Muslim view of the Bible

[blitz]

*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
Blitz,

Thanks for prejudging me i am not certain how you know that i have received Islam through my “mother’s milk”.

Thanks for your Prompt response. I’m sorry I did’nt mean to offend you with that statement. I was simply using it metaphorically. What I actually meant was any person born in a certain religion will defend it, even violently if it called for it. (example the crusades; the dark era in Christian history). I certainly did not mean to prejudge you. You will notice it is a generalized statement.

*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *

In the Quran, all of humanity is instructed to ponder and reflect upon God’s “signs” - the intricate workings of the universe, how life was created, the sun, the moon. If you have ever had one of those moments where you just wonder - how did all of this life come into being, there must be a final purpose to these diverse forms of existence on this planet - then you know what i am talking about.

This is true, However for a Christian all these “signs” and wonders exist in the Bible. I believe till today there is no documented proof of what muslims claim. ie: alterations in the scriptures. Yes there are variations in its translations, however such variations exist in the translations of the Quran as well. Compare Pickthall, Yousf Ali etc…

Thanks for your directions to that web site I ocassionally browse through it for references.

b

[blitz]

Re: Re: Muslim view of the Bible

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *

"Extremists such as Osama bin Laden like to quote such [war] verses but do so selectively. They do not include the exhortations to peace, which in almost every case follow these more ferocious passages."

[/QUOTE]

Please direct me to a verse in the Quran that explicitly instructs muslims not to adhere to certain verses, as they were not meant for this generation.

b

[Iqbal1089]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *

What is the Muslim belief as to why God chose this group of *jaahiliyat * to reveal His message?
[/quote]

{For We assuredly sent amongst every people a Messenger...} (16:36)

[quote]
Did the Jews lose favor with God? Because they had always been the "chosen people".
[/quote]

The Qur'an calls out to Jews as much as it does anyone else.

{Verily this Qur'an doth explain to the Children of Israel most of the matters in which they disagree} (27:76)

[quote]
The sharia law for example is not the same law that he had given to Moses.
[/quote]

{To each among you have We prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute} (5:48)

[quote]
** Why didn't God reveal to Jesus the inaccuracies of the scripture he quoted?**
[/quote]

The NT has Jesus quoting the OT a few times. On at least one occasion, his citation is inaccurate. In other words, the Gospel writer has Jesus erroneously misquoting a passage from the OT. This happens with Paul as well.

[quote]
If the reason was to complete The Message, why didn't He finish giving the message to "the people of the book"?
[/quote]

Former generations - through their respective Prophets - were given everything they needed for complete guidance and well being. They weren't dealt with unfairly.

[quote]
Why didn't He at least reveal it to a more culturely or spiritually advanced people than the Arabs of the time?
[/quote]

{Allah guides to His light whom He pleases} (24:35)

[quote]
The Bible has a nice flow of the Fire and Brimstone laws of the Old Testament, into Christ's teachings of a peaceful, idealistic life based on prayer, loving, forgiving, tolerance, giving, non-judging...
[/quote]

Islam didn't abolish or omit any of these.

{Nothing is said to thee that was not said to the Messengers before thee: that thy Lord has at His Command (all) forgiveness as well as a most Grievous Penalty} (41:43)

And Allah knows best.

Iqbal

[The_Old_Man]

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Iqbal1089:
The NT has Jesus quoting the OT a few times. On at least one occasion, his citation is inaccurate. In other words, the Gospel writer has Jesus erroneously misquoting a passage from the OT. This happens with Paul as well.
[/QUOTE]

Could you kindly give more details?

On the subject of other Books that the 4 Gospel writers drew inspiration from:

It could very well be that some other writers also tried to write what they heard and experienced while following Jesus Christ. Unfortunately none of these books survived which, when pondering on the vast number of samples of the 4 Gospels that DID survive, bring one to the conclusion that these other books obviously were not considered by the people living in the first 200 years to be of such importance that they tried to copy/keep them as they did with the 4 Gospels. The theory of a primordial Gospel that the 4 others came from, are mere speculation by a minority group of scholars in the present age. They point to the Gospel of Thomas and also Barnabas. I have read both and can say that they differ so much with the 4 Gospels that there is absolutely no evidence that they were the "original" Gospel. Some early Christian theologians did put a high value on the Gospel of Barnabas but some errors/nonsense out of that book that might have swayed the early church fathers not to include it in the New Testament Library are:

1. Neither shall thou eat of the hyena.......Because that creature every year changes its kind, and is sometimes male and sometimes female. Barnabas 9v8

2. For which cause also he justly hated the weasel......Because that animal conceives with its mouth. Barnabas 9v9

On the subject of "worship" being translated wrong in the New Testament:

The Greek word proskuneo means prostate oneself in homage/to worship and is only used in the New Testament where it indicates to worship, e.g.

All the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on their faces before the throne and **worshipped* God* Rev.7v11

In fact even the Jehova's Witnesses, when they made their translation of the New Testament in order for it to conform to their teachings, could not get away from translating this word as worship even though it is completely against their doctrine that Jesus Christ is to be worshipped - such strong evidence exist that the word means worship in it's fullest meaning.

[Iqbal1089]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by The Old Man: *

Could you kindly give more details?
[/quote]

Compare Luke 4:17-19:

"The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

'The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for
the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour.'"

... with Isaiah 61:1-2:

"The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me,
because the Lord has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to bind up the broken-hearted,
to proclaim freedom for the captives
and release from darkness for the
prisoners (or: 'the blind'?]
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour."

I've italicised some of the areas where one passage differs with the other. Please note that Jesus (as) was supposedly reading directly from Isaiah and so the two quotes should match exactly - but they don't. Why didn't the translator(s), for example, reproduce in Luke exactly the same passage that had already been translated back in Isaiah if both are the same? I've used the New International Version for these quotes.

[quote]
It could very well be that some other writers also tried to write what they heard and experienced while following Jesus Christ.
[/quote]

I touched on this earlier. Luke himself points out that "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled..." (Luke 1:1). His words make it clear that by the time he wrote there were already other "gospels" in circulation and none of them enjoyed such an established position as to bar another writer from adding to their number.

[quote]
Unfortunately none of these books survived which, when pondering on the vast number of samples of the 4 Gospels that DID survive, bring one to the conclusion that these other books obviously were not considered by the people living in the first 200 years to be of such importance that they tried to copy/keep them as they did with the 4 Gospels.
[/quote]

Firstly, although it has been some time since i last looked into it, i doubt that there are any substantive copies of the New Testament that can be dated within the first 200 years. Certainly, there is no complete, surviving edition of the NT dated anywhere near that period. All that has been unearthed is papyrus fragments which go only part way towards establishing what the text of some of the books of the NT looked like at that time. It is possible, however, to overcome this deficiency by falling back on a consistent oral tradition for transmitting religious texts. The Bible, as far as i am aware, does not lay claim to such an oral tradition.

Written records are not always a guarantee that the text has been preserved. In this regards, the "vast number of samples" that you refer to probably causes more problems for the Bible than it solves. The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible (1962 in four volumes) for example estimates that NT manuscripts differ among themselves between a staggering 150,000 to 250,000 times. In fact, it goes on to say that: “It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the manuscript tradition is wholly uniform.” Admittedly, many of these differences may be minor (although some are not), but it does illustrate the problems faced by Biblical scholars. The New International Version, published 1973, admits in its Preface that: "Footnotes call attention to places where there was uncertainty about what the original text was."

Secondly, there was great debate within Christian circles as to which books should be classed as authoritative and which should be cast aside. This debate continued beyond the first 200 years. Among the books at the centre of this debate were the Gospel of John, Revelation, Hebrews and Acts. Some churches accepted one book, other churches did not.

Finally, you have to also appreciate that a number of these works, particularly the first three gospels, were initially circulated anonymously. Their authors were largely unknown and the names by which they are commonly referred to today - Matthew, Mark & Luke, for example - were added later.

[quote]
The theory of a primordial Gospel that the 4 others came from, are mere speculation by a minority group of scholars in the present age. They point to the Gospel of Thomas and also Barnabas. I have read both and can say that they differ so much with the 4 Gospels that there is absolutely no evidence that they were the "original" Gospel.
[/quote]

The four Gospels differ among themselves as well. Mark is reputedly the earliest of the four famous Gospels. If Mark was available to both Matthew and Luke it is evident that neither of them regarded the earlier work as inspired scripture. Matthew and Luke feel perfectly free, not only to add to Mark, but also to subtract, to alter words, to change the order in which events were supposed to have occurred, and even on occasion to give contradictory information. It cannot be doubted that the many other gospels which were in circulation during the same period or later claimed for themselves at least an equal freedom and status.

[quote]
**On the subject of "worship" being translated wrong in the New Testament:

The Greek word proskuneo means prostate oneself in homage/to worship and is only used in the New Testament where it indicates to worship**
[/quote]

New Testament translators appear to selectively interchange between the terms "to prostrate/pay homage/honor or respect" and "worship" depending on which edition of the Bible you look at. For example, Matthew 2:11 in the New International Version (NIV) reads:

"On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshipped him."

Whereas the same passage in the New American Bible (NAB) reads:

"On entering the house they saw the child with Mary his mother. They prostrated themselves and did him homage."

Mark 5:6 in the Revised Standard Version (RSV) reads:

"And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshiped him."

Whilst the NIV renders it as:

"When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him."

[quote]
*All the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They fell down on their faces before the throne and *worshipped God. Rev.7v11

In fact even the Jehova's Witnesses, when they made their translation of the New Testament in order for it to conform to their teachings, could not get away from translating this word as worship even though it is completely against their doctrine that Jesus Christ is to be worshipped - such strong evidence exist that the word means worship in it's fullest meaning. **
[/QUOTE]

This verse is not about Jesus (as).

Iqbal

[The_Old_Man]

Pardon me for responding so late to the thread.

Christianity and Christians actually do not need the Bible in order for their religion to survive. Jesus Christ did not say he will ensure a book to be drawn up which his followers should follow, but stated that he will send the Holy Ghost that ** will guide you into all truth ** (John.16v8). Unfortunately not all followers of Christ lived their lives as followers of Him with the same passion as others, some did not open their spiritual ears to the Holy Spirit, and some did let their intellectual abilities stand in the way of the guidance of the Holy Spirit. When some of those that could hear the Holy Spirit better than others wrote to those others about the Spirit’s guidance in matters, they (recognising the Holy Spirit’s guidance in the words) kept these letters for future reference. Thus started the collection of books in the New Testament. No books were added that could not be clearly recognised, as guidance by the Holy Spirit and none should clash with anything previously taught by Jesus himself or the Old Testament. In the present day we find the Bible being banned in certain countries and we find that these people again needs to rely more closely on the direct input of the Holy Spirit in their lives. These people (from different denominations) tend to get along with each other much better than those that do have the Bible to guide them. Surely it is much better to have the Author rather than the Book! In short therefor: ** No amount of rejection of the Bible by anyone should be a problem for a Christian since we can be led by the Living God through the Holy Spirit that is with each and every true Christian **. This is in contrast to Islam which, being a legalistic religion, needs a source from which they have to get guidance from as to the way they need to live. Obviously this source needs to be absolutely perfect and passionately defended as to being perfect because any doubt on any subject might cause different viewpoints and conflict among the followers. In order to clarify certain issues, usually another set of writings by acceptable sources is used – in Islam’s case it is the Hadiths and in the other legalistic religion, Judaism, it is the Talmud. These additional writings can be argued about and discussed without casting doubt on the original Scripture. (I apologise if I offended any Muslim with above statements).

Having said above, let’s look as some of Iqbal’s inaccuracies in his earlier posting:

1. About Luke.4v17-19

Firstly, there exist more than one manuscript of the Old Testament and this could be the reason why the two parts differ. Secondly, Jesus’ reading did not differ in essence from the other one and therefor nobody at the time objected. Thirdly, Jesus often tend to quote scripture as per the meaning and not exactness as can be seen when he answered Satan during his temptation, answering of which law of the 10 Commandments is the more important, etc. As long as the essence and true meaning is reflected, I can’t see any problem – for a legalistic religion it might be a big problem if something is not quoted absolutely correct and preferably in the original language.

1. * Secondly, there was great debate within Christian circles as to which books should be classed as authoritative and which should be cast aside. This debate continued beyond the first 200 years. Among the books at the centre of this debate were the Gospel of John, Revelation, Hebrews and Acts.*

Incorrect. Only Hebrews (because it did not bear the author’s name), 2 and 3 John (because the author called himself an “elder” and not “apostle”), 2 Peter (because it differed in style from 1 Peter), James and Jude (because the authors called themselves “servants” instead of “apostles”), and Revelation (because of its peculiar character caused discussion. All other books were accepted universally as genuine.

1. * Finally, you have to also appreciate that a number of these works, particularly the first three gospels, were initially circulated anonymously. Their authors were largely unknown and the names by which they are commonly referred to today - Matthew, Mark & Luke, for example - were added later*

Incorrect. From the earliest each Gospel were known for its author as can be seen by the writings of the earliest Church Fathers when they quoted from these texts. For example, take Luke who wrote ** …it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus…** (Luke.1v3) and his follow-up ** In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and teach until the day he was taken up to heaven…** (Acts.1v1). Surely no one could be in doubt as to who the author of this book was?

1. * The four Gospels differ among themselves as well. Mark is reputedly the earliest of the four famous Gospels. If Mark was available to both Matthew and Luke it is evident that neither of them regarded the earlier work as inspired scripture.*

Mark was not the first. Most scholars accept that Matthew was the first book written. There is no evidence that any of the other authors had access to the Gospel of Mark. Any evidence to the contrary?

1. The comment This verse is not about Jesus (as) about my quote of Revelation 7v11 merely indicate that Iqbal did not follow my reasoning very well. The same word used to indicate worshipping of God Almighty here is the same word used when people “worshipped” Jesus in various other passages.

[Iqbal1089]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by The Old Man: *

**1. About Luke.4v17-19

Firstly, there exist more than one manuscript of the Old Testament and this could be the reason why the two parts differ. Secondly, Jesus’ reading did not differ in essence from the other one and therefor nobody at the time objected. Thirdly, Jesus often tend to quote scripture as per the meaning and not exactness as can be seen when he answered Satan during his temptation, answering of which law of the 10 Commandments is the more important, etc. As long as the essence and true meaning is reflected, I can’t see any problem - for a legalistic religion it might be a big problem if something is not quoted absolutely correct and preferably in the original language.**
[/quote]

You forget that Jesus was actually "reading" from Isaiah, he wasn't paraphrasing or citing from memory.

[quote]
Incorrect. Only Hebrews (because it did not bear the author’s name), 2 and 3 John (because the author called himself an “elder” and not “apostle”), 2 Peter (because it differed in style from 1 Peter), James and Jude (because the authors called themselves “servants” instead of “apostles”), and Revelation (because of its peculiar character caused discussion. All other books were accepted universally as genuine.
[/quote]

You not only confirm my point but in fact strengthen it. I gave examples of four books that were in dispute, you've increased this to seven.

[quote]
Incorrect. From the earliest each Gospel were known for its author as can be seen by the writings of the earliest Church Fathers when they quoted from these texts.
[/quote]

The authorship was decided upon by later generations. The earliest reference to the Gospels by name was made by Papias (c. 130) a Greek church leader and we only know this through the writings of Eusebius (c. 260-340) a Palestinian biblical scholar.

[quote]
For example, take Luke who wrote * …it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus…* (Luke.1v3) and his follow-up * In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and teach until the day he was taken up to heaven…* (Acts.1v1). Surely no one could be in doubt as to who the author of this book was?
[/quote]

So who was he?

[quote]
Mark was not the first. Most scholars accept that Matthew was the first book written. There is no evidence that any of the other authors had access to the Gospel of Mark. Any evidence to the contrary?
[/quote]

Matthew being the first Gospel is an outdated theory that later Biblical scholars for the most part have not accepted.

"Mark has for long been recognized as almost certainly the earliest of the gospels as Matthew and Luke both include almost all of Mark's gospel in their own." (Vardy & Mills, The Puzzle of the Gospels, Harper Collins, London: 1995, p.83)

"Mark is now generally recognised as the earliest of our existing gospels." (H. G. Wood, writing in Peake's Commentary on the Bible, Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd, London: 1919, p.681)

[quote]
The comment This verse is not about Jesus (as) about my quote of Revelation 7v11 merely indicate that Iqbal did not follow my reasoning very well. The same word used to indicate worshipping of God Almighty here is the same word used when people “worshipped” Jesus in various other passages.
[/QUOTE]

I have already given examples of how different Bibles selectively translate "worship", even when it applies to Jesus (as).

Iqbal

[Lajawab]

/'/

[Lajawab]

There is no doubt, even from the Jewish and the Christian aspect of the faith as to the truth of this religion...Read Deuteronomy 18:18...Where Allah (swt) speaks to Moses(as) about the coming messiah..."Like unto you", the bible says would be the coming messiah, like Moses (as)...Some Christians think that in this verse the Bible is talking about Jesus (as) but in reality, it's talking about Mohammed (saw)...There is no similarity between Jesus (as) and Moses (as), but Moses (as) and Mohammed (saw) have everything in common...They were both born with the conjunction of man and woman...Jesus(as) was not...Both were married...Jesus(as) was not...Both had children...Jesus (as) did not...And many other similarities...As for the Jews, they were the most beloved of Allah's (swt) people...Even Islam acknowledges the fact that they were given everything they wanted and were literally pampered by Allah (swt)...But look what they did to the prophets..They killed so many, disbelieved in so many...One comes back from the mountain to witness his people worshipping the golden calf, one they try to put on the cross...That was the last straw for Allah (swt)...So the last prophet did not come from the progeny of Ishaq (as) who was given hundreds of prophets, but from the progeny of Ismail (as)...The one and only prophet in the line of Ismail (as)...That was our Holy Prophet Mohammed (saw)...When Allah (swt) made a covenant with Abraham (as) that every prophet onwards, would come from his lineage...Allah (swt) never promised which lineage he would choose for the last Messiah...The Jews refuse to accept this...They say the last Messiah would be from the line of Ishaq(as)...So they still wait...Enter the Antichrist...Dajjaal would be his name, would claim godhood, would have godly powers, and whom the Jews will take to be the promised messiah, and be led InshAllah, by the curse of Allah (swt)...Staright into hellfire...Does it kinda fit together?

[The_Old_Man]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Lajawab: *
There is no doubt, even from the Jewish and the Christian aspect of the faith as to the truth of this religion...Read Deuteronomy 18:18...There is no similarity between Jesus (as) and Moses (as), but Moses (as) and Mohammed (saw) have everything in common...Does it kinda fit together?
[/QUOTE]

Doesn't fit together at all, unfortunately.

You can't read and interpret Scripture in order for it to conform to your beliefs, you should read and interpret Scripture to enable you to conform your believes accordingly.

Reading this passage, one immediately has to recognise that the subject is the "prophet" - not as a man but as per his functions as a prophet. The verse therefor indicate that the Prophet that would come would be as per the functions Moses as prophet fulfilled and not as his husbandly duties. Thus this prophet would

1. Start a new grouping of people from among nations as a people for the Lord
2. Will do miraculous deads
3. Will be able to converse directly with the Lord face-to-face
4. Will be from the Jewish roots
5. etc.

Surely the prophet Mohammed did not do miraculous deads such as Moses? Surely the prophet Mohammed is not from the Jewish roots?

Both Jews and Christians understand this verse in its context and both know this prophecy to point to the Messiah or Christ that needed to come. Jesus told the Samaritan woman that he is this prophet in John.4v21-26 ** The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us." Then Jesus declared, "I who speaks to you am he." **

The disciple Peter confirmed it by stating in Acts.3v17-26 ** "Now brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. But this is how God fulfilled what he had fortold through all the prophets, saying that the Christ would suffer.......For Moses said, 'The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people.... **

Just setting the record straight....

[blitz]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Lajawab: *
They were both born with the conjunction of man and woman...

[/QUOTE]

So are the rest of humanity...... so why is Mohammed unique here?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Lajawab: *
Both were married...Jesus(as) was not...Both had children...Jesus (as) did not...
[/QUOTE]

Again so is the same with the most of the human race.
Now let us look for Unique Similarities ok!

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Lajawab: *
.....And many other similarities...
[/QUOTE]

Like.......... ???

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Lajawab: *
......That was the last straw for Allah (swt)...

[/QUOTE]

Is'nt God all knowing ? ? ? .......... This sounds like something just occured to him.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Lajawab: *
Allah (swt) never promised which lineage he would choose for the last Messiah...

[/QUOTE]

Oh yes he did, Believe it or not !
Genesis 17:18 And Abraham said to God, "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!"
19 Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. [4] I will establish my covenant with HIM as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 BUT MY COVENANT I WILL ESTABLISH WITH ISAAC, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year." 22

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Lajawab: *
.........he would choose for the last Messiah...

[/QUOTE]

Quite un-Islamic! ! ....Even Mohammed never claimed to be the "messiah."

b

[Axiom]

[QUOTE]
: No amount of rejection of the Bible by anyone should be a problem for a Christian since we can be led by the Living God through the Holy Spirit that is with each and every true Christian .
[/QUOTE]

The holy Spirit is with each and every TRUE CHRISTIAN. The only problem is that, the Bible itslef confirms that there aren't any True Christians.

Gospel of Mark (chapter 16 - verse 17-18)
"There will be signs for a True believer and among the signs, in My name they shall cast out devils, they shall speak foriegn tongues, they shall take up serpants and if they drink deadly poison they shall not be harmed and when they place there hand over the sick, they shall be cured. "

This is the scientific test for a true Christian believer presented by the Bible. One of the signs is that a true christian believer will not die if he drinks deadly poison. There is not even a single person in the world who can drink deadly poison and not die. So that would mean(According to the Bible) that there is not even a single True christian believer in the world. Besides, the oldman, can you speak in foreign tongues???

So if there aren't any true christians then that would mean that there is no guidance through the holy spirit, because the holy spirit will be in the hearts of true christian believers. The ones who can pass the test given in the Bible.

[The_Old_Man]

Hello Axiom

If you read the scripture, you will realise that these signs do not signify a Christian but rather that Christians, according to Jesus, can expect these sign to happen. I have witnessed most of these signs myself. Remember though that one should not temp God Almighty. Satan used the same logic that you used in order to try and temp Jesus: ** Then the devil took him to the holy city and made him stand on the highest point of the temple. "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: 'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up on their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone,'" Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" ** The same principle should be applied to your logic.

BTW> Speaking in tongues is no big deal for many Christians....it is one of the signs of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

[Lajawab]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by blitz: *

So are the rest of humanity...... so why is Mohammed unique here?

Again so is the same with the most of the human race.
Now let us look for Unique Similarities ok!

Like.......... ???

Is'nt God all knowing ? ? ? .......... This sounds like something just occured to him.

Oh yes he did, Believe it or not !
Genesis 17:18 And Abraham said to God, "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!"
19 Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. [4] I will establish my covenant with HIM as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 BUT MY COVENANT I WILL ESTABLISH WITH ISAAC, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year." 22

Quite un-Islamic! ! ....Even Mohammed never claimed to be the "messiah."

b
[/QUOTE]

I have read both the RSV and St. James version of the bibles...There have been too much tampering with that book of God...According to me at least since I am a Muslim...Portions have been taken out, portions have been added...Last year the Catholic church abolished the idea of hell...I mean come on...If it doesn't suit you it doesn't exist....Give me a break...We are talking about faith here, not a T-shirt...

[blitz]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Lajawab: *

I have read both the RSV and St. James version of the bibles...There have been too much tampering with that book of God...According to me at least since I am a Muslim...Portions have been taken out, portions have been added...Last year the Catholic church abolished the idea of hell...I mean come on...If it doesn't suit you it doesn't exist....Give me a break...We are talking about faith here, not a T-shirt...
[/QUOTE]

Hi Lajawab,

Please explain to me why you used my quotes without answering the questions. The easiest way for an uninformed muslim to evade a question, has been, to deny the the authencity of the Bible. This unfortunately is the oldest trick in book.
If you can tell me where an"authentic" version of the Bible could be found, that would be great.

I have heard of no such declarations by the Catholic church's abolishment of the Fact of hell. If they did then your analogy about the T-shirt is accurate. Please do post any article you have pertaining to this issue.

b

[Axiom]

[QUOTE]
these signs do not signify a Christian but rather that Christians, according to Jesus, can expect these sign to happen.
[/QUOTE]

The Bible doesn't say that the Christians CAN EXPECT these signs to happen. It says that if the Christian is a true believer then the signs WILL happen. Now if they don't happen to a person who tries them and u still insist that the person is a True believer then you are insisting that the Bible is wrong.

[QUOTE]
I have witnessed most of these signs myself.
[/QUOTE]

Could you please share an experience with us where you witnessed these signs.

[QUOTE]
Remember though that one should not temp God Almighty.
[/QUOTE]

I agree with you. We should not tempt God. We should not test God. But here we aren't testing God. We are testing the human being. God promises that every Christian believer will be able to drink deadly poison and not die. Every christian believer will be able to speak in foriegn tongues.etc. We are not testing God. We know that God is correct. We know that every True Christian believer will not die when he drinks deadly poison. We are testing a human being to see whether he is a True christian believer or not. There's no question of tempting God in it. And remember, a True Christian believer will never be afraid to undergo this test.

[QUOTE]
Speaking in tongues is no big deal for many Christians....it is one of the signs of the indwelling Holy Spirit.
[/QUOTE]

Well then could you please use your "indwelling holy spirit" and translate this sentence for me:

"saa Diaz-kun pishtirima"

It is in a foreign tongue and I assume you are a true Christian believer, and you know this foreign tongue.As I said before, use you "indwelling holy spirit" not google's search engine to translate this sentence in english. Remember, the Bible also asks you to be honest. If you translate it, I'll trust you that you have translated the sentence yourself, and passed ONE of the tests.

[blitz]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Axiom: *
Gospel of Mark (chapter 16 - verse 17-18)
"There will be signs for a True believer and among the signs, in My name they shall cast out devils,......................

[/QUOTE]

Axiom,
I will attempt to answer this question.

In the verse, notice the word Among.
This does not neccessarily mean that all true believers will posess all these signs. Signs here are like gifts given to any believer that God choses to give. (The Spirit gives the gifts as He wills (1 Cor. 12:11).)
However, miracles are not the essence of the gospel. They did not always accompany the presentation of the gospel in biblical times.

Quite a test !

b

[blitz]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Lajawab: *

I have read both the RSV and St. James version of the bibles...There have been too much tampering with that book of God...According to me at least since I am a Muslim...Portions have been taken out, portions have been added...
[/QUOTE]

Some interesting quotes:

The Testimony of Muslim Scholars
Muhammad 'Abduh (Egypt) - the charge of corruption

... makes no sense at all. It would not have been possible for Jews and Christians everywhere to agree on changing the text. Even if those in Arabia had done it, the difference between their book and those of their brothers, let us say in Syria or Europe, would have been obvious.

Mawlawi Muhammad Sa'id (Pakistan) -

Some Muslims imagine that the Injil is corrupted. But... not even one among all the verses of the Qur'an mentions that the Injil or Tawrat is corrupted... it is written that the Jews -... not the Christians... alter the meaning of the passages from the Tawrat while they are explaining them. At least the Christians are completely exonerated from this charge. Hence the Injil is not corrupted and the Tawrat is not corrupted...

Sayyid Ahmad Husayn Shawkat Mirthi -

The ordinary Muslim people...believe through hearsay...that the Injil is corrupted, even though they cannot indicate what passage was corrupted, when it was corrupted, and who corrupted it. Is there any religious community...whose lot is so miserable that they would shred their heavenly Book with their own hands...? To say that God has taken the Injil and the Tawrat into heaven and has abrogated them is to defame and slander God...

b

[Axiom]

Yes, blitz I do notice the word Among. But guess what I notice it with. I notice it with "THE SIGNS"......AMONG THE SIGNS. NOT AMONG THE CHRISTIANS.

The verse doesn't say that these signs will be given to some believers AMONG the Christians. It says that there are so many signs for a true Christian believer and AMONG THOSE SO MANY SIGNS are the few signs mentioned in the verse.

Try as hard as you might but the fact remains that no human being can pass this test. Hence no human being can be a true Christian Believer.

[Axiom]

"Muhammad 'Abduh (Egypt) - the charge of corruption
Mawlawi Muhammad Sa'id (Pakistan) -
Sayyid Ahmad Husayn Shawkat Mirthi - "

Blitz, I don't know who these people are and how could these people say this. But I for one am in a habbit of trying to find out things for myself rather than believing in what others have to say. If you believe them when they say this, why won't you believe them if they say that the Hell is the most wonderfull place to go. These people seem to be Muslims. So if you believe them when they say that there are no contradictions in Injeel why don't you believe them when they say that Islam is the correct religion.

Any way if you want a contradiction, let me help you:

Second King's ( Chapter 8 - Verse 26) says that Ahizya was 22 years old when he began his reign:

"Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His mother's name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri king of Israel. "

BUT

Second Chronicles (chapter 22 - Verse 2) says that Ahizya ws 42 years old when he began his reign.

"Ahaziah was forty two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His mother's name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri."

If you want some more contradictions just say so. I have plenty. But for now try to clear the one given above.