E
exoflare
Guest
Ugh… Not the subjective bandwagon arguments again… :banghead:
- Status
I
inJESUS
Guest
I
inJESUS
Guest
F
Faith101
Guest
F
Faith101
Guest
sorry
i just meant that while this is her opinion, there is another that disagrees with her.
F
Faith101
Guest
Yes it was intentional. Your main argument here is how Moses’ teachings are very different from Mohamed’s…from which you conclude that they couldnt have come from the same God. You believe this came from a Prophet of God, and i mentioned why i’m reluctant to believe it.
Obviously if he divorced her 3 times, something is not right. The marriage isnt exactly the most stable…its too much for a woman to have to go through all that again…its better for her to accept a proposal from another man in hopes of finding a more stable marriage.
And also, all the things i mentioned before.
this is your argument the way I see it “i have here in my book that God said this, and in your book your God said that…so your God is not the God of Moses”
perhaps it was something abrogated, like remember when people werent allowed to eat pork? Or perhaps, from my persepctive, it was only for HIS people. Or perhaps, he never said it all. I dont know…and it doesnt matter to me, i’m not the one who has to follow that ruling.
I
inJESUS
Guest
I
inJESUS
Guest
Faith101 said:
i really don’t know how it works with Orthodox or Protestants…the link i gave is to Catholic…
maybe you can look for the Bible corruption thread and explain why?
i’d be interested.
b/c i belive Moses was sent to a specific group of people only…and therefore I am not obligated to follow the specific laws made for them. Moses allowed it “for the harshness of your hearts” said Jesus “BUT IT WAS NOT INITIALLY THIS”…so Moses had to cope with his sinful people but Jesus gave THE INITIAL wish of God. You don’t believe both?
yes yes i understand this…if you read the link, in Christianity as well there are cases where divorce is necessary…but the idea of divorce is different coz when in islam it is for any reason in the Bible it is for very strict reasons because originally divorcce is not allowed.
sure but it’s not my own idea but what God said for 3000 years.
hehe you misused the meaning of the analogy…and yes in that case divorce is allowed
how can it be sacred when 4 women are allowed and what your right hand possesses and when divorce is easy?
…
most of them were NOT polygamous, including Moses and Abraham…Solomon for example was punished for polygamy. The OT is agaisnt polygamy and nearly all the prophets had 1 wife.
got to go now
F
Faith101
Guest
And i appreciate the explanation. …but it still doesnt change anything. Just because Allah in the Quran has made permissible divorce, doesnt mean that He is not the God of Moses.
I dont understand what it contradicts. If you mean the Bible…then why focus on such a little topic…the very essence of Islam, tawheed, contradicts the Bible.
please explain
Again, thats your belief. Allah has made polygamy permissible, both now and in the past. You believe that those righteous slaves of Allah disobeyed Him while carrying His message? Thats hard to believe.
Allah does not contradict Himself. Do some of the teachings of Islam contradict that of Christianity…then yeah, or else they’d be the same religion. But thats not God’s fault, that is the fault with the people who neglected to keep the purity of the message of the messenger.
F
Faith101
Guest
L
LilyM
Guest
No way - our OT states that Sarah, mother of Isaac, was Abraham’s only wife - Ishamel was the son of her maid Hagar, definitely adulterous (although Sarah approved of the liaison, because she thought she and Abraham were never going to have children and wanted him to have a child with Hagar instead).
F
Faith101
Guest
wow.
You believe Abraham, the one who was willing to kill his son out of obedience to God, committed one of the gretest sins: adultery?
Come on people, say something believable.
L
LilyM
Guest
I don’t think it’s just us - I’m pretty sure the Jews believe Abraham was only married to Sarah as well, and not to Ishmael’s mother. So it was technically adultery - but it wasn’t unheard of - Jacob also bore children to his wives’ maids as well as to them - seems that childless women considered children born to their maids to be their own.
Nothing incompatible with being sinful (or committing sins) and a great person - King David actually had a woman’s husband killed so that he could take her as his wife. THAT is a sin in anyone’s language - and the prophet Nathan gave him a good talking to as a result. David repented and obviously was forgiven, but funnily enough kept her as his wife
See this is where our idea of original sin comes in - even the greatest of humans has the desire and the capacity to sin. Jesus and Mary are the only exceptions that we know of because Jesus being God incarnate was without sin and Mary in order to be fit to be the mother of God was created without it.
F
freedomm
Guest
Dear LilyM:
You are again wrong as to Prophet Abraham and Ishamel issue because the Bible has clear contradiction in this reagrd.
Who was the son whom the Prophet Abraham (pbuh) had got ready to offer as a sacrifice, and who had willingly offered himself to be slaughtered as a sacrifice?
Lets see first Jewish Bible.
You are again wrong as to Prophet Abraham and Ishamel issue because the Bible has clear contradiction in this reagrd.
Who was the son whom the Prophet Abraham (pbuh) had got ready to offer as a sacrifice, and who had willingly offered himself to be slaughtered as a sacrifice?
Lets see first Jewish Bible.
And it came to pass after these things, that G-d did prove Abraham, and said unto him: ‘Abraham’; and he said: ‘Here am I.’ And He said: ‘Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.’ (Gen. 22: 1-2).
breslov.com/bible/Genesis22.htm#1
In this statement, on the one hand, it is being said that God had asked for the offering of the Prophet Isaac (PBUH), and on the other, that he was Prophet Abraham’s (PBUH) only son, whereas the Bible itself, at other places, conclusively states that the Prophet Isaac was not the only son of the Prophet Abraham (PBUH).
Now consider the following statements of the Bible:
“Now Sarai, Abram’s wife bore him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abraham, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abraham hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai Abraham’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abraham had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived.” (Gen .16: 1-4)
“And the angel of the Lord said unto her [Hagar], Behold thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael.” (16: 11)
“And Abraham was fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abraham.” (16: 16).
"And God said unto Abraham, `As for Sarai thy wife, … I will bless her and give thee a son also of her: . . . . . and thou shalt call his name Isaac . . … . . which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year And Abraham took Ishmael his son and …every male among the men of Abraham’s house; and… circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him. And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. " (Gen. 17: 15-25).
“**And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him.” ** (Gen. 21: 5).
This brings out the contradictions of the Bible. It is evident that for 14 years the Prophet Ishmael (PBUH) was the only son of the Prophet Abraham (PBUH).
Now if the offering had been asked of the only son, it was not of Isaac (PBUH) but of Ishmael (PBUH), for he alone was the only son; and if the offering of Isaac (PBUH) had been asked, it would be wrong to say that the offering of the only son had been asked.
breslov.com/bible/Genesis22.htm#1
In this statement, on the one hand, it is being said that God had asked for the offering of the Prophet Isaac (PBUH), and on the other, that he was Prophet Abraham’s (PBUH) only son, whereas the Bible itself, at other places, conclusively states that the Prophet Isaac was not the only son of the Prophet Abraham (PBUH).
Now consider the following statements of the Bible:
“Now Sarai, Abram’s wife bore him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abraham, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abraham hearkened to the voice of Sarai. And Sarai Abraham’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abraham had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived.” (Gen .16: 1-4)
“And the angel of the Lord said unto her [Hagar], Behold thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael.” (16: 11)
“And Abraham was fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abraham.” (16: 16).
"And God said unto Abraham, `As for Sarai thy wife, … I will bless her and give thee a son also of her: . . . . . and thou shalt call his name Isaac . . … . . which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year And Abraham took Ishmael his son and …every male among the men of Abraham’s house; and… circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him. And Abraham was ninety years old and nine, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old, when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin. " (Gen. 17: 15-25).
“**And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him.” ** (Gen. 21: 5).
This brings out the contradictions of the Bible. It is evident that for 14 years the Prophet Ishmael (PBUH) was the only son of the Prophet Abraham (PBUH).
Now if the offering had been asked of the only son, it was not of Isaac (PBUH) but of Ishmael (PBUH), for he alone was the only son; and if the offering of Isaac (PBUH) had been asked, it would be wrong to say that the offering of the only son had been asked.
F
freedomm
Guest
Dear LilyM:Nothing incompatible with being sinful (or committing sins) and a great person - King David actually had a woman’s husband killed so that he could take her as his wife. THAT is a sin in anyone’s language - and the prophet Nathan gave him a good talking to as a result. David repented and obviously was forgiven, but funnily enough kept her as his wife
See this is where our idea of original sin comes in .
The fact of the matter is not all stories mentioned in your Bible are true because your Bible per se is not the Word of God. It contains some portions of previous revelations of God. But most certainly many stories are false thus it is wrong to blame any Prophet of God with your Biblical corrupted stories and then try to justify the so-called idea of “original sin”.
This ‘by hook or by crook’ method generates LIMBO ideas/controversies. Either the Prophets of God were wrong thus they were not choosen by God or your Biblical stories are tampered with and altered thus your Bible per se is not the Word of God. Your catholic encyclopedia did admit this fact in these words even about the New Testament, let alone Old Testament:
IV. TRANSMISSION OF THE TEXT [of NEW TESTAMENT]:
No book of ancient times has come down to us exactly as it left the hands of its author–all have been in some way altered. The material conditions under which a book was spread before the invention of printing (1440), the little care of the copyists, correctors, and glossators for the text, so different from the desire of accuracy exhibited to-day, explain sufficiently the divergences we find between various manuscripts of the same work. To these causes may be added, in regard to the Scriptures, exegetical difficulties and dogmatical controversies.
But by looking carefully the internal evidence, critically, it is safe to say that due to the clear evident contradictions, inconsistencies and improbabilities and scientific errors in your Bibles, it is your Biblical narrations about the Prophets of God, are wrong and not the sinless charecters and clean lives of these Holy men of God.
Thus it makes more sense to charge the unknown authors of your Bibles’ books for corruption than to believe in ridiculous nonsense statements about the Prophets of God.
Now listen what St.Augustine is replying in his letter # 82 to St. Jerome’s letter/position:
But you [St. Jerome] will say **it is better to believe ** that the Apostle Paul wrote what was not true, than to believe that the Apostle Peter did what was not right.
On this principle, we must say (which far be it from us to say), that it is better to believe that the gospel history is false, than to believe that Christ was denied by Peter; and better to charge the book of Kings [second book of Samuel] with false statements, than believe that so great a prophet, and one so signally chosen by the Lord God as David was, committed adultery in lusting after and taking away the wife of another and committed such detestable homicide in procuring the death of her husband.s Better far that I should read with certainty and persuasion of its truth the Holy Scripture, placed on the highest (even the heavenly) pinnacle of authority, and should, without questioning the trustworthiness of its statements, learn from it that men have been either cornmended, or corrected, or condemned, than that, through fear of believing that by men, who, though of most praiseworthy excellence, were no more than men, actions deserving rebuke might sometimes be done, I should admit suspicions affecting the trustworthiness of the whole “oracles of God.”
No book of ancient times has come down to us exactly as it left the hands of its author–all have been in some way altered. The material conditions under which a book was spread before the invention of printing (1440), the little care of the copyists, correctors, and glossators for the text, so different from the desire of accuracy exhibited to-day, explain sufficiently the divergences we find between various manuscripts of the same work. To these causes may be added, in regard to the Scriptures, exegetical difficulties and dogmatical controversies.
But by looking carefully the internal evidence, critically, it is safe to say that due to the clear evident contradictions, inconsistencies and improbabilities and scientific errors in your Bibles, it is your Biblical narrations about the Prophets of God, are wrong and not the sinless charecters and clean lives of these Holy men of God.
Thus it makes more sense to charge the unknown authors of your Bibles’ books for corruption than to believe in ridiculous nonsense statements about the Prophets of God.
Now listen what St.Augustine is replying in his letter # 82 to St. Jerome’s letter/position:
But you [St. Jerome] will say **it is better to believe ** that the Apostle Paul wrote what was not true, than to believe that the Apostle Peter did what was not right.
On this principle, we must say (which far be it from us to say), that it is better to believe that the gospel history is false, than to believe that Christ was denied by Peter; and better to charge the book of Kings [second book of Samuel] with false statements, than believe that so great a prophet, and one so signally chosen by the Lord God as David was, committed adultery in lusting after and taking away the wife of another and committed such detestable homicide in procuring the death of her husband.s Better far that I should read with certainty and persuasion of its truth the Holy Scripture, placed on the highest (even the heavenly) pinnacle of authority, and should, without questioning the trustworthiness of its statements, learn from it that men have been either cornmended, or corrected, or condemned, than that, through fear of believing that by men, who, though of most praiseworthy excellence, were no more than men, actions deserving rebuke might sometimes be done, I should admit suspicions affecting the trustworthiness of the whole “oracles of God.”
L
LilyM
Guest
Actually the relative ages of Abraham Ishmael and Isaac aren’t clear at all - there is mathematical inconsistency all round in this story.
Assuming for the sake of argument that the basics of the story are true and that Ishamel was in his teens anyway when Isaac was born, these passages could only possibly make sense in one of two ways. The first would be if Ishmael was indeed legitimate, but died before Isaac was sacrificed - in which case he would have had to die quite young.
The other is if Hagar was not legally Abraham’s wife, and therefore Ishmael was not Abraham’s legitimate son born in wedlock. In which case Isaac being the ‘only son’ would mean ‘only legitimate son’. This is much more likely. Certainly after Ishmael is conceived Abraham has nothing more to do with Hagar. When Sarah complains about her Abraham says ‘Behold, thy maid is in thy hand, do to her as it pleaseth thee’ (Genesis 16:6).
If he was legally married to Hagar and she was indeed the mother of his longed-for first legitimate son (since Isaac hadn’t been born yet) then she surely wouldn’t be his wife’s property. Abraham allows Sarah to mistreat her and drive her away. And again, after Hagar returns and both Ishmael and Isaac are born, Hagar and Ishmael are driven away at Sarah’s request. Again, why would Abraham do this unless Hagar was not his wife and Ishmael was not legitimate?
Interesting puzzle for the Biblical scholars. I don’t claim to be one of course. I have a feeling that the phrase ‘to wife’ simply means ‘to sleep with’, since I doubt that Sarah would have wanted Abraham to marry her maid, or indeed that Abraham would have wanted it either. And in relation to Jacob’s wives and their maids the same phrase ‘to wife’ is used, clearly it doesn’t refer to marriage since the maids’ children are considered to be legally in fact the children of their mistresses.
F
freedomm
Guest
Dear LilyM:
You are talking nonsense.
Now my question is:
Why would Sarai give her maid–Hagar-- to Abraham, TO BE HIS WIFE, in the first place?
**" And Sarai Abraham’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abraham had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived." ** (Gen .16: 3)
[Jewish Bible (JPS 1917) - Bereshit Chapter 16]](Jewish Bible (JPS 1917) - Bereshit Chapter 16])
If this doesn’t satisfy you then consider this:
And Abraham arose up early in the morning, and took bread and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away; and she departed, and strayed in the wilderness of Beer-sheba. And the water in the bottle was spent, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs. And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bow-shot; for she said: ‘Let me not look upon the death of the child.’ And she sat over against him, and lifted up her voice, and wept.
And G-d heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of G-d called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her: 'What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for G-d hath heard the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him fast by thy hand; for I will make him a great nation.’
And G-d opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink. (Genesis 21:14-19)
breslov.com/bible/Genesis21.htm#14 ]
Is it not worth noting here that God not only heard the voice of the lad (Ishmael) but was very Mercifull to his mother (Hagar) and promised her to make his son (Ishamel) a great nation?
Do you think God would promise to make an illegitimate son, a great nation? Have you forgot the Torah’s God’s commandment in the following verses:
Book of Deuteronomy
Chapter 23:1-3
1 An eunuch, whose testicles are broken or cut away, or yard cut off, shall not enter into the church of the Lord.
2 A mamzer, that is to say, one born of a prostitute, shall not enter into the church of the Lord, until the tenth generation.
3 The Ammonite and the Moabite, even after the tenth generation shall not enter into the church of the Lord for ever:
[Douay Rheims Bible; Douay-Rheims Bible, Deuteronomy Chapter 23]
As a sidenote compare these verses in Jewish Bible of 1917:
2 He that is crushed or maimed in his privy parts shall not enter into the assembly of HaShem.
3 A bastard shall not enter into the assembly of HaShem; even to the tenth generation shall none of his enter into the assembly of HaShem.
4 An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of HaShem; even to the tenth generation shall none of them enter into the assembly of HaShem for ever;
Note: Here the first verse is missing.
breslov.com/bible/Deuteronomy23.htm#1 ]
If I assume your theory then are you telling me that God promised to make “illegitimate” progeny of Ishmeal a great nation when same Torah is not even allowing a bastard into the congregation of HaShem upto to the tenth generation?
What a mockery you interpretation/reasoning is producing!!
**" And Sarai Abraham’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abraham had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived." ** (Gen .16: 3)
[Jewish Bible (JPS 1917) - Bereshit Chapter 16]](Jewish Bible (JPS 1917) - Bereshit Chapter 16])
If this doesn’t satisfy you then consider this:
And Abraham arose up early in the morning, and took bread and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away; and she departed, and strayed in the wilderness of Beer-sheba. And the water in the bottle was spent, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs. And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bow-shot; for she said: ‘Let me not look upon the death of the child.’ And she sat over against him, and lifted up her voice, and wept.
And G-d heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of G-d called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her: 'What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for G-d hath heard the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him fast by thy hand; for I will make him a great nation.’
And G-d opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink. (Genesis 21:14-19)
breslov.com/bible/Genesis21.htm#14 ]
Is it not worth noting here that God not only heard the voice of the lad (Ishmael) but was very Mercifull to his mother (Hagar) and promised her to make his son (Ishamel) a great nation?
Do you think God would promise to make an illegitimate son, a great nation? Have you forgot the Torah’s God’s commandment in the following verses:
Book of Deuteronomy
Chapter 23:1-3
1 An eunuch, whose testicles are broken or cut away, or yard cut off, shall not enter into the church of the Lord.
2 A mamzer, that is to say, one born of a prostitute, shall not enter into the church of the Lord, until the tenth generation.
3 The Ammonite and the Moabite, even after the tenth generation shall not enter into the church of the Lord for ever:
[Douay Rheims Bible; Douay-Rheims Bible, Deuteronomy Chapter 23]
As a sidenote compare these verses in Jewish Bible of 1917:
2 He that is crushed or maimed in his privy parts shall not enter into the assembly of HaShem.
3 A bastard shall not enter into the assembly of HaShem; even to the tenth generation shall none of his enter into the assembly of HaShem.
4 An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of HaShem; even to the tenth generation shall none of them enter into the assembly of HaShem for ever;
Note: Here the first verse is missing.
breslov.com/bible/Deuteronomy23.htm#1 ]
If I assume your theory then are you telling me that God promised to make “illegitimate” progeny of Ishmeal a great nation when same Torah is not even allowing a bastard into the congregation of HaShem upto to the tenth generation?
What a mockery you interpretation/reasoning is producing!!
L
LilyM
Guest
How about you give me YOUR alternative explanation then instead of just criticising mine? The answer that makes most sense to me is that (as I said before) Sarah DIDN’T give Hagar to Abraham to be his LEGAL wife at all - rather to be his concubine and bear a child for him. This, as I said, also happened with the wives and wives maids of Jacob/Israel, all of whose children God recognised in spite of some of them being illegitimate.
God loved Abraham dearly - he promised to him, before either Ishmael or Isaac were born, to make Abraham’s descendants ‘as numerous as the stars’. Now Abraham had only the two sons, so God could hardly afford to ignore Ishmael even if he wasn’t legitimate. At the same time he gives Ishmael decidedly second-class status in spite of his being the elder. Ishmael’s descendants may be a great nation but it is Isaac’s and Jacob’s descendants who he rescues from Egypt and gives his 10 Commandments and the fullness of his covenant to. He doesn’t do this for Ishmael’s children, not even those of Esau (Jacob’s twin brother), but Jacob.
How do you explain the fact that Ishmael is almost totally ignored in this way, not even acknowledged by God as Abraham’s son let alone his heir? Doesn’t even live in Abraham’s camp any more after Isaac’s birth? Tell me why would Hagar and Ishmael be driven away from Abraham’s camp if they were a) Abraham’s legitimate wife and first-born legitimate son, and b) favoured above (or even equally to) Sarah and Isaac by God?
Your quotes ironically, by stressing the disfavour God shows for bastards, are evidence that this the most likely reason why Hagar and Ishmael are treated in this way and Ishmael is not given recognition as Abraham’s son.
I freely admitted in my last post that I don’t have any perfect explanation of this problem from your point of view.
F
freedomm
Guest
Dear LilyM:
KJV has already gone through atleast FIVE MAJOR REVISIONS because all previous versions HAD GREAT DEFECTS:
Defects of the King James Version
EXCELLENT BUT DEFECTIVE.
[L'apologie chrétienne dans les jeux vidéos - On les appelle les easter eggs et ils sont partout, même dans les jeux PS4]](L'apologie chrétienne dans les jeux vidéos - On les appelle les easter eggs et ils sont partout, même dans les jeux PS4])
"Yet the King James Version has serious defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of biblical studies and the discovery of many biblical manuscripts more ancient than those on which the King James Version was based made it apparent that these defects were so many as to call for revision. The task was begun, by authority of the Church of England, in 1870…
bibletexts.com/reviews/bibles/nrsv.htm ]
bibletexts.com/reviews/bibles/nrsv.htm ]
Every version of your Bible over a period of time, became outdated as langauges either improved or degraded or almost disappeared or translations had great defects as your Bible Christian scholars (not Muslims) have noticed.
Even your Douay Rheims Bible (English) version is long ago outdated thus your Papacy ordered a new fresh translation to be made in 70’s because the “miraculousness” of Latin Vulgate was not anymore miraculous.
As to the Holy Quran’s revelation language; it’s Arabic original text and it’s langauge is still alive, as it is, since 1400 years. It is the Arabic Text which called the Holy Quran and not the translations.
You don’t even have a gospel of Jesus in his native langauge to see what exact words he used and preached. Translated words in Greek cannot be trusted especially when you don’t even know the precise authors of most books of your New Testament’s books.
Read the following:Catholic Catechism: Lesson 16:
Differences Between Catholic And Protestant Versions
drbo.org/catechism.htm#lesson16 ]
also:
8. What was the result of the general dissatisfaction with these Latin translations?
Differences Between Catholic And Protestant Versions
drbo.org/catechism.htm#lesson16 ]
also:
8. What was the result of the general dissatisfaction with these Latin translations?
Pope Damasus (Pope from 366 to 384) commissioned St. Jerome to make a new and accurate translation.
- How did St Jerome go about this work?
He studied carefully the Hebrew and Greek versions, and from these made his new translation. - By what name is the Latin translation of St. Jerome known?
It is known as the Vulgate Version. Vulgate means common or vulgar in Latin and it was called so because Latin was the common tongue of the Western Roman Empire
F
freedomm
Guest
Dear LilyM:
But you are not reading my posts propely nor even pondering on your own scriptures critically.
As I already qouted these verese earlier:
And Abraham arose up early in the morning, and took bread and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away; and she departed, and strayed in the wilderness of Beer-sheba. And the water in the bottle was spent, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs. And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bow-shot; for she said: ‘Let me not look upon the death of the child.’ And she sat over against him, and lifted up her voice, and wept.
And G-d heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of G-d called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her: 'What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for G-d hath heard the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him fast by thy hand; for I will make him a great nation.’
And G-d opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink. (Genesis 21:14-19)
breslov.com/bible/Genesis21.htm#14 ]
This passage refers to ‘wilderness’ and **‘wilderness of Beersheba’ ** because Beersheba was an uninhabited wasteland. Abraham had to bore seven wells and plant trees in it and hence its name. (Beersheba means ‘seven wells’ ). This leads to the following conclusions:
- Ishmael and her mother Hagar dwelt in Beersheba.
- Abraham also lived here because it was from this place that he left for the sacrifice and then returned, after the sacrifice.
And Sarah died in Kiriatharba–the same is Hebron–in the land of Canaan; and Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her. (Genesis, 23:2)
breslov.com/bible/Genesis23.htm#2 ]
This shows that on the day Prophet Abraham (PBUH) was ready to sacrifice his son, thus he took Ishmael (PBUH) with him who was residing with him in Beersheba and not Isaac (PBUH) who was living with Sarah far away in Canaan.
This is subject to the presumption that Isaac (PBUH) was born by that time, as claimed by the Jews. Otherwise, we believe that Isaac (PBUH) was not even born by that time. Isaac (PBUH) was born after the event of sacrifice.
- Status