Stumped again.

  • Thread starter Thread starter FireFromHeaven
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I find it amusing that in this exchange, the Christian apologist starts off with this question:

“What did Satan do to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden? He made Adam and Eve doubt God’s word…”

Our Islamic friend then proceeds to try to get us Christians to doubt God’s word. :rolleyes:

Certainly, I’m not saying that the Islamic apologist is Satan, only that we Christians should take care to fill our minds with Christian thought and not the thoughts of those that would pull us away from the Cross.
 
The problem with this kind of reply is that the Muslims will then ask us to prove the bible is God’s word. How do we do that? Also do you know of any ancient Jewish scholars and their view of Isaiah? If its messianic that would disprove the Muslims.
 
I find it amusing that in this exchange, the Christian apologist starts off with this question:

“What did Satan do to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden? He made Adam and Eve doubt God’s word…”

Our Islamic friend then proceeds to try to get us Christians to doubt God’s word. :rolleyes:

Certainly, I’m not saying that the Islamic apologist is Satan, only that we Christians should take care to fill our minds with Christian thought and not the thoughts of those that would pull us away from the Cross.
Amen. 👍
 
What was the main point(s) that confused you? The entire article is a fallacy and I don’t have time to go through every point right now but maybe you can elaborate on what part is bothering you the most.
 
The main problem for me was the Muslims second reply, especially when he tries to prove the bible is corrupt. I have no idea what to say to that. Also in what ways is it a logical fallacy?
 
I decided to dive into this after all:
First, the Quran was written 300 and not 600 years after the Bible.
Actually, the last book to be written can only be arguably dated by skeptics to the year 90-95 and that would be John’s Revelation. It can be argued that the date of the Gospels came prior to 70ad and we know that Paul’s letter’s were written between 50-65AD. Muhammad died around the age 632AD putting the entire written Qur’an as they have it now about 600 years after the written New Testament. The Bible was compiled around 325, but written about 250 years before it was compiled. Even Muhammad’s companions said that no one has the entire Qur’an and competing Qur’ans were burned by Muhammad’s followers in order to decide which Qur’an fits best.

Ibn Umar al-khattab states in suyuti’itqan part 3 page 72: “Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Qur’an for how does he know that is all? Much of the Qur’an has been lost, thus let him say, 'I have acquired of it what is availible”

Sahih al-muslim 2286: "We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (surah) bara’at. I have however forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: ‘if there are two valleys full of riches, for the son of adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of adam but dust,’ and we used to recite a surah which resembled one of the surah’s of musabbihat, and I have forgotten it.

Sunan ibn Majah 1944 "It was narrated that Aishah said, “The verse of stoning and breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed and the paper was put under my pillow. When the messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came and ate it.”

Ibn abi daud, kitab al-masahif: “Umar was once looking for the text of a specific verse in the qur’an he vaguely remembered. To his deep sorrow, he discovered that the only person who had any record of the verse had been killed in the battle of yamama and the verse was consequently lost.”

Again, after this there were many Qur’ans, but they were burned and only one copy remained, and it’s the one that you have today. Approximately (but not exactly) 600 years after the writing of the NT.

More coming…
 
The problem with this kind of reply is that the Muslims will then ask us to prove the bible is God’s word. How do we do that? Also do you know of any ancient Jewish scholars and their view of Isaiah? If its messianic that would disprove the Muslims.
We are not to ask the Muslims to prove the Quran is the Word of God. 🤷 🙂
 
The main problem for me was the Muslims second reply, especially when he tries to prove the bible is corrupt. I have no idea what to say to that. Also in what ways is it a logical fallacy?
Let’s pretend for a moment that the Muslim contention that the Bible is not only corrupt, but substantially corrupt.

For us Christians, it would not matter one bit - for we don’t worship the Bible, nor do we receive forgiveness and life through it.

Now… my Church believes that the Bible is inerrant, and is meant to be believed. We even believe in the literal reading of Genesis.

But even if proven otherwise, it would not shake my faith in what I receive at the baptism font or at the altar rail.

Our lives of faith is not based on perfection of our duplication of the Word of God, but the Word made flesh Himself in Christ Jesus who causes us to die to sin and be born in the waters of Baptism who we confess to. And who we receive in the Eucharist.

Our hope and faith is not in the Bible, but in Him.
 
Let’s pretend for a moment that the Muslim contention that the Bible is not only corrupt, but substantially corrupt.

For us Christians, it would not matter one bit - for we don’t worship the Bible, nor do we receive forgiveness and life through it.

Now… my Church believes that the Bible is inerrant, and is meant to be believed. We even believe in the literal reading of Genesis.

But even if proven otherwise, it would not shake my faith in what I receive at the baptism font or at the altar rail.

Our lives of faith is not based on perfection of our duplication of the Word of God, but the Word made flesh Himself in Christ Jesus who causes us to die to sin and be born in the waters of Baptism who we confess to. And who we receive in the Eucharist.

Our hope and faith is not in the Bible, but in Him.
What evidence do you have that Christ is who He says He is, other than the Bible?
 
Fifth, Isaiah. Isaiah 53 is not prophesying about the Messiah. Isaiah 52 is but not 53. The Jews only have 16 messianic prophesy in the entire OT.
Here’s where things are very tricky. Isaiah 53 was most likely accepted as a Messianic Prophecy but is now rejected among Jews. The problem with Isaiah 53 is it so obviously points to Jesus, so now Jews must reject it. The same goes for Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”

The Jews say that Almah can and should be translated as young woman, however based on Matthew’s translation of the Septuagint the word is translated to, “virgin.” A Christian apologist can argue that a young woman having a son and naming him “God with us” is not really a big deal. A virgin giving birth however is a very big deal. That’s why the Bible says, “The Lord will give you a sign.” And clearly states the boys name will be, “God with us.” IE: Jesus. My point here is that Jews will in no way accept the translation, “virgin” 2000 years after Christ’s birth, because it would be an argument in favor of Christianity.

But back to Isaiah 53 on this point. Can I prove that Isaiah 53 was probably a Messianic Prophecy? Well, the Muslim fellow said it himself that, “Isaiah 52 was, but 53 isn’t.” Here we have a slight problem. How does one know when Isaiah 52 ends and 53 begins? The books were put into chapters (and verses) much later. Let’s see how Isaiah 52 ends:

13 See, my servant will act wisely;
he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.
14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him
his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being
and his form marred beyond human likeness
15 so he will sprinkle many nations,
and kings will shut their mouths because of him.
For what they were not told, they will see,
and what they have not heard, they will understand.

Immediately the Muslim’s claim falls flat, as they don’t believe Jesus could have possibly been marred beyond human likeness or His appearance disfigured beyond that of any human being. Let’s go back to Isaiah 53 and watch how well 52 flows into it:

Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

Notice how well 52 flows into 53?

More coming…
 
What evidence do you have that Christ is who He says He is, other than the Bible?
The Church provides the Gospel for my logical mind. God has been kind enough to answer my prayers for faith.



I’m certainly not saying that the Bible isn’t inerrant - only that when confronted by those that seek to tear down our faith. it could be wise to shrug them off, move on, and continue in prayer rather than confront their accusations.
 
Isaiah 53:3 says that “Jesus” is despised by all men. In Luke 10:1, Jesus has at least 70 followers, and in other verses we’re told that he fed and healed thousands (John 6:9-11, Luke 17:11-19 and other verses).
Blatant lie. It does not say He was despised by “all men.” Let’s look closer at the Hebrew:
נִבְזֶה֙ וַחֲדַ֣ל אִישִׁ֔ים אִ֥ישׁמַכְאֹב֖וֹתוִיד֣וּעַ חֹ֑לִי וּכְמַסְתֵּ֤ר פָּנִים֙ מִמֶּ֔נּוּ נִבְזֶ֖ה וְלֹ֥א חֲשַׁבְנֻֽהוּ׃

Translated: "Was despised and forsaken of men A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief hide their face at was despised did not esteem. biblehub.com/text/isaiah/53-3.htm

I have no idea what translation has the word “all” in it, but this is a massive error.
In Isaiah 53:5 it says he was wounded for our transgressions. Now right away one might assume this is the death of Jesus. However it says he was WOUNDED not killed. But let us go with killed for your arguments sake. This is not what this verse is saying. It is saying that they made a mistake so he is paying for it. They plotted or accused against him. This is exactly what happened. And again, the verse says wounded, which further proves that Christ was never killed.
So wounded means He was not killed? This is a stretch, and one must ignore all of Isaiah 53 to pull that off.

Verse 8 says he was “cut off from the land of the living”,
Verse 9 speaks of his grave and his death
Verse 10 speaks about giving his soul as an asham (guilt offering)
Verse 12 says he bore his soul unto death

There are further rebuttles here: answering-islam.org/authors/nakdimon/rebuttals/ac/isaiah53_mistranslated.html

Don’t let this shake you, I’m no professional apologist but what he was writing only made me frustrated that it was put out there and can hurt Christian’s faith. Or it can intentionally mislead Muslims to believe these things. God bless!
 
Let’s pretend for a moment that the Muslim contention that the Bible is not only corrupt, but substantially corrupt.

For us Christians, it would not matter one bit - for we don’t worship the Bible, nor do we receive forgiveness and life through it.

Now… my Church believes that the Bible is inerrant, and is meant to be believed. We even believe in the literal reading of Genesis.

But even if proven otherwise, it would not shake my faith in what I receive at the baptism font or at the altar rail.

Our lives of faith is not based on perfection of our duplication of the Word of God, but the Word made flesh Himself in Christ Jesus who causes us to die to sin and be born in the waters of Baptism who we confess to. And who we receive in the Eucharist.

Our hope and faith is not in the Bible, but in Him.
As a fellow Christian I agree with you. However to a Muslim this looks like a copout. Does anyone know how to refute the examples in his article?
 
As a fellow Christian I agree with you. However to a Muslim this looks like a copout. Does anyone know how to refute the examples in his article?
Did you check the link I gave you? The author gives a paragraph by paragraph explanation to what the Muslim fellow posted.
 
Did you check the link I gave you? The author gives a paragraph by paragraph explanation to what the Muslim fellow posted.
The answering Islam one? I dot understand how it refutes that article. It seems to be about another debate.
 
Or it can intentionally mislead Muslims to believe these things. God bless!
Dronald I love your fighting spirit! 😃

Note the bolded part…it is common sense. I think websites like AC are there to confuse even Muslims. 😛

MJ
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top