Is Christianity Polytheistic? James White debates Abdullah Al Andalusi - Unbelievable show of 15 Nov

[Pumbelo]

Don't even try using this murky water example. Since it is clear that it is refereing to how one would see the sun setting for example if you where standing in front of the ocean.

"Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water"

I am so impressed by this knowledge.

For your information the heavens expanding is a literal translation. It is clear without doubt. When God refers to the heavens in the Quran he is talking about the sky and what is beyond. I.E. Space.

When god says that "You (as humans) will not be able to get to the heavens except with a great power" Clearly answers this because today we have built rockets that can do these and they have trmendous power.

Yusufali: "create the vastness of space"
Pickthal: "make the vast extent" of heaven
Shakir: "makers of things ample"
Khalifa: "we will continue to expand it"

Only Khalifa renders it as "we will continue to expand it," even though there is no future tense in the verse, nor the word 'continue.'


And by the way, this is already in the Bible

Job 9:8 Who alone stretches out the heavens

Isaiah 51:13 That you have forgotten the LORD your Maker, Who stretched out the heavens

Job 9:8 He stretches out the heavens

Isaiah 51:13 Why have you forgotten the LORD, your Creator? He stretched out the heavens

Job 9:8 Which alone spreadeth out the heavens

Isaiah 51:13 And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens

Job 9:8 Which alone spreads out the heavens

Isaiah 51:13 And forget the LORD your maker, that has stretched forth the heavens

Job 9:8 That alone stretcheth out the heavens

Isaiah 51:13 and hast forgotten Jehovah thy Maker, that stretched forth the heavens

Job 9:8 By whose hand the heavens were stretched out

Isaiah 51:13 And you have given no thought to the Lord your Maker, by whom the heavens were stretched out

Job 9:8 Who alone spreadeth out the heavens

Isaiah 51:13 And thou hast forgotten the Lord thy maker, who stretched out the heavens

Job 9:8 Who alone spreadeth out the heavens

Isaiah 51:13 and forgettest Jehovah thy Maker, who hath stretched out the heavens

Job 9:8 Which alone stretcheth out the heavens

Isaiah 51:13 and hast forgotten the LORD thy Maker, that stretched forth the heavens

Job 9:8 Who alone spreadeth out the heavens

Isaiah 51:13 And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens

Job 9:8 He alone stretches out the heavens

Isaiah 51:13 and have forgotten Yahweh your Maker, who stretched forth the heavens

Job 9:8 Stretching out the heavens by Himself

Isaiah 51:13 And thou dost forget Jehovah thy maker, Who is stretching out the heavens

You also find it in Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Isaiah 45:12, Isaiah 48:13

The Quran was revealed around 500 years before Aristotle. For all we know he could have based what he knows on the Quran.

Like I said, muslims always make [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] up.

Aristotle lived 384 BC – 322 BC.

Did Muhammed travel 15 centuries back through time?

Nice try. This is funny since arabic dictionaries don't say sulb and tara'ib mean backbone and ribs. Some transtlaters might have been embarased to put in the exact meaning of these words. "sulb and tara’ib do not mean a man’s backbone and ribs, but a man’s “hardening” (i.e. penis) and a woman’s erogenous zones".

This has nothing to do with the translation you are using. This has something to do with the translator themselves.

Yusuf Ali: Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs
Marmaduke: He is created from a gushing fluid that issued from between the loins and ribs.
Hamidullah: He was created from a spurt of water coming out between the loins and ribs.
Pickthal: That issued from between the loins and ribs.
Shakir: Coming from between the back and the ribs.

Embarrassment is no excuse in academics.

Wrong. We believe in one uncreated being. We believe the Quran was not created but revealed by that being. God has always existed and has always known what he will create and what he will reveal.

That's what I am saying. You believe the Quran is uncreated and perfect.
I say this is shirk.

the difference between Muslims and Christians is that we only Worship God. Not the Quran and not Muhammad (pbuh). Christians worship God, Jesus, Holy spirit. Clearly polytheistic. You will say you don't understand the concept of the trinity but then again many christians who have left christianity failed to understand it including the ones who taught it.

Islam believes in an uncreated god, an uncreated book and an uncreated language.
Christians believe in one uncreated being.

And yes, you are obviously ignorant of what christians believe.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Does removing entire verses mean that this is making the terminology for the current time. How confused are you. Changing words that change the meaning of sentences is not rewriting something for modern times or the times of the people.

Examples. Matt 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
removed completely from the following bibles NI, NAS, RS, NRS, NC A key verse.

Good night! Show me you have some understanding of textual criticism please! Do you know anything about glosses and scribal commentary whatsoever? In fact, the very idea that we can recognize when such occurs is strength for the authenticity of our text!

Matt 18:26 removed the key words " and worshiped him (Jesus)" from NI, NAS, RS, NRS, NC I think this is a key phrase don't you. Why would they remove it?

It's not Jesus in the parable.

Matt. 19:17 Changed "Why callest thou me good" TO "Why do you ask me about what is good" in NI, NAS, RS, NRS, NC meaning is completely changed

Yeah. Um. You just keep telling yourself that? Okay? I've used this verse several times and I am fine with it in those translations.

Matt. 24:36 added "nor the Son" and changed "my Father" TO "the Father" in these bibles NI, NAS, RS, NRS, LB, NC. I think this is a big change to say that the son doesn't know either and that it is not his father but "the" father. These wordings change the meaning of the verse if you ask me and any other educated person.

Lovely implication that if I disagree I'm not educated. Well I am educated and I disagree. There's no one else Jesus would be talking about and all translations say he doesn't know.

Mark 16:9-20 All removed from NI, NAS, RS, NRS, LB, NC with a comment mind you that says ((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.)) And you can see this on bible gateway.

As if I don't know about this. Guess what! The early church knew about it also! They knew there were variants. No one denies there are variants. That's why we have textual criticism. That we can easily recognize the variants shows we have an accurate text.

This is fact whether you accept it or not. I never said it neither did any other non chrisitan. It is the Christians that are saying it themselves yet they still refuse to accept that the bible has changed. Like I said before if just one word is changed and changes the meaning of something as in the examples then the whole thing needs to be put in doubt because this means that more than one word ould have changed. The fact that you keep finding manuscripts that are helping you correct these mistakes shows you that it was changed and God wants you to know this inorder to search for the truth. Yet you will never find the original manuscripts that where written by the so called writers themselves.

Nope. The Bible hasn't been changed a bit. I can still take any translation I have here and go back to Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and find a basis. Now please tell me also where the original Qu'ran is kept. I'd love to see Muhammad's handwriting.

This is not necessary for the Quran as it is memorised by 10's of millions, and nearly all muslims have memorised parts of it ranging from a few chapters to the entire book. All the exact same word for word Quran. Regardless of whether we have the books or not. This is how it is passed from generation to generation.

And likewise, the OT was memorized by many a Jew and the people in the ancient world at the time of Christ had excellent memorization. The fact is, we kept the variants! We didn't try to destroy all texts that were different and say of one "This will be the accepted one." Islam did.

If you truly believe in God then why not ask him to guide you and be sincre about it. If you truly love him then he will and you will know the truth and know that he loves you too. I am not telling you Islam is the right way that is for you to find ut be sincre and objective.

Oh please. You are telling me Islam is the right way or else you wouldn't be a Muslim. The point is God gave me a brain and he intends me to use it in study and that's what I do and when I've studied, I've concluded that Christ is who he said he is and Muhammad is not who he said he is.

I am familiar with textual critism not to the extant that I would like but enough. I just think sometimes it is a way to get around certain issues.

Textual criticism has zilch to do with the truth of the text. It has to do with what it says and it is done with EVERY ancient manuscript. It's done with Plato, Tacitus, Homer, etc. I'm sure it'd be fascinating to see it done with the Qu'ran as well.

If there are any Jewish people reading this please confirm this. From what I know they don't believe that God would send himself as his own son to die for sins. The problem I find with Christians in this regard is that they want to make it look like Jews totally understand this when in fact they straight out reject this. It is one thing to make something allude to something else but to also claim that the people that it was revealed to also accept this is just ridiculous specially when they deny this.

Which has zilch to do with what I said. Your question was on interpretation and I explained it. I said the Jew would understand pesher. I did not say they would agree with the interpretation. I know Jews don't believe this aside from Messianics. Hardness has happened before. Because I understand something it doesn't mean I accept it as true. Also, you never replied to what I said about the idea of Jesus being begotten.

Why? Prove it?

How can it be about payment. You are trying to compare apples with oranges. If someone was sentenced to the death penalty can someone else take his spot? You can't pick and choose what you want to compare.

Sure. Turn to this book of the Bible called Leviticus and look to this idea called "atonement." It was that since the guilty couldn't pay the price, an innocent would be offered in their stead. God DOES accept such substitution.

If God knew about the sins that would occur then why did he put humans on this earth. Why did he even create us? Did he know that he was going to have to die for our sins?

This is a question for Islam as well, but you're assuming the unipersonalism of God in the text. God, as in the Trinity, did not die, but the Son died. Did he know this? Yes. Why did he do it? Love. Love seeks to go beyond itself and invite others to join into that love.

You make what I said sound like it is just plain black and white.
Whether you do good or bad it does not affect God in any way. It affects us as Humans. Through his mercy He will forgive those who sincerly repent because He can do that. He doesn't have to give his life for this. He created us and He knows that we will sin. He created sin to test us and see who is the best of His creation that will obey His laws and rules. Who is worthy of being accepted into His heavean and who is not.

Then he is saying his holiness doesn't matter. Someone can violate his holiness and he'll just look the other way because the good of that person is more important than the goodness of God. If God though is not the highest good, why should I treat him as such?

Quran 002.255 Allah! There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory).
002.256 Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
002.257Allah is the Protector of those who have faith: from the depths of darkness He will lead them forth into light. Of those who reject faith the patrons are the evil ones: from light they will lead them forth into the depths of darkness. They will be companions of the fire, to dwell therein (For ever).

Yeah. I've read the Qu'ran. I'll be wondering what this has to do with what you've said.

Please explain how you came to this conclusion. I know 3 year old who know howto pray and have memorised 10's of chapters from the Quran. But do you seriously think they understand what they have memorised. You must be kidding yourself if you think a 3 year old knows what sining is and repentence if it isn't something that they where programmed to do by their parents.

Programmed? No. I just think a child can go to church with his parents and learn things and grasp the concepts. Unless you believe I am intentionally lying, I suggest you accept the story. (And while the child in the story isn't me, I was showing biblical knowledge at the age of 3 also.)

It is funny how Christians always assume that others have no knowledge. Here you are talking about faith. How do you get faith without knowledge. When you get this knowledge don't you want to know if it is fact or will you just accept it.

Faith is trust in that which has been shown to be reliable. It's not a blind leap. I don't assume you have no knowledge. I've seen it demonstrated.

The Fact is had someone come to anyone of these people in Hebrews 11 and said believe in God and you will be saved they would have said there is no such thing as God or they might be accepting what others have taught them to accept. Everyone of these people mentioned where prophets of God whom God spoke to and provided them with evidences and miracles for them to believe. So it wasn't just by faith. It was also by proof. Having faith without proof is just blind faith. You might as well beleive in anything that tickles your fancy. How did moses know about God if he grew up in the house of Pharoh who denied God?

Which shows my point. You don't know what faith is biblically. It's trust in that which has shown to be reliable which does mean knowledge beforehand. You have to know that what you trust is reliable.

I think you need to ask your self the question of how would these people come to this faith if it hadn't been for God contacting them, choosing them and providing them with miracles?

No I don't, because I already know the answer. Sometimes he did contact them and sometimes people are contacted through those he's spoken with or through his Scripture.

If what you say is true then why aren't we all in heaven without this dying business and sins and other stuff? What is the penalty of Sin? Why would He created Sin in the first place? Why would He warn us to stay away from it?

Sin is an action and God does not create our actions. Also, this world is here so we can choose to love him. If we are created in Heaven, we are not created with choice. The beatific vision would eliminate that.

Note you STILL haven't answered the question I asked though.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or serious here? But if sarcastic then I think my previous answer is clear enough.

I'm being both, and your previous answer is not clear enough.

Pick 10 million Muslims from all over the wrold and bring them together in one place. Various races, various languages, various groups of Islam. American, Indian, Malaysian, Australian, Arab, Shi'ites, Sunni's all groups or nationalities all denominations. Ask them to recite the Quran in unison without giving them any further instructions. They will all recite from begining to end in the same dialect, same language same words from cover to cover without having the books in front of them.

Of course, when you set aside one text as the text and destroy all others.

Do the same with various groups of Christians and I garuntee that you will have them arguing many different things between there bibles.

Is that supposed to bother me?

I have travelled the world and been to many countries and every country that I have been to I have been to their local Mosques to pray. Not once have I heard anyone reciting the Quran in prayer different than I would recite it.

I could probably say the same thing about the Book of Mormon....I don't accept it, but by your criteria, maybe you should.

The truth is clear but you can't just have faith. You need knowledge and proof, and you need to be honest with yourself and sincre about God before you can get this faith. With knowledge faith increases.

Good thing I do have knowledge and proof. I actually went out and got myself educated and I'm still doing so.

Oh yeah prove it

How old are the oldest manuscripts you have? Do we have anything archaeological you can show in them? How about the manuscripts in Yemen? What about the manuscripts that were destroyed?

Nope not true. If you comment out of context you will be corrected. Because this is what usually happens when non muslims comment on the Quran they do so out of context. In fact we don't expect everyone who wants to know what is in the Quran to learn arabic, hence the translation into many different languages. But with Arabic you get the sense of Majesty of God and the way He addresses us as humans, You know that this is an extraordinary book.

And when you pray with a sincere heart, you get a burning in the bosom and you know the Book of Mormon is true when it says Christ appeared to peoples in America we have no historical basis to believe existed....

I can say the same about the bible even though it is clear there are changes, additions, subtractions. see above.

Lack of knowledge in textual criticism noted.

In the case of the Quran it does becuase God says the following:

Yeah. Lovely bit of question-begging. I have no reason to believe God said anything about the Qur'an.

The Qur'an's lack of any internal contradiction and discrepancy also shows that it is from Allah and is immune to change. The Qur'an is internally consistent and in full agreement with historical developments and scientific discoveries. This attribute is so certain and explicit that our Lord stated:

How was man created?

Will they not ponder the Qur'an? If it had been from other than Allah, they would have found many inconsistencies in it. (An-Nisaa' 4: 82)

And they have.

Many contradictions can be found in regular books. However, every word of the Qur'an is in full agreement with the others. In addition, the Qur'an provides information about previous generations, communities, different forms of administration, military strategies, and many other subjects, as well as about past and future events.

Let's see about this....

4. Prophecies
The Qur'an is also in absolute agreement with historical facts as well as all developments that occurred after its revelation. For instance, the first verses of Surat Ar-Rum (the Byzantine Empire) state that the Byzantine Empire would suffer a great
defeat, but nevertheless would be victorious shortly thereafter, as follows:

Alif, Lam, Mim. The Romans have been defeated in the lowest land, but after their defeat they will be victorious in a few years' time. The affair is Allah's from the beginning to the end. (Ar-Rum 30: 1-4)

These verses were revealed around 620 CE, almost 7 years after the idolatrous Persians vanquished the Christian Byzantines. In fact, Byzantium had been so severely defeated that its very survival was in question. Thus, its predicted victory seemed impossible to many, including the Arab polytheists.

In December 627 CE, the Byzantine and Persian empires fought a decisive battle at Nineveh . This time, the Byzantines unexpectedly defeated the Persians. A few months later, the Persians had to make an agreement with Byzantium , which obliged them to return Byzantine territory. In the end, "the victory of the Romans" that Allah promised, miraculously came true. This one example alone provides evidence that the Qur'an is the Word of Allah.

Ever heard of the fallacy of the lonely fact? This was on the political scene actually and could be easily predicted. Meanwhile, the Bible predicts things hundreds of years in advance that come true.

What has this got to do with anything about the type of person he was. How many wives do the prophets in the bible have? How many young girls did they have? What where they ordered to do to tribes and villiages. Your clutching at straws here. The fact that this was a normal practise back in those days doesn't even have anything to do with it.

If you wanted to go into the conquest of Canaan, I'd be glad to do that. As for the question, in Islam, you're only allowed four wives. Why is it Muhammad could have more?

His favourite wife was his first wife Khadeeja. After her death it was years before he got married again then when he finally married Aeesha, the one you are talking about he favoured her over others. How ever she herself was Jealous of Khadeeja who was dead since it was clear he still loved her very much.

He was ordered by God to marry her. Her father was his best friend do you think that if he suspected something he would have let them get married. I don't think so.

How old was she when she married and how old when it was consummated?

If my best friend asked for my daughters hand in marriage I would probably beat him up.

The wisdom behind it is that she learnt and taught the Muslims so much about how to behave intematly with their partners plus many other things in law and other subjects. She was the one of the biggest narrators of the saying and actions of the Prophet. There are many other reasons. He married here but why would he wait so many years to consumate the marriage? Does anyone ever ask these kind of questions. No. They don't. They are just quick to point the finger without even studying the subject.

And now I'm supposedly the one without knowledge. Yes. These questions are asked and I suggest you answer them.

What evidence? Where? The fact that people are still trying to peice this puzzle together today is mind numbing. How can you believe when they have been trying to solve this for centuries on end. Strong evidence is always doubtful when it comes to God. You either have 100% evidence that can be proven or you have nothing.
There are people that say they have strong evidence that Jesus didn't exist. Now I don't believe this becuase I have evidence that he did.

Ask your most liberal scholars qualified in the field and you will hear that it is certain that Jesus Christ was crucified. I can take data that is accepted by liberal scholars who do not believe in Christianity and use that to argue that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Have you never read anything arguing for the resurrection of Christ from history?

The Muslims have strong evidence that is 100% true fact and correct and are all in agreement about. They might not agree on other things like laws and punishments etc, but when it comes to God we all agree on the following summed up nicely and briefly in the Quran:
In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.
112.001 Say: He is Allah, the Uniquely One;
112.002 Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
112.003 He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
112.004 And there is none like unto Him.

So the fact that 100% of the Muslims agree on this is more proof than you saying that you believe there is strong evidence not fact. Just another fact of how the Quran is preserved.

And ironically, Christians all agree on the essential doctrines as well. I assume there was a point there somewhere.

[Pumbelo]

I'm sure it'd be fascinating to see it done with the Qu'ran as well.

It has been done.

[The Qur'an] is strikingly lacking in overall structure, frequently obscure and inconsequential in both language and content, perfunctory in its linking of disparate materials, and given to the repetition of whole passages in variant versions. On this basis it can plausibly be argued that the book is the product of belated and imperfect editing of materials from a plurality of traditions.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I was sure it had been, but I wouldn't make the assertion without documentation.

[Pumbelo]

I was sure it had been, but I wouldn't make the assertion without documentation.

My source is rather old, so I think there might be better material on this topic.

[mosabdullah]

"Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water"
I am so impressed by this knowledge.

Did you even read the refutation. It also mentions similar things in the bible refering to the sun and moon.
What is you point here. Is this ok for the bible to say such things but not the Quran.
Just like any person who stood in front of the ocean it would appear that the sun was setting in the ocean.
Funny how you can critisize translators of the Quran yet not those of the bible.

Yusufali: "create the vastness of space"
Pickthal: "make the vast extent" of heaven
Shakir: "makers of things ample"
Khalifa: "we will continue to expand it"

Only Khalifa renders it as "we will continue to expand it," even though there is no future tense in the verse, nor the word 'continue.'


And by the way, this is already in the Bible

I never said it was not in the bible and I never deny that the bible has a lot of truth in it.

However you think that just because some translaters translated according to what they think the non arab world may understand better means that it is wrong.

Let me explain it to you since you don't seem to understand it.

Quran 51:47
Wa sama'ah banaynah bi adin wa inna la moo s'ioon.
I hope my transliteration is readable.

Literally this means word for word " and the skys (or heavens sama'ah means both encompassing) have been built or created by Our Hands and it is We who are expanding it"

Moos'ioon means expanding

Why each translator vary who knows. they have their own reasons. Having said that that is why a translation is never accepted as Quran but just that a transaltion.

Like I said, muslims always make [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] up.

Aristotle lived 384 BC – 322 BC.

Did Muhammed travel 15 centuries back through time?

No he didn't but I was replying to your post which said "Most people are stunned by this, but what they do not know is that 1000 years ago, Aristotle had even more knowledge about embryology (and many other things) than the Quran"

So without even thinking that you made a mistake I made a mistake by accepting your mistake and thinking that the Quran was revealed 15 centuries ago and aristotle 10 centuries.

Now Aristotle was a very confused person. Here are some of the many mistakes he made.

"Aristotle believed that thinking occurred in the region around the heart and not in the brain (a cooling organ, PA 652b 21-25, cf. HA 514a 16-22)"

One example from the Quran
096.013 Seest thou if he denies (Truth) and turns away?
096.014 Knoweth he not that Allah doth see?
096.015 Let him beware! If he desist not, We will drag him by the forelock,-
096.016 A lying, sinful forelock!


The expression "the lying, sinful forelock" in the above verse is most interesting. Research carried out in recent years revealed that the prefrontal area, which is responsible for the management of particular functions of the brain, lies in the frontal part of the skull. Scientists only discovered the functions of this area, which the Qur'an pointed out 1,400 years ago, in the last 60 years. If we look inside the skull at the front of the head, we will find the frontal area of the cerebrum. A book entitled Essentials of Anatomy and Physiology, which includes the results of the latest research on the functions of this area, says:
The motivation and the foresight to plan and initiate movements occur in the anterior portion of the frontal lobes, the prefrontal area. This is a region of association cortex…(Seeley, Rod R.; Trent D. Stephens; and Philip Tate, 1996, Essentials of Anatomy & Physiology, 2. edition, St. Louis, Mosby-Year Book Inc., p. 211; Noback, Charles R.; N. L. Strominger; and R. J. Demarest, 1991, The Human Nervous System, Introduction and Review, 4. edition, Philadelphia, Lea & Febiger , p. 410-411)

In relation to its involvement in motivation, the prefrontal area is also thought to be the functional center for aggression…(Seeley, Rod R.; Trent D. Stephens; and Philip Tate, 1996, Essentials of Anatomy & Physiology, 2. edition, St. Louis, Mosby-Year Book Inc., p. 211)

So, this area of the cerebrum is responsible for planning, motivation, and initiating good and sinful behaviour, and is responsible for telling lies and the truth.
It is clear that the statement "the lying, sinful forelock" corresponds completely to the above explanations. This fact, which scientists have only discovered in the last 60 years, was stated by God in the Qur'an 15 centuries ago.

Other stuff ups including reproduction: Second, Aristotle thought that men were hotter than women (the opposite is the case). Third, Aristotle overweighed the male contribution in reproduction. Fourth, little details are often amiss such as the number of teeth in women. Fifth, Aristotle believed that spontaneous generation could occur. For example, Aristotle observed that from animal dung certain flies could appear (even though careful observation did not reveal any flies mating and laying their eggs in the dung. The possibility of the eggs already existing in the abdomen of the animal did not occur to Aristotle.) However, these sorts of mistakes are more often than not the result of an a priori principle such as “women being colder and less perfectly formed than men” or the application of his method on (in principle) unobservables—such as human conception in which it is posited that the male provides the efficient, formal, and final cause while the woman provides merely the material cause.

So don't come thinking that Aristotle knew this stuff accuratly like the Quran mentions it.

Yusuf Ali: Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs
Marmaduke: He is created from a gushing fluid that issued from between the loins and ribs.
Hamidullah: He was created from a spurt of water coming out between the loins and ribs.
Pickthal: That issued from between the loins and ribs.
Shakir: Coming from between the back and the ribs.

Embarrassment is no excuse in academics.

Maybe for you it isn't but some people it might be.

That's what I am saying. You believe the Quran is uncreated and perfect.
I say this is shirk.
Islam believes in an uncreated god, an uncreated book and an uncreated language.
Christians believe in one uncreated being.
And yes, you are obviously ignorant of what christians believe.

Shirk is when someone worships something else besides God not the fact that we believe that the Quran is not created. The Quran is the word of God. Hence not created since it has been with God forever this means so has the arabic language.

Shirk is to worship more than one God with God.

Ie. The Father (1), The Son (2), The Holy Spirit (3).

If they are just one God then worship them as one and stop giving them seperate personalities. I think most muslims know more about Christianity than Christians do.

I am not ignorant of what christians believe bacause many of my Muslim friends where ex christians or ex priests or ministers. I know what you believe. I know you are confused and try to find reasons for many things in order to make sense of what you preach.

[Pumbelo]

Did you even read the refutation.

What is you point here. Is this ok for the bible to say such things but not the Quran.

DUH! My point was to show that you guys (I say it again) always make [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] up. I was talking about muslims who took that passage and claimed that the law of gravitiy was correctly described there.

However you think that just because some translaters translated according to what they think the non arab world may understand better means that it is wrong.

I gave you translations from muslims ...

Let me explain it to you since you don't seem to understand it.

Quran 51:47
Wa sama'ah banaynah bi adin wa inna la moo s'ioon.
I hope my transliteration is readable.

Literally this means word for word " and the skys (or heavens sama'ah means both encompassing) have been built or created by Our Hands and it is We who are expanding it"

Moos'ioon means expanding

Why each translator vary who knows. they have their own reasons. Having said that that is why a translation is never accepted as Quran but just that a transaltion.

It is already in the bible and therefore this is no example of scientific knowledge.

No he didn't but I was replying to your post which said "Most people are stunned by this, but what they do not know is that 1000 years ago, Aristotle had even more knowledge about embryology (and many other things) than the Quran"

So without even thinking that you made a mistake I made a mistake by accepting your mistake and thinking that the Quran was revealed 15 centuries ago and aristotle 10 centuries.

Now Aristotle was a very confused person. Here are some of the many mistakes he made.

"Aristotle believed that thinking occurred in the region around the heart and not in the brain (a cooling organ, PA 652b 21-25, cf. HA 514a 16-22)"

One example from the Quran
096.013 Seest thou if he denies (Truth) and turns away?
096.014 Knoweth he not that Allah doth see?
096.015 Let him beware! If he desist not, We will drag him by the forelock,-
096.016 A lying, sinful forelock!


The expression "the lying, sinful forelock" in the above verse is most interesting. Research carried out in recent years revealed that the prefrontal area, which is responsible for the management of particular functions of the brain, lies in the frontal part of the skull. Scientists only discovered the functions of this area, which the Qur'an pointed out 1,400 years ago, in the last 60 years. If we look inside the skull at the front of the head, we will find the frontal area of the cerebrum. A book entitled Essentials of Anatomy and Physiology, which includes the results of the latest research on the functions of this area, says:
The motivation and the foresight to plan and initiate movements occur in the anterior portion of the frontal lobes, the prefrontal area. This is a region of association cortex…(Seeley, Rod R.; Trent D. Stephens; and Philip Tate, 1996, Essentials of Anatomy & Physiology, 2. edition, St. Louis, Mosby-Year Book Inc., p. 211; Noback, Charles R.; N. L. Strominger; and R. J. Demarest, 1991, The Human Nervous System, Introduction and Review, 4. edition, Philadelphia, Lea & Febiger , p. 410-411)

In relation to its involvement in motivation, the prefrontal area is also thought to be the functional center for aggression…(Seeley, Rod R.; Trent D. Stephens; and Philip Tate, 1996, Essentials of Anatomy & Physiology, 2. edition, St. Louis, Mosby-Year Book Inc., p. 211)

So, this area of the cerebrum is responsible for planning, motivation, and initiating good and sinful behaviour, and is responsible for telling lies and the truth.
It is clear that the statement "the lying, sinful forelock" corresponds completely to the above explanations. This fact, which scientists have only discovered in the last 60 years, was stated by God in the Qur'an 15 centuries ago.

As I said, muslims always make [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] up.
You read "lying forelock" and claim that this is about brain functions.

"Aristotle believed that thinking occurred in the region around the heart and not in the brain (a cooling organ, PA 652b 21-25, cf. HA 514a 16-22)[/I]"

Lo! now they fold up their breasts that they may hide (their thoughts) from Him. At the very moment when they cover themselves with their clothing, Allah knoweth that which they keep hidden and that which they proclaim. Lo! He is Aware of what is in the breasts (of men).

Lo! ye are those who love them though they love you not, and ye believe in all the Scripture. When they fall in with you they say: We believe; but when they go apart they bite their finger-tips at you, for rage. Say: Perish in your rage! Lo! Allah is Aware of what is hidden in (your) breasts.

Other stuff ups including reproduction: Second, Aristotle thought that men were hotter than women (the opposite is the case). Third, Aristotle overweighed the male contribution in reproduction. Fourth, little details are often amiss such as the number of teeth in women. Fifth, Aristotle believed that spontaneous generation could occur. For example, Aristotle observed that from animal dung certain flies could appear (even though careful observation did not reveal any flies mating and laying their eggs in the dung. The possibility of the eggs already existing in the abdomen of the animal did not occur to Aristotle.) However, these sorts of mistakes are more often than not the result of an a priori principle such as “women being colder and less perfectly formed than men” or the application of his method on (in principle) unobservables—such as human conception in which it is posited that the male provides the efficient, formal, and final cause while the woman provides merely the material cause.

So don't come thinking that Aristotle knew this stuff accuratly like the Quran mentions it.

Aristotle correctly described the function of the umbilical cord, something not mentioned in the Qur'an, showing that earlier philosophers were aware of such things mentioned by Muhammad and more. Every mention of human development in the Qur'an is similar to Roman and Greek theories.

If they are just one God then worship them as one and stop giving them seperate personalities. I think most muslims know more about Christianity than Christians do.

I am not ignorant of what christians believe bacause many of my Muslim friends where ex christians or ex priests or ministers. I know what you believe. I know you are confused and try to find reasons for many things in order to make sense of what you preach.

[mosabdullah]

My source is rather old, so I think there might be better material on this topic.

Not to mention a non muslim who is probably anti muslim

[mosabdullah]

Good night! Show me you have some understanding of textual criticism please! Do you know anything about glosses and scribal commentary whatsoever? In fact, the very idea that we can recognize when such occurs is strength for the authenticity of our text!

What a joke listen to your self ... Oh oh the fact that we can recognize such mistakes and fix them shows how authentic our text is. No it just shows how blind you are to accept the fact that you know it has been changed and just becuase you realise this means that it is fact that the places that you are getting corrections from could have also been changed.

It's not Jesus in the parable.

Yeah. Um. You just keep telling yourself that? Okay? I've used this verse several times and I am fine with it in those translations.

Lovely implication that if I disagree I'm not educated. Well I am educated and I disagree. There's no one else Jesus would be talking about and all translations say he doesn't know.

As if I don't know about this. Guess what! The early church knew about it also! They knew there were variants. No one denies there are variants. That's why we have textual criticism. That we can easily recognize the variants shows we have an accurate text.

I think it sounds like you are the one telling yourseld that it is okay. The fact that the meanings have changed is a big thing. I mean specially if it is the word of God.

Becuase you can recognize the variants shows that you have accurate text. Listen to your self. Please repeat that to youself over and over again to see if that actually sits right in your head. Becuase we can recognize the variants ... we have an accurate text. If you had an accurate text then you wouldn't have variants in the first place.

I can say that we have an accurate Quran becuase we have no variants what soever. All Muslim grous agree on ever single character and punctuation mark in the Quran. That is what an accurate text is.

Nope. The Bible hasn't been changed a bit. I can still take any translation I have here and go back to Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and find a basis. Now please tell me also where the original Qu'ran is kept. I'd love to see Muhammad's handwriting.

Please stop. Your killing me. You really know nothing about Islam do you. Muhammad could neither read nor write. The Quran is passed on verbally so yes the entire Quran is memorised by 10's of millions in Arabic and regardless of what nationality they are or what group they belong to. The oldest Quran. One in the city of Tashkent, (Uzbekistan) and the second one is in Istanbul (Turkey). The fact that we have written or mass produced books with the words of the Quran in them mean nothing. The Quran is the actuall recitation of it.

And likewise, the OT was memorized by many a Jew and the people in the ancient world at the time of Christ had excellent memorization. The fact is, we kept the variants! We didn't try to destroy all texts that were different and say of one "This will be the accepted one." Islam did.

Fact no jew had memorised the entire OT. The may have memorised certain parts but not the whole thing. Show me your evidence that they have. Again it's funny how you comment on the destroying of Qurans when the council of Nicea ordered the same thing done to the bible.

The difference is that Muslims order the Qurans written in different dialects destryoed and kept the one in the dialect of Muhammad (pbuh). Reason, non muslims becoming muslims and learning arabic where mixing it up a bit with their accents, the different dialect and the confuision. So a decision was made to keep one dialect only and this was the prophets dialect. Well we don't need to go into what the council of Nicea came up with do we. I think you should already know this.

Oh please. You are telling me Islam is the right way or else you wouldn't be a Muslim. The point is God gave me a brain and he intends me to use it in study and that's what I do and when I've studied, I've concluded that Christ is who he said he is and Muhammad is not who he said he is.

....well good for you. The difference between me and you is I believe in Christ and Muhammad as brothers and messengers in the sight of God. The fact that you think that about Muhammad is your loss not my. Many non muslims also have brains and choose to use them and that is why they accept islam, speciall your priests and bishops and ministers and whatever else the different denominations have.

Textual criticism has zilch to do with the truth of the text. It has to do with what it says and it is done with EVERY ancient manuscript. It's done with Plato, Tacitus, Homer, etc. I'm sure it'd be fascinating to see it done with the Qu'ran as well.

This is just another fancy term used by some people who want to show the world that they know it all when they know jack. It is easy to critisize other people and faiths. However if you are not from those faiths then all you really are doing is projecting your thoughts or ideas which have no basis whatsoever.

Which has zilch to do with what I said. Your question was on interpretation and I explained it. I said the Jew would understand pesher. I did not say they would agree with the interpretation. I know Jews don't believe this aside from Messianics. Hardness has happened before. Because I understand something it doesn't mean I accept it as true. Also, you never replied to what I said about the idea of Jesus being begotten.

Anyway begotten is an animalistic nature/behaviour. That is way beyond God. To say Begat or was Begotten means that God is equal or worse than his creation.

Quran 112.001 - 004 Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.

Sure. Turn to this book of the Bible called Leviticus and look to this idea called "atonement." It was that since the guilty couldn't pay the price, an innocent would be offered in their stead. God DOES accept such substitution.

Sure he does because that would make Him so just NOT. I know you concept of atonment and I have read leviticus. Please. You say this to a child and they will laugh in your face. If one of you children did something bad would you punish another in his spot. Tell him this is how God wants it. Come on God gave us the rules for our lives and for him to Go against it shows that He is confused Himself.

This is a question for Islam as well, but you're assuming the unipersonalism of God in the text. God, as in the Trinity, did not die, but the Son died. Did he know this? Yes. Why did he do it? Love. Love seeks to go beyond itself and invite others to join into that love.

The biggest load of rubbish I have ever heard. If he loved us so much then we would not be on this earth but all in heaven.

This is not a question for islam becuase Islam is clear on the issue. It is a test for humans. To see who is worthy of being with God and who is not. That is why he gives us free choice and sends prophets and messengers with signs to guide us.

Then he is saying his holiness doesn't matter. Someone can violate his holiness and he'll just look the other way because the good of that person is more important than the goodness of God. If God though is not the highest good, why should I treat him as such?

What are you talking about? What does his Holiness have to do with it. No those who violate will be punished. When someone lies and repents and doesn't do it again he is forgiven. When someone kills another and repents he will be forgiven but justice will be given to that person who was killed and on the day of judgment he can choose to take revenge or to forgive. If he wants revenge then God will punish the murderer. If he forgive then God will take good deeds from the murderer and give them to the murdered accordingly. So if the murderer is left with little good deeds but great bad deeds he will still be punished. Some one who commits a minor sin and keeps commiting it like maybe lieing it becomes a major sin after a while. Minor sins are forgiven easily but major sins require a lot more effort in order to be forgiven and even then justice could be taken out on the day of judgment depending on the sin.

Becuase He is the Higest Good he has detailed everything in regards to his punishment and rewards in the hereafter and how to stay away from punishment and how to atain the rewards in the Quran.

If you think just believing in Jesus will get you there (which I am sure you don't) then why would not believing not get you there as long as you do everything else that is good that you aleady do. See just believing for you is not enough, you also have to do good so this means the believing part is irrelavent.

Yeah. I've read the Qu'ran. I'll be wondering what this has to do with what you've said.

God explaining His attributes, showing his majesty and how He cannot be compared to His creation such as in the terms that he created everything and He will judge everything and what He will do for those who believe and do what He bids and those who don't.

Programmed? No. I just think a child can go to church with his parents and learn things and grasp the concepts. Unless you believe I am intentionally lying, I suggest you accept the story. (And while the child in the story isn't me, I was showing biblical knowledge at the age of 3 also.)

Yes but what I said it doesn't mean anything because you would not understand it.
I had memorised 15 -20 chapters of the Quran but I didn't necessarilly understand it until I got older. Some Kids have memorised the entire Quran at the age of 7 but they won't fully understand it until they get older and do further study.

Faith is trust in that which has been shown to be reliable. It's not a blind leap. I don't assume you have no knowledge. I've seen it demonstrated.

Nice just that comment proves the opposite to me. You know you can keep ducking and doging and trying to get around so many things to stay where you think you are comfortable but one day it will catch up with you and you will regret it.

I don't think you are ignorant, too bad you can't say the same about me. It's sad that you even call yourself a Christian. You assume you know more than me when you don't even know me. Maybe you do but I wouldn't say I know more than you. Since clearly to have a lot of ignorant things in your head that I don't have, means you know a lot of rubbish that I don't since I tend to stay away from that sort of stuff.

Which shows my point. You don't know what faith is biblically. It's trust in that which has shown to be reliable which does mean knowledge beforehand. You have to know that what you trust is reliable.

And how did they know it was realiable???? Through the miracles that Jesus performed.

No I don't, because I already know the answer. Sometimes he did contact them and sometimes people are contacted through those he's spoken with or through his Scripture.

....and you still think Jesus is god.

Sin is an action and God does not create our actions. Also, this world is here so we can choose to love him. If we are created in Heaven, we are not created with choice. The beatific vision would eliminate that.

Note you STILL haven't answered the question I asked though.

How would we know what sin was if he didn't tell us. How did He know what it was. Since he created what ever would cause the sin that we fall in to the action. Why would I need to answer a question that is pointless when the answer is clear. But just becuase you may be a bit slow.... He doesn't feel like he has to guide people. He does it becuase he loves us and wants us to show Him that we love Him and want to be with Him in the hereafter. Now stop deluding yourself that you are holy and that God showed you how awful it would be then saved you from it.You aren't saved yet becuase you are still on earth. Had you been saved you would alredy be in heaven. There is no point for you being here.

I'm being both, and your previous answer is not clear enough.

Well then your a quite confused person. My previous answer did make sense because it was talking about the different dialects that the Quran was revealed in.

Of course, when you set aside one text as the text and destroy all others.

No even if they werent destroyed the only different would between them would be the accents that they are recited in.

Take america for example from state to state there are different accents yet they are all speaking english.

Is that supposed to bother me?

No just showing you the comparison

I could probably say the same thing about the Book of Mormon....I don't accept it, but by your criteria, maybe you should.

No the difference is Mormons are a christian group and as you have just clearly shown you don't accept their book.

The difference with Islam is I am sunni Muslims, if I go to a Shia or Alawi or Habashi mosque or whatever other Islamic groups or sects mosques they would all still recite the same Quran word for word.

Ah how petty your comebacks are.

Good thing I do have knowledge and proof. I actually went out and got myself educated and I'm still doing so.

Well good for you. I'll email you a medal.

How old are the oldest manuscripts you have? Do we have anything archaeological you can show in them? How about the manuscripts in Yemen? What about the manuscripts that were destroyed?

The oldest are 19 years after the death of Muhammad (pbuh). They where compiled by Uthman the 3rd Kaliph or Successor of Muhammad(buh).
Yemen manuscripts explained.

And when you pray with a sincere heart, you get a burning in the bosom and you know the Book of Mormon is true when it says Christ appeared to peoples in America we have no historical basis to believe existed....

Same thing you can say about any religion. Even Christianity since no one living today even has evidence of the things you claim. You seem to be using things that can also be used against you.

Lack of knowledge in textual criticism noted.

Why thank you I guess. To you it may be but it is clear to anyone since even bible prefaces tell you of the grave defects in the bibles of today. Just open the KJV and read the introductions and the prefaces yourself. I have quoted them before but I won't waste my time any more since you guys don't even accept what they people who maintain and translate the bible say.

Yeah. Lovely bit of question-begging. I have no reason to believe God said anything about the Qur'an.

I didn't ask you to believe.

How was man created?

Proclaim! In the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, who created - created man, out of a Alaq (Literally, the Arabic word alaqah has three meanings: (1) leech, (2) suspended thing, and (3) blood clot..) -- Sura 96:1-2

What happens when an egg is fertalised. It becomes like a leech like thing that clings inside the mothers womb. Ok so this is refering to procreation.


It is he who has created man from water -- Sura 25:54
And God has created every living creature from water. -- Sura 24:45
We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape. -- Sura 15:26
Amongst his signs is this, that he created you from dust. -- Sura 30:20

Ok we know today that the foundation of life is water. Majority of our bodies are composed of water we also know that when you creamate a body what remains? Ash or dust or whatever you fancy calling it. if you mix this ash with water you get a muddy or clay type substance. Since Adam had no mother or father he had to be created by God. So God mixed water with dust and made a clay like substance which he molded into the form of a human being.

I really don't see you point asking about this.

And they have.

All refuted. Find me one that hasn't been refuted.

Let's see about this....

Ever heard of the fallacy of the lonely fact? This was on the political scene actually and could be easily predicted. Meanwhile, the Bible predicts things hundreds of years in advance that come true.

At the time no one ever imagined that this would occur since the romans where all but wiped out.

I never said the bible doesn't predict things. You seem to thing that I am against the bible. Infact I believe that there once was a book worthy of being called the bible but now that is not the case since it has been changed. There are still many truths in it today though and I accept them when they don't contradict with what is in the Quran.

If you wanted to go into the conquest of Canaan, I'd be glad to do that. As for the question, in Islam, you're only allowed four wives. Why is it Muhammad could have more?

To much to write to answer this. You can find it here.

How old was she when she married and how old when it was consummated?
And now I'm supposedly the one without knowledge. Yes. These questions are asked and I suggest you answer them.

You suggest I answer. You know if you really were looking for answers you would search for them. But it is clear you are not. Just stick to accepting what you are taught about others and stay ignorant all your life. That would be simplest for you.

Ask your most liberal scholars qualified in the field and you will hear that it is certain that Jesus Christ was crucified. I can take data that is accepted by liberal scholars who do not believe in Christianity and use that to argue that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Have you never read anything arguing for the resurrection of Christ from history?

I won't even bother clearly you are kidding yourself. There are those who are biased and want things to seem as you suggest then there are those who are objective and say that there is no 100% evidence of this occuring. And this is amongst your own scholars.

And ironically, Christians all agree on the essential doctrines as well. I assume there was a point there somewhere.

I would love to ask you what that might be but for the fact that I know Jehovahs witnesses and mormans don't aggree with Catholics and others I think it would be a waste of your time to try and show me they do.

[mosabdullah]

DUH! My point was to show that you guys (I say it again) always make [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] up. I was talking about muslims who took that passage and claimed that the law of gravitiy was correctly described there.

Never heard this claim before today.

I gave you translations from muslims ...
It is already in the bible and therefore this is no example of scientific knowledge.

So this only goes to show that the Quran does confirm some things in the bible which it says it does. But it also says that the bible has been changed. But then again if your read the prefaces in the bibles they say that too.

As I said, muslims always make [color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] up.
You read "lying forelock" and claim that this is about brain functions.

Well you try and put it in scientific terms for desert people. I don't think they'd understand. Besides it is not meant to be a science text book . It is meant to deliver a message and proof and I think it does that quite excellently.

Lo! now they fold up their breasts that they may hide (their thoughts) from Him. At the very moment when they cover themselves with their clothing, Allah knoweth that which they keep hidden and that which they proclaim. Lo! He is Aware of what is in the breasts (of men).

Lo! ye are those who love them though they love you not, and ye believe in all the Scripture. When they fall in with you they say: We believe; but when they go apart they bite their finger-tips at you, for rage. Say: Perish in your rage! Lo! Allah is Aware of what is hidden in (your) breasts.

Ever heard of a metaphore. Oh wait. I forgot things like similies and metaphors get thrown out the window when you are trying to make "[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color] up" about other religions.

I memorised the entire quran by heart. When I drive I am a speeding bullet.

Seems like your the failure.

Aristotle correctly described the function of the umbilical cord, something not mentioned in the Qur'an, showing that earlier philosophers were aware of such things mentioned by Muhammad and more. Every mention of human development in the Qur'an is similar to Roman and Greek theories.

Easy anyone can disect an animal and find that out. However the exact stages of development in a human womb. I don't think so. Only in today's day and age do we know this. I won't even try and prove this to you since obviously you become somewhat deaf when a Muslim gives you proof. I will let a non muslim scientest, dr, and embryoligist do that for me . Or wait maybe you are deaf when it comes to anything about Islam because you choose to be and that is how you have been brainwashed to be.

Any way you and you little friends can enjoy making up your lies. I won't be replying anymore. Waste of time.