THE ULTIMATE BELIEF SYSTEM - Page 4

jamal786 · (#76 (**permalink**))

JoshuaStone wrote:

Quote:

Man, you are hopelessly stupid. You don't even know how to properly structure sentences. I'm not even going to tell you how your last sentence makes you look like the fool that you are. I've had it with you, jerk!

...Why dont you just answer the question:

Does that also mean you WAS NOT referring to Muslims when referring to "all you who are believing in false religions"?

KANOBI · (#77 (**permalink**))

jamal786 wrote:

Quote:

It does not neatly fit, because this is a separate verse. It specifically talks of alcohol and gambling.

Concerning alcohol, it can have some benefits, but still is regarded as being the cause of great harm and sin. Sin should be avoided.

Quote:

What I meant is it issupportsthe ideathat alcohol was mentioned in a positive sense. Alcohol which is an abomination of satan was listed amongstAllah provision then it was gradually prohibited mmm strange!â€Ž

TheStudent · (#78 (**permalink**))

'What I meant is it is supports the idea that alcohol was mentioned in a positive sense. Alcohol which is an abomination of satan was listed amongst Allah provision then it was gradually prohibited mmm strange!â€Ž '

is it really so strange or simply great wisdom? addiction to alcohol and gambling are simply that, ADDICTIONS. and how are addictions treated in todays world? bit by bit. smoking, drinking, drug abuse, gambling,over eating etc. they are all treated by slowly reducing the amounts you consume so as to lower the damage from withdrawl. heroin addicts are given a substitute to wean them off of it. so kanobi, can you see the wisdom?

jamal786 · (#79 (**permalink**))

Furthermore, the verses Kanobi refers too regards "strong drink AND A goodly provision".

This does not state that alcohol is the "goodly provision". Out of the date and vine you can derive alcohol, AND YOU CAN ALSO get goodly wholesome food such as grape juice, grapes, dates, sugar, vinegar, etc..

Kanobi later uses a seperate verse that states there are some benefits in alcohol which is a scientifically proven fact which is why it is used in medicine. Whilst i do not disagree with this, the fact remains that nowhere was we told to consume it as "goodly provision" for these benefits.

Alcohol was never listed as "goodly provision".

Adrian7 · (#80 (**permalink**))

jamal786 wrote:

Quote:

Adrian7

I am somewhat surprised that you ignore the fact that there are errors/contradictions/corruptions in the bible..
Ignored? Did you not read my previous posts? I did address these â€œcorruptions,â€? what I said was concerning the errors contained in the previous King James and Scoffield versions were errors, primarily, in translation and addition, respectively. The main point was that they deviated from the original source manuscripts and therefore were an error on the part of man and not God, besides the King James version has been revised to correct these errors re-emphasizing the point of the fact that Godâ€™s infallible word is available. Not to change the subject but you have been doing a little ignoring yourself, because unlike the evidence you have pointed out I have presented various scientific and historical errors in the Koran, which, unlike the mis-translations and additions put in certain versions of the Bible, can not be fixed using a source manuscript.

Quote:

The revelance of 1 John 5:7-8, John 7:53-8:11, and Mark 16:9-20 is that most early manuscripts and ancient translations omit them.
Again, I addressed the controversy surrounding these verses in an earlier post(I realize some of my posts can be long but even so that is no excuse to over look my responses to these claims). To summarize what I posted last time I will just say that as of now it can not be proven or dis-proven that these verses were of the original authors, while what they have to say is accepted as truth, they cannot be proven without a doubt to be of the original authors. In light of this it is a matter that must be accepted by faith, like many other aspects of the Christian faith itself.

Therefore these are insertions/additions. If the insertion cannot be shown to be of Divine Inspiration, then the insertion is a CORRUPTION or ERROR. Regardless of the sources/arguements you have posted, the fact remains that their is no proven record of the divine authority of these verses, and they are explained as additions to the text by sources unknown. If this is the case then it is inaccurate to regard them as divine.
So you did read my arguments? You do bring up a valid point but that is assuming you have already proven that there was no divine inspiration involved which is the major issue. Also the lack of these verses in several early manuscripts does not prove that they are not true revelation, for example, the famous Dead Sea Scrolls contain the entire old testament with the exception of one book, the book of Daniel I believe, but that does not mean the book of Daniel was a later, uninspired creation.

It may be important for you to also note:

Before going into the issue of accuracy of the New Testament, it is worthwhile establishing what are the problems with the New Testament manuscripts. The New Testament is now known, whole or in part, in nearly five thousand Greek manuscripts. Each one of these manuscripts differ from other. Hence The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible is forced to say:

"It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS tradition is wholly uniform."

The lack of uniformity in the manuscript tradition is further aggravated by the fact that the original copies of the New Testament books have perished long ago. Hence there is no way of verifiying what the 'original' reading is. The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible again informs us that:

"The original copies of the NT books have, of course, long since disappeared. This fact should not cause surprise. In the first place, they were written on papyrus, a very fragile and perishable material. In the second place, and probably of even more importance, the original copies of the NT books were not looked upon as scripture by those of the early Christian communities."

G. A. Buttrick (Ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible, Volume 4, 1962 (1996 Print), Abingdon Press, Nashville, pp. 594-595, 599 (Under "Text, NT").

From
Textual Reliability Of The New Testament
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bib...baccuracy.html
The endless debate, there are many other sources that also refute the claims of inaccuracy in the New Testament such as: http://www.cmf.org.uk/outreach/conte...le&id=1441, http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/OnlineDiscipleship/UnderstandingIslam/The_Bible's_Corrupted_How_do_I_respond.asp, and http://www.gospeloutreach.net/bible3.html. But also of interest is the implications on Islam that claiming the bible is corrupted has. The Quran makes numerous references to the Bible as being a guide to humanity and even says that it is a reference for those who are doubtful of what is revealed in the Koran(check earlier posts for specific verses). Now there are in existence many manuscripts that predate Mohammedâ€™s time considerably, if Mohammed read these manuscripts or had them read to him and determined that they were uncorrupted guides to mankind then the Koran would also be wrong if it could ever be determined that the biblical manuscripts were indeed tainted.

The relavance of Moses's death is a futher instance of unauthenticated corruptions. Since the books of moses are attributed to Moses, it is a contradiction for moses to be assumed to have stated: Moses died... the lord buried him... no-one knows his place of burial...isreal mourned him for 30 days...Deutronomy 34:5-10

HOW could moses possibly write about his own death, burial, and mourning... if he was already dead. Therefore he could not have wrote this, as people cannot write their own arbituaries after their death. If this book was not written by moses then who was it written by, what is their authority and where did their inspiration stem from. These questions must be answered before the scripture of this book can be considered as divine.
Again I addressed this earlier, Mosesâ€™ legacy carries over to other books of the Old Testament well after his death because the law that was introduced by him from the Lord was suppose to be the law of all Israelites through all ages. The idea of Moses being the author of books beyond his death is based on tradition and not necessarily truth, also you seem to think that I stated that Moses was the author and again, as I wrote in the last post, I never made this claim.

In terms of contradictions there are many. I have already posted some which you have answered, however:

(1 The fact remains that (2 KINGS 2:11) Elijah ascended, and (GENESIS 5:24) Enoch ascended, and this contradicts "Heaven, no man hath ascended" JOHN 3:13. It is not about what is "probable", it is about what is said!
Yes it is about what is said and what is meant and the point remains that no one has yet ascended based on the New Testament principle of salvation through Jesus, this is not probable this is what is said. Also after rereading the verses and consulting with others I can say Enoch did not ascend, the verse says this : Genesis 5:24-â€œEnoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.â€? Now this may seem to indicate that Enoch went to heaven but it does not say that and also the verse before it(Gen. 5:23) says that all the days of Enoch were 365 years which indicates a death at the end of those 365 years. In Hebrews 11:5 it is said that Enoch was translated by God, what this means is that he was moved or transported by God, because he was the only one in his generation that walked with God and by faith, he was buried by God so that no one else could find him. The evidence for this is that Jacob was also translated or transported after his death and we know that Jacob most certainly did not ascend to heaven, the same happened to Moses in that God took him and buried him away from the people in a place they did not know about. So the â€œtook himâ€? in Gen.5:24 refers to God taking him away from the people but to be buried not ascend because Gen5:23 confirms that he died. Now I realize that in Hebrews 11:5 it says that â€œBy faith Enoch was translated so that he should not see death;â€¦â€? And by reading this you may think that it clearly says that Enoch did not die, but in truth it says â€œShould not see deathâ€? this is in future tense so what exactly is it referring to? Remember, Jesus and the apostles mention many times that we will get eternal life through Jesus, but what is that eternal life? Is it for the body? NO, it is actually for the spirit so the â€œshouldâ€? refers to his salvation from spiritual and therefore eternal death. Mankind goes through two deaths the first is obviously the death of the body but the other is the one awaiting some on judgement day, those who did not keep the sayings of Jesus will experience this eternal , spiritual death but others such as Enoch will not because they followed the ways of God, hence the â€œshould not see deathâ€? in Hebrews 11:5. As far as Elijah goes I must first note that use of the word heaven in the Bible. Of course there is the heaven that is Godâ€™s throne but also The moon and stars in space are described as the heavens: Psalm 8:3 and Genesis 1:15-17, and the air that surrounds the earth, the atmosphere, is referred to as heaven: Genesis 1:20, Genesis 27:28 and Deuteronomy 33:28. Taking this into account lets look at what happened during Elijahâ€™s ascent. 2Kings 2:11-â€œAs they were going along and talking, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire and horses of fire which separated the two of them. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind to heaven.â€? The particular mention of a â€œwhirlwindâ€? is very intriguing and very telling as to where Elijah actually went, the departure of Elijah has a greater significance also, you see the Lord used Elijah to respond to a wicked king with the death of that king God now wanted Elisha to direct his work and therefore took Elijah away so that Elisha could develop on his own. Another interesting thing to note is that when Elijah was taken away his mantle fell into the hands of Elisha below, the mantle was a special cloth worn by priests and prophets as a sign of their office, this signified that Elisha was no longer a student buy a teacher. Now back to Elijahâ€™s ascent, if the last mention of Elijah was 2Kings 2:11 then it would appear that he may have been taken to heaven, even though the â€œwhirlwindâ€? indicates an â€œatmosphericâ€? heaven, but that was not the last mention of Elijah, we see or rather hear of him again later on. How? Lets see: 2Chronicles 21:12-â€œThen a letter came to him from Elijah the prophet saying,..â€? This event in 2Chronicles chapter 21 was approximately ten years after he was taken away, If he was in heaven, how did he write the letter? It appears that in 2Kings 2:11 God took him away to another land where ten years later he wrote a letter to King Jehoram condemning him for his evil acts. So since he was still on Earth and in a body(to write the letter) he must have died a human death just as Enoch did and every person will and is awaiting Jesus for his salvation.

(2) Then there is Jesus lost "None" of his disciples JOHN 18:9 which Is Contradicted by. He lost only "One" JOHN 17:12
Again this is not a contradiction John 17:12 occurs before Jesus is betrayed which is why he lost one because the traitor is still among the disciples but is lost to Jesus, John 18:9 occurs after the betrayal, after Judas was revealed as not of God and as a false disciple so Jesus did not lose one because Judas became what he really was, a false disciple.

I am not saying there was not some specific explanation to what happened here. What i am saying is that the actual TEXT contradicts each other.
That is a strawman fallacy, in order for the true meaning to be understood the explanation and full text must be observed otherwise you could just pick any piece of a verse and try and contradict it with others even if you are taking it out of context.

(3) Rom5:12 States: Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and DEATH by sin; and so DEATH passed upon ALL men, for that ALL have sinned:

Which is In Contradiction to the verses in the bible that tells us of those that did not Die such as:

"Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven" (2 Kings 2:11),

"Enoch was translated that he should NOT see death" (Hebrews 11:5), and "God took him" (Genesis 5:24),
As I explained above Elijah and Enoch did not escape death, and the verse Hebrews 11:5 refers to Enoch escaping second death(eternal death) because he walked with God, hence the fact that it says â€œshould not see deathâ€? which is in future tense.

Moses appeared ALIVE in the transfiguration with Jesus (Matthew 17:3),
Again by reading the other verses in the chapter you see that it is not what it appears to be when you just isolate one verse as you did by isolating verse Matthew 17:3. Reading further you would have seen that in Mat. 17:9 Jesus tells them(Peter, John and James) to not tell any body about the Vision. So the appearance of Moses and Elijah was just that, a vision, the reality of their resurrection, as well as that of Jesus, would come about later on.

Melchizeldek who is eternal without father or mother, WITHOUT beginning of days NOR END OF LIFE (Hebrews 7:3)
There is something telling in that verse and that is that it says that Melchizedek was like the Son of God. If you read the beginning of Matthew and you see that Jesus had a genealogy and parents, that is the human aspect of Jesus had these characteristics. The reason why Melchizedek is claimed to have no end and to be without a father or mother is not because Melchizedek, the person, did not have these traits but because what he stood for, the priesthood of God the most high, had no end all the way back in Genesis Melchizedek reflects the ministry of Jesus, a ministry overshadowed by that of Aaron or the Levites but with Jesus the Melchizedek form of priesthood is reintroduced and replaces that of the Aaron, hence no beginning because Jesus was the beginning and no end because it outlasted Levite priesthood and is the eternal way through Jesus.

(4) Furthermore, Rom. 5:12-23 describes the effect of Adam's sin on his descendants for which man was punished by death and women by pain in childbirth (Rom. 5:12-23). Specifically, it is our INHERITANCE of a SINFUL NATURE from Adam. The SINFUL NATURE originated with Adam and is PASSED DOWN from parent to child. We are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3).

Which is In Contradiction to those without a "Sinful Nature":

Job did not sin (Job 1:1) as he was PERFECT, UPRIGHT and ESCHEWED evil.
Firstly the verse reads: Job1:1-â€œThere was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job; and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil.â€? No where does it say he did not sin instead words such as â€œblamelessâ€? and â€œuprightâ€? refer to his moral integrity.

Melchizedek (Heb. 7:3) is "LIKE the Son of God", and therefore also is sinless.
Melchizedek is mentioned few times in the Bible but the picture we get is of a noble and righteous man who was a king and priest. Now although he was highly regarded that does not mean he was sinless, his comparison to â€œthe Son of Godâ€? is based on the fact that like Jesus he was a bright spot in a dark world, Jesus entered a world of sin and Melchizedek lived in a world of sin where his neighbors were the notorious Canaanites and the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, that a person would keep in such accord with God in this environment is truly admirable and a model for priesthood. That of course does not mean that Melchizedek was free of sin.

Zechariah and Elizibeth did not sin (Luke 1:5-6). Both of them were UPRIGHT in the sight of God, observing ALL the Lord's commandments and regulations BLAMELESSLY.

Luke 1:5-6-â€œIn the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a certain priest named Zachariah, of the course of Abijah; and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, blameless.â€? Where does it say they did not sin? Saying they were righteous and blameless is not the same as saying they did not sin, it is to say that they observed the laws of God and were well developed morally which does not mean they were completely free of sin. Living a sinful life is different than occasionally sinning, they did not live a sinful life but undoubtedly sinned on occasion.

Mary did not sin. The Angel who delivers Godâ€™s message, says that she is FULL of grace in (Luke 1: 28) "Hail, (MARY) FULL OF GRACE, the Lord is WITH thee. Blessed art THOU among women."
That is an incorrect Roman Catholic teaching, while the Bible does not specifically say Mary sinned(that I recall) it does say it indirectly in verses such as Luke 1:46-47 which says: â€œAnd Mary said, My soul magnifies the Lord, And my spirit has exulted in God my Savior;â€? If Mary did not sin why would she need a savior? She was undoubtedly full of grace and virtue but not sinless.

(5) Rom. 5:12-23and Eph. 2:3 also contradicts those verses in the bible that tell us of those those that do not "Inherit" sin:

"The son (the progeny of Adam) SHALL NOT bear the iniquity of the father (Adam)." Ezekiel 18:20

"EVERY man shall receive his OWN reward according to his OWN labour."I Corinthians 3:8

"The fathers SHALL NOT be put to death for the children, NEITHER shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his OWN sin." 2 Kings 14:6 Deuteronomy 24:16

"But every one shall die for his OWN iniquity ..." Jeremiah 31:30:

â€œLet the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God BELONGS to such as these." Mark 10:14
A sinful nature is different from actual sins, while we inherited a sinful nature from Adamâ€™s disobedience, we as individuals are responsible for the actual sins we commit, for instance If I was a thief and my father was a drunk then I would not have to answer for being a drunk but only for stealing and my father would not have to answer for stealing but only for drinking. We both would have that sinful nature which was inherited from Adam but the actual sins we commit are on our hands.

(6) The "Lord" tempted David . . . (2 SAMUEL 24:1)......Contradicted by...... "Satan provoked David . . . (I CHRONICLES 21:1)
There is no mention of God tempting David. 2 Samuel 24:1-â€œNow again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel and it incited David against them to say, â€œGo, number Israel and Judah.â€?â€? Notice how it says â€œNow againâ€? meaning previous actions that David committed angered God and by ordering the census he(David) was angering God again. 1Chronicles 21:1-â€œThen Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israelâ€? The cause and effect relationship of sin is clearly between David and Satan not God and David, God is described as reacting to Davidâ€™s displeasing behavior.

(7) 700 Syrian Chariot drivers (2 Samuel 10:18)...Contradicted by ...7000 Syrian Chariot drivers (1 CHRONICLES 19:18)
2 Samuel 10:18 says "the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the MEN OF 700 chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen." Then in I Chronicles 19:18 we read: "But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians 7000 men WHICH FOUGHT IN chariots, and forty thousand footmen." So it does not exactly say that 700 men were killed in 2 Samuel 10:18 but rather the men of 700 chariots meaning there was more than one person per chariot.

(8) Solomon had 2000 baths (1 KINGS 7-26).... ...Contradicted by.... Solomon had 3000 baths (2 CHRONICLES 4:5)
This is not a contradiction at all, if you read 1 Kings chapter 7 you see that it is describing Solomonâ€™s palace(home), and in 2 Chronicles 4:5 it is describing his temple which was a different building. The first verses give it away, 1 Kings 7:1-â€œNow Solomon was building his own house thirteen years, and he finished all the house.â€? And in 2 Chronicles 4:1-â€œThen he made a bronze alter, twenty cubits in length and twenty cubits in width and ten cubits in height.â€?

(9) Solomon had 4000 stalls of horses (2 CHRONICLES 9:25)..... Contradicted by..... Solomon had 40000 stalls of horses(1 KINGS 4:26)
This may actually be a legitimate error by the person copying the Bible though there remains the possibility that the amount of stalls Solomon had changed during his reign, because after all The two verses describing the number of stalls occur at different times during his reign. There also remains another possibility, note how in 1 Kings 4:26 it says â€œSolomon had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariotsâ€¦â€? and 2 Chronicles 9:25 says â€œNow Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariotsâ€¦â€? This may indicate that there were 40,000 horses for his chariots and 4,000 stalls for his horses and chariots, meaning 4,000 stalls each containing 10 horses.

(10) Saul enquire of the Lord (1 SAMUELS 28:6)...... Contradicted by.... Saul didn't consult the Lord (1 CHRONICLES 10:13-14)
First I will ask you a question, when you pray do you go to Allah physically in person? No, of course not, that is what Saul tried to do in a sense, he was corrupted by sin and therefore his spirit was hardened and did not reach out for the Lord, remember he had previously tried to kill David and immediately after trying to consult God he asked for the advice of a medium so in truth he did not consult the Lord because his spirit could not and that is how all connect with God. So 1 Chronicles 10:13-14 is telling us that â€œSaul died for his trespass which he committed against the Lord, because of the word of the Lord which he did not keep;â€¦â€?

Sources:

http://www.blessedquietness.com/jour...e/contrdct.htm
http://www.cgom.org/Publications/Boo...och_Elijah.htm
http://www.scripturessay.com/q461a.html

Adrian7 · (#81 (**permalink**))

jamal786 wrote:

Quote:

Adrian7...

I read your post regarding the Qur'an and the bible. You obviously have youre perspective, but from a Muslim perspective:

The Qur'an CONFIRMED the truth of the ORIGINAL message which it has preserved within itself. It done this so that the original and true message and teachings was not lost and corroborates the true message that remains within them.

However, the original teaching of the bible is corrupted and we do not know 100% what is the word of god and what is the word of man, as the original bible scriptures have been lost, recorded with error and corrupted. The Qur'an REPLACED the errors, inconsistancies and corruptions of the bible and bible books, with the true message. Therefore the current bible cannot be used to confirm the Qur'an in terms of the verses you used, but can only use the Qur'an to confirm the bible. Anything in the bible alone which is not explicitly confirmed by the Qur'an is effectively invalid.
Your perspective is interesting but in light of the evidence not supported, I have not discussed the history and political situations surrounding Islam at the time of its creation so far but this website: http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch1.html, will definitely shed some light on this issue and show that the idea of a consistent and unaltered Quran is out of the picture.

Quote:

(Qur'an 2:79) "Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby."

Let us clarify our own belief regarding the Books of God. When we say that we believe in the Tauraat, the Zaboor, the Injeel and the Qur'an, what do we really mean? We already know that the Holy Qur'an is the infallible Word of God, revealed to our Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhummed Mustapha (Peace be upon him) word for word, through the agency of the Archangel Jibraeel, and perfectly preserved and protected from human tampering for the past fourteen hundred years!

The Tauraat we Muslims believe in is not the "Torah" of the Jews and the Christians, though the words â€” one Arabic, the other Hebrew â€” are the same. We believe that whatever the Holy Prophet Moses (Peace be upon him) preached to his people, was the revelation from God Almighty, but that Moses was not the author of those "books" attributed to him by the Jews and the Christians.

Likewise, we believe that the Zaboor was the revelation of God granted to Hazrat Dawood (David) (Peace be upon him), but that the present Psalms associated with his name are not that revelation. The Christians themselves do not insist that David is the sole author of "his" Psalms.

What about the Injeel? INJEEL means the "Gospel" or "good news" which Jesus Christ preached during his short ministry. The "Gospel" writers often mention that Jesus going about and preaching the Gospel (the Injeel). The "gospel" is a frequently-used word, but what Gospel did Jesus preach? Of the 27 books of the New Testament, only a small fraction can be accepted as the words of Jesus. The Christians boast about the Gospels according to St. Matthew, according to St. Mark, according to St. Luke and according to St. John, but there is not a single Gospel "according" to (St.) Jesus himself! We sincerely believe that everything Christ (May the peace and blessings of God be upon him) preached was from God. That was the Injeel, the good news and the guidance of God for the Children of Israel. In his life-time Jesus never wrote a single word, nor did he instruct anyone to do so. Some of what passes off as the "GOSPELS" today are the works of anonymous hands!. The Christian scriptures have been so changed and altered that they bear little, if any, resemblance to the glorious Injil praised in the Qur'an and may instead be "faked" substitutes for the original Injil. Or that, the Gospels are the handiwork of men, not the noble Injil which descended upon Jesus.
Thatâ€™s strange, you mean to tell me that Mohammed had access to a true, uncorrupted version of the bible that the Christians for the 600 years before him did not have? If not then he used the same manuscripts we use and therefore would have relied on the same words and gospels we use to this day. Also saying that the present bible is corrupt or a faked version is very far-fetched in light of the number of manuscripts there are. For this to happen not only would the Jews and Christians have had to agree to corrupt the bible in the same way but those of different nations would have to have corrupted or faked the bible in the same way in the various languages it was written in and while many of the nations that the original manuscripts come from were Roman provinces, others such as Ethiopia and Nubia were not yet their bibles match with the bibles in other languages. Also you say that Jesus never wrote a single word nor instructed any one else to do so, then what injeel are you referring to? You yourself said that what Jesus taught was from God yet you also claim that non of it was recorded by him or anybody else so even if the Bible we use today were false then the Quran would still be praising false scripture.(But of course I have faith in the Bibleâ€™s truth).

The Bible is not what it is claimed to be by the protagonists of Christianity. The Bible is human in origin, though some, out of zeal which is not according to knowledge. Those books have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men, and bear in their style the characteristics of men. The "Holy Bible" contains a motley type of literature, which composes the embarrassing kind, the sordid, and the obscene â€” all under the same cover. The authors of many of these anonymous books are either "UNKNOWN" or are "PROBABLY" or "LIKELY" or are of "DOUBTFUL" origin.
Well that is definitely a belief, a belief not strongly supported by the evidence. While it is true that some of the books written in the Bible can not concretely be proven to be of a particular Author the truth they reveal are of God. Also it was the hand of man that recorded but the guidance of God that composed the bible.

Hence:

"This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you ISLAM as your religion". (Soorah Al-Maa'idah 5:3)

"If anyone desires a religion other than ISLAM (SUMISSION TO ALLAH (God)) never will It be accepted of Him" (Soorah Aal'imraan 3:85)

Yes Islam is so perfect that Allah had to remove Satanâ€™s verses (Surah 22:52) and he had to do some revising of his own work (Surah 2:106, 16:101).

KANOBI · (#82 (**permalink**))

jamal786 wrote:

Quote:

Furthermore, the verses Kanobi refers too regards "strong drink AND A goodly provision".

This does not state that alcohol is the "goodly provision". Out of the date and vine you can derive alcohol, AND YOU CAN ALSO get goodly wholesome food such as grape juice, grapes, dates, sugar, vinegar, etc..

Kanobi later uses a seperate verse that states there are some benefits in alcohol which is a scientifically proven fact which is why it is used in medicine. Whilst i do not disagree with this, the fact remains that nowhere was we told to consume it as "goodly provision" for these benefits.

Alcohol was never listed as "goodly provision".

Quote:

[line]

Quote:

Alcohol which is an abomination of Satan was previously mentioned in a positive context (amongst goodly provisions). Even If you think the mention of alcohol was neutral despite it being mentioned in a positive context it is still unexpected if it alcohol is truly an abomination of Satan. You already know my views on gradual prohibition and how that is not consistent with the absolute God of the Bible.

Also what about the wine in heaven?

Quote:

http://www.studytoanswer.net/islam/badwine.html

Quote:

[font="Trebuchet MS"]The Quranic Teaching on Wine and Strong Drink
Satan's Handiwork in Allah's Garden?
Most Westerners are at least passingly familiar with the Islamic belief concerning alcoholic beverages. In conservative Muslim countries which have instituted some form of shari'a law, the production and consumption of alcholic drinks is absolutely forbidden, upon pain of death or some other unpleasant form of punishment. The reason for this type of law stems from the Qur'an, presumably the basis of Islamic jurisprudence. The Qur'an has some very strong language with respect to alcohol:

"O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper." (Surah 5:90, Yusuf Ali)
"They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: "In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit." They ask thee how much they are to spend; Say: "What is beyond your needs." Thus doth Allah Make clear to you His Signs: In order that ye may consider." (Surah 2:219, Yusuf Ali)

This seems pretty straightforward. Alcohol is a sin, it is Satan's handiwork. It is something to be avoided by all good Muslims. Yet, we see that the Qur'an then teaches that "Satan's handiwork" will appear in the Paradise which Allah is said to prepare for faithful Muslims,

"(Here is) a Parable of the Garden which the righteous are promised: in it are rivers of water incorruptible; rivers of milk of which the taste never changes; rivers of wine, a joy to those who drink; and rivers of honey pure and clear. In it there are for them all kinds of fruits; and Grace from their Lord. (Can those in such Bliss) be compared to such as shall dwell for ever in the Fire, and be given, to drink, boiling water, so that it cuts up their bowels (to pieces)?" (Surah 47:15, Yusuf Ali)

There certainly seems to be a disconnect in the message presented by the Qur'an on this topic. After all, Surahs 2:219 and 5:90 speak against wine, yet this same beverage flows in Allah's garden as a river! On the surface this appears to be a basic contradiction in the Qur'an.
Muslim apologists typically rebut by remarking that the wine found in the rivers of Paradise is non-alcoholic. Much of this argument rests on a pragmatic, rather than textual or contextual, foundation. "Even though wine is the work of Satan, if it appears in Paradise, then in that place it must be non-alcoholic", so the argument generally runs. However, a cross-referential argument is advanced, as well. Many Muslims point to Surah 37:40-47 as proof for the claim of "dryness" in the wine of Paradise:

"But the sincere (and devoted) Servants of Allah,- For them is a Sustenance determined, Fruits (Delights); and they (shall enjoy) honour and dignity, In Gardens of Felicity, Facing each other on Thrones (of Dignity): Round will be passed to them a Cup from a clear-flowing fountain, Crystal-white, of a taste delicious to those who drink (thereof), Free from headiness; nor will they suffer intoxication therefrom."

Thus, the cup from the clear-flowing fountain is a drink which does not produce drunkenness. Therefore, the river of wine in Paradise is non-alcoholic! Unfortunately for the apologists, this argument is based upon some unsound premises. To begin with, it should be noted that the connexion made between Surahs 47:15 and 37:45ff is tenuous, at best. The argument is arbitrary - A is a drink, and B is a drink, thus A must equal B. Yet, 47:15 refers to a flowing river of wine, while 37:45 refers to a cup of unspecified beverage. These are not necessarily the same thing. However, much Muslim exposition on this subject tends to assume just this connexion. While commenting on 47:15, Yusuf Ali discusses the river of wine, one of the four flowing rivers in Paradise:

"...(3) wine, not like any wine on earth, for it leaves no headaches behind, and causes no intoxication, which is a kind of madness or poison, but is ever a joy to drink..."

[color=black][color=black][color=black]

KANOBI · (#83 (**permalink**))

His otherwise unqualified statement appears to be drawn from the points in 37:45 about the beverage in the cup from the clear-flowing fountain not causing intoxication. Yet, it must again be noted that it is never specified what the drink from the clear-flowing fountain is! In fact, the description of the fountain and the liquid in the cup as "clear" and "crystal-white" would seem to argue against this beverage being wine. Wine, even white wine, is not white in colour nor entirely free from turbidity. Even white wines have a yellowish tint due to the presence of aromatic compounds[suP]2[/suP], and there will always be some cloudiness due to the presence of fermentation impurities. Further, the very fact that the Qur'an specifically details that the liquid from the fountain does not produce intoxication (37:47) would seem to argue that the author did not have wine (which does produce intoxication) in mind.
Most importantly, however, we should note that the Arabic behind the Quranic statement about wine flowing in rivers in Paradise supports the contention that this wine is alcoholic. Hearkening back to 47:15 earlier, look at the clause "rivers of wine, a joy to those who drink", which in Arabic (transliterated) says - "...waanhaarun min k[suP]h[/suP]amrin laththatin lilshshaaribeena..."[suP]3[/suP]. The word translated as "wine" (k[suP]h[/suP]amrin) in this passage is from the root k[suP]h[/suP]mr. This is a root which has the general meaning of fermentation or leavening; it can denote both the fermentation of juices to produce wine, and it can also denote the rising of bread due to yeast action. Some examples of its use with respect to wine:

l-'islaam harram l-k[suP]h[/suP]amir - "Islam declared wine unlawful"
'itha k[suP]h[/suP]ammar 'asiir l-'inab ma yinshirib - "If grape juice ferments, it will not be