M
- Status
I
inJESUS
Guest
Another proof that a human wrote the Quran is the ayas where Allah swears by the stars and the moon and the trees.
M
Montalban
Guest
I know, their god’s saying “Don’t just believe me…”
[74.32] Nay; I swear by the moon,
[74.33] And the night when it departs,
[74.34] And the daybreak when it shines;
Not just the moon…
[70.40] But nay! I swear by the Lord of the Easts and the Wests that We are certainly able
[75.1] Nay! I swear by the day of resurrection.
[75.2] Nay! I swear by the self-accusing soul.
[37.1] I swear by those who draw themselves out in ranks
[51.1] I swear by the wind that scatters far and wide,
[51.7] 1 swear by the heaven full of ways.
[52.1] I swear by the Mountain,
[53.1] I swear by the star when it goes down.
[56.75] But nay! I swear by the falling of stars;
[68.1] Noon. I swear by the pen and what the angels write,
[69.38] But nay! I swear by that which you see,
[75.1] Nay! I swear by the day of resurrection.
[75.2] Nay! I swear by the self-accusing soul.
[77.1] I swear by the emissary winds, sent one after another (for men’s benefit),
[77.5] Then I swear by the angels who bring down the revelation,
[79.1] I swear by the angels who violently pull out the souls of the wicked,
[81.15] But nay! I swear by the stars,
[84.16] But nay! I swear by the sunset redness,
(given that the sun is only ‘red’ by perspective this is an interesting thing for an ‘all-knowing god’ to go by
[85.1] I swear by the mansions of the stars,
[86.1] I swear by the heaven and the comer by night;
[86.11] I swear by the raingiving heavens,
[89.1] I swear by the daybreak,
[90.1] Nay! I swear by this city.
[91.1] I swear by the sun and its brilliance,
[92.1] I swear by the night when it draws a veil,
[93.1] I swear by the early hours of the day,
[95.1] I swear by the fig and the olive,
[100.1] I swear by the runners breathing pantingly,
[103.1] I swear by the time,
(and all the time, so it seems)
The funniest is where he swears by the Koran itself!
[36.2] I swear by the Quran full of wisdom
[38.1] Suad, I swear by the Quran, full of admonition.
[43.2] I swear by the Book that makes things clear:
[44.2] I swear by the Book that makes manifest (the truth).
and of these, this is the best…
[50.1] Qaf. I swear by the glorious Quran (that Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah.)
classic circular reasoning
I
inJESUS
Guest
:bigyikes:
the True God swears by Himself :
When God made the promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, “he swore by himself,” Hebrews 6:13
Human beings swear by someone greater than themselves; for them an oath serves as a guarantee and puts an end to all argument. Hebrews 6:16
By myself I swear, uttering my just decree and my unalterable word: To me every knee shall bend; by me every tongue shall swear, Isaiah 45:23
But if you do not obey these commands,** I swear by myself,** says the LORD: this palace shall become rubble. Jeremiah 22:5
Allah swears by things “humans” use, yet the true God swears only by Himself
I
inJESUS
Guest
“I” and “WE” in the same sentence…they’ll reply “we” of majesty and glorification which is a later human invention…so before this royal we was known, Allah was glorifying himself…mmm
royal we was not known in biblical time:
King Nebuchadnezzar questioned them: "Is it true, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, that you will not serve **my **god, or worship the golden statue that **I **set up?Be ready now to fall down and worship the statue **I **had made Daniel 3:14
"Thus says Cyrus, king of Persia: 'All the kingdoms of the earth the LORD, the God of heaven, has given to me, and he has also charged **me **to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah
“Every one who is acquainted with the rudiments of the Hebrew and Chaldee languages, must know that God, in the holy Writings, very often spoke of Himself in the plural. The passages are numerous, in which, instead of a grammatical agreement between the subject and predicate, we meet with a construction, which some modern grammarians, who possess more of the so-called philosophical than of the real knowledge of the Oriental languages, call a pluralis excellentiae. This helps them out of every apparent difficulty. Such a pluralis excellentiae was, however, a thing unknown to Moses and the prophets. Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, David, and all the other kings, throughout TeNaKh (the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa) speak in the singular, and not as modern kings in the plural. They do not say we, but I, command; as in Gen. xli. 41; Dan. iii. 29; Ezra i. 2, etc.” (Rabbi Tzvi Nassi, Oxford University professor, The Great Mystery, 1970, p6, )
"This first person plural can hardly be a mere editorial or royal plural that refers to the speaker alone, for no such usage is demonstrable anywhere else in biblical Hebrew. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason Archer, p.359, commenting on whether Gen 1:26 is a “plural of majesty”)
royal we was not known in biblical time:
King Nebuchadnezzar questioned them: "Is it true, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, that you will not serve **my **god, or worship the golden statue that **I **set up?Be ready now to fall down and worship the statue **I **had made Daniel 3:14
"Thus says Cyrus, king of Persia: 'All the kingdoms of the earth the LORD, the God of heaven, has given to me, and he has also charged **me **to build him a house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah
“Every one who is acquainted with the rudiments of the Hebrew and Chaldee languages, must know that God, in the holy Writings, very often spoke of Himself in the plural. The passages are numerous, in which, instead of a grammatical agreement between the subject and predicate, we meet with a construction, which some modern grammarians, who possess more of the so-called philosophical than of the real knowledge of the Oriental languages, call a pluralis excellentiae. This helps them out of every apparent difficulty. Such a pluralis excellentiae was, however, a thing unknown to Moses and the prophets. Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, David, and all the other kings, throughout TeNaKh (the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa) speak in the singular, and not as modern kings in the plural. They do not say we, but I, command; as in Gen. xli. 41; Dan. iii. 29; Ezra i. 2, etc.” (Rabbi Tzvi Nassi, Oxford University professor, The Great Mystery, 1970, p6, )
"This first person plural can hardly be a mere editorial or royal plural that refers to the speaker alone, for no such usage is demonstrable anywhere else in biblical Hebrew. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason Archer, p.359, commenting on whether Gen 1:26 is a “plural of majesty”)
M
Montalban
Guest
The only thing I can think of for al-lah to swear by something is as if he’s saying the proof of me is in this thing I created.
But it doesn’t seem to be translated that way.
But it doesn’t seem to be translated that way.
I
inJESUS
Guest
the question is why God of the Holy Bible only swore by Himself yet the Allah of Quran swore by things inferior to him? The purpose for swearing by God, or in God’s name, is to call him as our witness and the judge of our honesty and sincerity in what we are saying…which means that if I am lying, or if I am not keeping my word, then God may hold me accountable .
Second, from the biblical perspective the swearing by other things besides God becomes an act of deification, elevating inferior creatures to the same level of greatness as God.After all, the reason why God swears by Himself is because there is nothing greater than him, which means that swearing by things other than God implies that those other things are on the same level of greatness as God.
If i swear by something that is less than myself, I am actually weakening the value of my statement…swearing is supposed to increase the weight or seriousness of what I say, but if I swear by something less than myself, I am decreasing the weight of my claim.
.
“the proof of me is in this thing I created.” : i think it is a weak argument because God in Genesis said that He created everything.You find this theme all over the Bible.
M
Montalban
Guest
And it’s circular to have their god swear on the Koran which they claim is an account of the word of their god.
J
janryboy
Guest
hmmmm…
no muslims defending here…its good to hear thier sides too…perhaps!
no muslims defending here…its good to hear thier sides too…perhaps!
M
murtad
Guest
Have you forgotten that Islam borrowed Nestorian theology from the Assyrian Church of the East (COE)? Even today His Holiness Mar Khananya Dinkha IV who is Catholicos-Patriarch of the COE denies God has a mother (theotokos) and COE theology was condemned as heretical by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, thousand years ago.
St Cyril of Alexandria ex-communicated Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople for this heresy of denying that ever-virgin Mary is mother of God (theotokos).
Obviously, Muhammad, the false prophet must have met a Nestorian who taught him these heresy.
Would you say the same thing about His Holiness Mar Khananya Dinkha IV who continues to teach this heresy today?
M
meedo
Guest
Sometimes it is too much nonesense to even address.
and muslims are not defending anything . Actually iu am quite happy when i see that all what people can do is just talk nonesense to each other and believe it. It makes discrediting them much easier .
salam
I
inJESUS
Guest
you are here to discredit any nonsense regarding Islam, Meedo
V
Valke2
Guest
This is more of a question for muslims. But I don’t understand how people can point to a text and say it is the word for word utterance of the incorporeal God. Would it go against Islamic beliefs to view the Quran as the divinely inspired attempt to express the desire of God/Allah?
I have the same issue with Torah. It seems that something like the revelation at Sinai would occur differently to each person who was there. That the experience of the word of God would occur at a pre-conceptual level. And if this were so, then all attempts to conceputalize the experience in words would have to be human attempts, and not divine. And when dealing with pre-conceptual experience, the language of metaphor, simile and poetry is generally more effective than an attempt at literal description.
I haven’t read through this thread, so if this has been raised or addressed already, I apologize.
I have the same issue with Torah. It seems that something like the revelation at Sinai would occur differently to each person who was there. That the experience of the word of God would occur at a pre-conceptual level. And if this were so, then all attempts to conceputalize the experience in words would have to be human attempts, and not divine. And when dealing with pre-conceptual experience, the language of metaphor, simile and poetry is generally more effective than an attempt at literal description.
I haven’t read through this thread, so if this has been raised or addressed already, I apologize.
M
Montalban
Guest
It’s a typical Islamic non-argument to make (typical given that both you and Pro_universal make the same type of statement)
Given that on another thread you said I should point these things out to you, I cited this thread and you have yet to respond as to where I am wrong, it makes it hard to ‘discredit’ my stance, though it does yours - for offering non-argument.
Submission to you too!
I
inJESUS
Guest
Lol Montalban you make me laugh with this “submission to you!” sentence
Salaam = peace. Islam= submission
Salaam = peace. Islam= submission
M
Montalban
Guest
It means submission, as far as I’m concerned. As Jihad means war. Sure, ‘jihad’ means struggle, but it’s application is mainly by violence, so whilst not exclusive in meaning, it does in effect mean war. Same with Salaam - for in Islam when you submit, even by force, it’s called ‘peace’.
S
Sufi
Guest
The Qur’an tells Muhammad(saw) to say these things. This prooves nothing but ignorance to the un educated.
S
Sufi
Guest
Jihad does not mean war. In Arabic harb means war,**sira **means combat, ma’araka means battle, qital means killing. None of these words have anything to do with the word Jihad which is rooted from the word JHD.
Why do you Catholics continue to decieve your own people? I’m not liking this.
M
Montalban
Guest
See what I actually wrote. I said “for me…”
I’m not Catholic. I’m not liking you calling me one
S
Sufi
Guest
InJesus him self teaches heresey. The funny thing about it, it seems as if he studied a little Islam. I think he is one who studies ONLY a little and didn’t grasp the concept of it all, when scholars, both Muslim and non-Muslim spend more time studying it than medical doctors take to study medicine.
- Status