in the end, he does not give, as we shall see).

b) Luke's Gospel

  1. Before Abraham: Luke mentions 20 names; the Old Testament only mentions 19 (see table of Adam's descendants in the Old Testament section of this work). After Arphaxad (No. 12) , Luke has added a person called Cainan (No. 13), who is not mentioned in Genesis as the son of Arphaxad. 

  2. From Abraham to David: 14 to 16 names are found according to the manuscripts. 

  3. From David to Jesus.

The most important variation is the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis which attributes to Luke a whimsical genealogy taken from Matthew and to which the scribe has added five names. Unfortunately, the genealogy of Matthew's Gospel has disappeared from this manuscript, so that comparison is no longer possible.

 

CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE TEXTS

We are here faced with two different genealogies having one essential point in common, i.e. they both pass via Abraham and David. To make this examination easier, we shall separate the whole into three critical sections:

-From Adam to Abraham.
-From Abraham to David.
-From David to Jesus.


1. The Period from Adam to Abraham

Matthew began his genealogy with Abraham so we are not concerned with his text here. Luke alone provides information on Abraham's ancestors going back to Adam: 20 names, 19 of which are to be found in Genesis (chapters 4, 5 and 11), as has already been stated.

Is it possible to believe that only 19 or 20 generations of human beings existed before Abraham? The problem has been examined in the discussion of the Old Testament. If one looks at the table of Adam's descendants, based on Genesis and giving figures for the time element contained in the Biblical text, one can see that roughly nineteen centuries passed between man's appearance on earth and the birth of Abraham. Today it is estimated that Abraham Was alive in circa 1850 B.C. and it has been deduced from this that the information provided by the Old Testament places man's appearance on earth at roughly thirty-eight centuries B.C. Luke was obviously guided by these data for his Gospel. He expresses a blatant untruth for having copied them down and we have already seen the decisive historical arguments leading to this statement.

The idea that Old Testament data are unacceptable in the present day is duly admitted; they belong to the 'obsolete' material referred to by the Second Vatican Council. The fact, however that the Gospels take up the same scientifically incompatible data is an extremely serious observation which may be used to oppose those who defend the historical accuracy of the Gospel texts.

Commentators have quickly sensed this danger. They try to get round the difficulty by saying that it is not a complete genealogical tree, that the evangelist has missed names out. They claim that this was done quite deliberately, and that his sole "intention was to establish the broad lines or essential elements of a line of descent based on historical reality." [ A. Tricot, Little Dictionary of the New Testament (Petit Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament in "La Sainte Bible", Desclée, Pub. Paris)] There is nothing in the texts that permits them to form this hypothesis. In the text it says quite clearly: A was the father of B, or B was the son of A. For the part preceding Abraham in particular, the evangelist draws moreover on the Old Testament where the genealogies are set out in the following form:

When X had lived n years, he became the father of Y . . . When Y had lived n years, he became the father of Z. . . .
There is therefore no break.
The part of Jesus's genealogy according to Luke, which precedes Abraham, is not acceptable in the light of modern knowledge.

 


2. The Period from Abraham to David.

Here the two genealogies tally (or almost), excepting one or two names: the difference may be explained by copiers' errors.

Does this mean that the evangelists are to be considered accurate?

History situates David at circa 1000 B.C. and Abraham at 1800-1860 B.C.: 14 to 16 generations for roughly eight centuries. Can one believe this? One might say that for this period the Gospel texts are at the very limit of the admissible.

 


3. The Post-David Period.

It is a great pity, but unfortunately the texts no longer tally at all when it comes to establishing Joseph's line from David, and figuratively speaking, Jesus's, for the Gospel.

Leaving aside the obvious falsification in the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis concerning Luke, let us now compare what the two most venerable manuscripts have to offer: the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus.

In the genealogy according to Luke 42 names are placed after David (No. 35) down to Jesus (No. 77). In the genealogy according to Matthew 27 are mentioned after David (No. 14) down to Jesus (No. 41). The number of (fictitious) ancestors given to Jesus after David is therefore different in the two Gospels. The names themselves are different as well.

This is not all.

Matthew tells us that he discovered how Jesus's genealogy split up after Abraham into three groups of 14 names; first group from Abraham to David; second from David to the deportation to Babylon; third from the deportation to Jesus. His text does indeed contain 14 names in the first two groups, but in the third-from the deportation to Jesus-there are only 13 and not 14, as expected; the table shows that Shealthiel is No. 29 and Jesus No. 41. There is no variation of Matthew that gives 14 names for this group.

To enable himself to have 14 names in his second group, Matthew takes very great liberties with the Old Testament text. The names of the first six descendants of David (No. 15 to 20) tally with the data in the Old Testament, but the three descendants of Ioram (No. 20), given in Chronicles 11 of the Bible as Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah, are suppressed by Matthew. Elsewhere, Jechoniah (No. 28) is for Matthew the son of Josiah, although Kings II of the Bible tells us that Eliakim comes between Josiah and Jechoniah.

It may be seen from this that Matthew has altered the genealogical lines in the Old Testament to present an artificial group of 14 names between David and the deportation to Babylon. There is also the fact that one name is missing in Matthew's third group, so that none of the present-day Gospel texts contains the 42 names mentioned. What is surprising is not so much the existence of the omission itself (explained perhaps by a very old scribe's error that was subsequently perpetuated), but the almost total silence of commentators on this subject. How can one miss this omission? W. Trilling breaks this pious conspiracy of silence in his book The Gospel According to Matthew (L'Evangile selon Matthieu) [ Pub. Desclée, coll. 'Parole et Prière', Paris.] by devoting one line to it. It is a fact which is of considerable importance because the commentators of this Gospel, including the Ecumenical Translation and Cardinal Daniélou among others, stress the great symbolical significance of Matthew's 3 x 14. This significance was so important for the evangelist that he suppressed Biblical names without hesitation to arrive at his numerical demonstration.

To make this hold good, commentators will, no doubt, construct some reassuring statements of an apologetic nature, justifying the fact that names have been craftily suppressed and carefully avoiding the omission that undermines the whole point of what the evangelist was trying to show.

 

COMMENTARIES OF MODERN EXPERTS IN EXEGESIS

 

In his book The Gospels of Childhood (1967) Les Evangiles de l'Enfance) [ Pub. Editions du Seuil, Paris.], Cardinal Daniélou invests Matthew's 'numerical schematisation' with a symbolic value of paramount importance since it is this that establishes Jesus's ancestry, which is asserted also by Luke. For him Luke and Matthew are 'historians' who have completed their 'historical investigations', and the , genealogy' has been 'taken down from the archives of Jesus family'. It must be added here that the archives have never been found. [ Although the author assures us that he knows of the existence of these supposed family archives from the Ecclesiastic History by Eusebius Pamphili (about whose respectability much could be said), it is difficult to see why Jesus's family should have two genealogical trees that were necessarily different just because each of the two so-called 'historians' gave a genealogy substantially different from the other concerning the names of those who figure among Jesus's ancestors.] Cardinal Daniélou condemns out of hand anyone who criticizes his point of view. "It is the Western mentality, ignorance of Judeo-Christianity and the absence of a Semitic outlook that have made so many experts in exegesis loose their way when interpreting the Gospels. They have projected their own categories onto them: (sic) Platonic, Cartesian, Hegelian and Heideggerian. It is easy to see why everything is mixed up in their minds." Plato, Descartes, Hegel and Heidegger obviously have nothing to do with the critical attitude one may have towards these whimsical genealogies.

In his search for the meaning of Matthew's 3 x 14, the author expands on strange suppositions. They are worth quoting here: "What may be meant are the common ten weeks of the Jewish Apocalypse. The first three, corresponding to the time from Adam to Abraham, would have been subtracted; seven weeks of years would then remain, the first six would correspond to the six times seven representing the three groups of fourteen and leaving the seventh, started by Christ with whom the seventh age of the world begins." Explanations like this are beyond comment!

The commentators of the Ecumenical Translation-New Testament-also give us numerical variations of an apologetic nature which are equally unexpected: For Matthew's 3 x 14:

a) 14 could be the numerical total of the 3 consonants in the Hebrew name David (D= 4, V= 6), hence 4+6+4= 14.

b) 3 x 14 = 6 x 7 and "Jesus came at the end of the sixth week of Holy history beginning with Abraham."

For Luke, this translation gives 77 names from Adam to Jesus, allowing the number 7 to come up again, this time by dividing 77 by 7 (7x 11= 77). It is quite apparent that for Luke the number of variations where words are added or subtracted is such that a list of 77 names is completely artificial. It does however have the advantage of adapting itself to these numerical games.

The genealogies of Jesus as they appear in the Gospels may perhaps be the subject that has led Christian commentators to perform their most characteristic feats of dialectic acrobatics, on par indeed with Luke's and Matthew's imagination.




-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 09 August 2009 at 9:13pm
Originally posted by Shibboleth

If TRUTH is to be imparted please open your heart to these sincere sayings, because…..

I am bearing witness to everyone that hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things which are written about in this scroll.LOL

 


I hope you must have read and digested my last post and not caused major belly ache...
So now you tell us who did add or take away from Jesus's genealogical details?
Is it Luke or is it Matthew? Some one did something for sure....
 
And who is getting the plagues?

I think it might be you...LOL

IMHO the Americans should be last people on this talking about this subject and the scroll for so many generations of illegitimate children being born here and things not getting any better ....You know even the lesbian daughter of the former Veep Cheney- Mary had a child and churches and priest getting on the gay band wagon marriage
Btw is she still a virgin?

Mary Cheney, the vice president's lesbian daughter, had her first child this morning at Sibley Hospital in Washington, D.C.

Cheney%20baby
Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife, Lynne Cheney, welcomed their sixth grandchild, Samuel David... http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3205613&page=1#">Expand
(David Bohrer/White House Photo)

Samuel David Cheney was born at 9:46 a.m., weighing 8 lbs., 6 oz.

His parents are Mary and her partner, Heather Poe. Wink

Sixth Grandchild for Cheney

"The vice president is pleased to be a grandfather for the sixth time," spokeswoman Megan McGinn said.

The vice president's office announced in December that Mary was expecting her first child and a spokeswoman said at the time that he and his wife were "looking forward with eager anticipation to the arrival of their sixth grandchild."

Cheney bristled when the subject came up in a notably testy exchange in January with CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

Blitzer asked the vice president about a statement from Focus on the Family about whether having a child outside of a married mother or father is best for the child.

Cheney said Blitzer was "out of line" even asking the question about Mary Cheney and said he fundamentally disagreed with Blitzer's perspective.

But Blitzer did not really offer his perspective and the only question he asked was whether Cheney wanted to respond to the Focus on the Family statement.

Blitzer said it was a question that has come up and it's a "responsible, fair question."

Vice President Cheney said then that he was delighted to have a sixth grandchild and thinks the world of both of his daughters and all of his grandchildren.

His daughter, Elizabeth, has five children with her husband Philip Perry: three daughters, Kate, Elizabeth and Grace and two sons, Philip and Richard.

President Sends Congratulations

President Bush told People magazine in December that Mary Cheney would be "a loving soul to her child."

Q. What the heck is this loving soul crap?

The president said this in response to a question about his comment from 2005 that "a child is raised in a married family with a man and a woman."

"The vice president took me aside and gave me the good news. He and his wife, Lynne, are very happy for Mary," Bush said. "I think Mary is going to be a loving soul to her child. And I'm happy for her," Bush said.

Want to try your hand at making this Samuel David Cheney's genealogical chart?

How is he a Cheney?


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Meditations
Date Posted: 10 August 2009 at 2:58pm
Originally posted by Nur_Ilahi


Ibrahim bin Azar (Prophet Ibrahim



Dear member_profile.asp?PF=58927&FID=10 - Nur_Ilahi

It's a side topic not related to the main one, I can open a new thread for it if you wish
it's a misconception that azar is the father of Prophet Ibrahim , he was not
he was his uncle who raised him

I tried to edit the wikipedia link you sent , but I'm not sure which language is this

AsSalam Alaykoum


Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 10 August 2009 at 5:41pm

Any man can say he comes from an important family from long ago but to say he is a messenger of God proof MUST be shown. You say Muhammad is such a man and I respect your belief, we can agree to disagree. But to say that Mohammed carried a prophetic role and the Quran is God’s word, at least one should be able to a reasonable degree show proof of his role not just quotes from the book or the person that’s in question.

Muslims say there are scriptures from the Bible that supports Islam/Mohammad. Muslims/Quran says Mohammad is the last prophet, this is your belief.

However, Revelation 22:18, 19 of the last book of God’s Holy Writings says this hundreds of years before the Quran was writing;

18 “I am bearing witness to everyone that hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; 19 and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things which are written about in this scroll.

Any man of God would question its authority.  



Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 10 August 2009 at 6:12pm

Mohammed, himself, rejected all of these false genealogies, and he put limits regarding the genealogy of his ancestors. Regarding Mohammed’s own rejection of the false genealogies, Amru bin al-As wrote:

Mohammed genealogized himself regarding his ancestors until he reached al-Nather bin Kinaneh, then he said, “anyone who claimed otherwise or added further ancestors, has lied.

By this, Mohammed confessed that neither he, nor anyone else, knew about his ancestors beyond al-Nather bin Kinaneh. Nather bin Kinaneh is the 17th ancestor in the genealogy which Mohammed recognized as true. Other narrations of the customs, or sayings, of Mohammed, called Hadiths, show Mohammed refused to be genealogized prior to Maad,  معدwho some suggested, was the 4th ancestor prior to al-Nather bin Kinaneh

Muslims would like to connect Mohammad to Ishmael to prove he was a prophet but it's IMPOSSIBLE, he wasn't, people just believe what they hear without truly doing the research.

***Ancestry is very important, if you want the truth***



Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 10 August 2009 at 7:21pm
After those prophets We sent forth Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the Torah already revealed, and gave him the Gospel, in which there is guidance and light, corroborating that which was revealed before it in the Torah, a guide and an admonition to the righteous. Therefore let the followers of the Gospel judge in accordance with what Allah has revealed therein. Evil-doers are those that do not base their judgements on Allah’s revelations.”—Sura 5, Al-Ma’ida [The Table], verses 46, 47.

If, at the time these words were written, the Bible had already been corrupted, how could believers in the Gospel ‘judge in accordance with what Allah had revealed therein’?

Thus believers in the Qur’an accept that the Bible was Uncorrupted at the time the Qur’an was written, Genealogy and all! (about one thousand three hundred years ago). On the other hand, there exist manuscripts of the Bible written four hundred or five hundred years before that time that are on public display in museums today.

Next.


Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 10 August 2009 at 8:31pm
FYi...
You said "The two genealogies contained in Matthew's and Luke's Gospels give rise to problems of verisimilitude, and conformity with scientific data, and hence authenticity"

Now let me teach you and do listen intently!

The difference in all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) It's there for people who want to know!

Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father.

Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: “Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (Mt 1:16) Notice that he does not say ‘Joseph became father to Jesus’ but that he was “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.” Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.”—Lu 3:23.
Still with me?

Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary.


***NOT CONFUSING AT ALL***

In CONCLUSION, the two lists of Matthew and Luke fuse together the two truths, namely, (1) that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David’s line, and (2) that Jesus was also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. (Lu 1:32, 35; Ro 1:1-4)

NO WONDER THE QURAN ACCEPTS JESUS CHRIST, IT WAS IRREFUTABLE BACK THEN AND IT IS NOW!

The angels announced good news from God to Mary. She would give birth to Jesus.—Āl ‘Imrān [3]:45.

♦ God taught him the Book and Wisdom, the Torah and the Injīl.Āl ‘Imrān [3]:48. 

God caused Christ to die, raised him to life, and then lifted him up to Him.—Āl ‘Imrān [3]:55, NJD; Maryam [19]:33, NJD.

One Ḥadīth says that Christ is the only one that Satan did not touch: “When any human being is born, Satan touches him at both sides of the body with his two fingers, except Jesus, the son of Mary, whom Satan tried to touch but failed.”—The Book of the Beginning of Creation from Ṣaḥīḥ Al-Bukhārī.

And Dear Readers of the Quran; Adam was called a son of God because his life came from God without human parents. Similarly, Jesus Christ is called the son of God, for his life came directly from God. We read in the Qur’ān: “The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: ‘Be’: And he was.”—Āl ‘Imrān [3]:59.

YES! He was more the just a prophet. He was the son of GOD! If the Quran was going to talk of such a GREAT man as Jesus, at least the one  coming after him should have done greater works then he.


The Quran would not promote such a LIE, a man who had no reliable ancestry, a man who done better works then ALL the prophets put together.

Well let me put your mind at ease, the BIBLE God's Holy Writings does not either!

I follow Jehovah, God of the most high.

*Psalms 83:18*

"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH,
You alone are the Most High over all the earth"

 




Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 11 August 2009 at 3:57pm
Originally posted by Nur_Ilahi


Originally posted by Akhe Abdullah

Salams,Nur.Correct me if im wrong but I use to think that it was common Knowledge that everyone in the Middle Eastern Region at lest back then are or were descendents of Ishmail or Jacob(i.e Arabs and Jews)
Salamalaikum Akhe,As you can see from the graphic at the link I posted, most of the descendents of the Middle Eastern people are the descendents of Ismail and Ishaq, the two prophets, sons of Prophet Ibrahim. What modern terminology considered as Semitic People. These Prophets as stated in the Quran worshipped One True God, The Creator of the whole universe. However some had deviated from the True Teachings of God and as a Sign of God's Mercy, He had sent numerous Prophets in their midst as a reminder to worship The One True God. Allah Al-Aleem 'preserved' the seed of Muhammad in the lineage of Ismail and sent these people in the barren deserts of Makkah, away from the stubborn and devious people of the Jewish tribe. But whatever it is, in Islam, Allah do not look at race, colours or status. Because all these will be left behind in this world when we die. But the one that is eternal is our Souls/Spirits. The Inner Being that is in us that need to be purified before we meet the Purest of All that is Allah Al-Quddus - The Purest. And the basic purification of the Souls/Spirits is to acknowledge that there is no other Being or God worthy of being worshipped but ALLAH and that Muhammad is His Messenger - The Best example of a human being.Simple but Precise.
Salams,Nur.Shukran


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 14 August 2009 at 6:44pm
Originally posted by Shibboleth


Now let me teach you and do listen intently!

The difference in all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) It's there for people who want to know!

Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father.

Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: “Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (Mt 1:16) Notice that he does not say ‘Joseph became father to Jesus’ but that he was “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.” Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.”—Lu 3:23.
Still with me?

Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary.


 ***NOT CONFUSING AT ALL***


 In CONCLUSION, the two lists of Matthew and Luke fuse together the two truths, namely, (1) that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David’s line, and (2) that Jesus was also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. (Lu 1:32, 35; Ro 1:1-4)

NO WONDER THE QURAN ACCEPTS JESUS CHRIST, IT WAS IRREFUTABLE BACK THEN AND IT IS NOW!




Of course not confusing for the people who are drunkards, dope heads and consumers of everything unlawful by the real God's laws and also want a free ride to paradise in the heavens... In my book if Jesus was son of god he has no genealogy....PeriodThis explanation just doesn't make sense...
Luke  & Matthews were just not smart enough to realize what they were doing...

IMHO Jehovah's witness like you not even qualified to discuss these things..
The part Quran accepted was not what we are discussing here for your information...





-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 15 August 2009 at 3:26pm
Originally posted by Shibboleth

FYi...
You said "The two genealogies contained in Matthew's and Luke's Gospels give rise to problems of verisimilitude, and conformity with scientific data, and hence authenticity"

Now let me teach you and do listen intently!

The difference in all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) It's there for people who want to know!

Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father.

Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Matthew departs from the style used throughout his genealogy when he comes to Jesus, saying: “Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.” (Mt 1:16) Notice that he does not say ‘Joseph became father to Jesus’ but that he was “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.” Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.”—Lu 3:23.
Still with me?

Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary.


***NOT CONFUSING AT ALL***

In CONCLUSION, the two lists of Matthew and Luke fuse together the two truths, namely, (1) that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David’s line, and (2) that Jesus was also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. (Lu 1:32, 35; Ro 1:1-4)

NO WONDER THE QURAN ACCEPTS JESUS CHRIST, IT WAS IRREFUTABLE BACK THEN AND IT IS NOW!

The angels announced good news from God to Mary. She would give birth to Jesus.—Āl ‘Imrān [3]:45.

♦ God taught him the Book and Wisdom, the Torah and the Injīl.Āl ‘Imrān [3]:48. 

God caused Christ to die, raised him to life, and then lifted him up to Him.—Āl ‘Imrān [3]:55, NJD; Maryam [19]:33, NJD.

One Ḥadīth says that Christ is the only one that Satan did not touch: “When any human being is born, Satan touches him at both sides of the body with his two fingers, except Jesus, the son of Mary, whom Satan tried to touch but failed.”—The Book of the Beginning of Creation from Ṣaḥīḥ Al-Bukhārī.

And Dear Readers of the Quran; Adam was called a son of God because his life came from God without human parents. Similarly, Jesus Christ is called the son of God, for his life came directly from God. We read in the Qur’ān: “The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: ‘Be’: And he was.”—Āl ‘Imrān [3]:59.

YES! He was more the just a prophet. He was the son of GOD! If the Quran was going to talk of such a GREAT man as Jesus, at least the one  coming after him should have done greater works then he.


The Quran would not promote such a LIE, a man who had no reliable ancestry, a man who done better works then ALL the prophets put together.

Well let me put your mind at ease, the BIBLE God's Holy Writings does not either!

I follow Jehovah, God of the most high.

*Psalms 83:18*

"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH,
You alone are the Most High over all the earth"

 


 
Dear Shibbo,
there is an old saying, one mistake leasds to many mistakes, one lie leads to many lies.  There are just too many issues with what you have written above.
First the last: you wrote: "I follow Jehovah, God of the most high" I did not know there was a god for the most high, most high...on drugs?? just wondering. Or you simply meant, 'the God Most High.'
 
You wrote: "Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary" that is like saying: Chelsea is actually daughter of Bill though Hillary" right. That make Hillary wife of Bill. Now we apply that to what you have said, and according to you Mary is wife of your god, right? big problem with that, its simply monstrasity. If someone has a wife, a son or a daughter, or have a son through a human mother then its not God we are talking about.
 
The geneology of Jesus in Matthew and Luke is inconsistant, period. Both are tracing through Joseph, but one has got it wrong, or even both.
 
I would say there is nothing more beneficial then teaching one's self to only submit to the truth and teach it to others. You mislead yourself, you fall, you mislead others as well, your burdon is increased many folds when you fall. But I guess we are all free, to choose.
 
May God of Jesus, David, Moses, Abraham and Mohammed (pbut) guide us all to nothing less than the truth, Ameen.
"There is none other worthy of Worship but (your Creator), God Almighty.  Mohammed (pbuh) is His servent and Messenger."
 
Hasan
 
 


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: martha
Date Posted: 16 August 2009 at 3:02pm
Hmm...there was only one Adam and Eve....so IMHO we are all related to eachother.
Has anyone traced their family tree back to Adam yet? lol
All this to and fro-ing, lol, and we are all brothers and sisters together!!Isnt that WONDERFUL!!!


-------------
some of us are a lot like cement:- all mixed up and permanently set


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 17 August 2009 at 4:00am
"I follow Jehovah, God of the most high" I did not know there was a god for the most high, most high...on drugs?? just wondering.

LoL

I agree Martha. And a geneologist has mapped all people back to the people of the Kalahari dessert in South Africa area. It was amazing. 




-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 17 August 2009 at 11:20am

"Of course not confusing for the people who are drunkards, dope heads and consumers of everything unlawful by the real God's laws and also want a free ride to paradise in the heavens... In my book if Jesus was son of god he has no genealogy....PeriodThis explanation just doesn't make sense...
Luke  & Matthews were just not smart enough to realize what they were doing...

IMHO Jehovah's witness like you not even qualified to discuss these things"


Sign *Reader, I suspect you’re not an Imam which is ok, I'm sure you would love to be one day but you’re a very contentious Muslim. "Pride comes before a crash" You have little understanding of the Quran and no understanding of the Holy Scriptures.

Children of Israel. . . Have faith in My revelations, which confirm your Scriptures.” (Sura 2, Al-Baqara [The Cow], verse 41) “A Book confirming their own has come to them from Allah.” (Sura 2, Al-Baqara [The Cow], verse 89) “When it is said to them: ‘Believe in what Allah has revealed,’ they reply: ‘We believe in what was revealed to us.’ But they deny what has since been revealed, although it is the truth, corroborating their own scriptures.” (Sura 2, Al-Baqara [The Cow], verse 91) “He has revealed to you the Book with the truth, confirming the scriptures which preceded it; for He has already revealed the Torah and the Gospel for the guidance of men, and the distinction between right and wrong.” (Sura 3, Al-Imran [The Imrans], verses 3, 4) “This is a blessed Book which We have revealed, confirming what came before it.” (Sura 6, Al-An‛am [Cattle], verse 92) “If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) “What We have revealed to you in the Book is the truth confirming previous scriptures.”—Sura 35, Al-Fatir [The Creator], verse 31.

The Qur’an teaches that these three writings, the Torah, the Psalms and the Gospel (Injeel) are from God (that's not me saying it)  if they weren’t you wouldn’t even have the Quran. If you disagree, it’s all good. Agree to disagree but don’t set the pace of resorting to offensive words “senior member” it’s a terrible example.

Say, "We believe in Allah and what has been sent down to us and what was sent down to Ibrahim (Abraham), Isma’il (Ishmael) and Ishaq (Isaac) and Ya'qub (Jacob) and the Tribes, and what Musa (Moses) and ‘Isa (Jesus) and all the Prophets were given by their Lord. We do not differentiate between any of them..." (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85



Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 17 August 2009 at 11:45am
You mean the genealogy fabricated by Ibn-Ishak that contradicts the sayings of Mohammed, who expressed his ignorance about his ancestors prior to his 17th ancestor?

**Ibn Ishak was considered by the Muslim scholars of his time as being guilty of forgery and fabricating false genealogies**

What genealogist are you referring to?


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 19 August 2009 at 10:06pm
Originally posted by Shibboleth


Sign *Reader, I suspect you’re not an Imam which is ok, I'm sure you would love to be one day but you’re a very contentious Muslim. "Pride comes before a crash" You have little understanding of the Quran and no understanding of the Holy Scriptures.


Duh
Of course it is mandatory on the part of the Muslim's to believe in the chain of Allah's messengers who were deputed to his work on earth...

Why are you quoting from Quran to tell us what is what in Quran...It you who is contentious in  compounding the issue and telling me exactly the Quran warns about people like you...I know few Jehovah's witnesses would knock at my door and be totally lost when they were told the truth...
But that is OK I can live with people like you quite easily cuz I know in there is something missing from the Judeo Xtian mind about that will only believe tangible god ...
Wherever Allah revealed to Prophet Mmhd about the scripture btw which originally were in oral form mostly but available to a very limited folks in written form were extrapolations about truths...If challenged the truth could be rectified as Prophet Mhmd used do in Jews and Christians cases by listening on their scriptures and then rendering judgments by correcting interpolations to their surprises and some would see the light and become the witnesses of the Allah's and his messenger...

Here is a passage on these things from the Jewish revert Muslim Mhmd Asd commentary what I am saying..........................  
Note 64 (Quran Ref: 5:48 )

The participle muhaymin is derived from the quadriliteral verb haymana, "he watched [over a thing]" or "controlled [it]", and is used here to describe the Qur'an as the determinant factor in deciding what is genuine and what is false in the earlier scriptures (see Manar VI, 410 ff.).(Quran Ref: 5:48 )





-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 19 August 2009 at 10:16pm
member_profile.asp?PF=61994&FID=10 - Shibboleth
In the world of manufacturing where some level of integrity is required there is process called quality assurance; when a negligent worker produces a bad lot it is job of the inspector to catch the lot before it goes into the product and shipped to the unsuspecting customer..if the inspection or quality system is lacking the customer can get hurt depending upon the product may also lose life or limb...If the bad lot is caught in time some time it is sorted against the go & no gauge as specified by the designer of the product...Some parts are saved and others scrapped...but at times the statistical analysis renders the whole lot useless and is scrapped...When that happens too often the whole company goes bankrupt...Did you get the drift as is happening to lot of American companies...Now this is the material world but it is same about what is called scriptures being extrapolated for sake of money and material...

As Allah revealed
9:34 (Asad) O you who have attained to faith! Behold, many of the rabbis and monks do indeed wrongfully devour men's possessions and turn [others] away from the path of God. But as for all who lay up treasures of gold and silver and do not spend them for the sake of Gods Asad(9,51) ../Quransearch/action.lasso.asp?-database=Quran&-Table=tblMasterTranslit&-Response=Sreply1.asp&-Error=SReply1.asp&-MaxRecords=25&-token=Asad,%7C%7C%3Cta%3Efalse%3C/ta%3E%3Ctt%3Efalse%3C/tt%3E%3Cts%3Etrue%3C/ts%3E%3Cdc%3Efalse%3C/dc%3E%3Ctx%3Etrue%3C/tx%3E%3Cal%3Efalse%3C/al%3E&-op=qrange&CV=9:34&-sortorder=Ascend&-sortfield=cv&-Search# - Ahmed Deedat has a book online about the rectification process; It will be too much to copy and pasting the whole thing...so if you have time go there and then tell me if you still have questions...
http://ia310839.us.archive.org/3/items/Shk_Ahmed_Deedats_Books/Is_The_Bible_Gods_Word.pdf - http://ia310839.us.archive.org/3/items/Shk_Ahmed_Deedats_Books/Is_The_Bible_Gods_Word.pdf


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 20 August 2009 at 11:28am

 

Ok, you’re waaaaaay-OFF the subject. FIRST: Remember what was posted. Second: The Quran declares the Bible to be a true revelation of God and demands faith in the Bible. (Open n Shut case)

 

Because YOU or OTHERS have NO divine knowledge or understanding of the scriptures and misapply the TEXT doesn’t mean the Bible is wrong, you have to do better then that.

- Sura 2:40-42,126,136,285; 3:3,71,93; 4:47,136; 5:47-51, 69,71-72; 6:91; 10:37,94; 21:7; 29:45,46; 35:31; 46:11

 

 The Quran claims that NO ONE can change the Word of God. 
 Sura 6:34; 10:34 

 

All these above texts presuppose the availability of the true revelation of God to the people of Muhammad's day.
 -Sura 3:71,93; 10:94; 21:71
        
A true Muslim is obliged to believe in all the revelations of God. Sura 2:136; 4:136; 29:46
 
The Quran makes no distinction between God's revelations
Sura 2:136 
 
Perhaps you believe in some of the Quran like you believe in some of the Bible to support your beliefs. 
 
Either you believe in “The Book” or you don’t.

 

If you truly believe in what you’ve been taught it’s on you. But please my Brother do not go by here-say or emotions, go by the FACTS!  
 
Bottom line however is this, the Bible and the Quran do not agree.
 
The Bible and the Quran differ widely on fundamental concepts of faith and practice.
 

However, Do you know who Ibn-Khazem is? http://inthenameofallah.org/Biblical%20Corruption%20Allegations.html - http://inthenameofallah.org/Biblical%20Corruption%20Allegations.html

 

Many other exegetes, did not accept or agree with his conclusions among whom are many of the luminaries of 'Islam' such as:

 

1. Ali al Tabari (d 855) who accepted the Gospel texts

 

2. Al Bukhari (810-870)

 

3. Al Mas'udi (956)

 

4. Abu Ali husain bin Sina (1037)

 

5. Al Ghazali (1111) who did not accept his teachings

 

6. Ibn Khaldun (1406) ditto.

 

 

In reality it is not up to the People of the Book to prove their Book is uncorrupted but up to the Muhammadans to do so based on any 'original' book that would show these corruptions.  Sign *Reader, can you or ANY Muslim present even one book? I think not

 

The interpreters of the Quran repeatedly denigrate and accuse both the Jews and Christians of having tampered with and  or 'corrupted' their Holy Books to suit their - with as yet unexplained and unidentified - nefarious purposes.

 

No where does the Quran EVER imply that the TEXTS of the Scriptures of the People pf the Book had been tampered with or CORRUPTED.

 

Only man with their own interpretation be he Jew, Christian or Muslim.

Remember it was only a man who said he received the revelation from an angel and was told to Read, Recite, Relay, who REALLY knows.

 

But ANYONE who reads this post! Think about any man who received a revelation, be it Moses, Jesus or Muhammad, what manifestations came with it?  

 

1 John 4:1-3: “Test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world. You gain the knowledge of the inspired expression from God by this: Every inspired expression that confesses Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God, but every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus does not originate with God.”

 

 

So, any alleged corruptions that happened would have happened AFTER the Quranic 'revelations'. If so, then the Muhammadan accusers have an unenviable intellectual, theological and historical MAGICAL ACT to perform:

 

They have to prove the most STUPENDOUS and massive literary editing ever performed in the history of humanity; that the Jews and Christians were able to ALTER the TEXTS of EVERY single Book of theirs all over the world, in EVERY COUNTRY, in all the languages that the Bible was written in, with the consent, agreement and collusion of all the Jewish Rabbis as well as all the Christian priests, without leaving a copy of any ORIGINAL BIBLE.

 

Many great MUSLIM teachers DO NOT believe the Bible has been corrupted and ACCEPT the authenticity of our PRESENT New Testament texts.
 
     a.   Ali al-Tabari (died 855) accepted the Gospel texts
     b.   Amr al-Ghakhiz (869)     "    "    "    "
     c.   BUKHARI (810-870)        "    "    "    "
          (he gathered some of the earliest tradition of Islam quoted the Quran itself to support his belief in the text of the Bible Sura 3:72,78)
     d.   Al-Mas'udi (956)         "    "    "    "
     e.   Abu Ali Husain Bin Sina  (1037)"   "    "
     f.   AL-GHAZZALI (1111)       "    "    "    "
          (probably the greatest Muslim scholar he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not accept his teachings)
     g.   Ibn-Khaldun (1406)       "    "    "    "    "    " he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not accept his teachings but rather believed the earlier Islamic teachers.)
     h.   Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, founder of the Aligarh College "In the opinion of us Mohammedans it is not proved that corruption (tahrif-i-lafzi)...was practiced."

     i.   Fakhruddin Razi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, a nephew of Muhammed,

 

In conclusion, I leave you with this very well known scripture in the Islamic world ………

 

Deut. 18:18-20: “A prophet I shall raise up for them from the midst of their brothers, like you [like Moses]; and I shall indeed put my words in his mouth, and he will certainly speak to them all that I shall command him. And it must occur that the man who will not listen to my words that he will speak in my name, I shall myself require an account from him. However, the prophet who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded him to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die.” (Compare Jeremiah 14:14; 28:11, 15.)

 

Jesus said:  “I have come in the name of my Father.” (John 5:43)

 

**Matthew 6: 9 “YOU must pray, then, this way: “‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified.

 

What name? The most widely known and accepted name of God threw out the world.

 

Psalms 83:18 says, that people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over ALL the earth.

 

Geneses 22:14 And Abraham began to call the name of that place Je·ho´vah-ji´reh. This is why it is customarily said today: “In the mountain of Jehovah it will be provided

\

However Jesus said: “He that speaks of his own originality is seeking his own glory.”—John 7:18

 

 



-------------
“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)


Posted By: Natassia
Date Posted: 21 August 2009 at 12:50pm
I have read over this thread and I noticed that not a single Muslim could provide a valid source for the genealogy of Muhammad. 
 
I noticed someone copy-pasted something from a non-English Wikipedia site, however that site did not provide a source.
 
A list of names means nothing considering it could have been fabricated hundreds of years after Muhammad's death.
 
I also noticed that instead of responding to Shibboleth's questions, they diverted the topic onto the genealogy of Christ and some nonsense about an American politician.
 
And then I read that it is supposed to be common knowledge that the Arabs are descended from Ishmael.
 
What utter nonsense.  Such an idea is likely derived from the Book of Jubilees and the writings of Josephus, both of which were 2000 years (at least) after the death of Ishmael.
 
There is no anthropological, historical, archaelogical, etc. proof that Arabs are descendents of Ishmael.  Everything is conjecture.


-------------
You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. (John 5:39-40)


Posted By: Meditations
Date Posted: 22 August 2009 at 5:51am
Originally posted by Shibboleth

Many great MUSLIM teachers DO NOT believe the Bible has been corrupted and ACCEPT the authenticity of our PRESENT New Testament texts.


Dear Shibboleth

Please point reference to the above statement 


Regards



Posted By: Meditations
Date Posted: 22 August 2009 at 6:05am
Originally posted by Shibboleth

No where does the Quran EVER imply that the TEXTS of the Scriptures of the People pf the Book had been tampered with or CORRUPTED.


Dear Shibboleth

The above statement contradicts with that fact that there're several versus and sayings of Prophet Muhammad ( PBUH ) that mentions the corruption of the scriptures of the jews and christians

Some versus that mentions this :


Speaking about jews:

[2:75] Do you then hope that they would believe in you, and a party from among them indeed used to hear the Word of Allah, then altered it after they had understood it, and they know (this).

[4:46] Some of those who are Jews change words from their context and say: "We hear and disobey; hear thou as one who heareth not" and "Listen to us!" distorting with their tongues and slandering religion. If they had said: "We hear and we obey: hear thou, and look at us" it had been better for them, and more upright. But Allah hath cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, save a few.

[5:13] But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind.

[5:41] O Messenger! let not those grieve you who strive together in hastening to unbelief from among those who say with their mouths: We believe, and their hearts do not believe, and from among those who are Jews; they are listeners for the sake of a lie, listeners for another people who have not come to you; they alter the words from their places, saying: If you are given this, take it, and if you are not given this, be cautious; and as for him whose temptation Allah desires, you cannot control anything for him with Allah. Those are they for whom Allah does not desire that He should purify their hearts; they shall have disgrace in this world, and they shall have a grievous chastisement in the hereafter.


Regards



Posted By: Meditations
Date Posted: 22 August 2009 at 6:23am
Originally posted by Natassia

I have read over this thread and I noticed that not a single Muslim could provide a valid source for the genealogy of Muhammad.


Dear Natassia

For us Muslims , it is enough that Prophet Muhammad ( PBUH ) whom we consider to be a messenger of God did say he is a descendant of Prophet Isma'el ( Ishma'el )

If arguments needs to be made , it's whether he ( PBUH ) is a Prophet or not , if it's proven that he is , then his words is enough , since it comes from a divine source

I hope this makes sense to you

That said , reading this thread,  it seems to me that there's a huge misunderstanding in the way people communicate their message

Regards


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 22 August 2009 at 11:47am
 Prophet Muhammad's (peace be upon him) Family Tree:  

tree.gif%20%2829841%20bytes%29

 

http://answering-christianity.com/emailme.htm -  

http://answering-christianity.com/index.html -  

 

 
 


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 22 August 2009 at 6:11pm
Originally posted by Shibboleth

***Ancestry is very important, if you want the truth***


What is your own? you knucklehead...
Why your own profile here is blank? ...let's see where you live what is your name and what is your birth data?
Talk is cheap 

-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Meditations
Date Posted: 22 August 2009 at 7:16pm
Originally posted by Natassia

I have read over this thread and I noticed that not a single Muslim could provide a valid source for the genealogy of Muhammad. 
 


Dear Natassia

For us Muslims , it is enough that Prophet Muhammad ( PBUH ) whom we consider to be a messenger of God did say he is a descendant of Prophet Isma'el ( Ishma'el )

If arguments needs to be made , it's whether he ( PBUH ) is a Prophet or not , if it's proven that he is , then his words is enough , since it comes from a divine source

I hope this makes sense to you

That said , reading this thread,  it seems to me that there's a huge misunderstanding in the way people communicate their message

Regards


Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 22 August 2009 at 8:32pm
Hey *reader! You're starting to sound more like a Muhammadan then a Muslim, careful!

Read or recite, you decide.

It behooves you to pep 'Interfaith Dialogue'  

Jesus vs Muhammad - Then you'll know that I will always come out on TOP!

May peace be upon YOU!



-------------
“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)


Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 22 August 2009 at 9:09pm

Mohammed’s family is not connected to any Ishmaelite tribe because Mohammed’s family didn’t leave Yemen until the 5th  century A.D., and that’s about  1,100 years  after the Ishmaelites disappeared.

The genealogy fabricated by Ibn-Ishak contradicts the sayings of Mohammed, who expressed his ignorance about his ancestors prior to his 17th ancestor. Ibn Ishak was considered by the Muslim scholars of his time as being guilty of forgery and fabricating false genealogies.

Long before Ibn Ishak, Muslims who lived in Mohammed’s own time also fabricated genealogies in an attempt to connect Mohammed to the descendants of Ishmael. 

**Mohammed, himself, rejected all of these false genealogies, and he put limits regarding the genealogy of his ancestors. Regarding Mohammed’s own rejection of the false genealogies, Amru bin al-As wrote:

Mohammed genealogized himself regarding his ancestors until he reached al-Nather bin Kinaneh, then he said, “anyone who claimed otherwise or added further ancestors, has lied.

By this, Mohammed confessed that neither he, nor anyone else, knew about his ancestors beyond al-Nather bin Kinaneh. Nather bin Kinaneh is the 17th ancestor in the genealogy which Mohammed recognized as true. Other narrations of the customs, or sayings, of Mohammed, called Hadiths, show Mohammed refused to be genealogized prior to Maad,  معدwho some suggested, was the 4th ancestor prior to al-Nather bin Kinaneh.

Many versions of Hadith of Mohammed coming from the followers of Mohammed all report that Mohammed opposed to be genelogized until Ishmael. All his closest contemporaries and followers considered the genealogies appearing at his time to be false. Among the people who reported Mohammed’s opposition to such genealogies were his wife, Aisheh, and his cousin, Ibn Abbas, one of the most important reporters of Mohammed’s Hadith.[iv]  Ibn Ishak went against what all these people had said by creating genealogies which connect the ancestors of Mohammed with Ishmael.

Are you saying that the Muhammad did know of his own ancestry but lied?
And why didn't Ishmael 12 chieftains mention him or make a connection?

I bet cha all this genealogy stuff came many years after his death , correct?





-------------
“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)


Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 22 August 2009 at 10:42pm
Originally posted by Shibboleth



**Mohammed, himself, rejected all of these false genealogies, and he put limits regarding the genealogy of his ancestors. Regarding Mohammed’s own rejection of the false genealogies, Amru bin al-As wrote:

Mohammed genealogized himself regarding his ancestors until he reached al-Nather bin Kinaneh, then he said, “anyone who claimed otherwise or added further ancestors, has lied.

By this, Mohammed confessed that neither he, nor anyone else, knew about his ancestors beyond al-Nather bin Kinaneh. Nather bin Kinaneh is the 17th ancestor in the genealogy which Mohammed recognized as true. Other narrations of the customs, or sayings, of Mohammed, called Hadiths, show Mohammed refused to be genealogized prior to Maad,  معدwho some suggested, was the 4th ancestor prior to al-Nather bin Kinaneh.



What planet you live on?

May be you are another foot solder for another online missionary Sam Shamoun; who knows cuz this is an internet debate albeit running of special olympics...

You must provide all the references to your quote..
How Mhmd(s) could have
genealogized himself when he being an unlettered person who couldn't read or write...

Where did you get this fabrication from anyways?

Why the heck you Christians or the Jews would be concerned about Ishmael or Issac for that matter when neither of your cults were even fabricated yet?
CUZ tell me what was the religion of Israel(Jacob/Yacub) if you are so darn smartWink
How can God bless any religion be named after men? Whether Buddha, Judah or Christ ect...Don't you have any sense...







-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 23 August 2009 at 2:25pm

First and foremost; Islamic genealogies only began to appear in the 8th century A.D which endeavor to connect Mohammed with Ishmael. That’s waaaaaaaay after the ‘Messengers’ death. Am I correct so far?

Even the many versions of Hadith of Mohammed coming from the followers of Mohammed all report that Mohammed opposed to be genelogized until Ishmael, the information is their in your writings, just do a little some research.

You will see that all his closest contemporaries and followers considered the genealogies appearing at his time to be false. Among the people who reported Mohammed’s opposition to such genealogies were his wife, Aisheh, and his cousin, Ibn Abbas, one of the most important reporters of Mohammed’s Hadith.

Ibn Ishak went against what all these people had said by creating genealogies which connect the ancestors of Mohammed with Ishmael. Are you familiar with Ibn Ishak?

Ibn Ishak altered the genealogies listed by Moses in Genesis; he inserted Arabic names from his time and contradicted the history regarding Amalek and many others.

Please, I’m pleading with you! Is their any record between Mohammed and Ishmael which would support the Islamic claim that Mohammad is descended from Ishmael?

If not, then Ishmael received no spiritual call from God. ‘If’ he thus received no call from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would that then make him a false prophet?

Isn’t it interesting that not even ONE, not one of the historical twelve tribes of Ishmael make mention of a Mohammad?  

What documents can any Muslim provide to support that the Bible was tampered with, which means then there would be an original document that says otherwise. "Show me the Doc"

Were there any witnesses around to support his ‘Revelation’ from the angel Gabriel?

My heart goes out to my Muslim friends who continue to trust their eternal destiny to a claim which is against logic, proof and history solely based on what was written years and years and years after the ‘Messengers death to make YOU dear reader a believer.

 

 

 



-------------
“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)


Posted By: Meditations
Date Posted: 23 August 2009 at 9:50pm
Originally posted by Shibboleth

What documents can any Muslim provide to support that the Bible was tampered with, which means then there would be an original document that says otherwise. "Show me the Doc"


Dear Shibboleth

Which source do you want this document to come from , that would be acceptable to you ?

Do you want it to come from historical facts ? 
If so then get different copies from the bible throughout history , actually the past 200 years only is enough to show you the major changes that the bible went through

Do you want to come from God ? 
If so, then it came with Prophet Muhammad ( PBUH ) 

I'd be interested to know which authority that you would accept as the source of this 'document' or evidence

That said , can you point us to the original source for the bible, which you think of as 'untampered with' ?

Will that be in hebrew, aramic or greek ?

is there's a copy of this bible that's been consistent for the past 500 years for instance ?  

Regards



Posted By: Sign*Reader
Date Posted: 23 August 2009 at 10:48pm
member_profile.asp?PF=61994&FID=10 - Shibboleth
Don't be a schmuck, answer my question first ....
I see me arguing with the wall might be more productive...
Why are so you acting a freaking retard telling us here that some how  Mhmd's was averse to the genealogical art... His first Caliph Abu Bakr was a great genealogist of his time and you are taking his daughter Ayesha's name somehow to spread your moronity ...
When in reality they were the only ones in the world with a string of their lineage attached to their title due to the tribal rivalries ...It is the western issue these days that being a high percentage of illegitimate births don't know who the real father is?


-------------
Kismet Domino: Faith/Courage/Liberty/Abundance/Selfishness/Immorality/Apathy/Bondage or extinction.


Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 23 August 2009 at 10:49pm
The Quran claims that NO ONE can change the Word of God. 
 Sura 6:34; 10:34 which is which?


Also, produce a book to show that the Bible was changed although translated in 1,500 languages.


-------------
“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)


Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 24 August 2009 at 12:23pm

Don’t waste your time writing back if you can’t produce any factual proof regarding the ‘messengers’ genealogy before his time or that the Bible been tampered with regarding Islam. Just show me something that has not been tampered with that support YOUR argument! Is that to much to ask. All astute readers are waiting patiently.

Because, anyone could claim to be sent of God. Moses and Christ proved it by the performance of many miracles, but where were Muhammad’s miracles? He confessed in the Quran to having none.—See Suras 2:118; 10:38; 11:13; 6:109, Ali.

Maybe he just forgot that he did and so his devote followers helped him remember and added them centuries later after his death.

That sounds suspect if you're honest with yourself.

P.S. At least answer the questions that were posted.

Which ONE of the historical twelve tribes of Ishmael made mention of a Mohammad or any Prophet?  

What documents can any Muslim provide to support that the Bible was tampered with, which means then there would be an original document that says otherwise. "Show me the Doc"

Who witness the ‘messenger’ receiving the Revelation from the angel Gabriel?

Deuteronomy 19:15 “At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses the matter should stand good” –That’s a Law of God.

“‘However, the prophet who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded him to speak or who speaks in the name of other gods (see post on who is Allah), that prophet must die. And in case you should say in your heart: “How shall we know the word that Jehovah has not spoken?” When the prophet speaks in the name of Jehovah (YHWH) and the word does not occur or come true, that is the word that Jehovah did not speak. With presumptuousness the prophet spoke it. You must not get frightened at him.”- Deuteronomy 18: 20-22



-------------
“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 24 August 2009 at 8:00pm
sigh... Is there any point in responding.. 

-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 24 August 2009 at 9:33pm

Shibboleth:

Show me the original document that states that God would be sending the scriptures of the Tanahk or Bible. The original document before the arrival of the scriptures, so that man would know that the Tanahk and Bible were from God, not from man.

Show me the genealogy of Jesus that proves he was anything other than a man and prophet. But first, show me which genealogy is the CORRECT genealogy of Jesus, then prove he was related in anyway to David, then prove he was divine.

Then show me the documents that explain how the Bible can have so many contradicting stories regarding the exact same events, starting with Genesis and ending with Revelation. But I ONLY want to see the original documents from God which give an explanantion as to why the contradictory versions exist and the point of the contradictions.
 
I don't want anything that was written by man. I want divine documentation to explain the inconsistencies and contradictions that exist within your scriptures. 
If you can't come up with any of this documentation don't waste your time writing back.  

 



-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 24 August 2009 at 9:49pm
"Originally posted by Shibboleth

***Ancestry is very important, if you want the truth***"


 

***Except for the lineage of Jesus, which was documented by written books of the Holy Bible through the centuries, no other family in history has ever accounted for their ancestors over a period of 2,000 years.***

First this is not true. Unless you are stating that Jesus was alive before Adam or Abraham? Second, which genealogy belongs to Jesus? The Bible itslef contradicts the truth of either genealogy in Luke or Matthew. You cannot even prove the truth of the ancestry of Jesus, why worry about the ancestry of the Prophet Mohammed? 

I think that you and your fellow trolls come here and attack Islam because you are frustrated with the inconsistencies and lies found within your own religious doctrines. If you are truly concerned with the truth then you should clean up your own house first. Find out why there are SO MANY blatant untruths within your doctrines and why you accept them as the truth against all logic, then worry about the religious beliefs of others.


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 24 August 2009 at 10:04pm
"First, let me say that I agree with your statements. But let me be more specific, what proof is there in the “Torah” the ”Psalms” and (or) the “Gospel”  that the ancestors of Mohammed were really the descendants of Ishmael? They confirmed “Jesus” ancestry, not Muhammad."   
 
Another untruth. The Torah does not confirm Jesus' ancestry. It denies his claim, period. The Pslams do not confirm Jesus' ancestry, it prophesies the coming King of the Line of David, period. The Gospel gives two conflicting genealogies for Jesus, both of which contain the seed of Jeconiah who was cursed by God to be childless and no child of his seed would prosper or sit upon the throne of Judah.  So, either the genealogies are both incorrect or God told a lie when he cursed Jeconiah, or God's curse did not work.  
 
If this is what you call scriptural confirmation you are sadly lacking.


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 25 August 2009 at 11:19am
****Remember dear readers, for starters the Quran has long ago accepted Jesus as a Prophet so please stay with the SUBJECT!****

-------------
“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 26 August 2009 at 2:33am
Originally posted by Shibboleth

****Remember dear readers, for starters the Quran has long ago accepted Jesus as a Prophet so please stay with the SUBJECT!****
 
Bring your proof or don't respond......


-------------
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 26 August 2009 at 6:43am
If you are truly concerned with the truth then you should clean up your own house first. Find out why there are SO MANY blatant untruths within your doctrines and why you accept them as the truth against all logic, then worry about the religious beliefs of others.'

Well Shasta's Aunt:  those people who have left Christianity, not even for Islam but nothing, really they would rather have no religion then Christianity are a different group all together. Its not we Muslims who are a 'threat' but the fact that people have left not for a religious alternative but because Christianity and the action of many Christians turned them away. It was could possible self-reflection and that is something some people won't do. 

why worry about Muslims when many Christians are engaging in actions that are against the tenants of Christianity- fornication, drugs etc.  Some people just like to cut and paste..


-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 7:41am

Aunt says; bring your proof or don't respond......

Here’s my response. God appointed him as prophet and apostle.—Al-Nisā’ [4]:171; Maryam [19]:30. I guess you believe in what your book says of Jesus or did you not know it was in the Quran?





-------------
“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)


Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 27 August 2009 at 7:45am

Again, Hafa and many, many others are unable to answer just these three simple questions I have below. I thought this was a Muslim forum. I answer your questions on your posts, why are you unable to answer mines? I want to get into Paradise just as much as you do. Instead you ask a question with a question then accuse and point fingers. What are you afraid of? Is it the truth because the truth always prevails? If I began to point fingers, which I haven’t YET, what will be accomplished? Remember Jesus was born without sin not Muhammad (so you do not want to go there) Allah was lord of Mecca way before a Muhammad ever existed or was thought of; he was part of a deity. If your religion is based on the foundation of this man and this man OWN words “May God Have Mercy on Your Souls”  

Which ONE of the historical twelve tribes of Ishmael made mention of a Mohammad or any Prophet in their family?   

Who witness the ‘messenger’ receiving the Revelation from the angel Gabriel that took 23 years?

Did Muhammad have the uncorrupted or corrupted version of the Torah, the Psalms and the Gospel revealed to him?



-------------
“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 30 August 2009 at 8:15am
 
 Which ONE of the historical 12 tribes of Ishmael made mention of a Muhammad or any Prophet in their family?
 
 Very surprised for me.Even Prophet Muhammad is mentioned in your own Bible as a final Prophet.I am not saying this, http://islamicweb.com/?folder=bible - your own Christian bishop admits it.
 
 Further can you tell me which ONE of the historical 12 tribes of Ishmael didnot mention of a Muhammad or any Prophet in their family?
 
  Who witness the 'messenger' receiving the revelation from the angel Gabriel that took 23 years?
 
 1- Did Moses have any witnesses or was he foretold in any previous book to prove that he was truthful?
 
 2- Did King David have any witnesses or was foretold in the books that came before him?
 
 3- Did Solomon, Ezra, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Job and the rest of the Prophets foretold each others?
 
 4- Were the Disciples of Jesus foretold in the Bible?
 
 5- Was the Disciple Paul foretold in the Bible, since he never even met Jesus in person?
 
 The answer to the all of the above is NO!  Non of the Bible's Prophets except for Jesus and Muhammad was ever foretold.  They just happened without any prior warnings.
 
 Did Muhammad have the uncorrupted or corrupted version of the Torah,the Psalms and the Gospel revealed to him?
 
 Ofcourse Bible was corrupted when Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad.
 
 If the Bible was not corrupted then there was no need of Quran.
 
 But most tampering was made before Muhammad.
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 01 September 2009 at 4:44pm
Shibbo,
every Muslim knows through the Quran that Jesus (pbuh) was a prophet from God, born to a virgin and given God's word to guide humanity.
As far as geneology of the prophet, I am not an expert on it, I know that we all are decendents of Adam. It does not make a penny's difference if prophet was his decendent or not. You are not believing the purpose he was sent for: to bring us all back to the worship of our Creator, not if he was decendent of so and so. So you over look the grand purpose of the prophet and want to find something of no importance which you can use and mislead others. Some silly argument, nothing more.
 
No, the corrupted Bible was not revealed to anyone, God revealed it uncorrupt to the prophets, people later brought it to its corrupt stage, as we see as a witnessed truth now in our hands.
 
Who witnessed the revelation of the Quran? probably none, as prophet use to go alone to meditate, as far as I know. But what is your point?
The proof is in the pudding, the consistancy of the Quran speaks for its truth, that  its was revealed by the All knowing, thus its does not contradict. On the other hand the Bible can be proved, as I and many other have,
unfortunetly a book of only contradictions and  confusion. 
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Meditations
Date Posted: 01 September 2009 at 9:42pm
Originally posted by Shibboleth

I answer your questions on your posts, why are you unable to answer mines?

It's strange that you say so, because I keep asking you some questions in your posts that you don't answer

Originally posted by Shibboleth


 Allah was lord of Mecca way before a Muhammad ever existed or was thought of;


The word 'Allah' is a reference to the one and only God , Creator of everything , you can call the Creator , God , Allah , The most merciful , what matters is the named , not the name

Originally posted by Shibboleth


Which ONE of the historical twelve tribes of Ishmael made mention of a Mohammad or any Prophet in their family?  

Which 12 tribes do you mean ? Do you know their names ?

Do you know which tribe Adnan came from ?


Who witness the ‘messenger’ receiving the Revelation from the angel Gabriel that took 23 years?

Even though there's no need for someone else to 'witness' a revelation, as others have pointed out this didn't happen with most of the Prophets

That said , revelations came in different forms , sometimes directly , sometimes through Angel Gebril

Sayeda Khadija witnessed when revelations came to the Prophet ( PBUH )
Several companions witness Angel Gebril coming to the Prophet in a human shape and speaking with him among them

Did Muhammad have the uncorrupted or corrupted version of the Torah, the Psalms and the Gospel revealed to him?



The corruption / alteration to these books occured over long periods of time and still occur in our modern times , a look on ' a new version ' of the bible would demonstrate this

Prophet Muhammad didn't have these books in a written form , but many things of what's in it was revealed to Him

Qur'an and several sayings of His speaks about events / issues discussed in these previous books , one of the reasons to debate jews and christians in case of needed argument

That said, it's worth mentioning the story of the envoy of Najran

The Holy Prophet was sending invitations to all to accept the true religion of God.
Tribe after tribe, region after region, were coming into the fold of Islam. One such invitation was sent to the Christians of Najran, a town in Yemen, in the 9th year of Hijra. A deputation of 60 scholars came to discuss the matter with the Holy Prophet.
Abdul Masih, ( slave of Jesus ) the chief monk, asked him as to who was the father of Isa, thinking that the Holy Prophet would accept (God as the father of Isa.
Verse 59 of this surah

[ 3:59] The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.

was revealed and presented to the Christians as a reply but they did not listen to reason.
Then this verse was revealed to call them to a spiritual contest by invoking the curse of Allah on the liars mubahilah.


فَمَنْ حَآجَّكَ فِيهِ مِن بَعْدِ مَا جَاءكَ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ فَقُلْ تَعَالَوْاْ نَدْعُ أَبْنَاءنَا وَأَبْنَاءكُمْ وَنِسَاءنَا وَنِسَاءكُمْ وَأَنفُسَنَا وأَنفُسَكُمْ ثُمَّ نَبْتَهِلْ فَنَجْعَل لَّعْنَةُ اللّهِ عَلَى الْكَاذِبِينَ {61}
[ 3:61] But whoever disputes with you in this matter after what has come to you of knowledge, then say: Come let us call our sons and your sons and our women and your women and our near people and your near people, then let us be earnest in prayer, and pray for the curse of Allah on the liars.

 
The Christians agreed to this contest.

Early next morning, the Prophet came in, Imam Husayn in his arms, Imam Hasan holding his index finger, walking beside him, Bibi Fatimah Zahra, close to his heels and Imam Ali just behind

The Holy Prophet raised his hands to the heaven and said:

"O my Lord! These are the people of my house".

The chief monk looked up and down at their faces He cried out aloud:

"I see the faces that if they turn upward to the heavens and pray, the mountains shall move.

The Christians saw the wisdom of their chief and readily agreed to arrive at a settlement and didn't want to go pray for cursing the liars .



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 02 September 2009 at 2:39pm
Originally posted by Shibboleth

"Of course not confusing for the people who are drunkards, dope heads and consumers of everything unlawful by the real God's laws and also want a free ride to paradise in the heavens... In my book if Jesus was son of god he has no genealogy....PeriodThis explanation just doesn't make sense...
Luke  & Matthews were just not smart enough to realize what they were doing...

IMHO Jehovah's witness like you not even qualified to discuss these things"


Sign *Reader, I suspect you’re not an Imam which is ok, I'm sure you would love to be one day but you’re a very contentious Muslim. "Pride comes before a crash" You have little understanding of the Quran and no understanding of the Holy Scriptures.

Children of Israel. . . Have faith in My revelations, which confirm your Scriptures.” (Sura 2, Al-Baqara [The Cow], verse 41) “A Book confirming their own has come to them from Allah.” (Sura 2, Al-Baqara [The Cow], verse 89) “When it is said to them: ‘Believe in what Allah has revealed,’ they reply: ‘We believe in what was revealed to us.’ But they deny what has since been revealed, although it is the truth, corroborating their own scriptures.” (Sura 2, Al-Baqara [The Cow], verse 91) “He has revealed to you the Book with the truth, confirming the scriptures which preceded it; for He has already revealed the Torah and the Gospel for the guidance of men, and the distinction between right and wrong.” (Sura 3, Al-Imran [The Imrans], verses 3, 4) “This is a blessed Book which We have revealed, confirming what came before it.” (Sura 6, Al-An‛am [Cattle], verse 92) “If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) “What We have revealed to you in the Book is the truth confirming previous scriptures.”—Sura 35, Al-Fatir [The Creator], verse 31.

The Qur’an teaches that these three writings, the Torah, the Psalms and the Gospel (Injeel) are from God (that's not me saying it)  if they weren’t you wouldn’t even have the Quran. If you disagree, it’s all good. Agree to disagree but don’t set the pace of resorting to offensive words “senior member” it’s a terrible example.

Say, "We believe in Allah and what has been sent down to us and what was sent down to Ibrahim (Abraham), Isma’il (Ishmael) and Ishaq (Isaac) and Ya'qub (Jacob) and the Tribes, and what Musa (Moses) and ‘Isa (Jesus) and all the Prophets were given by their Lord. We do not differentiate between any of them..." (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85

 
 
Shibbo..
its intresting you wrote something, yet forget to read it:
Read what you wrote aloud: " Children of Israel. . . Have faith in My revelations, which confirm your Scriptures.” (Sura 2, Al-Baqara [The Cow], verse 41)
Do you have faith in the revelations (Quran) that confirm your scripture?
 
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Nazarene
Date Posted: 03 September 2009 at 5:29am
alaikum salaam shibbolth ( i can pronouce the sh by the way.) 
 

***Except for the lineage of Jesus, which was documented by written books of the Holy Bible through the centuries, no other family in history has ever accounted for their ancestors over a period of 2,000 years.***

So what makes you think that the above statement is true? and the lineage is correct.
  It's totaly different in Matthew then in Luke. it's writen in backward form in luke to further confuse the reader. and thats the problem some christians. they turn away from the words(atributed to) of jesus(pbuh) gods most beloved. The
Christ ,The Savior and The Messiah. what does he say of his lineage?? well here it is.
 
41While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42"What do you think about the Christ #fen-NIV-23913d - d ]'>[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22&version=NIV#fen-NIV-23913d - d ]? Whose son is he?"
      "The son of David," they replied.

 43He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says,
 44" 'The Lord said to my Lord:
      "Sit at my right hand
   until I put your enemies
      under your feet." ' #fen-NIV-23915e - e ]'>[ http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+22&version=NIV#fen-NIV-23915e - e ] 45If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?" 46No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

he also states if do not accept his word " the word coming from his mouth" it's his word that will condem you! as writen in John 15
leland
 


-------------
love for all conquers all


Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 07 September 2009 at 11:49am

Mansor Ali, you only answered two of the three questions.

But to be clear, if it’s not in the Holy Bible it’s not from God regardless of whom or where it comes from, a Bishop, a Rabbi, the Pope, Imam, etc……God’s word even warns of angels who say they come in his name. The Devil and his demons can transform themselves as angels of light and deceive many, which they have. I follow Christ not a man like David, Moses, Job, etc….That is why there are so many man made religions in the first place.

BTW Moses and Jesus performed many miracles to prove their leadership and that they were divinely sent whether they believed the miracles or not. All the others you mentioned were just faithful servants.

I had asked which ONE of the historical twelve tribes of Ishmael made mention of a Mohammad or any Prophet in their family? You gave no answer; you asked a question with a question. 

I asked who witness the ‘messenger’ receiving the Revelation from the angel Gabriel that took 23 years. No answer, again you asked a question with a question. 

I also asked Ali, did Muhammad have the uncorrupted or corrupted version of the Torah, the Psalms and the Gospel revealed to him? Your answer; Ofcourse Bible was corrupted when Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad.  If the Bible was not corrupted then there was no need of Quran. That’s why I continue to ask Muslims to come up with an uncorrupted version since Muslim say the version of the Bible we have is corrupt. To make such a claim, where’s the PROOF? When did the corruption take place? Would God allow something like that to happen?

If it had been corrupted, Muslims have a serious matter on their hand. Why? Because many Qur’ānic verses call for faith in the Torah and the Injīl. (For example, see Al-Baqarah [2]:136; Āl ‘Imrān [3]:84; Al-Nisā’ [4]:136.) The Qur’ān also recommends seeking out those versed in the Torah and the Injīl, saying: “If ye realise this not, ask of those who possess the Message.” (Al-Naḥl [16]:43; Al-Anbiyā’ [21]:7) Would it do so if these texts had been corrupted? Furthermore, many Qur’ānic verses call out to “People of the Book” (the Torah and the Injīl) to turn back to their books. (For instance, see Al-Mā’idah [5]:50, 71.) Surely, an invitation would not be given to turn back to corrupted books would it?

Also, “After those prophets We sent forth Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the Torah already revealed, and gave him the Gospel, in which there is guidance and light, corroborating that which was revealed before it in the Torah, a guide and an admonition to the righteous. Therefore let the followers of the Gospel judge in accordance with what Allah has revealed therein. Evil-doers are those that do not base their judgements on Allah’s revelations.”—Sura 5, Al-Ma’ida [The Table], verses 46, 47.

If, at the time these words were written, the Bible had already been corrupted, how could believers in the Gospel ‘judge in accordance with what Allah had revealed therein’? Thus believers in the Qur’an accept that the Bible was uncorrupted at the time the Qur’an was written (about one thousand three hundred years ago).

On the other hand, there exist manuscripts of the Bible written four hundred or five hundred years before that time that are on public display in museums today. When comparing our modern Bibles with these ancient manuscripts, it is easily seen that there is no significant difference. The Bible is substantially the same. Certainly, the Bible has not changed since those words were written in the Qur’an saying that in the Gospel “there is guidance and light.”



Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 08 September 2009 at 2:10pm
Mansor Ali, you only answered two of the three questions.

But to be clear, if it’s not in the Holy Bible it’s not from God regardless of whom or where it comes from, a Bishop, a Rabbi, the Pope, Imam, etc……God’s word even warns of angels who say they come in his name. The Devil and his demons can transform themselves as angels of light and deceive many, which they have. I follow Christ not a man like David, Moses, Job, etc….That is why there are so many man made religions in the first place.

 According to you Devil can transform himselve as angel of light and deceive many,If this is a case then Paul was also deceived by Devil.Who says that?Not me but your Bible says it.
 
 Visit:
 
  http://muslim-responses.com/Did_Paul_meet_Satan/Did_Paul_meet_Satan_ - Did Paul meet Satan? By brother Sami Zaatari
 
 Further Christ is only Prophet (not God or 2nd person of Trinity) like other Prophets.He is only man like other men such as David,Moses etc.In other words he is not more than a Prophet.
 
 I had asked which ONE of the historical twelve tribes of Ishmael made mention of a Mohammad or any Prophet in their family? You gave no answer; you asked a question with a question
 
 And you didnot answer our question.Let's suppose none of the 12 tribes of Ishmael mentioned Muhammad.Then it's mean Muhammad is not a Prophet?This is a criteria to Judge Prophethood of Muhammad?What a Joke with us.
 
 As I said if this is a case then there is no problem bec Prophecy of Muhammad is already mentioned in your own Bible which you consider reliable.
 
  http://islamicweb.com/?folder=bible%20 - Muhammad in the Old & New Testament By Roman Catholic Bishop of the Uniate Chaldean.
 
 I asked who witness the ‘messenger’ receiving the Revelation from the angel Gabriel that took 23 years. No answer, again you asked a question with a question.
 
 If you can ask question then we also have a right to ask question and you also didnot touch our question.
 
 I also asked Ali, did Muhammad have the uncorrupted or corrupted version of the Torah, the Psalms and the Gospel revealed to him? Your answer; Ofcourse Bible was corrupted when Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad.  If the Bible was not corrupted then there was no need of Quran. That’s why I continue to ask Muslims to come up with an uncorrupted version since Muslim say the version of the Bible we have is corrupt. To make such a claim, where’s the PROOF? When did the corruption take place?
 
 Here are various proofs of corruption of Bible:
 
  http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2008/resolving-the-christian-i-know-nothing-multi-problem-in-textual-criticism/ - Resolving the Christian "I-Know-Nothing" Multi-Problem in Textual Criticism By brother Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi
 
  http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/who_authored_the_new_testament_ - Who Authored the New Testament By brother Bassam Zawadi
 
  http://islamlife.com/religion2/news/76-hot-topic/105-is-the-bible-reliable - Is the Bible Reliable? By brother Jalal Abualrub
 
  http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/ - Examining The Bible By brother Dr. M S M Saifullah and his team
 
  http://unveiling-christianity.com/2009/08/23/whose-canon-is-divinely-inspired/ - Whose canon is divinely inspired?  By brother Ibn Anwar
 
  http://unveiling-christianity.com/2009/07/15/historical-inaccuracy-of-luke/ - Historical Inaccuracy of Luke  By brother Ibn Anwar
 
  http://unveiling-christianity.com/2009/07/13/when-did-the-bible-come-to-be/ - When did the Bible come to be?  By brother Ibn Anwar
 
  http://answering-christianity.com/ac6.htm#links - The Bible By brother Osama Abdullah 
 
 Would God allow something like that to happen?
 
 It was not God who corrupted it.They were people who did that to satisfy their wrong desires.
 
 If it had been corrupted, Muslims have a serious matter on their hand. Why? Because many Qur’ānic verses call for faith in the Torah and the Injīl. (For example, see Al-Baqarah [2]:136; Āl ‘Imrān [3]:84; Al-Nisā’ [4]:136.) The Qur’ān also recommends seeking out those versed in the Torah and the Injīl, saying: “If ye realise this not, ask of those who possess the Message.” (Al-Naḥl [16]:43; Al-Anbiyā’ [21]:7) Would it do so if these texts had been corrupted? Furthermore, many Qur’ānic verses call out to “People of the Book” (the Torah and the Injīl) to turn back to their books. (For instance, see Al-Mā’idah [5]:50, 71.) Surely, an invitation would not be given to turn back to corrupted books would it?

Also, “After those prophets We sent forth Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the Torah already revealed, and gave him the Gospel, in which there is guidance and light, corroborating that which was revealed before it in the Torah, a guide and an admonition to the righteous. Therefore let the followers of the Gospel judge in accordance with what Allah has revealed therein. Evil-doers are those that do not base their judgements on Allah’s revelations.”—Sura 5, Al-Ma’ida [The Table], verses 46, 47.

If, at the time these words were written, the Bible had already been corrupted, how could believers in the Gospel ‘judge in accordance with what Allah had revealed therein’? Thus believers in the Qur’an accept that the Bible was uncorrupted at the time the Qur’an was written (about one thousand three hundred years ago).

  http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_islam_endorse_the_bible__ - Does Islam Endorse The Bible?  By brother Bassam Zawadi
 
  http://muslim-responses.com/the_Quran_on_the_Bible/the_Quran_on_the_Bible_ - Does the Quran confirm the Bible in it's whole? By Sami Zaatari
 
 The authenticity of the Bible according to the Quran,Corrupt or Uncorrupt:By brother Sami Zaatari
 
  http://muslim-responses.com/The_Quran_on_the_Bible1/The_Quran_on_the_Bible1_ - Part 1A  
 
  http://muslim-responses.com/Part_1B/Part_1B_ - Part 2B
 
  http://muslim-responses.com/Part_1C/Part_1C_ - Part 3C
 
  On the other hand, there exist manuscripts of the Bible written four hundred or five hundred years before that time that are on public display in museums today. When comparing our modern Bibles with these ancient manuscripts, it is easily seen that there is no significant difference. The Bible is substantially the same. Certainly, the Bible has not changed since those words were written in the Qur’an saying that in the Gospel “there is guidance and light.”
 
 
 


Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 9:22pm
That's interesting Ali, all these links, quotes and statements but no one can find a copy, not ONE copy or ancient manuscript before it so-called "corruption"

Why didn't ancient Muslims find some of these uncorrupted manuscripts and save them as proof?


Just one simple questions, I'll wait for the answer

Thank you,



-------------
“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)


Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 09 September 2009 at 9:35pm
It has been said by Muslims "The corruption / alteration to these books occured over long periods of time and still occur in our modern times , a look on ' a new version ' of the bible would demonstrate this"

When did the corruptions begin? Before?


Closely read what your Quran says:

2: 136 Say ye: "We believe in Allah and the revelation given to us and to Abraham Isma`il Isaac Jacob and the Tribes and that given to Moses and Jesus and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord we make no difference between one and another of them and we bow to Allah (in Islam)." 

39: 1        The revelation of this Book is from Allah the Exalted in Power Full of Wisdom. 2        Verily it is We Who have revealed the Book to thee in Truth: so serve Allah offering Him sincere devotion.


If the
Quran is CONFIRMATION of all Previous Revelations, then these Revelations could not have been corrupted prior to or in the days of Muhammad otherwise this verse - like many others like it - would make no sense and would render it blasphemous.

Perhaps Meditations and Ali can together come up with the answer to this question -
Why didn't ancient Muslims find some of these uncorrupted manuscripts and save them as proof?

When did the corruptions begin?


-------------
“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)


Posted By: Meditations
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 3:05pm
Originally posted by Shibboleth

That's interesting Ali, all these links, quotes and statements but no one can find a copy, not ONE copy or ancient manuscript before it so-called "corruption"

Why didn't ancient Muslims find some of these uncorrupted manuscripts and save them as proof?


Just one simple questions, I'll wait for the answer

Thank you,



And why would Muslims want to search these manuscripts ( if existed ) ?
The fact that there's no coherency between the various versions is enough proof


Posted By: Meditations
Date Posted: 10 September 2009 at 3:17pm
Originally posted by Shibboleth

It has been said by Muslims "The corruption / alteration to these books occured over long periods of time and still occur in our modern times , a look on ' a new version ' of the bible would demonstrate this"

When did the corruptions begin? Before?




Before and After


Originally posted by Shibboleth


Closely read what your Quran says:

2: 136 Say ye: "We believe in Allah and the revelation given to us and to Abraham Isma`il Isaac Jacob and the Tribes and that given to Moses and Jesus and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord we make no difference between one and another of them and we bow to Allah (in Islam)." 

39: 1        The revelation of this Book is from Allah the Exalted in Power Full of Wisdom. 2        Verily it is We Who have revealed the Book to thee in Truth: so serve Allah offering Him sincere devotion.



Originally posted by Shibboleth


If the Quran is CONFIRMATION of all Previous Revelations, then these Revelations could not have been corrupted prior to or in the days of Muhammad otherwise this verse - like many others like it - would make no sense and would render it blasphemous.


This is a very wrong analogy , which is seems you keep on building upon it's logic

Muslims believe in these Prophets , that they existed , that they were Prophets sent by God , and they were sent with these revelations
This is no sense implies that these revelations were not corrupted

If I trust that someone gave you a letter , this by no means implies that I believe this letter wouldn't have been altered by someone else later on

Originally posted by Shibboleth



Perhaps Meditations and Ali can together come up with the answer to this question -
Why didn't ancient Muslims find some of these uncorrupted manuscripts and save them as proof?


For various reasons some of it
1: There's no point in doing this , the existence of the various 'versions' of the old and new testament is enough proof
2: Even if these manuscripts existed and were available to them , it would be of no use , since the revelation of the Qur'an becomes the new law for believers

Originally posted by Shibboleth


When did the corruptions begin?

Corruption definetly began before the times of Prophet Muhammad ( PBUH ) The question is , when was the bible/OT written ? by Whom ?

Also , in our modern days, knowing when it began is of little value , the fact that today , year 2009 , there're so many 'versions' , that are
1: different from each other
2: contradicts each other at times
3: have no direct link to Jesus or Moses ( PBUT )

Makes us 100% certain that what we have now , couldn't be 100% what was revealed to Jesus or Moses ( PBUT )

Is this enough answer ?

Regards


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 11 September 2009 at 10:03am
Originally posted by Shibboleth

That's interesting Ali, all these links, quotes and statements but no one can find a copy, not ONE copy or ancient manuscript before it so-called "corruption"

Why didn't ancient Muslims find some of these uncorrupted manuscripts and save them as proof?


Just one simple questions, I'll wait for the answer

Thank you,

 
 
Shibbo,
you really don't understand Islam, its purpose and why God blessed us with His pure word again, the final Testament, the Quran.
If the previous messege sent by God through Prophet Jesus (pbuh) was not corrupted/ altered, the Quran was not needed. The only reason of its being sent was to fill the void, the gap created by alterations to the word of God. And in a result humanity was without pure word of God thus not knowing how to worship Him correctly and how to live out lives correctly. Thus the pure word of God was revealed again to a prophet, Prophet Mohammed (pbuh).
We see, that humanity was sent God's word thorugh various prophets in different times which also proves that every time people altered God's word sent through one prophet, God showing His Mercy sent another one in sucession so all humanity get the same chance. To be rightly guided through the pure word of God because one day they will be judged by it and be held accountable for it how they lived.
Get it? If not, I will be glad to go in further details my friend as its only through God's guidence and your surrendering to the truth that will take you sucessfully into the next stage of life. So ask God's forgiveness and guidence, toward your own benefit God willing.
 
Hasan
 


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 11 September 2009 at 12:17pm
Originally posted by Shibboleth

That's interesting Ali, all these links, quotes and statements but no one can find a copy, not ONE copy or ancient manuscript before it so-called "corruption"
 
 Are you talking about ORIGINAL COPY of the Bible?The problem with your Bible is that it has no any SINGLE ORIGINAL manuscript. http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html - Even your own scholars and theologians confirm it.
 
 How r you 100% sure that original manuscripts were inspired when you have never seen them?
Originally posted by Shibboleth

Why didn't ancient Muslims find some of these uncorrupted manuscripts and save them as proof?
 
Just one simple questions, I'll wait for the answer Thank you,
 
 Who are those "ancient muslims" explain it.
 
 Ok.Let set aside muslims even Biblical scholars just like Dr.Bart Ehrman who is New Testament scholar and textual critic admits that Bible is not "pure".
 
 Visit:
 
  http://www.bartdehrman.com/books/misquoting_jesus.htm - Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why By Dr.Bart Ehrman
 
Originally posted by Shibboleth

It has been said by Muslims "The corruption / alteration to these books occured over long periods of time and still occur in our modern times , a look on ' a new version ' of the bible would demonstrate this"

When did the corruptions begin? Before?
 
 These kinds of questions:(Who corrupted the Bible?When?Where?Before or after Muhammad?Why was it done? How come no one noticed it?) http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2008/resolving-the-christian-i-know-nothing-multi-problem-in-textual-criticism/ - are already answered here by brother Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi
 
 
 

 
 


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 11 September 2009 at 12:30pm
Originally posted by Shibboleth


Closely read what your Quran says:

2: 136 Say ye: "We believe in Allah and the revelation given to us and to Abraham Isma`il Isaac Jacob and the Tribes and that given to Moses and Jesus and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord we make no difference between one and another of them and we bow to Allah (in Islam)." 

39: 1        The revelation of this Book is from Allah the Exalted in Power Full of Wisdom. 2        Verily it is We Who have revealed the Book to thee in Truth: so serve Allah offering Him sincere devotion.


If the
Quran is CONFIRMATION of all Previous Revelations, then these Revelations could not have been corrupted prior to or in the days of Muhammad otherwise this verse - like many others like it - would make no sense and would render it blasphemous.

 
 Your argument is responed here:
 
  http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_regarding_the_qur_an_being_a_confirmation_of_the_bible - Refuting the argument regarding the Quran being a confirmmation of the Bible? By brother Bassam Zawadi
 
 


Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 11 September 2009 at 3:05pm

Med says” And why would Muslims want to search these manuscripts (If existed )
For starters truth vs. false and to prove your point that the billions and billions of Bibles on the face of this earth are corrupt. It’s been tried but NO ONE can prove ancient manuscrpts, they always come up empty handed.

 

God preserved his word, that’s why it still exists today!

 

يَبِسَ الْعُشْبُ، ذَبُلَ الزَّهْرُ. وَأَمَّا كَلِمَةُ إِلهِنَا فَتَثْبُتُ إِلَى الأَبَدِ».

 

Isaiah 40:6-8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

 

So, instead everyone shows links and statements on how corrupt the Bible is, SORRY! That’s no more evidence then me showing you links, websites, and statements of apostate Muslims, Muslim scholars on how contradictory and corrupt the Quran is. That’s not proof nor is it science, that is plan “hear say”

 

If you want to prove how corrupt the Bible is even though it PREDATES the Quran by decades and COPIES of it had been found in caves (Dead Sea Scrolls) in the mid 1900’s, but it manuscripts dates back all the way to the 3rd century BCE, and the writings and messages are basically STILL the same be my guess.

 

Many great MUSLIM teachers DO NOT believe the Bible has been corrupted and ACCEPT the authenticity of our PRESENT New Testament texts.
 
     a.   Ali al-Tabari (died 855) accepted the Gospel texts
     b.   Amr al-Ghakhiz (869)     "    "    "    "
     c.   BUKHARI (810-870)       "    "    "    "
          (he gathered some of the earliest tradition of Islam quoted the Quran itself to support his belief in the text of the Bible Sura 3:72,78)
     d.   Al-Mas'udi (956)         "    "    "    "
     e.   Abu Ali Husain Bin Sina  (1037)"   "    "
     f.   AL-GHAZZALI (1111)       "    "    "    "
          (probably the greatest Muslim scholar he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not accept his teachings)
     g.   Ibn-Khaldun (1406)       "    "    "    "    "    " he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not accept his teachings but rather believed the earlier Islamic teachers.)
     h.   Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, founder of the Aligarh College "In the opinion of us Mohammedans it is not proved that corruption (tahrif-i-lafzi)...was practiced."
     i.   Fakhruddin Razi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, a nephew of Muhammed, "The Jews and early Christians were suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil; but according to eminent doctors and theologians it was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because those Scriptures were generally known and widely circulated, having been handed down from generation to generation."   
(If such was the case their would have been an uncorrupted AND corrupted  text / version / and or manuscript somewhere around) 
 
WHY do you believe Ibn-Khazem rather then the witness of the Quran, the word of Muhammad, and these 10 great Muslim scholars who ALL believed the Bible texts to be truthful
 
Where are the manuscripts that have NOT been corrupted people? YOU keep saying they were corrupted BEFORE and AFTER the prophet, I keep asking show me copies of it, IF there are any.  
 
Authentic and Science: not false; genuine; real: an authentic antique, factual.
**Manuscripts of the Bible (Holy Writings) that dates back to the 2nd and 3 rd century that has the same message as we have today, 2009 but has not been proven otherwise.
 
Myth andTheory: a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation.

**The Bible is corrupted, been tampered with but no ancient proof or manuscript or dates to prove it. No explanation as to why all the billions of Bibles circulated in the earth has the SAME message but unable to find ANY ancient books that’s says differently.  

 

 

 



-------------
“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)


Posted By: Meditations
Date Posted: 12 September 2009 at 1:45am
Originally posted by Shibboleth


For starters truth vs. false and to prove your point that the billions and billions of Bibles on the face of this earth are corrupt. It’s been tried but NO ONE can prove ancient manuscrpts, they always come up empty handed.


There're so many ways to prove such thing , not the one way you're thinking of

These billions and billions of copies you speak of are quite different of each other , this is the proof

Would you like to point us to which version of the current bible you think of is the authentic bible ?


Originally posted by Shibboleth

God preserved his word, that’s why it still exists today!


It is true , it's named the Qur'an

Originally posted by Shibboleth


If you want to prove how corrupt the Bible is even though it PREDATES the Quran by decades and COPIES of it had been found in caves (Dead Sea Scrolls) in the mid 1900’s, but it manuscripts dates back all the way to the 3rd century BCE, and the writings and messages are basically STILL the same be my guess.

This is exactly my point

The earliest reference to the bible is over 200 years after Jesus ( PBUH )

What direct link does it have to Jesus ( PBUH ) ? do you know who wrote it ? heard it from who ?

Originally posted by Shibboleth

Many great MUSLIM teachers DO NOT believe the Bible has been corrupted and ACCEPT the authenticity of our PRESENT New Testament texts.

This is a very wild claim , please prove it by quoting whom you mentioned ( as asked from you before in another post ) or delete it ) 



Originally posted by Shibboleth





Where are the manuscripts that have NOT been corrupted people? YOU keep saying they were corrupted BEFORE and AFTER the prophet, I keep asking show me copies of it, IF there are any.  


You're asking muslims to do your home work

The scientific was is that
If you're claiming the bible is uncorrupt, and the current one ( whichever you choose ) is what was revealed to Jesus ( PBUH ) then present it to us
It is then your duty to explain the contradictions we come up with between what you claim is the authentic bible and

A: History
B: Other versions
C: Modern Science

If you'd like to do so , please open another topic with this start , saying ,
"Hey people , this is the uncorrupt bible prove it to be corrupt "
Would like to do so ?

Regards



Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 16 September 2009 at 7:53pm
Homework???????????????????????????????????????
Sorry, Jesus confirmed the Torah, the Psalms and the Injil waaaaay before you and I or the prophet were ever born. Schools out! All my posts attests to what Jesus said regarding people who would come after him when he died 2000 yrs ago, the uncensored and uncorrupted version. I even posted the Aramaic version to prove every point regarding  the 'messenger'

But, show me what scriptures was corrupted in the Bible regarding Muhammad, that's the real issue. As Muslims say the Quran mentions Jesus by NAME several time, it had to. But No where will you or anyone find Muhammad's name in the Bible.

Do you know Umayya bin abi al-Salt, a maternal cousin of Mohammed, claimed to be a prophet? A lie.

Do you know The Midianites never even heard of Mecca and Moses never mentioned it? Truth

BTW, the Bible has always appeared to be corrupted to non-believers and those who deny the Christ, that's nothing new.


-------------
“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)


Posted By: Meditations
Date Posted: 18 September 2009 at 11:00pm
Dear Shibboleth

first of all, you mentioned several times that a list of well known scholars, whom you mentioned their names don't believe in the corruption/alteration of the bible
I asked you more than once I think to provide reference for this, still waiting for it


Originally posted by Shibboleth

Homework???????????????????????????????????????


Yes, because you claim that what you have now is the same that was revealed to Moses and Jesus ( PBUT )
Then what is your proof for that ?


Originally posted by Shibboleth


Sorry, Jesus confirmed the Torah, the Psalms and the Injil waaaaay before you and I or the prophet were ever born. Schools out!


This is not the point of difference, Prophet Muhammad also confirmed the existence of the  Ta'rah and Injil

The point of difference is whether what we have now is the same as what was revealed , or had it been altered ? intentionally or non-intentionally ?



Originally posted by Shibboleth


 All my posts attests to what Jesus said regarding people who would come after him when he died 2000 yrs ago, the uncensored and uncorrupted version. I even posted the Aramaic version to prove every point regarding  the 'messenger'

I recall that it was me who posted the link to the oragnization that's trying to translate the bible from Aramic
I also recall there was quite difference between going from Greek to English , or from Aramic to English
What language did Jesus ( PBUH ) speak anyways ?

Originally posted by Shibboleth


But, show me what scriptures was corrupted in the Bible regarding Muhammad, that's the real issue. As Muslims say the Quran mentions Jesus by NAME several time, it had to.

It is true, Jesus ( PBUH ) is mentioned several times in the Qur'an, there's a whole surat in the name of his mother Mariam ( PBUH )
Originally posted by Shibboleth


 But No where will you or anyone find Muhammad's name in the Bible.

This is the difference between us muslims and you, while we endorse all Prophets and books revealed from God, you choose to endorse only some
Quite similar to how the jews don't believe in Jesus


Originally posted by Shibboleth

Do you know Umayya bin abi al-Salt, a maternal cousin of Mohammed, claimed to be a prophet? A lie.

Do you know The Midianites never even heard of Mecca and Moses never mentioned it? Truth


Assuming this is true, so ?

BTW, the Bible has always appeared to be corrupted to non-believers and those who deny the Christ, that's nothing new.
[/QUOTE]

I can't speak for others throughout the years, but today, in year 2009 It seems to be the only scientific logical conclusion that the current bible is not 100 % what was revealed to Moses and Jesus ( PBUH )

a member here of the name 'Moses' recently posted here
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=15160&PN=6
how the bible was collected/written bringing dates of the collection

This is my reply to him hope you find it useful


>>>
Summarizing what you said it means :

New testament was written in Greek between the years 45-95 , these writings we have no reference to at the moment, correct ?

There're 5600 greek manuscripts that still exist
The oldest papyrus we have was copied year 125
The oldest compilation that contains almost what's called now new and old testament dates back to year 350

First : The old testament
A scientific approach would mean we need to know

When was it revealed
How it was written
Which language it was written in
Who wrote it
How did reach us


Without knowing these answers, can we tell that what we call today 'the old testament' is what was revealed to Moses ( PBUH ) ?

Second : The new testament
Which language did Jesus speak ? Greek, Hebrew or Aramic ?
Combining the 5,600 manuscripts you speak of together, what percentage would it make of the new / old testament ?

Assuming the earliest dates you mentioned
What is the guarantee that something that was written on the year 45 then copied on year 125 ( and stretches in parts to year 225 at least ) retains completely it's original

For us muslims, having a 45 days gap ( not a 45 months or a 45 year, not mention tens or hunderds  ) between a person who receives a message / text ...etc. and the next person who reports / writes it , makes it an unacceptable
The weakest category of sayings of Prophet Muhammad ( PBUH ), hadeeth da'eef ( weak hadeeth ) which some scholars don't even accept to use it as evidence, have way far authenticity that this   

Add to that, that according to the three categories you mention


Originally posted by Moses

   First, the books must have apostolic authority-- that is, they must have been written either by the apostles themselves, who were eyewitnesses to what they wrote about, or by associates of the apostles.

·         Second, there was the criterion of conformity to what was called the "rule of faith." In other words, was the document congruent with the basic Christian tradition that the church recognized as normative.

·         Third, there was the criterion of whether a document had enjoyed continuous acceptance and usage by the church at large.



Means they didn't only accept what was written by the apostles or their associates , they accepted what seems to suit ( the rule of faith ) and the general acceptance and usage by the church at large!

This in any logical sense makes us sure what was written can not be proven to be 100 % exactly what was revealed

Also , the words rule of faith , and general acceptance and usage by the curch seem to be very flexible words
Which rule of faith you speak of ? the one that says Jesus is God, or Son of God ?
Which church acceptance , the catholic church, orthodox church, angelic church ? Which church did accept this ?

Set aside that we're muslims, how can you prove to someone who's not muslim, that the current bible have any links to Jesus ( PBUH ) ? you have no direct links,
you don't  know
for sure who wrote each of these manuscripts
you don't know whom they received it from
you don't know what were their ideologies, if they had motives to alter it or not

How can you convince someone to accept such links to what you claim is the source of salvation and eternal happiness ? Even if I wasn't muslim, it wouldn't make any sense from a logical / scientific point of view

Which is no surprise most of the west today reject faith in all, or think of it as something contradictory to science

That said about the old compilations, I urge you to fetch a copy of the bible that's only 200 years old, and closely start comparing it with the current printed version, I'm sure you'll be very surprised

>>>>>

Best Regards


Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 19 September 2009 at 5:06pm

The Dead Sea Scrolls authentication of the Holy Bible is the oldest manuscripts that CONFIRMS what we call the BIBLE (OT/NT) in it’s purest form today September 19, 2009.  

Over time, some 900 separate scrolls were found. They date from the third century BCE through the first century CE. My word just Google it, yall google everything else!

Just sending a link or someone’s opinion on the subject just doesn’t cut it! Present facts not opinions! Can you find these links or statements at a museum, no! Do they date back before the time of Muhammad, no!

You have proven again in your world, opinions are what matters not facts not real solid evidence. Go to the Qumran Library, the library of Congress, the British Museum, Israel Museum or Google it from the comfort of your home. That’s PROOF! Not links and debates, those are ONLY opinions, one-sided because I can’t ask them question etc…

Read with an open mind **Pay specific attention to #10 and #25**

http://www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html - http://www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html

http://www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html -

http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/intro.html - http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/intro.html

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls, which date back to the events described in the New Testament, have added to our understanding of the Jewish background of Christianity. Scholars have pointed to similarities between beliefs and practices outlined in the Qumran literature and those of early Christians. These parallels include comparable rituals of baptism, communal meals, and property. Most interesting is the parallel organizational structures: the sectarians divided themselves into twelve tribes led by twelve chiefs, similar to the structure of the early Church, with twelve apostles who, according to Jesus, would to sit on twelve thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Many scholars believe that both the literature of Qumran and the early Christian teachings stem from a common stream within Judaism and do not reflect a direct link between the Qumran community and the early Christians.

The Bible as we have it today is close to those scientifically proven manuscript that dates back HUNDREDS of years before Muhammad’s birth, 100’s of years! Show something that dates back that far that PROVES God’s word is corrupt! Even the Prophet knew not to go THERE!

They say Muhammad was illiterate, that doesn't have to apply in the year 2009, there is just to much proof for you!



-------------
“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)


Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 21 September 2009 at 11:34am
Originally posted by Shibboleth

But No where will you or anyone find Muhammad's name in the Bible.


Is'nt the name Ahmad in the Bible?Ahmad and Muhammad are the same name.


Posted By: Meditations
Date Posted: 21 September 2009 at 10:39pm

Dear Shibboleth

I'm not sure why you post the same things in two different posts, you'll probably get similar replies

Also, still waiting for your references of all these muslim scholars you mentioned that you claim that they confirm the bible to be un-altered

Originally posted by Shibboleth

The Dead Sea Scrolls authentication of the Holy Bible is the oldest manuscripts that CONFIRMS what we call the BIBLE (OT/NT) in it’s purest form today September 19, 2009.  

Over time, some 900 separate scrolls were found. They date from the third century BCE through the first century CE. My word just Google it, yall google everything else!

how you make such statements

the bible is mainly the old testament and new testament

Even if the dates you mention is valid and even if the dead sea facts you posted here
http://www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html are true

it means the earliest reference we have of the old testament is written in the period of 200 B.C. to 68 C.E./A.D ( this is what the reference you posted says , fact 13 )

This means it's written at least a thousand year after Moses ( PBUH ), if not, please tell us how much time is there between Moses and Jesus ( PBUH )

Do you expect a sane person to trust that scrolls written after a thousand year, ( with text that was not publicly and openly recited on daily basis like muslims do with the Qur'an ) , remained exactly the same ?

Originally posted by Shibboleth

Just sending a link or someone’s opinion on the subject just doesn’t cut it! Present facts not opinions! Can you find these links or statements at a museum, no! Do they date back before the time of Muhammad, no!


Actually using the facts you present is quite sufficient in proving our point

Originally posted by Shibboleth

You have proven again in your world, opinions are what matters not facts not real solid evidence.

I think it's best to not go on speaking like 'in your world'

It shall not get you anywhere, because there's so much that can be said about 'your world' as well, which I prefer to not speak of

Let's just stick to facts as you require, and to the basics of debating


Originally posted by Shibboleth

Go to the Qumran Library, the library of Congress, the British Museum, Israel Museum or Google it from the comfort of your home. That’s PROOF!

A proof of ? what is exactly the conclusion you're getting from scrolls that was written thousand year after it's source ?

a scrolls that you're not sure

Who wrote it
What's their ideology / motive
Which procedures they used to maintain integrity of what they're copying

What can you conclude out of this ?

[/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Shibboleth

Not links and debates, those are ONLY opinions, one-sided because I can’t ask them question etc…

So far all your questions had been answered, if not please post a list of the questions you have about the topic
I hope you provide answers to the several questions we ask, which you seem to not answer

Originally posted by Shibboleth

Read with an open mind **Pay specific attention to #10 and #25**

http://www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html - http://www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html

http://www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html -

http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/intro.html - http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/intro.html

 

Well , I did read it, I also read this link you posted

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22060312-2,00.html

It's interesting how it says

On hearing of the discovery yesterday, Geza Vermes, the eminent emeritus professor of Jewish studies at the University of Oxford, said such a discovery revealed that "the Biblical story is not altogether invented".

which is true, it's not altogether invented, it's part truth and part myth/alteration

Which is the islamic view point

Originally posted by Shibboleth

The Bible as we have it today is close to those scientifically proven manuscript that dates back HUNDREDS of years before Muhammad’s birth, 100’s of years!

Dear, the bible you have today is different from the bible that was available only 500 years ago, not to mention these scriptures

That said,  what is scientifically proven about these manuscripts ? that it was written over a thousand year after Moses ( PBUH ) ? that's an evidence against it, not the other way around

Originally posted by Shibboleth

Show something that dates back that far that PROVES God’s word is corrupt!

How about you show us something that dates only 300-400 years ago that's similar to what we have today ?

Even what we have today are different versions, which one should we use ?

Originally posted by Shibboleth

Even the Prophet knew not to go THERE!



This means you consider Prophet Muhammad ( PBUH ) to be a prophet from God ?



Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 22 September 2009 at 9:41pm
""""""How about you show us something that dates only 300-400 years ago that's similar to what we have today ?

Even what we have today are different versions, which one should we use ?"""""

All my post thus far have gone back 1000's of years, way before the KJV. The Bible I use has been translated from Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. The context of the message is still the same.


-------------
“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)


Posted By: Meditations
Date Posted: 24 September 2009 at 12:52am
Originally posted by Shibboleth

""""""How about you show us something that dates only 300-400 years ago that's similar to what we have today ?

Even what we have today are different versions, which one should we use ?"""""

All my post thus far have gone back 1000's of years, way before the KJV. The Bible I use has been translated from Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. The context of the message is still the same.


Dear Shibboleth

What you posted so far for the scriptures of the old testament dates over a thousand ( 1000 ) year after it was revealed
What you posted for the scriptures of the new testament dates hundreds of years after it was revealed with no direct links

Translation directly from Aramic showed significant difference between KJV ( noohra foundation mentioned thousands of differences )

So what is your point ?

Also, still waiting for your references of all these muslim scholars you mentioned that you claim that they confirm the bible to be un-altered
And still waiting for answers to the questions above

Best Regards



Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 24 September 2009 at 6:18pm

 

As I posted before many great MUSLIM teachers DO NOT believe the Bible      has been corrupted and ACCEPT the authenticity of our PRESENT New
     Testament texts. 
 
     a.   Ali al-Tabari (died 855) accepted the Gospel texts
     b.   Amr al-Ghakhiz (869)     "    "    "    "
     c.   BUKHARI (810-870)            "    "    "    "
          (he gathered some of the earliest tradition of Islam
          quoted the Quran itself to support his belief in the text
          of the Bible Sura 3:72,78)
     d.   Al-Mas'udi (956)         "    "    "    "
     e.   Abu Ali Husain Bin Sina  (1037)"   "    "
     f.   AL-GHAZZALI (1111)        "    "    "    "
          (probably the greatest Muslim scholar he lived after Ibn-
          Khazem but did not accept his teachings)
     g.   Ibn-Khaldun (1406)       "    "    "    "    "    " 
          (he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not accept his
          teachings but rather believed the earlier Islamic
          teachers.)
     h.   Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, founder of the Aligarh College
          "In the opinion of us Mohammedans it is not proved that
          corruption (tahrif-i-lafzi)...was practiced."
     i.   Fakhruddin Razi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, a nephew
          of Muhammed, "The Jews and early Christians were
          suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil;
          but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians it
          was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because
          those Scriptures were generally known and widely
          circulated, having been handed down from generation to
          generation."   

It's only you modern day 21st Century Muslims who believe otherwise,shame on YOU!


-------------
“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)


Posted By: Meditations
Date Posted: 26 September 2009 at 2:15am
Originally posted by Shibboleth

 As I posted before many great MUSLIM teachers DO NOT believe the Bible      has been corrupted and ACCEPT the authenticity of our PRESENT New

     Testament texts. 


Dear Shibboleth
Do you read what we post, or just reply to what you want ?
I just posted above saying

Also, still waiting for your references of all these muslim scholars you mentioned that you claim that they confirm the bible to be un-altered

and you post the same list again with no references to your claim ?

Originally posted by Shibboleth

 
     h.   Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, founder of the Aligarh College
          "In the opinion of us Mohammedans it is not proved that
          corruption (tahrif-i-lafzi)...was practiced."
     i.   Fakhruddin Razi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, a nephew
          of Muhammed, "The Jews and early Christians were
          suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil;
          but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians it
          was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because
          those Scriptures were generally known and widely
          circulated, having been handed down from generation to
          generation."



What is your reference to these quotes ? which books did they write this in ?
please check your sources before copying/pasting

I recall the Egyptian pope ( Pope Shenoda ) was once quoted about saying something similar about Imam Razi, when going back to the source, the Razi was saying totally the opposite
The pope ended up making a fool of himself
It's unfortunate for his holiness to be in such embarrassing situation


Originally posted by Shibboleth


It's only you modern day 21st Century Muslims who believe otherwise,shame on YOU!


So now this is a brand new thought that came up recently ?
This is the view held by muslims since the days of the Prophet ( PBUH )

Regards


Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 26 September 2009 at 1:51pm
I've read it and this thread is regarding Ishmael. Respond to my post on 'is the Bible still the word of God" it's discussed there.  Plus, do your homework and google them you might be surprise. 

-------------
“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)


Posted By: JOUBERAR
Date Posted: 27 September 2009 at 6:57pm
Even though if he was a descendant of Ismael it wont make him  a prophet  or if he was a descendant of Jewish origin that too wont make him a prophet you can asked any ex Muslim they will tell you the Koran and the hadiths is a hoax what Muslims also have not take in to consideration is the law of contradiction  that A can not be B and B can not be C.


Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 11:33am
Now you are trying to get smart? "laws of contradiction"nice try, ask any ex-Christian and they will tell you that Christianity and the Bible is a hoax.Christians also have not taken into consideration the law of contradiction or mathmatics.3 doesnt equal 1 and.


Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 11:37am
Originally posted by JOUBERAR

asked any ex Muslim they will tell you the Koran and the hadiths is a hoax what Muslims also have not take in to consideration is the law of contradiction  that A can not be B and B can not be C.
Yeah Because Apostates are the best source of information.Right


Posted By: Meditations
Date Posted: 29 September 2009 at 10:27pm
Originally posted by JOUBERAR

Even though if he was a descendant of Ismael it wont make him  a prophet  or if he was a descendant of Jewish origin that too wont make him a prophet


Then you should ask the topic starter what's the point of the topic

 
Originally posted by JOUBERAR

what Muslims also have not take in to consideration is the law of contradiction  that A can not be B and B can not be C.


This is a quite wild claim, how did muslims do so ?


Posted By: JOUBERAR
Date Posted: 01 October 2009 at 7:19am
Originally posted by Akhe Abdullah

Originally posted by JOUBERAR

asked any ex Muslim they will tell you the Koran and the hadiths is a hoax what Muslims also have not take in to consideration is the law of contradiction  that A can not be B and B can not be C.
Yeah Because Apostates are the best source of information.Right
 
No the false Quran and hadiths is my best source of information.


Posted By: JOUBERAR
Date Posted: 01 October 2009 at 8:58am
Originally posted by Meditations

Originally posted by JOUBERAR

Even though if he was a descendant of Ismael it wont make him  a prophet  or if he was a descendant of Jewish origin that too wont make him a prophet


Then you should ask the topic starter what's the point of the topic

 
Originally posted by JOUBERAR

what Muslims also have not take in to consideration is the law of contradiction  that A can not be B and B can not be C.


This is a quite wild claim, how did muslims do so ?
 
The holiest book of Islam. Muslims consider the Qur’an as the infallible words of Allah, free of any ambiguities, contradictions, errors and irrationalities. This guide will demonstrate that far from being perfect, free of ambiguities and errors, the Qur’an is replete with hundreds of contradictory statements that will surprise the critical readers of the Qur’an. It is unbelievable that an omnipotent, omniscient, all‑knowing, and all‑powerful Allah will have such a demented intellect to construct so many contradictory passages. 
 
2:21
Allah created the mankind; they should worship Him.
Contradiction: 3:97, 35:15 say Allah does not need mankind and the jinns; He is free of all want.

2:29
Allah created the earth (first) then He perfected the seven firmaments (heavens); He has the perfect knowledge of all things. (This verse indicates that Allah started creation by creating earth, and then He made heaven into seven heavens. This is how building usually starts, with the lower floors first and then the top floors—ibn Kathir).
Contradiction: 79:27‑30 says Allah created the heavens first.

2:34
All the angels bowed to Adam except Iblis. He was haughty and a disbeliever.
Contradiction: 16:49 says every creature in the heavens and in earth prostrates to Allah.

2:35
Allah forbade Adam and his wife to approach the tree of knowledge. (Allah spoke directly to Adam—ibn Kathir.)
Contradiction: 42:51 says Allah never speaks directly to a human; He speaks either from behind a veil or through a messenger.

2:37
Adam learned the words of inspiration from Allah. Adam was the first Muslim.
Contradiction: 2:131 says Abraham was the first Muslim.
Contradiction: 6:14 says Muhammad was the first Muslim.
Contradiction: 7:143 says Moses was the first Muslim.
Contradiction: 26:51 says some Egyptians were the first Muslims. 

2:38
Allah ordered Adam and his wife to descend on earth and to preach on people whatever message they received from Allah.
Contradiction: In verse 20:123, before sending Adam on earth, Allah told him humans on earth would be enemies of one another. This means there were already people on earth when Adam descended on it. So Adam was not the first human created by Allah. 

2:47
Allah blesses the Children of Israel more than other believers; He has preferred them above all beings.
Contradiction: 3:33‑34 says Allah preferred Adam, Noah, the house of Abraham, and the house of Imran above all beings. 

2:50
Allah parted the sea (Red sea); saved the Children of Israel (i.e., Moses’ people), and drowned Pharaoh in front of the eyes of the Children of Israel.
Contradiction: 10:90 says Pharaoh submitted to Islam.
Contradiction: 10:92 says Allah saved Pharaoh. 

2:52
Despite their sins of idolatry, Allah forgave the people of Moses.
Contradiction: 2:63 says Allah raised the Mount Sinai above the Children of Israel and threatened them to submit to Him.
Contradiction: 7:152 says Allah punished them. 

2:259
Allah caused a man to sleep for a century, then raised him up, and questioned the man how long he thought had been in sleep (in this verse Allah is directly speaking with an ordinary person).
Contradiction: 42:51 says Allah speaks only through a veil or through a messenger
 
IF YOU WANT MORE OF THE SO CALLED HOLY BOOK'S UNSEEN CONTRADICTIONS I WILL GIVE TO YOU .
 
It appears that Allah is not sure and confident of Himself. He often hesitates, stumbles and errs of what He wants Muslims to emulate and follow. Just like a human being, Allah is prone to inconsistencies, mistakes and blunders. This demonstrates that the Qur’an cannot be the words of Allah, the all‑knowing, perfect, and precise creator of all things in the heavens and on earth. We might wonder how the creator and the sustainer of all things in the Heavens and on earth could construct such a platitude and slovenly written document
 
The law of contradiction means that two antithetical propositions cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. X cannot be non-X. A thing cannot be and not be simultaneously. And nothing that is true can be self-contradictory or inconsistent with any other truth.
%20%20%20%20All logic depends on this simple principle. Rational thought and meaningful discourse demand it. To deny it is to deny all truth in one fell swoop.
%20%20%20%20Until a little more than a hundred years ago, the law of contradiction was almost universally accepted by philosophers as a self-evident truth. Francis Schaeffer attributed the decline of 20th-century society to the demise of the law of contradiction. He suggested that when philosophy abandons this principle it sinks beneath "the line of despair" and ultimately makes suicide the only viable course of action.
%20%20%20%20Scripture very clearly affirms the law of contradiction. First John 2:21, for example, is explicit: "No lie is of the truth." Many other passages, such as 2 Timothy 2:13, ("[God] cannot deny himself") either assume or reiterate the law of contradiction.
%20%20%20%20Lots of well-meaning Christians, however, seem to operate with the misconception that biblical revelation is somehow exempt from the law of contradiction. They suggest that God's truth can contravene logic if God is so pleased. They often point to the doctrine of the Trinity or pit divine sovereignty against human responsibility as evidence that revealed truth is sometimes contradictory.
%20%20%20%20But Titus 1:2 tells us that "God . . . cannot lie." Therefore even God's Word must be in harmony with the law of contradiction. One clear, unresolvable contradiction would be enough to destroy the trustworthiness of the whole. That's why the enemies of truth are so eager to try to prove that God's Word contradicts itself.
%20%20%20%20Certainly we who love truth ought to jealously guard against any suggestion that God's revelation is internally inconsistent. But more than that, we need to defend the law of contradiction itself, because this is a biblical principle, and it lies at the root of all truth.
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Meditations
Date Posted: 02 October 2009 at 3:21pm
Originally posted by JOUBERAR

 
The holiest book of Islam. Muslims consider the Qur’an as the infallible words of Allah, free of any ambiguities, contradictions, errors and irrationalities. This guide will demonstrate that far from being perfect, free of ambiguities and errors, the Qur’an is replete with hundreds of contradictory statements that will surprise the critical readers of the Qur’an.


Dear JOUBERAR

Muslims scholars have practiced the laws of logic ( including what is the possible and impossible, what is contradiction ) for hunderds of years, this is not new to Islamic thinking

you mentioned only 10 of what you consider contradictions, is there's more ?
Also where are these errors you speak of ?

My question to you,
If we resolve these so called contradictions you come up with
Will you become a muslim and believer in Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) ?

Best Regards 



Posted By: JOUBERAR
Date Posted: 02 October 2009 at 10:59pm
Originally posted by Meditations

Originally posted by JOUBERAR

 
The holiest book of Islam. Muslims consider the Qur’an as the infallible words of Allah, free of any ambiguities, contradictions, errors and irrationalities. This guide will demonstrate that far from being perfect, free of ambiguities and errors, the Qur’an is replete with hundreds of contradictory statements that will surprise the critical readers of the Qur’an.


Dear JOUBERAR

Muslims scholars have practiced the laws of logic ( including what is the possible and impossible, what is contradiction ) for hunderds of years, this is not new to Islamic thinking

you mentioned only 10 of what you consider contradictions, is there's more ?
Also where are these errors you speak of ?

My question to you,
If we resolve these so called contradictions you come up with
Will you become a muslim and believer in Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) ?

Best Regards 

 
No I will not betray my God even if the Quran were flawless it doesn't mean it is the word of God.
The Torah is 3300 years old why would God deny all this and changed His mind and give us a new manuscrip which He himself self deny his own Son and His new govenant," God never changed".
 
 

Absurdities

There are other errors which are statements or stories which simply make no sense at all, and put into question the integrity of the writer or writers of the Qur'an.

Man's Greatness

Sura 4:59 states,"Greater surely than the creation of man is the creation of the heavens and the earth; but most men know it not." This implies that greatness is only measured by size; that the mere vastness of the physical universe make it greater than man, an argument which would make a football of immensely greater value than the largest diamond. Our scripture tells us that Man's greatness lies not in his size, but in his relationship with God, that he is made in God's image, a claim which no other animate or inanimate object can make.

 Seven Earths

Sura 65:12 reads, "It is God who hath created seven heavens and as many earths." We would love to know where the other six earths are. If these refer to the planets in our solar system, then they are short by two (and now possibly three).

Jinns & Shooting stars:

Meteors, and even stars are said to be missiles fired at eavesdropping Satans and jinn who seek to listen to the reading of the Qur'an in heaven, and then pass on what they hear to men in suras 37:6-10; 55:33-35; 67:5; & 72:6-9.

How are we to understand these suras? Can we believe indeed that Allah throws meteors, which are made up of carbon dioxide or iron-nickel, at non- material devils who steal a hearing at the heavenly council? And how do we explain the fact that many of earths meteors come in showers which consequently travel in parallel paths. Are we to thus understand that these parallel paths imply that the devils are all lined up in rows at the same moment?

     Solomon's power over nature:

a.     Birds and ants
King Solomon was taught the speech of birds (sura 27:16) and the speech of ants (sura 27:18-19). In his battles, he used birds extensively to drop clay bricks on Abrah's army (sura 105:3-4), and marched them in military parades (sura 27:17). He also used them to bring him messages of powerful queens (sura 27:20-27).

Note: According to the historical record, Abrah's army was not defeated by bricks dropped on their head. Rather, they withdrew their attack on Mecca after smallpox broke out among the troops (Guillame, Islam, pgs.21ff).

b.     Jinn
The Jinn were forced to work for Solomon, making him whatever he pleased, such as palaces, statues, large dishes, and brass fountains (sura 34:11-13). A malignant jinn was even commissioned to bring the Queen of Sheba's throne in the twinkling of an eye (sura 27:38-44).

c.     Wind
The wind was subject to Solomon, travelling a month's journey both in the morning and in the evening (though the wisdom of its timing is somehow lost in translation) (sura
3:11; 21:81).

d.     Ants talk
The ants, upon seeing Solomon and his army arriving in their valley (and by implication recognizing who he was), talk among themselves to flee underground so as not to be crushed (sura 27:18).

Youth and dog sleep 309 years

Sura 18:9-25 tells the story of some youths (the exact number is debated) and a dog who sleep for 309 years with their eyes open and their ears closed (Note Yusuf Ali's attempts to delineate the exact time period of this story in footnote no.2365, and then concludes that it is merely a parable).

The object of this story is to show Allah's power to keep those who trust in him, including the dog, without food or water for as long as he likes.

 People become apes

In suras 2:65-66 and 7:163-167, Allah turns certain fishing people who break the Jewish sabbath into apes for their disobedience. Had Darwin read the Qur'an, his theory on evolution may have parallelled "Planet of the Apes" rather then the other way around.



Posted By: Meditations
Date Posted: 06 October 2009 at 11:47am
Originally posted by JOUBERAR

No I will not betray my God even if the Quran were flawless it doesn't mean it is the word of God.


It doesn't mean so, but if it's flawless, and contained information that no way prophet Muhammad ( PBUH ) was able to know it , how do you explain this ?

Originally posted by JOUBERAR

The Torah is 3300 years old why would God deny all this and changed His mind and give us a new manuscrip which He himself self deny his own Son and His new govenant," God never changed".


The same logic can be said about the new testament ( unless you're jew and don't believe in it )
Why would God send something 1300 years after the Torah that negates some rulings in it ? like Sabbath, eating pigs ..etc. ?




Posted By: Meditations
Date Posted: 07 October 2009 at 5:51am
Originally posted by JOUBERAR

This guide will demonstrate that far from being perfect, free of ambiguities and errors, the Qur’an is replete with hundreds of contradictory statements that will surprise the critical readers of the Qur’an.
 
Dear JOUBERAR
It seems that you're copying / pasting this from some source ( the guide you say ) because if you check these so called contradictions, you'll be very surprised
Originally posted by JOUBERAR


2:21Allah created the mankind; they should worship Him.
Contradiction: 3:97, 35:15 say Allah does not need mankind and the jinns; He is free of all want.


The verses you are referring to are :

[2:21] O mankind! worship your Lord, Who hath created you and those before you, so that ye may ward off (evil).

AND

[3:97] In it are Signs Manifest; (for example), the Station of Abraham; whoever enters it attains security; Pilgrimage thereto is a duty men owe to Allah,- those who can afford the journey; but if any deny faith, Allah stands not in need of any of His creatures.

[35:15] O mankind! Ye are the poor in your relation to Allah. And Allah! He is the Absolute, the Owner of Praise.

So where is the contradiction when God asks mankind to worship, what's in that implies that God is in need of anything ?

Originally posted by JOUBERAR

2:29 Allah created the earth (first) then He perfected the seven firmaments (heavens); He has the perfect knowledge of all things. (This verse indicates that Allah started creation by creating earth, and then He made heaven into seven heavens. This is how building usually starts, with the lower floors first and then the top floors—ibn Kathir).

Contradiction: 79:27‑30 says Allah created the heavens first.

First of all : Are you talking about Qur'an or Ibn Kathir intrepretation ?

No one said Ibn Kathir is not subject to errors or criticism, ( I'm not saying he has errors ), but if you claim the Qur'an has errors, you need to prove it from Qur'an verses, but from a human's understanding which can have errors

That said, the verses you are referring to are :

[2:29]He is the One who created for you all that is in the earth, then He directed Himself toward the heaven, so He fashioned it into seven heavens, He is the all knowing of all things

[79:27] Are you ( human beings ) a more prodigious creation than the heavern ? He built it
[79:28] He raised it's height and leveled it
[79:29] And He darkened it's night and brought out it's morning light
[79:30] And the earth, after this He spread

The verses talks about the stages which creation of heaven and earth went through, which has been proved scientifically to be true

If we read these verses carefully, you'll find out it doesn't necessarily imply that either earth or heaven was created first

[2:29] says : "then He directed Himself toward the heaven" it doesn't say "then He created the heaven" which can imply that heaven existed before that otherwise

[79:30] says : And the earth, after this He spread ( into an oval shape )
which also implies that the spreading could have occurred after building/raising levelling of the heaven

Also If you had visited Ibn Kathir notes about this, you'd have found out that in arabic language, using 'then' doesn't imply following in action, it can imply following in the news about the action

Example of this from arabic poetry :

Say to that who ruled, then ruled his father then ruled before that his grandfather

The word 'then' here means that he's telling the news about that who ruled, then the news about his father ...etc.
It doesn't mean that the ruling of the son happened, then after it in time the ruling of the father

Originally posted by JOUBERAR

2:34All the angels bowed to Adam except Iblis. He was haughty and a disbeliever.
Contradiction: 16:49 says every creature in the heavens and in earth prostrates to Allah.

The verses are
[2:34] Then behold, We said to the angels: "Bow down to Adam" and So they bowed down except Iblis: he refused and grew arrogant, And thus did he become of the disbelievers

[16:49] For to God bows down all that is in the heavens, and all that is in the earth of every beast as do the angels and they do not grow arrogant.

The second verse doesn't say every creature , it talks about beasts and angels, it doesn't include iblis, or other kinds of devils, who do not bow down to God willingly

Originally posted by JOUBERAR

2:35 Allah forbade Adam and his wife to approach the tree of knowledge. (Allah spoke directly to Adam—ibn Kathir.)
Contradiction: 42:51 says Allah never speaks directly to a human; He speaks either from behind a veil or through a messenger.

verse 42:51 doesn't say only what you're referring to, it says

[42:51] It is not fitting for a man that God should speak to him except by revealation, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a messenger to reveal, with God's permission, whatever He so wills: Indeed He is ever exalted, all wise.

I checked Ibn Kathir, couldn't find what you're saying about speaking directly to Adam

Did you check it directly, or just copying / pasting from another source?

Moreover , the verse talks about life on earth, not about absolute direct talking, which can occur before men on earth, or during life on earth outside earth or in the life after

Originally posted by JOUBERAR

2:37
Adam learned the words of inspiration from Allah. Adam was the first Muslim.

2:37 says : Adam then received words from His Lord, thus He granted him repentance. For indeed it is He who is the All Relenting, the Merciful

What's in it that says Adam was the first muslim ?

Originally posted by JOUBERAR


Contradiction: 2:131 says Abraham was the first Muslim.

2:131 says : For when his Lord said to him ( Abraham ): Submit yourself. He said I willingly I submit to the Lord of the worlds
What's in it that says Abraham was the first muslim ?

Originally posted by JOUBERAR

Contradiction: 6:14 says Muhammad was the first Muslim.

Since the above isn't true, then there's no contradiction

Moreover, the verse says : ..... Say Indeed I have been commanded to be the foremost of those who have willingly submitted themselves to God .....

Originally posted by JOUBERAR

Contradiction: 7:143 says Moses was the first Muslim.

It says first believer, not first muslim
No one said first muslim except Prophet Muhammad ( PBUH )
There's a big distinction between the word muslim and the word believer in Qur'an , where every believer is a muslim, while the opposite is not necessarily true

Originally posted by JOUBERAR

Contradiction: 26:51 says some Egyptians were the first Muslims.

This verse says believers as well
And they ( the egyptian magician ) are speaking about what they witnessed, of which they were the first believers in it


Originally posted by JOUBERAR

2:38
Allah ordered Adam and his wife to descend on earth and to preach on people whatever message they received from Allah.
Contradiction: In verse 20:123, before sending Adam on earth, Allah told him humans on earth would be enemies of one another.

Incorrect, the verse 20:123 says :

He ( God ) said: Descend from it all of you together, each of you an enemy to the other ....

If you read only 7 verses back and start reading from 116, you'll know the verse talks about human and satan being enemies to each other, not humans being enemies to each other

Originally posted by JOUBERAR

This means there were already people on earth when Adam descended on it. So Adam was not the first human created by Allah.

There was already creatures on earth before Adam descended to earth

Originally posted by JOUBERAR

2:47
Allah blesses the Children of Israel more than other believers; He has preferred them above all beings.
Contradiction: 3:33‑34 says Allah preferred Adam, Noah, the house of Abraham, and the house of Imran above all beings.

2:47 : O children of Israel, Recall My blessings with which I have blessed you, and that I had Indeed showed preference to you above the people of the world

Their preference was over the people of their time, not absolute,

Also, If you go to Ibn Kahtir which you referred to you several times, you'll this mentioned there as well

Originally posted by JOUBERAR

2:50
Allah parted the sea (Red sea); saved the Children of Israel (i.e., Moses’ people), and drowned Pharaoh in front of the eyes of the Children of Israel.
Contradiction: 10:90 says Pharaoh submitted to Islam.
Contradiction: 10:92 says Allah saved Pharaoh.

The verses 10:90-92 says :

[Pickthal 10:90] And We brought the Children of Israel across the sea, and Pharaoh with his hosts pursued them in rebellion and transgression, till, when the (fate of) drowning overtook him, he exclaimed: I believe that there is no Allah save Him in Whom the Children of Israel believe, and I am of those who surrender (unto Him).
[10:91] What! Now! When hitherto thou hast rebelled and been of the wrong-doers?
[10:92] But this day We save thee in thy body that thou mayest be a sign to those who come after thee!. but verily, many among mankind are heedless of Our Signs!"

As it's clear from the verses :pharoan was following Moses ( PBUH ) and children of Israel, the sea was parted, they went through it, when pharoah tried to followed them , the sea turned to it's original form and drowned him
When he was drowning and dying he said I believe in the God of Moses, so his body was saved as a sign for those who come after him

It's worth noting that Ramsis the 2nd , who's believed to be the pharoah of Moses ( PBUH ) is still preserved untill our times
is that mentioned in the bible ?

Originally posted by JOUBERAR

2:52
Despite their sins of idolatry, Allah forgave the people of Moses.
Contradiction:
2:63 says Allah raised the Mount Sinai above the Children of Israel and threatened them to submit to Him.

The verses are :

[2:52] Even then We did forgive you; there was a chance for you to be grateful.
[2:63] And (remember, O Children of Israel) when We made a covenant with you and caused the mount to tower above you, (saying): Hold fast that which We have given you, and remember that which is therein, that ye may ward off (evil).

So where is the contradiction ? Who said the raising of the mountain sinai was  after the forgiveness and not before it ?

Originally posted by JOUBERAR

Contradiction: 7:152 says Allah punished them.

This might have been true if the verse after it ( 7:153 ) didn't exist, which puts the exception for those who repent

The verses are :



[2:52] Even then We did forgive you; there was a chance for you to be grateful.

[7:152] Those who took the calf (for worship) will indeed be overwhelmed with wrath from their Lord, and with shame in this life: thus do We recompense those who invent (falsehoods).

But if you go to the next verse you'll see :

[7:153] But those who do ill-deeds and afterward repent and believe - lo! for them, afterward, Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

and if you go few verses back, you'll see :


[7:148] And the folk of Moses, after (he left them), chose a calf (for worship), (made) out of their ornaments, of saffron hue, which gave a lowing sound. Saw they not that it spake not unto them nor guided them to any way? They chose it, and became wrong-doers.
[7:149] And when they repented and saw that they had gone astray, they said: If our Lord show not mercy to us and forgive us we shall certainly be of the losers.

So it's obvious now that they repented after worshiping the calf, and so were forgiven, which is what verse 2:52 is talking about 


Originally posted by JOUBERAR

2:259 Allah caused a man to sleep for a century, then raised him up, and questioned the man how long he thought had been in sleep (in this verse Allah is directly speaking with an ordinary person).
Contradiction: 42:51 says Allah speaks only through a veil or through a messenger


Verse 2:259 doesn't say anything about speaking directly, also he was not an ordinary person, he was a Prophet

verse 42:51 doesn't say only what you're referring to, it says

[42:51] It is not fitting for a man that God should speak to him except by revealation, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a messenger to reveal, with God's permission, whatever He so wills: Indeed He is ever exalted, all wise.

Originally posted by JOUBERAR

IF YOU WANT MORE OF THE SO CALLED HOLY BOOK'S UNSEEN CONTRADICTIONS I WILL GIVE TO YOU .


I would like to see any more that you have, provided these are real contradictions, or at least been revised and have correct references, not a copy / paste from other sources
Also to stay on topic, please post this in a new topic, this topic is not about this issue
 
Originally posted by JOUBERAR

We might wonder how the creator and the sustainer of all things in the Heavens and on earth could construct such a platitude and slovenly written document


As proved so far there're no 'logical' contradictions that can't be resolved, so please save your conclusion about God until you prove so 
 
Originally posted by JOUBERAR

Scripture very clearly affirms the law of contradiction.


As mentioned before, it's nothing unique to what you call 'scriptures' it's been in the core of Islamic thinking since the early days of Islam

Originally posted by JOUBERAR

Certainly we who love truth ought to jealously guard against any suggestion that God's revelation is internally inconsistent. But more than that, we need to defend the law of contradiction itself, because this is a biblical principle, and it lies at the root of all truth.


And what will you say if we provide inconsistencies within the bible, that contradicts the law of contradiction you speak of in an unresolved ways ?

Regards



Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 07 October 2009 at 3:45pm
Originally posted by JOUBERAR


10:90 says Pharaoh submitted to Islam.<SPAN style="COLOR: #0066ff">Contradiction:</SPAN> 10:92 says Allah saved Pharaoh. 


Topics discussed in this Verse:
[Children of Israel:deliverance from Pharaoh] [Moses:crosses the Red Sea] [Muslims] [Pharaoh:drowned]


10:90 (Y. Ali) We took the Children of Israel across the sea: Pharaoh and his hosts followed them in insolence and spite. At length, when overwhelmed with the flood, he said: "I believe that there is no god except Him Whom the Children of Israel believe in: I am of those who submit (to Allah in Islam)."   There are plenty of Ayats that says when death approaches the non-believer then at that time they want to say they belive
Topics discussed in this Verse: [Pharaoh:drowned]


10:92 (Asad) [Nay,] but today We shall save only thy body, [112] so that thou mayest be a [warning] sign unto those who will come after thee: for, behold, a good many people are heedless.


Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 07 October 2009 at 4:24pm
Originally posted by JOUBERAR

The Torah is 3300 years old why would God deny all this and changed His mind and give us a new manuscrip which He himself self deny his own Son and His new govenant," God never changed?
Who says that God has changed.You cant belive for one minute that man has'nt played a part in changing the word of God in the Bible?Honest answer please.
Originally posted by Meditations



Dear JOUBERAR[COLOR="#>0000ff"]It seems that you're copying / pasting this from some source ( the guide you say )
[/QUOTE]This is true on another topic I was guilty of this remember matthew 8:12   


Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 07 October 2009 at 7:30pm
AL-Qur'an 10:89-91(89)We led the Children of Israel across the sea.Fir'aun(Pharaoh)and his host pursued them with wickedness and oppression,until when drowning,he cried out:"I believe that there is none worthy of worship but He(Allah)in Whom the Children of Israel believe,and I am one of the Muslims.(90)In response,it was said to him:"Now you believe!But a little while before you were disobedient and one of the mischief-makers!(91)We shall save your body today,so that you may become a sign for the succeeding generations;indeed many among mankind are heedless of Our signs!


Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 07 October 2009 at 7:38pm
AL-Qur'an 95:In fact,those against whom the Word of your Rabb has proved true,will not believe,even if every sign should cme to them,until they themselves see the painful punishment.]Jouberar can you ever admit when you are wrong? you know as much about the Quran as most of us do about the Bible


Posted By: Shibboleth
Date Posted: 08 October 2009 at 1:59pm

Originally posted by JOUBERAR

Even though if he was a descendant of Ismael it wont make him  a prophet  or if he was a descendant of Jewish origin that too wont make him a prophet


MEDITATIONS
Then you should ask the topic starter what's the point of the topic

 

Why? To First establish whether Muhammad is a true prophet or not because God’s word warns people about false prophets. Muhammad fails the test of a true prophet according to Moses. Should we then believe in his words?

 

Secondly, if shown to be a false prophet as Meditations so honestly asks “how could he contain information that Prophet Muhammad was able to know it? Very good question!

 

If not from divine origin, where else can it be from? Our Prophet Moses tells us;

Deut. 13:1-4: “In case a prophet or a dreamer of a dream arises in your midst and does give you a sign or a portent, and the sign or the portent does come true of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us walk after other gods, whom you have not known, and let us serve them,’ you must not listen to the words of that prophet or to the dreamer of that dream, because Jehovah your God is testing you to know whether you are loving Jehovah your God with all your heart and all your soul.

The temptations of Satan’s interjections - Sura 53:19-26; 17:73-75

At one time Mohammed compromised and said concerning the daughters of Allah in Sura 53:19 that "their intercession was to be hoped for." In other words, Mohammed said we should hope for the help of these three idols. Mohammed’s followers were amazed that he said this. Mohammed later changed and said Satan had deceived him. These verses were abrogated or taken out.

Suras 13:39. Allah doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth: with Him is the Mother of the Book.

Deuteronomy 18:10-12

10 There should not be found in you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, anyone who employs divination, a practicer of magic or anyone who looks for omens or a sorcerer, 11 or one who binds others with a spell or anyone who consults a spirit medium or a professional foreteller of events or anyone who inquires of the dead. 12 For everybody doing these things is something detestable to Jehovah, and on account of these detestable things Jehovah your God is driving them away from before you.

 

There is only ONE true God with only ONE name (Hebrew;YHWH or Yahweh English; Jehovah) all the others are false gods. The Hindu religion alone has millions of gods. The Devil is a god and can deceive anyone.

 

Psalms 83

وَيَعْلَمُوا أَنَّكَ اسْمُكَ يَهْوَهُ وَحْدَكَ، الْعَلِيُّ عَلَى كُلِّ الأَرْضِ.

18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.

 

God’s Word is the only Holy book that is flawless. But for argument sake if the sign or portent comes true (it CAN come true) we still would not listen because it’s not from the most high God Jehovah, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

 

The question was also asked;
“Why would God send something 1300 years after the Torah that negates some rulings in it ? like Sabbath, eating pigs ..etc. ?

 

Do you know why the Israelites where giving the Law of Moses? You have to go to the ‘Book’ to get the answer.

Consider two reasons. First, the Law was like a protective wall. (Ephesians 2:14) Its righteous statutes acted as a barrier between Jew and Gentile. Thus the Law helped to preserve the line of the Seed of promise. (Jesus) Thanks largely to such protection, the nation still existed when God’s due time arrived for the Messiah (Shiloh) to be born into the tribe of Judah.

Second, the Law thoroughly demonstrated mankind’s need for a ransom. A perfect Law, it exposed the inability of sinful humans to adhere to it fully. It thus served “to make transgressions manifest, until the seed (Jesus) should arrive to whom the promise had been made.” (Galatians 3:19) By means of animal sacrifices, the Law offered provisional atonement for sins. But since, as Paul wrote, “it is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take sins away,” these sacrifices only foreshadowed Christ’s ransom sacrifice. (Hebrews 10:1-4) For faithful Jews, then, that covenant became a “tutor leading to Christ.”—Galatians 3:24.

The “Law Covenant” waaaay in advance prepared Israel or Jews for the ‘Anointed one of God’ Jesus Christ. When he appeared specifically at that time they were expecting him at that time because it was prophesized

Honestly ask yourselves, why would Jesus birth, life, death and resurrection be different and unique compared to any other of God’s Prophet?

In more than fifty verses in the Qur’an, it is recorded that Jesus was born without a father, performed miracles, even resurrected the dead.

God caused Christ to die, raised him to life, and then lifted him up to Him.—Āl ‘Imrān [3]:55, NJD; Maryam [19]:33, NJD; where as Muhammad is still in the grave. So, to emphasize your question; “Why would God send something 1300 years after the Torah that negates some rulings in it ? To fulfill the ‘Law Covenant’ so they will come true, namely the restoration of PARADISE! Something you and I both believe in

 

Matthew 5:17

«لاَ تَظُنُّوا أَنِّي جِئْتُ لأَنْقُضَ النَّامُوسَ أَوِ الأَنْبِيَاءَ. مَا جِئْتُ لأَنْقُضَ بَلْ لأُكَمِّلَ.

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

 

 

 

 



-------------
“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)


Posted By: JOUBERAR
Date Posted: 12 October 2009 at 3:46pm
Originally posted by Akhe Abdullah

AL-Qur'an 10:89-91(89)We led the Children of Israel across the sea.Fir'aun(Pharaoh)and his host pursued them with wickedness and oppression,until when drowning,he cried out:"I believe that there is none worthy of worship but He(Allah)in Whom the Children of Israel believe,and I am one of the Muslims.(90)In response,it was said to him:"Now you believe!But a little while before you were disobedient and one of the mischief-makers!(91)We shall save your body today,so that you may become a sign for the succeeding generations;indeed many among mankind are heedless of Our signs!
 
Who is the weee led the children of Isreal across the the sea was it God and Moses Allah and and Moses or Muhammad and Allah?This is also caravan camp fire story that Muhammad may have heard or his compannions this contradicts the the torah clearly Pharaoh is in no ways saved this show you Muhammad lied openly and muslims still believe him,Like Noah had a forth son who drown in the the flood because he wasn't muslim, once if you started lying the lies goes on and on, thats Muhammad did he lied so much he believed himself.
 


Posted By: JOUBERAR
Date Posted: 12 October 2009 at 4:26pm
Originally posted by Akhe Abdullah

Originally posted by JOUBERAR

The Torah is 3300 years old why would God deny all this and changed His mind and give us a new manuscrip which He himself self deny his own Son and His new govenant," God never changed?
Who says that God has changed.You cant belive for one minute that man has'nt played a part in changing the word of God in the Bible?Honest answer please.
Originally posted by Meditations



Dear JOUBERAR[COLOR="#>0000ff"]It seems that you're copying / pasting this from some source ( the guide you say )
This is true on another topic I was guilty of this remember matthew 8:12   [/QUOTE]
 
COLOR="#>0000ff What is this are you getting angry is this a swear word?


Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 13 October 2009 at 9:06am
Originally posted by JOUBERAR

Who is the weee led the children of Isreal across the the sea was it God and Moses Allah and and Moses or Muhammad and Allah?This is also caravan camp fire story that Muhammad may have heard or his compannions this contradicts the the torah clearly Pharaoh is in no ways saved this show you Muhammad lied openly and muslims still believe him,Like Noah had a forth son who drown in the the flood because he wasn't muslim, once if you started lying the lies goes on and on, thats Muhammad did he lied so much he believed himself.
 
Astaghfirullah!When the Qur'an says "We" it is talking about Allah and his Angels or with the help of Allah his Prophets did so and so.You fail to understand.You have the verses above in your face.


Posted By: JOUBERAR
Date Posted: 13 October 2009 at 10:35am
Originally posted by Akhe Abdullah

Originally posted by JOUBERAR

Who is the weee led the children of Isreal across the the sea was it God and Moses Allah and and Moses or Muhammad and Allah?This is also caravan camp fire story that Muhammad may have heard or his compannions this contradicts the the torah clearly Pharaoh is in no ways saved this show you Muhammad lied openly and muslims still believe him,Like Noah had a forth son who drown in the the flood because he wasn't muslim, once if you started lying the lies goes on and on, thats Muhammad did he lied so much he believed himself.

 
Astaghfirullah!When the Qur'an says "We" it is talking about Allah and his Angels or with the help of Allah his Prophets did so and so.You fail to understand.You have the verses above in your face.
 
O I thought Allah do not need intercessors to do his work Allah is nor begotten or beget this shows how Allah contradict himself and the Quran. 



Print Page | Close Window