Christianity - what do you really think about it?

[islamis4u]

This is, of course, the EXACT SAME WORD that is used in Genesis (the Hebrew plural, yowmiym, is formed with a suffix instead of a prefix, that's the only difference).

Yeah i agree with you but if you would take yowmiym then it will one and if you take other it will solve by taking one at a time you cannot solve all...

 

[Azure24]

To claim God is prohibited by the laws of science is ridiculous islamis4u. So forget about Genesis, what other "flaws" have you found? (please post them in the christian forum I'll be obliged to answer them).

 

[islamis4u]

Okay brother i will on your requst.

 

[bob x]

Yeah i agree with you but if you would take yowmiym then it will one and if you take other it will solve by taking one at a time you cannot solve all...

This sentence does not convey any meaning at all. I understand that English is not your native tongue, but can you try again?

 

[islamis4u]

This sentence does not convey any meaning at all. I understand that English is not your native tongue, but can you try again?

Sorry brother my Mistake i was saying that if you take it as one long period or one day it will then solve some not all the contradictions, In QUran it is not like that.

 

[bob x]

I do not see any difference whatsoever here between Genesis and the Qur'an. I do not even see what it is that *you think* is the difference. Can you try to explain?

 

[bananabrain]

Give a precise answer and do not say that you know or not okay!!!!

ok then - firstly, like bob says, YOMYM is *exactly* the same word as "ayyam".

It is illogical - you read in the Bible, evening, morning - It clearly states 24 hours, it indicates.

nowhere in the genesis text does it mention hours, let alone periods of 24 hours. this is completely incorrect. thirdly:

Point No.2 - Bible says in Genesis Ch. No. 1 Verses No. 3 and 5,…‘Light was created on the first day.’ enesis, Ch., 1 Verses, 14 to 19… ‘The cause of light - stars and the sun, etc. was created on the fourth day’. How can the cause of light be created on the 4th day - later than the light which came into existence on the first day? - It is unscientific.

indeed it is unscientific, because it's not a scientific text. the sages asked this very question and the answer they came up with was that the light created on the first day was or ha-sekhel; in other words "enlightenment".

Further, the, Bible says Genesis, Ch. 1, Verses 9 to 13… ‘Earth was created on the 3rd day. How can you have a night and day without the earth ? The day depends upon the rotation of the Earth Without the earth created, how can you have a night and day?

that is *precisely* the reason we do not read this text as a literal blow-by-blow, real-time account, because it clearly isn't one. and the term used does not necessarily denote this planet, earth, but the concept of inhabitable space, of which this is but one.

Today science tells us… ‘Earth is part of the parent body… the sun.’

where does "science" tell us that?

How can the vegetation come into existence without sunlight, and how can they survive without sunlight?

there are plenty of plants that do not depend on sunlight for their nourishment - lichens, fungi, algae and the like. it is clear that these developed before other, more advanced, photosynthesising plants. the terms used signify plant life, not exclusively plants that require sunlight. i think it's you that is lacking in scientific knowledge, not to mention knowledge of biblical hebrew.

The actual translation, if you go to the Hebrew text, it is ‘lamps’…‘Lamps having lights of its own.’

oh, you can translate biblical hebrew, can you now? so this isn't just another cut-and-paste job, then? if you're going to make long quotes (and here, it seems as if there are two different writing styles, yours and that of whoever you copied) you should at least attribute them, otherwise that's breach of copyright. the actual translation of the word is not "lamps". properly speaking, it is "lights" or "luminaries."

Indicating, that Sun and the Moon has its own light - which is in contradiction with established scientific knowledge that we have.

actually, the text indicates nothing of the sort - in fact, it describes the difference between the two types of light, whether the lights are self-generated or reflected - *moonlight* is the reflected light of the sun, described as "the smaller light", to denote its reflected nature, whereas the sun is described as "the greater light". this shouldn't exactly stretch the text beyond credibility.

consequently this conclusion:

If you say it is long period, you solve Point No.1 and 3, the remaining 4 are yet there. If you say the days are 24 hours day, you solve only Point No.5 - the remaining 5 are yet there - It becomes unscientific.

appears frankly idiotic. there are no objections that you have raised that require the six days of Creation to last 24 hours. wherever you're getting this stuff, i suggest you ask for your money back, because you're being conned.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[islamis4u]

I do not see any difference whatsoever here between Genesis and the Qur'an. I do not even see what it is that *you think* is the difference. Can you try to explain?

Im talking about the way it is used i say the word is the same but the way it is used?

 

[islamis4u]

ok then - firstly, like bob says, YOMYM is *exactly* the same word as "ayyam".

I replied

indeed it is unscientific, because it's not a scientific text. the sages asked this very question and the answer they came up with was that the light created on the first day was or ha-sekhel; in other words "enlightenment".

God do not know any science? Can you prove anything which is unscientific in Quran?

that is *precisely* the reason we do not read this text as a literal blow-by-blow, real-time account, because it clearly isn't one. and the term used does not necessarily denote this planet, earth, but the concept of inhabitable space, of which this is but one.

It is your ow interpretations okay not God's words which you claim.

where does "science" tell us that?

Big Bang Theory

there are plenty of plants that do not depend on sunlight for their nourishment - lichens, fungi, algae and the like. it is clear that these developed before other, more advanced, photosynthesising plants. the terms used signify plant life, not exclusively plants that require sunlight. i think it's you that is lacking in scientific knowledge, not to mention knowledge of biblical hebrew.

Firstly Lichens: are symbiotic associations of a fungus (the mycobiont) with a photosynthetic partner (the photobiont also known as the phycobiont) that can produce food for the lichen from sunlight.
Improve your knowledge about science???
Secondly i talked about shrubs, herbs and trees???
It is qouted and hey look im copying now okay:

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day

Now my words uncle!!!

I wrote shrubs trees and herbs because the seed bearing or fruit bearing plants are shrubs, trees and herbs.
Food bearing plants okay!!!! not algae or fungi!!!!!!!!!!!

oh, you can translate biblical hebrew, can you now? so this isn't just another cut-and-paste job, then? if you're going to make long quotes (and here, it seems as if there are two different writing styles, yours and that of whoever you copied) you should at least attribute them, otherwise that's breach of copyright. the actual translation of the word is not "lamps". properly speaking, it is "lights" or "luminaries."

Again that idiotic statements i do not reply foolish statements!!!!
I do not have to justify my self again and again but for your reasoning Arabic and Hebrew are sister languages, Quran is in Arabic and if you know arabic you get much to know about Hebrew, secondly I may be very young but i do my research we Muslims are not the one to sit idly and listens only songs and music and films and do not get knowledge about their books or other books our parents work much much harder on our religious studies,
About your point i would have to say that you may have created your own Hebrew dictionary, If you do not know then do not answer.


actually, the text indicates nothing of the sort - in fact, it describes the difference between the two types of light, whether the lights are self-generated or reflected - *moonlight* is the reflected light of the sun, described as "the smaller light", to denote its reflected nature, whereas the sun is described as "the greater light". this shouldn't exactly stretch the text beyond credibility.

consequently this conclusion:

appears frankly idiotic. there are no objections that you have raised that require the six days of Creation to last 24 hours. wherever you're getting this stuff, i suggest you ask for your money back, because you're being conned.

I do not again reply idiotic statements i wrote above that i would be having brake but what can i say is that i could not stop my self by replying my uncle of who do not have much knowledge about science and about his own book, lastly if you have any unscientific points in Quran tell me???
You just try to claim the debate by saying that i copy i do my homework before replying uncle!!!!

I would have loved to reply your all idiotic posts but i do not have much time, as i told, May Allah give you right path to seek.

Salam

 

[bananabrain]

Im talking about the way it is used i say the word is the same but the way it is used?

it *is* used the same way, because the terminology used is the same!

God do not know any science? Can you prove anything which is unscientific in Quran?

i didn't say G!D doesn't Know any science. i said the Torah isn't a book about science. (nor, in my opinion, is the Qur'an) that doesn't mean the Torah can't express opinions on matters which science also expresses opinions on. what i am saying, however, is that the Torah does *not* in fact say what you are saying it says. i can't be any clearer than that. and i am not here to say whether the Qur'an is scientific or not. i am here to address your attempt to disprove the Torah by misrepresenting what it says.

It is your own interpretations okay not God's words which you claim.

not at all. firstly, many great scholars have already held this opinion. secondly, as far as i am concerned, the Torah *is* "G!D's Word", dictated to moses (musa) but that doesn't mean it's always obvious what the Torah means, any more than it's obvious what the Qur'an means - and if you say it is obvious, then i'd have to point out that a large number of Qur'an scholars disagree with you. if you are intending to refer to the argument that the Qur'an is "G!D's actual Speech", then i'd have to reply that this is your *opinion*, rather than an actual fact.

Big Bang Theory

really? first i've heard of it. as i understand it, everything was part of everything, which isn't a million miles away from what the Torah understands in any case, even if it isn't said explicitly. remember, G!D *divides* stuff initially. it's not at all incompatible with the big bang.

Firstly Lichens: are symbiotic associations of a fungus (the mycobiont) with a photosynthetic partner (the photobiont also known as the phycobiont) that can produce food for the lichen from sunlight.
Improve your knowledge about science???

hehe, yes. ok, so lichens use photosynthesis, but my point is that there are plenty of plants that don't, like those that grow in the deep ocean and in caves.

Secondly i talked about shrubs, herbs and trees???

i'm interested in what the *Torah* is talking about. thanks for giving the context. the Torah is talking about the ability of the vegetation to reproduce, not how it gets nourishment. you will notice that it does the same thing with the fishes and swarming things.

the essential point here is that the Torah is not concerned with photosynthesis or describing how plants "eat" or otherwise. it's concerned with how things do the whole "fruitful and multiply" thing. so actually, your question's a non-sequitur in the context of the passage.

I do not have to justify my self again and again but for your reasoning Arabic and Hebrew are sister languages, Quran is in Arabic and if you know arabic you get much to know about Hebrew,

i know this perfectly well. my point is not about my own knowledge or otherwise, but the fact that all our religious scholars (whose knowledge is much greater than mine - and yours) have addressed this point and *none* of them have suggested the conclusion that you have apparently selected from some the-Qur'an-is-better-than-the-Torah polemic article which is ignorant about how the Torah works.

i could not stop my self by replying my uncle of who do not have much knowledge about science and about his own book

er..... eh? are you talking about me? i certainly know more about Torah than you, but i'm not expressing opinions about science, only about Torah.

I would have loved to reply your all idiotic posts but i do not have much time, as i told, May Allah give you right path to seek.

ok, then i'll assume you understood how your points don't actually make sense and i'll thank you, because Allah has indeed given me the right path to seek and it is the path of Torah.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Amica]

Hello Falafel,

I am a Muslim. My faith teaches me: to believe in the Holy Bible as the Book revealed from God Allmighty, Jesus as one of the most important prophets pbuh and as the Messiah promised to Israel, that Judaism and Christianity are the earlier stages of the Islamic revelation.

Even though from my own personal experience, my people were killed and tortured "in the name of Jesus Christ" I do not hate Christianity. I must admit that for a big part of my young life I was ignorant of my islamic faith's teachings about Christianity, but now being a newborn Muslim, I have learned a lot.

I only get confused about the trinity and the divinity of Jesus. The reason is because I consider God (Allah--'God' in Arabic language) All Mighty, All Knowing beyond anythign we can comprehend, yet always present around everything that He created. For this reason, I have a hard time understanding the 3 in 1 and cannot 'shrink down' my understanding of God Allmighty into a human being.

 

[Cooper]

This is where our faiths clash. There has always been a path to eternity with G-d, it is through belief in Him and following His will. He sends messengers to us, to tell us His message but to turn one of those messengers into a god is just blasphemy according to my faith. It separates G-d into parts and He is One, not a group of entities.

Salaam

I so agree with you. G-d is ONE, not 2 or 3 or many.




Shalom

 

[Hado]

dear Falafel vbmenu_register("postmenu_130708", true);
What I believe that even word JESUS is changed amoung Time its was Isa His real true name you can search about that by yourself in any Aramic dictionary
when you realise that even name of ISA change to Jesus you should also realise that Bible change amoung a time it`s historical fact (not matter of proving a point)
we Syrian people all of us were strong Christians
We actually who started missions all over the world
but when Islam comes to fix what pagan change in the Bible we just accept Islam CZ we understand that God Send Jesus to the lost sheep of Israel and He will send some one to people who lost their Scripture with new MSG that is Islam ..
please read history of Bible in order to understand the full picture
God bless you

Hado~

 

[islamis4u]

i didn't say G!D doesn't Know any science. i said the Torah isn't a book about science. (nor, in my opinion, is the Qur'an) that doesn't mean the Torah can't express opinions on matters which science also expresses opinions on. what i am saying, however, is that the Torah does *not* in fact say what you are saying it says. i can't be any clearer than that. and i am not here to say whether the Qur'an is scientific or not. i am here to address your attempt to disprove the Torah by misrepresenting what it says.

I can't be also not more clearer then this look im not saying that torah is a book of science but the verses which are their in torah should be compatible with the science. Im not misrepresenting what it says...

not at all. firstly, many great scholars have already held this opinion. secondly, as far as i am concerned, the Torah *is* "G!D's Word", dictated to moses (musa) but that doesn't mean it's always obvious what the Torah means, any more than it's obvious what the Qur'an means - and if you say it is obvious, then i'd have to point out that a large number of Qur'an scholars disagree with you. if you are intending to refer to the argument that the Qur'an is "G!D's actual Speech", then i'd have to reply that this is your *opinion*, rather than an actual fact.

Which Qura'n scholars say that Qura'n is not "GOD'S actual speech?

hehe, yes. ok, so lichens use photosynthesis, but my point is that there are plenty of plants that don't, like those that grow in the deep ocean and in caves.

I can't be much clearer then this

i'm interested in what the *Torah* is talking about. thanks for giving the context. the Torah is talking about the ability of the vegetation to reproduce, not how it gets nourishment. you will notice that it does the same thing with the fishes and swarming things

Its clearly saying that in simple english that seed bearing plants i know its not talking about photosynthesis so please i think your english is worst then mine....

the essential point here is that the Torah is not concerned with photosynthesis or describing how plants "eat" or otherwise. it's concerned with how things do the whole "fruitful and multiply" thing. so actually, your question's a non-sequitur in the context of the passage.

Im also not saying that im saying about the plants created without light okay.

i know this perfectly well. my point is not about my own knowledge or otherwise, but the fact that all our religious scholars (whose knowledge is much greater than mine - and yours) have addressed this point and *none* of them have suggested the conclusion that you have apparently selected from some the-Qur'an-is-better-than-the-Torah polemic article which is ignorant about how the Torah works.

again allegations and not replying and running out of the points, you have only one answer 'you don't know torah works' Seconldy i dun't agree with your scholar if without logical answer i can't

er..... eh? are you talking about me? i certainly know more about Torah than you, but i'm not expressing opinions about science, only about Torah.

You know more about torah in your own way, okay

ok, then i'll assume you understood how your points don't actually make sense and i'll thank you, because Allah has indeed given me the right path to seek and it is the path of Torah.

You havn't really many points taking discussion some where else and doing so you know my weak point is ma english you know you just make things complex

 

[heavensblade23]

when you realise that even name of ISA change to Jesus

It's just a different translation of the same name. Messianic Jews call him by the hebrew form of his name, Yeshua.

 

[heavensblade23]

As for the Quran, it's no more scientifically accurate than any other Holy Book. If there were some kind of eerily prophetic scientific knowledge contained within, we'd have heard about it by now. None of the examples I've seen trotted forward were very impressive.

As for the Quran remaining 'uncorrupted':
Christians could make a similar argument that the Bible has been preserved over time through the will of God. There are no major disagreements between current published versions of the Bible and the earliest existing copies, other than the difficulties presented by translation. Some allowance has to be made for figures of speech and words that mean different things in different contexts. There are 100% literal translations, as well as Bibles in the original Koine Greek, if you don't trust English translations.

We don't have originals, but we lack originals for almost any book that dates to antiquity. The best we can do is compare them to the earliest copies we DO still have.

As for the Torah, Jewish scribes had to be absolutely meticulous in making copies. If there was so much as one jot made in error, the entire thing was destroyed. It's impossible to say what the first copies may have said, but after a certain point a lot of attention was paid to making 100% exact copies.

 

[heavensblade23]

I consider that something of a fine distinction, personally, looking at it from neither perspective. Either view would account him blessed of God.

We believe in the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) but not in the Bible, as it has been changed so many times (one example is the scripture states that he was a 'unique' son but the modern bible translates this as 'begotten' - there is a big difference).

The earliest primary source that speaks of Jesus would be the Bible. I'm not sure I would account something written 650 years later as being a more accurate account, speaking on a historical basis.

There are always difficulties translating from one language to another. Sometimes one Greek word means many things depending on context.

We believe that you are blasphemous by suggesting anything but G-d is a deity.

It's more intricate than that for Christians, because they hold this mysterious belief that God is one and three at the same time. It doesn't make much sense to me.

My personal view is that people want something tangible regarding faith, so over time he was deified by the Church in order to supply something tangible for people to feel connected to. It was also a great use of propaganda by the Church and effectively controlled the people.

All religions are inevitably used to control the people.

Quite honestly I worry for Christians, they believe in G-d, many follow the faith well but I have no idea what you will say on the Day of Judgement when asked why you didn't follow the teaching of all the Prophets (pbuh), inlcuding Jesus (pbuh) that there is only One G-d and only He is worthy of worship.

Christians have equivalent worries about Muslims.

Jews don't worry about it too much since non-Jews only have to follow a few simple laws anyway.

G-d did not abdicate and hand His domain over to a human.

It's not that he abdicated...it goes back to the 'mystery' of the trinity.

 

[17th Angel]

Jews don't worry about it too much since non-Jews only have to follow a few simple laws anyway.

You know quite abit about Judaism then?

 

[heavensblade23]

You know quite abit about Judaism then?

Every Jew I've ever discussed religion with online has said gentiles are only responsible for following the noahide laws. There are only like nine or ten of them. Conversion is generally discouraged as well because "It's better to be a righteous gentile than a bad Jew."

 

[17th Angel]

Every Jew I've ever discussed religion with online has said gentiles are only responsible for following the noahide laws. There are only like nine or ten of them. Conversion is generally discouraged as well because "It's better to be a righteous gentile than a bad Jew."

I think I am misunderstanding something here... People of Judaism have only to follow the laws of Noah??? lol.... Can you clear that up for me? Because that isn't what I understand of Judaism... Not in the slightest... (there are seven laws by the way...)

-edit-
Oh wait, I think I see... You're not saying as a whole that is -the only laws- but those are the only laws of prophets they abide by? What about *takes a deep breath* Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Isaac, Joshua, David, Nathan, Iddo, Solomon, Pinchas, Eli, Samuel, Gad, Elkanah.... Errrr.... Oh! Micah, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah... Habakkuk... Malachi, haggai, Zechariah.. There is sure to be many more... lol... These are prophets of Judaism... To my understanding... Pretty much the majority of the Prophets were Jews lol, except a small few here and there... They all brought to a degree some laws... So I would of thought In Judaism they would follow these laws.