Ang kahulugan po niyan ay "Kung loloobin ng Diyos."
At dahil naririnig natin iyan ay IISIPIN NATIN na GUSTONG UMAYON ng mga BALIK ISLAM sa KALOOBAN ng DIYOS.
Ang NAKALULUNGKOT pong KATOTOHANAN ay HINDI PO TOTOO ang IDINADALDAL NILANG IYAN.
Sa NAKIKITA po NATIN sa PAGTALAKAY NATIN tungkol sa PAGKILALA sa ANAK ni ABRAHAM ay MALINAW pong LUMITAW na TUTOL ang mga BALIK ISLAM sa KALOOBAN ng DIYOS.
Bakit po?
IPINAGPIPILITAN po ng mga BALIK ISLAM na si ISMAEL ay LEHITIMONG ANAK ni ABRAHAM at BAHAGI ng TIPAN ng DIYOS.
Ang TOTOO po ay HINDI ang DIYOS ang MAY GUSTO na ISILANG si ISMAEL.
Ang MAY GUSTO o MAY KALOOBAN na ISILANG si ABRAHAM ay si SARAH, ang ASAWA ni ABRAHAM na NAWALAN ng TIWALA sa DIYOS.
Sa Genesis 16:1-4 ay mababasa natin:
Now SARAI, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar; so she said to Abram, "The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her."
Abram agreed to what Sarai said. So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. He slept with Hagar, and she conceived.
MALINAW po RIYAN na SI SARAI o SARAH ang NAGDIKTA kay ABRAHAM para SIYA MAGKAANAK.
At ang NAGING BUNGA nga po ang PAGDIDIKTA o ng KAGUSTUHAN ni SARAH ay si ISMAEL.
MALINAW po na si SARAH ang MAY GUSTO na MAISILANG si ISMAEL.
Ngayon, TINANGGAP po ba ng DIYOS si ISMAEL bilang ANAK ni ABRAHAM?
HINDI po.
KATUNAYAN ay DIYOS MISMO ang NAGBIGAY ng ANAK kay ABRAHAM. At iyon nga po si ISAAC.
Sa Gen 20:19
"Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him."
"But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year."
NAPAKALINAW po na MAY IBANG KAGUSTUHAN o KALOOBAN ang DIYOS.
At ang KALOOBAN ng DIYOS ay si ISAAC ang MAGIGING ANAK ni ABRAHAM at KAY ISAAC ITATATAG ang PANGAKO at TIPAN ng DIYOS.
Ngayon, SINUSUNOD po ba ng mga BALIK ISLAM ang KALOOBAN ng DIYOS?
HINDI po.
TUTOL na TUTOL po ang mga BALIK ISLAM sa KALOOBAN ng DIYOS na KAY ISAAC NATUPAD ang TIPAN ng DIYOS kay ABRAHAM.
Ang IPINAGPIPILITAN po ng mga BALIK ISLAM ay KAY ISMAEL NATUPAD ang TIPAN kahit pa HINDI ang DIYOS ang MAY GUSTO na ISILANG si ISMAEL.
So, ANO po itong INSHA ALLAH na DINADALDAL ng mga BALIK ISLAM?
KALOOKAN po IYAN. PANLOLOKO sa KANILANG SARILI.
AYAW NILA sa KALOOBAN ng DIYOS. TUTOL SILA sa KALOOBAN ng DIYOS. LABAN SILA sa KALOOBAN ng DIYOS.
INSHA ALLAH raw?
SARILI LANG po NILA ang NILOLOKO NILA.
Baka ang tunay nilang gustong sabihin ay "INSHA SARAH" o AYON SA KALOOBAN NI SARAH. Hindi po kaya?
Ang PALUSOT po ng mga BALIK ISLAM, partikular nitong PALAMURANG KAPATID NILA, ay lumabas raw na "MAS MAKAPANGYARIHAN" si SARAH kaysa sa DIYOS.
Muli ay NILOLOKO ng BALIK ISLAM ang SARILI NILA.
Ang ISYU po RIYAN ay ang KALAYAAN ng KALOOBAN o FREE WILL ng TAO. At DIYAN ay BINIGYAN ng DIYOS ng LUBOS na KAKAYANAN ang TAO.
Ang TAO ay PUWEDENG SUMUNOD sa DIYOS at PUWEDE rin SIYANG SUMUWAY sa DIYOS, tulad nga po ng GINAGAWA ng mga BALIK ISLAM.
Sa halip na TANGGAPIN ng mga BALIK ISLAM ang KALOOBAN ng DIYOS na KAY ISAAC MATUTUPAD ang PANGAKO at TIPAN ng DIYOS ay SUMUSUWAY SILA at KUMUKONTRA sa KALOOBAN ng DIYOS. Ang IPINAGPIPILITAN NILA ay ang PAGSUNOD sa KALOOBAN at KAGUSTUHAN ni SARAH.
Diyan ay MALINAW na mga SUWAIL at MGA KAAWAY ng KALOOBAN ng DIYOS ang mga BALIK ISLAM.
Kaya po HINDI KAPANI-PANIWALA ITONG mga BALIK ISLAM na ITO e.
Kahit pa INSHA ALLAH SILA nang INSHA ALLAH e PURO KASINUNGALINGAN NAMAN SILA dahil KUMUKONTRA TALAGA SILA sa KALOOBAN at KAGUSTUHAN ng DIYOS.
SILA po ang TINUTUKOY ng DIYOS sa Isaiah 29:13
The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and HONOR ME with THEIR LIPS, but THEIR HEARTS ARE FAR FROM ME. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men.
O, hindi po ba PURO sa DALDAL o SALITA LANG NAGLILINGKOD ang mga BALIK ISLAM at HINDI SA GAWA?
INSHA ALLAH o AYON raw sa KALOOBAN ng DIYOS pero KALOOBAN LANG ng ISANG TAO ang PINANINIWALAAN at SINUSUNOD NILA.
NAGTAYO ng RELIHIYON ang DIYOS at iyan ang KRISTIYANISMO. Pero SAAN UMANIB ang mga BALIK ISLAM?
Sa isang RELIHIYON na ALAM NILANG HINDI DIYOS ang NAGTAYO.
NAKIPAG-USAP ang DIYOS sa TAO at NALAGAY ang mga MISMONG SALITA ng DIYOS sa BIBLIYA, pero SAAN NANIWALA ang mga BALIK ISLAM?
Hindi po ba sa isang AKLAT na SILA MISMO ay UMAAMIN na WALANG LAMAN na SALITA na DIYOS MISMO ang NAGSABI?
SINUGO ng DIYOS ang KANYANG BUGTONG na ANAK upang ILIGTAS TAYO at BIGYAN ng BUHAY na WALANG HANGGAN. Pero KANINO SUMUNOD ang mga BALIK ISLAM?
Hindi po ba sa isang PROPETA na SILA MISMO ay UMAAMIN na HINDI KINAUSAP at HINDI MISMO SINUGO ng DIYOS?
Sa KABUOHAN po ay MALINAW na HINDI SUMUSUNOD sa KALOOBAN ng DIYOS ang mga BALIK ISLAM at SARILI LANG NILA ang KANILANG SINUSUNOD.
Sa madaling salita ay SARILI LANG NILA ang KANILANG NILOLOKO.
Ang MASAKLAP at MASAKIT ay ALAM na ALAM ng mga BALIK ISLAM na NILOLOKO LANG NILA ang KANILANG MGA SARILI.
Hindi ko lang po maisip kung bakit MAY MGA NAGPAPALOKO sa mga BALIK ISLAM at sa mga DALDAL NILA.
I miss this site...
ReplyDeleteKumusta na Mr. Cenon, ang galing ng mga sagot n'yo sa mga akusasyon, salamat sa Dios.
Matanong ko lang po ang mga balik-islam baka kasi hindi n'yo napapansin, bakit kaya lahat ng mga propeta nagmula sa lahi ni Isaac? Wala ni isa man na nagmula sa lahi ni Ishmael? Kung kasama si Ishmael sa pangako ng Dios gaya ng ipinagpipilitan n'yo, bakit wala ni isa mang propeta na nagmula sa kanya? Hindi ba pwede n'yong tanggapin na hanggang 'pagpaparami lang ng lahi' (Gen. 17:20) n'ya ang ginawa sa kanya ng Dios?
At bakit po hindi n'yo matanggap na pinagtibay ng Dios ang knyang Tipan kay Isaac at sa kanyang lahi (Gen. 17:19) at hindi kay Ishmael?
At bakit po sa kabila ng napakalinaw na ulat ng Biblia na si Isaac ang batang isasakripisyo sana ni Abraham sa Dios bilang handog na susunugin, ipinipilit n'yo pa rin na ang batang ito ay si Ishmael? Gayong kahit ang quran n'yo na kulang-kulang eh hindi naman masabi kung sino talaga ang bata?
Anong klase ng pang-unawa meron kayo???
Abdullah:
ReplyDelete14 Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba.
Muslim comment:
Ano raw? inilagay si Ismael sa balikat ni Hagar? (Interpreters' Bible at Revised Standard editon).. Paano nya kakargahin ang isang binatilyo? Sa ganitong edad eh baka mas malaking bulas pa siya sa kanyang ina diba? Di kaya sanggol ang tinutukoy dito?
Brod., MALI ka naman ng pagkaunawa. Napakasimple lang naman ng talata. Kung may mga christian na ngkamali din ng interpretasyon na tinanggap mo naman, ikinalulungkot ko. Pero i-consider mo ito at baka sakaling makita mo na mali ka rin.
Hindi naman si ISHMAEL ang inilagay sa balikat dyan eh, kundi yung PAGKAIN AT BANGA NG TUBIG.
SAAN KA NAMAN NAKAKITA NA ANG BATA EH NILAGAY SA BALIKAT HABANG NAGLALAKBAY???
Basahin mo ulit:
14 Early the next morning Abraham took some FOOD and a SKIN OF WATER and gave THEM to Hagar. He set THEM on her shoulders and then sent her off WITH the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba.
" At nagbangong maaga sa kinaumagahan si Abraham, at kumuha ng TINAPAY at ng isang BANGANG balat ng tubig, at ibinigay kay Agar, na IPINATONG sa kaniyang balikat, AT ANG BATA AT SYA AY PINAPAGPAALAM, at siya'y nagpaalam at naggala sa ilang ng Beerseba.
PAANO MO NASABING SI ISHMAEL ANG IPINATONG SA BALIKAT? WALA KA BANG SARILING TALINO AT PANG-UNAWA???
ano ba pinagsasabi ni abdullah? iba yun sagot nya sa tanong ni chris. tigil mo na pagsagot abdullah di na kaya ng utak mo..
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteano ba pinagsasabi ni abdullah? iba yun sagot nya sa tanong ni chris. tigil mo na pagsagot abdullah di na kaya ng utak mo..
Muslim:
Mr Ano ni mousse, di pa ako sumasagot sa comment ni Chris. Ngayon pa lang. Tigil mo yan imahinasyon mo, at basahin mong maigi ang mga sagot ko. Hirap sa iyo wala pang sagot eh nag iimagine ka na. At saka pwede initindihin mong maigi para di ka napapahiya.
Sa iyo naman Chris, maaaring tama ka sa VERSION na sinipi mo. Ako lang naman eh sumisipi ng mga bersyon ng bibliya ninyo eh. Kasalanan ko ba. Kaya nga inilagay ko ang bible source para ma double check mo rin. Try mong tingnan sa Interpreters' Bible at Revised Standard editon, sino ba kasi ang sumulat nyan??? Yan na nga kasi ang sinasabi ko, kayo kayo sa loob ng Kristyanismo may kanya kanya kayong version ng bibliya kaya ayan ang resulta watak watak ang depensa ninyo. O sige palampasin mo na yung verse 14, paki explain na lang yung verses 15-19. Baka dyan eh pareho na ng interpretasyon ang mga scholars ninyo. Ang sa akin lang naman eh bakit nga kaya nag karoon ng ibat ibang kwento ukol dito?
Ikaw baka iba rin ang bible na pinaniniwalaan mo kesa kay Cenon, check mo nga kung bakit wala ka sa loob ng Katoliko. Curious lang ako sa differences ng beliefs nyo vs Catholic Church.
Muslim:
ReplyDeleteMr Ano ni mousse, di pa ako sumasagot sa comment ni Chris. Ngayon pa lang. Tigil mo yan imahinasyon mo, at basahin mong maigi ang mga sagot ko. Hirap sa iyo wala pang sagot eh nag iimagine ka na. At saka pwede initindihin mong maigi para di ka napapahiya.
Chris:
Abdullah, hindi mo ba sasagutin yung mga naunang tanong ko?
Bueno ito na lang, basahin mo:
Gen. 21:5 "And Abraham was an HUNDRED YEARS OLD, when his son ISAAC was born unto him.
Gen 16:16 "And Abram was FOURSCORE AND SIX (86)YEARS OLD, when Hagar bare ISHMAEL to Abram."
Napansin mo ba? almost 14 yrs. ang agwat ng birthdate nila? At napansin mo rin ba na ng ipanganak si Ishmael, ABRAM pa lang ang pangalan ni Abraham. 99 yrs. old na kasi s'ya ng pangalanan s'ya ng Dios na ABRAHAM:
Gen. 17:1 "And when Abram was ninety years old and nine,...
5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be ABRAHAM; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
Sa Genesis 21:15-19 na hindi mo maintindihan, NAIPANGANAK NA SI ISAAC. BABY pa kaya si Ishmael nun?? Dios mio abdullah.
Tungkol naman sa Bible versions, meron talagang ibang versions na nagkakaibaiba sa interpretasyon. Pero sana tatandaan mo na INTERPRETATIONS lang yun. Nawala ba ang core message ng Bible? HINDI PO. "Jesus saith unto him, I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, and THE LIFE: no man cometh unto the Father, but by ME." EVERY CHRISTIANS FAITHFULLY BELIEVES IN THAT.
Abdullah:
Curious lang ako sa differences ng beliefs nyo vs Catholic Church.
Chris:
Well, kulang ka sa research siguro. Dati kang Catholic pero di mo alam belief ng ibang religion? Para ka namang bata kung sasabihin ko pa sayo dito. Pero gaya ng sabi ko, IISA lng naman kami ng pananampalataya: MAY DIOS AMA, ANAK, AT ESPIRITU SANTO.
Matanong nga din kita, ILAN BA ANG VERSIONS NG QURAN N'YO BAKIT NAGKAHATI-HATI ANG ISLAM? Diba ung iba meron pang IMAM ALI? Meron pang SUFI muslims? Tapos ikaw SUNNI. Bakit ba nagkaganon? At bakit ang SHIA minor na nga lang eh pinagpapapatay n'yo pa? Nagtatanong lang naman kung ayaw mong sagutin bahala ka.
Allah karim!
Chris:
ReplyDeleteAbdullah, hindi mo ba sasagutin yung mga naunang tanong ko?
mUSLIM:
Anong tanong ba gusto mong sagutin ko? Yung tungkol sa pagpasan? sa bata o sa pagkain?
Di ba nga ang comment ko dyan, kung yung version na sinipi mo ang paniniwalaan mo walang problema yun. Kahit ako nung binasa ko ang version mo tama naman ang paliwanag mo. Eh kaso nga iba rin yung version na sinipi ko. ok?
Tinatanong mo rin kung naiba ba ang kahulugan?
Well kung sa version mo sabi yung pagkain ang inilagay sa balikat, at sa version na sinipi ko eh si Ishmael ang inilagay sa balikat... eh talagang nagkaiba na ngayon ang kahulugan (self-explanatory na to).
Kung bible din ang pagbabasehan, naniniwala akong 14 na si Ishmael nung isinilang si Isaac, wala tayong dapat pagtalunan dyan tama??? Ang akin lang naman eh bakit nga ganoon ang pagkakalarawan kay Ishmael nung umalis silang mag ina? O mukhan ikaw dapat ang may sagutin. sabi ko nga diba pakipaliwanag mo nga ang verses 15-19...
Yung version naman ng Quran, eh bakit mo ibinalik sa akin ang tanong, porket di mo masagot ng maayos ang tanong ko kung bakit ang daming version ng bible inspite of your claims na "inspired" ito, kaya ibabalik mo sa akin. Ang sabhin mo di mo rin alam bakit nga ba dumami ng ganoon ang version ng bible nyo.
Tanong mo naiba ba ang "CORE" teaching nito... Ang sagot ko OO. Bakit? Meron kasing bible follower na di naniniwala sa Trinidad eh.
Kung ito naman kinoute mo na "Jesus saith unto him, I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, and THE LIFE: no man cometh unto the Father, but by ME."
FYI, mawalang galang na rin po ano,,, kaming mga Muslim ay naniniwala din dito eh. Nga lang ang interpretasyon nyo lang eh iba sa interpretasyon namin. Kasi para sa inyo kay Jesus LANG at Wala ng iba pa. Walang ibang daanan ng kaligtasan kundi kay Hesus lang TAMA BA AKO?
Based dyan sa sinipi mo "Iam the way" Di nya sinabi na "I am the ONLY way"
Sabi din dyan "no man cometh unto the Father, but by ME". Di nman din sinabi na "...but by me ALONE or ONLY"
Di ba? ngayon dyan tayo nagkatalo, kayo nag dagdag kayo ng interpretasyon na 'sa kanya lang wlaa ng iba pa' Sa amin OO sa kanya at marami pang iba (gaya ng pagmamahal mo sa kapwa mo at pagmamahal mo sa Dios na hindi mo itatambal sa ibang dios ang Dios na totoong lumikha sa atin). Brod wag mong sabihin exclusive lang na sa Kristyanismo mo maririnig ang aral na iyan. Lahat ng relihiyon yan ang sentro ng paniniwala. Maniwala ka pati mga ATHEIST naniniwala na dapat ibigin nila ang kapwa nila. Ang paniniwla nilang ito ay hango sa Confussian beliefs. "Wag mong gawin sa iba ang ayaw mong gawin sa iyo" Maging mabuti ka sa iba at magiging mabuti ang iba sa iyo.
On the second aspect, magkakatalo lang tayo lahat sa paanong paraan ng pag ibig sa Dios. Malinaw ang utos sa Exodus kung pano mo iibign ang Dios. Wala kang itatambal sa Kanya (di gaya ng sa trinidad) at Di mo gagamitin ang pangalan nya sa walang kwentang bagay. Kaya ang pangalan nyang ALLAH subhantalla (kataas-tasang Dios) ay di namin basta basta ginagamit sa walang kwentang bagay. Di rin namin dinadala sa maruruming lugar ang kanyang salita na nagtataglay ng Kanyang pangalan. At lahat ng Muslim na babanggit ng pangalang ito, dapat na may iduktong na parangal at papuri sa Kanyang pangalan. Meron ba sa inyo nito? At higit sa lahat bawal sa amin gumawa ng anumang kawangis ng Dios gaya ng mga rebultong makikita sa simbahan ninyo, maging ano man ang rason nito. Ayon sa KJV ng bible kawangis sa langit at lupa, kaya kahit monumento ni Rizal at kalabaw sa luneta BAWAL!
ReplyDeleteKung version naman ng Quran ang tatanungin mo pwede mag basa kana langng mga previous post ko dito, nasagot ko na yan.
ReplyDeleteKung gusto mo talaga makita ang original na Quran, punta ka sa Turkey at Egypt at makikita mo ang hinahanap mong orignal. Syempre yung hawak ko reproduction na lang to. Kung may time ka rin tingnan mo kung pano nila napreserve yun. Kung may tanong ka dahil sabi ni Cenon iba iba daw ang arabic version, so I suggest na pumunta kayo dun (open din yung for non-Muslim dont worry) dalhin nyo yung diffrent version nyo at ipacompare ninyo ok? Ako pagod na akong kasasagot ng tanong tungkol sa versions na yan eh. Teka, ang bible? Asan na kaya yung orig nito? May museum din ba kayo, Sige nga ill spare sometime by next year pag bakasyon ko ulit, pasabi namn kung saan o, thanks in advance.
Abdullah anong preservation ang sinsabi mo ng Quran?Yung may pinasunog at wala nang makita kung alin ang edited sa original?
ReplyDeleteBsahin mo yung mga unang post ni palamurang muslim at mga sagot namin tungkol sa preservations na kini claim mo?Tsktsk..
SC said:
ReplyDeleteYung may pinasunog at wala nang makita kung alin ang edited sa original?
Muslim:
Kaya nga ipinapacompare ko sa inyo yung Quran na hawak nyo o alam ninyo sa ngayon at yung Quran na nasa museum eh. Ikaw mkakasagot nyan kung alin ang nasunog at alin ang natira. OK?
Ito brod. ang tanong ko sa itaas copy-paste:
ReplyDeleteMatanong ko lang po ang mga balik-islam baka kasi hindi n'yo napapansin, bakit kaya lahat ng mga propeta nagmula sa lahi ni Isaac? Wala ni isa man na nagmula sa lahi ni Ishmael? Kung kasama si Ishmael sa pangako ng Dios gaya ng ipinagpipilitan n'yo, bakit wala ni isa mang propeta na nagmula sa kanya? Hindi ba pwede n'yong tanggapin na hanggang 'pagpaparami lang ng lahi' (Gen. 17:20) n'ya ang ginawa sa kanya ng Dios?
At bakit po hindi n'yo matanggap na pinagtibay ng Dios ang knyang Tipan kay Isaac at sa kanyang lahi (Gen. 17:19) at hindi kay Ishmael?
At bakit po sa kabila ng napakalinaw na ulat ng Biblia na si Isaac ang batang isasakripisyo sana ni Abraham sa Dios bilang handog na susunugin, ipinipilit n'yo pa rin na ang batang ito ay si Ishmael? Gayong kahit ang quran n'yo na kulang-kulang eh hindi naman masabi kung sino talaga ang bata?
abdullah said...
ReplyDeleteSC said:
Yung may pinasunog at wala nang makita kung alin ang edited sa original?
Muslim:
Kaya nga ipinapacompare ko sa inyo yung Quran na hawak nyo o alam ninyo sa ngayon at yung Quran na nasa museum eh. Ikaw mkakasagot nyan kung alin ang nasunog at alin ang natira. OK?
SimplyCatholic said..
Aling hawak?Against saan yung nasa turkey kamo?hahaha..Eh natural parehas yan dahil ikamo reproduction hahaha..Ang magandang ikumpara yung nasa turkey at yung mga pinasunog ni Usman..Kaso panu pa nga ba maikukumpara eh sinunog na nga hahahaha..So panung original ang nasa turkey ngayon?Sino ang magsasabi?
Sabi nyo recitation nyo iisa lang sa buong mundo di ba?Sure ka ba na di pinayagan ni muhammad ang pagkakaiba ng version?Hint:Hanapin mo usapan namin ni palamurang muslim para makapaghanda ka ng sagot.Pero tingin ko mas magaling ka dun hehehe..Kaya sige sagot..Pagusapan natin ang iba't ibang recitation nyo at ang iba't ibang version ng quran..Magpakita ka ng Surah at magpapakita ako..Oks ba?
Abdullah said..
ReplyDeleteKung version naman ng Quran ang tatanungin mo pwede mag basa kana langng mga previous post ko dito, nasagot ko na yan.
Kung gusto mo talaga makita ang original na Quran, punta ka sa Turkey at Egypt at makikita mo ang hinahanap mong orignal. Syempre yung hawak ko reproduction na lang to.
Simply Catholic said..
Sabi sa link na ito http://www.scribd.com/doc/185252/Oldest-copy-of-the-Koran-only-19-yrs-after-Mohammeds-Death ang pinakaluma daw ay nasa Tashkent, Uzbekistan..So alin ngayon ang mas original hehehe..
Abdullah:
ReplyDeleteAng akin lang naman eh bakit nga ganoon ang pagkakalarawan kay Ishmael nung umalis silang mag ina?
Chris:
Ganoon ang pagkakalarawan sa isang batang halos mag-agaw buhay na - inilalapag at itinatayo - hindi mo ba nabasa na halos mawalan na ng pagasa si Hagar at hintayin na lang ang kamatayan ng kanyang anak?
Abdullah:
porket di mo masagot ng maayos ang tanong ko kung bakit ang daming version ng bible inspite of your claims na "inspired" ito, kaya ibabalik mo sa akin. Ang sabhin mo di mo rin alam bakit nga ba dumami ng ganoon ang version ng bible nyo.
Chris:
Hindi mo rin nasagot ang tanong ko. Tungkol sa maraming versions ng Bible, 'di naman natin maitatanggi 'yan eh, marami talaga, dahil bukod sa Roman Catholic, marami ang naglabasang iba't-ibang religions, at nagsalin ng kaniya-kaniyang Bible. Pero hindi naman mabigat na problema 'yan sa christianism, iisang Dios ang sinasamba namin sa pamamagitan ng iisang Cristo. Hindi ito gaya ng quran n'yo na 'preserved' kuno pero nagdudulot ng PAGPAPATAYAN sa pagitan ng Sunni at Shia muslims. Diba?
Abdullah:
FYI, mawalang galang na rin po ano,,, kaming mga Muslim ay naniniwala din dito eh. Nga lang ang interpretasyon nyo lang eh iba sa interpretasyon namin. Kasi para sa inyo kay Jesus LANG at Wala ng iba pa. Walang ibang daanan ng kaligtasan kundi kay Hesus lang TAMA BA AKO?
Chris:
TAMA KA. Wala talagang daanan ng kaligtasan kundi kay Jesus lang. Sino ba ang nagsabi ng dalawang Pinakadakilang Utos na ibigin mo ang Dios... ibigin mo ang iyong kapwa? SI JESUS. Ang sabi ng AMA sa Matthew 17:5 "... S'ya ANG INYONG PAKINGGAN". Bakit? Dahil wala naman S'yang itinuro na hindi NAGBUHAT SA AMA (John 8:28) Oo alam ko naman na naniniwala din kayo kay Jesus, pero bilang propeta LANG. Inililinya n'yo pa nga sya sa propeta n'yo eh diba. Pero hindi ganon ang paniniwala namin brod. Colosas 2:9 "Sapagka't sa kaniya'y nananahan ang BUONG KAPUSPUSAN NG PAGKA-DIOS sa kahayagan AYON SA LAMAN,"
abdullah:
ReplyDeleteBased dyan sa sinipi mo "Iam the way" Di nya sinabi na "I am the ONLY way"
Sabi din dyan "no man cometh unto the Father, but by ME". Di nman din sinabi na "...but by me ALONE or ONLY"
Chris;
Kahit may 'only/alone' o wala, iisa ang kahulugan n'yan. Talagang hindi n'yo lang matanggap kaya pilit n'yong hinahanapan ng lusot. Ang nasalita dyan eh 'makakasama ng mga hinirang n'ya HANGGANG SA KATAPUSAN NG SANGLIBUTAN (Mat. 28:20), hindi 'yan hanggang 600 AD lang.
Abdullah:
Malinaw ang utos sa Exodus kung pano mo iibign ang Dios. Wala kang itatambal sa Kanya (di gaya ng sa trinidad) at Di mo gagamitin ang pangalan nya sa walang kwentang bagay
Chris:
Tama ka ganyan nga sa old testament. Pero ibig sabihin ba n'yan eh wala s'yang ANAK? Bago pa likhain ang mundong ito, kasama na ng Dios Ama ang kanyang Anak:
Kawikaan 30:4 "Sino ang sumampa sa langit, at bumaba? Sino ang pumisan ng hangin sa kaniyang mga dakot? Sinong nagtali ng tubig sa kaniyang kasuutan? Sinong nagtatag ng lahat ng mga wakas ng lupa? ANO ANG KANYANG PANGALAN, at ano ang pangalan NG KANIYANG ANAK kung iyong nalalaman?"
Ang espiritu mismo ni Cristo ang SUMASA MGA PROPETA (1Peter 1:11,1Cor. 10:4). Existing na po S'ya bago pa itatag ang sanglibutan at GINAWA ITO NG KATAAS-TAASANG DIOS sa PAMAMAGITAN n'ya. Pero dapat mong malaman na hindi pa s'ya ini-introduce ng AMA sa mga panahon ng lumang tipan, kaya nga 'yan ang paborito n'yong i-quote eh diba. Kailan ba s'ya isinugo at nagkatawang-tao (John 1:14)? Noong unang siglo. Mula noon, sinusunod na ng mga lingkod ang utos ng Kataas-taasang Dios na lumikha ng lahat ng mga bagay, ang sambahin si Jesus (Phil. 2:9) para ano?
"At upang ipahayag ng lahat ng mga dila na si Jesucristo ay Panginoon, SA IKALULUWALHATI NG DIOS AMA. "
Ginagawa ba ng mga muslim 'yan, o winalang kahulugan n'yo ang Utos ng Dios?
Abdullah:
Kaya ang pangalan nyang ALLAH subhantalla (kataas-tasang Dios) ay di namin basta basta ginagamit sa walang kwentang bagay. Di rin namin dinadala sa maruruming lugar ang kanyang salita na nagtataglay ng Kanyang pangalan.
Chris:
Unang-una, naniniwala ako na ang Allah literally means God, generic name, dahil kung personal name ang pag-uusapan, hindi 'yan kailanman nabanggit sa Bible. At hindi rin ako naniniwala na hindi n'yo ginagamit sa wlang kwentang bagay 'yan. 'yan kasi naririnig natin bago pasabugin ang bus or train o bago pugutan ng ulo ang mga bihag. Pwera na lang kung banal n bagay sa inyo un.
Abdullah:
At higit sa lahat bawal sa amin gumawa ng anumang kawangis ng Dios gaya ng mga rebultong makikita sa simbahan ninyo, maging ano man ang rason nito.kaya kahit monumento ni Rizal at kalabaw sa luneta BAWAL!
Chris:
That's another set of long argument. So far wala pa naman akong nakita na nagpunta sa luneta para sumamba kay Rizal at sa kalabaw.
Abdullah:
Kung version naman ng Quran ang tatanungin mo pwede mag basa kana langng mga previous post ko dito, nasagot ko na yan.
chris:
Yun na nga ang ipinagtataka ko eh, naninindigan ka na existing pa rin ang mga orig.na quran at "preserved" pa kamo, pano nangyari na magkakaiba kayo ng paraan ng pagsamba gamit ang iisang aklat? Sino ba talaga sa inyo ang totoo? Sunni, Shia, of Sufi muslims?
Abdullah:
Teka, ang bible? Asan na kaya yung orig nito? May museum din ba kayo, Sige nga ill spare sometime by next year pag bakasyon ko ulit, pasabi namn kung saan o, thanks in advance.
Chris:
Meron brod. pero sa ngayon hindi ko kabisado ang reference tungkol d'yan iba't-ibang museums na nag-iingat ng mga manuscripts halimbawa ang 'dead sea scroll'. Malamang nai-post na rin ni Brod. Cenon 'yan dito sa website n'ya.
2Corinthians 13:13 "The GRACE OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, theLOVE OF GOD, and the FELLOWSHIP of the HOLY SPIRIT be with you all."
Salam.
Abdullah quotes Genesis 21:14:
ReplyDelete14 Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba.
Nag comment si abdulah:
"Ano raw? inilagay si Ismael sa balikat ni Hagar? ().. Di kaya sanggol ang tinutukoy dito?"
Pinuna ni Chris si Abdullah:
"Brod., MALI ka naman ng pagkaunawa. Napakasimple lang naman ng talata. Kung may mga christian na ngkamali din ng interpretasyon na tinanggap mo naman, ikinalulungkot ko. Pero i-consider mo ito at baka sakaling makita mo na mali ka rin."
Sagot ni Abdullah kay Chris:
Sa iyo naman Chris, maaaring tama ka sa VERSION na sinipi mo. Ako lang naman eh sumisipi ng mga bersyon ng bibliya ninyo eh. Kasalanan ko ba. Kaya nga inilagay ko ang bible source para ma double check mo rin.
MANNY CRUZ:
Ang kasalanan mo Abdulah ay dalawang mukha ang ipinakita mo kay Chris sa sagot mo. Una, inamin mo na tama si Chris. By implication, nangangahulugan ito na MALI KA. Ikalawa, hindi mo pinanindigan ang pag-amin mo (na tama si Chris at mali ka), dahil nagpalusot ka pa. Pinalitaw mo na hindi mo kasalanan ang maling interpretasyon mo, dahil sabi mo sumisipi ka lang ng mga bersyon na sumasang-ayon sa maling unawa mo. Gusto mo lang ipalabas na tama ka pa rin. Huwag mong linlangin ang mga readers natin. INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY yang ginawa mo!!!
At isa pa, napakalamya ng palusot mo na kesyo sumipi ka lang sa bersyon ng Bibliya na "sumasang-ayon" umano sa maling interpretasyon mo, samantalang ang bersyon na actual na sinipi mo, na ipinabasa mo sa aming lahat, ay sumasang-ayon kay Chris. Sabi mo "sumisipi" ka lang, pero hindi naman pala. Nagbigay ka lang ng source: Interpreters' Bible at Revised Standard editon. Hindi mo sinipi ang source mo na nagsasabi umano na "kinarga ni Hagar sa kanyang balikat si Ismael." Or words to that effect. Kaya yun, litaw na litaw ang kapalpakan mo.
Kung ganyan talaga ang istilo mo Abdulah sa pag babasa ng bibilya namin, mukhang malabo na kaming makakakuha ng wastong interpretasyon mula sa iyo. Huwag ka sanang magalit pero dapat lang talaga magpakatotoo tayo dito. Sorry na lang pero hindi makakalusot dito yang istilo mong mapanlinlang.
CHRIS AT MANNY NEXT TIME NA KO SASAGOT HA, NAUBOS ORAS KO DUN SA COMMENT KAY CENON EH. DUN SA Ismael kasama sa Tipan? . bAKA KASI di na mapansin ng iba yung mga comment ko dun. Isiningit kasi tong thread na ito sa kainitan ng diskusyon namin tungkol kay Ismael.
ReplyDeleteAbdullah:
ReplyDeleteporket di mo masagot ng maayos ang tanong ko kung bakit ang daming version ng bible inspite of your claims na "inspired" ito, kaya ibabalik mo sa akin. Ang sabhin mo di mo rin alam bakit nga ba dumami ng ganoon ang version ng bible nyo.
Chris:
Hindi mo rin nasagot ang tanong ko. Tungkol sa maraming versions ng Bible, 'di naman natin maitatanggi 'yan eh, marami talaga, dahil bukod sa Roman Catholic, marami ang naglabasang iba't-ibang religions, at nagsalin ng kaniya-kaniyang Bible. Pero hindi naman mabigat na problema 'yan sa christianism, iisang Dios ang sinasamba namin sa pamamagitan ng iisang Cristo. Hindi ito gaya ng quran n'yo na 'preserved' kuno pero nagdudulot ng PAGPAPATAYAN sa pagitan ng Sunni at Shia muslims. Diba?
Muslim;
Ang Pagyayabang na kasagotan nitong Tangang si Anti-Chris-To pagmasdan po ninyo; "Hindi mo rin nasagot ang tanong ko. Tungkol sa maraming versions ng Bible" Kay nga Anti-Chris-To bakit nga dumami ang VERSION ng Bible nyo? yang ang sagotin mo! ang Tanga naman Oo! Dagdag pag-aamin pa nitong Gagong ito na si Anti-Chris-To ay ganito po; "bukod sa Roman Catholic, marami ang naglabasang iba't-ibang religions" Bakit nga nagkaganon? kagustohan po ba ng Dios ang ganito? ang Bibliya na syang dapat ang GUMAGABAY sa Tao tungo sa pagkakilala sa Dios ay tila ito pa yata ang naging dahilan kong bakit nagkawatak-watak ang mga Tao tungo sa pagkakakilala sa tutoo at nag-iisang Dios!
Dagdag pagyayabang ng isang Taong walang Utak na si Anti-Chris-To ito po at pagmasdan ninyo ang Katangahan nyang ito; "Pero hindi naman mabigat na problema 'yan sa christianism" Mantakin nyo po hindi daw po Problema sa kanila kong magkaganoon ang Bibliya na itunuturing bilang isang gabay upang makamtan natin ang buhay na walang hanggan! Na ayon sa Katangahang pinagsasabi nitong Mangmang na ito na si Anti-Chris-To kong sya pala ay nasa kalagitnaan ng Karagatan Ok lang sa kanya na walang gabay tulad ng isang COMPASS o Mapa na maaring magbigay directiion sa kanya para sya makaligtas!
Katangahang Pinagsasabi nitong si Anti-Chris-To ay ganito po pakibasa nyo po; "sa christianism, iisang Dios ang sinasamba namin sa pamamagitan ng iisang Cristo." IISANG DIOS daw po? papaano po nangyari ang ganoon eh samantalang mayroon silang pinaniniwalaan na dios AMA, dios ANAK at dios Espiritu Santo pa daw, di po ba ayon sa Katangahang pinagsasabi nitong si Demon este Cenmon Bibe pala itong Espiritu Santo pa daw ang Umaasawa at BUmubuntis kaya Maria? Pero kalaunan ay iniwan rin si Maria ng ASAWA nitong Espiritu Santo at IPINAGKakaTiwala na lamang sya sa isang Matanda na si Joseph the Carpenter na noon ay isang 909 years Old na!
Ito pa po karagdagan Katangahang pinagsasabi nitong si Anti-Chris-To "Hindi ito gaya ng quran n'yo na 'preserved' kuno pero nagdudulot ng PAGPAPATAYAN sa pagitan ng Sunni at Shia muslims" Oh? bueno patunayan mo itong pinagsasabi mo! kailan at saan nagyayari ang katangahang alam mo na ito? be specific huwag yong puro lamang kabobohan at katanagahan!
Muslim said;
ReplyDeleteDagdag pag-aamin pa nitong Gagong ito na si Anti-Chris-To ay ganito po; "bukod sa Roman Catholic, marami ang naglabasang iba't-ibang religions" Bakit nga nagkaganon? kagustohan po ba ng Dios ang ganito? ang Bibliya na syang dapat ang GUMAGABAY sa Tao tungo sa pagkakilala sa Dios ay tila ito pa yata ang naging dahilan kong bakit nagkawatak-watak ang mga Tao tungo sa pagkakakilala sa tutoo at nag-iisang Dios!
Anonymous Catholic;
Hayyyy eto na naman po si palamurang muslim
sa kanyang kababawan na argumento.
Mantakin mo sinisisi mo pa ngayon ang bibliya?
Hindi mo ba naisip na kaya may mga naglalabasang ibang relihiyon bukod sa katoliko ay HINDI DAHIL sa BIBLIYA kundi sa mga TAONG gumamit nito at NAGMAMARUNONG sa nilalaman nito?
Tapos ngayon sasabihin mo bakit nagkaganun at kagustuhan ba ito ng Diyos?
Ang babaw mo na naman...
Wala ka bang free will?
Syempre MERON ka kasi pinili mong maging muslim di ba?
kung wala ka free will eh di sana di ka nakakagawa ng sarili mong desisyon kung ano gagawin mo sa pananampalataya mo di ba?
Kaya kung nauunawaan mo kung bakit ka naging muslim ay yan di ang sasagot sa katanungan mo
kung bakit may mga ibang relihiyon.
muslim said;
ReplyDeletepapaano po nangyari ang ganoon eh samantalang mayroon silang pinaniniwalaan na dios AMA, dios ANAK at dios Espiritu Santo pa daw
Anonymous Catholic;
3 persona ang Diyos Ama, Anak at Espiritu Santo sa IISANG DIYOS ang pinaniniwalaan namin.
Hindi namin pinaniniwalaan ang paniniwala nyo na may 3 kaming Diyos. Kayo lang ang nagsasabi nyan o nag iimbento nyan.
At hindi nyo din mauunawaan ang tungkol sa 3 persona ng iisang Diyos dahil mas pinili nyo talikuran ang turo ng Iglesia Katolika na nagmula pa sa mga unang Apostoles at mas pinili na paniwalaan ang relihiyon na tinayo ng isang propeta na hindi man lamang nakausap ng Diyos.
ABDULLAH BALIK ISLAM:
ReplyDeleteCHRIS AT MANNY NEXT TIME NA KO SASAGOT HA, NAUBOS ORAS KO DUN SA COMMENT KAY CENON EH. DUN SA Ismael kasama sa Tipan? . bAKA KASI di na mapansin ng iba yung mga comment ko dun. Isiningit kasi tong thread na ito sa kainitan ng diskusyon namin tungkol kay Ismael.
CENON BIBE:
GUSTO MO GAWAN NATIN ng HIWALAY na ARTIKULO TUNGKOL at DEDICATED LANG kay ISMAEL?
PURO KATWIRAN LANG TUNGKOL DIYAN ang PAPAYAGAN KO DOON.
Kapag MAY SUMUBOK na GULUHIN ang USAPAN gamit ang NAPAKAHABA at WALANG KWENTANG COPY-PASTE ay BUBURAHIN NATIN.
Pati mga WALANG KWENTANG REAKSYON na WALANG KAUGNAYAN sa USAPAN ay AALISIN DIN NATIN para MAKA-FOCUS TAYO sa ISYU.
Ano? GUSTO MO, ABDULLAH?
Para MAKITA na nang LAHAT kung KINILALA nga o HINDI ng DIYOS si ISMAEL.
SIMULAN NATIN sa SIMULA at PUNTO por PUNTO ang GAWIN NATING TALAKAYAN para MAS MAGANDA.
PUMAYAG KA SANA para MAGKAALAMAN NA NANG HUSTO.
ANO? PAYAG KA?
CENON BIBE:
ReplyDeleteGUSTO MO GAWAN NATIN ng HIWALAY na ARTIKULO TUNGKOL at DEDICATED LANG kay ISMAEL?
PURO KATWIRAN LANG TUNGKOL DIYAN ang PAPAYAGAN KO DOON.
Muslim;
Haaaayyy! nagmamarunong na naman itong si Demon este Cenon Bibe pala. Kala mo naman may malalim na alam sa kanyang Bibliya! Hoy Demon este Cenon Bibe pala talata lang ng Bibliya KATAPAT NG kATANgahan mo! Nilalaman nga ng Bibliya mo eh hindi mo pa alam? Ang mga pakahulogan pa kaya nito? galing mo talagang manlinlang Demon este Cenon Bibe pala.
Hahahaha napabuntong hininga na lang si Muslim dahil alam nyang walang maisasagot hahaha..Pakampi ka kay abdulla!!!
ReplyDeleteSumagot ka na nang oo..Magaling lang kayong mga muslim pag suicide bombing na paguusapan at mga virgins na 9..
Ipagtanggol mo ang mga hindi naisamang sunugin na quran nyo hehehehe..
PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM:
ReplyDeleteHaaaayyy! nagmamarunong na naman itong si Demon este Cenon Bibe pala. Kala mo naman may malalim na alam sa kanyang Bibliya!
CENON BIBE:
HINDI naman po AKO BALIK ISLAM, BAKIT AKO MAGMAMARUNONG?
Tingnan po ninyo, NAGMARUNONG ang BALIK ISLAM kaya HINDI MAPATUNAYAN na DIYOS ang NAGTAYO ng KANILANG RELIHIYON.
NAGMARUNONG ang BALIK ISLAM kaya HINDI MAIPAKITA na DIYOS MISMO ang NAGSUGO sa KANILANG PROPETA.
NAGMARUNONG ang BALIK ISLAM kaya HINDI MAIPAKITA kung ALING SALITA o BAHAGI ng QURAN ang DIYOS MISMO ang NAGSABI sa KANILANG PROPETA.
Ang NAKAKATAWA po ay SOBRA ang PAGMAMARUNONG nitong mga PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM na LAGI AKONG DINI-DEBATE sa TEXT.
NOON (nung HINDI PA NILA NAPUPUNA na LAGI SILANG LAMPASO sa DEBATEXT NAMIN) ay LAGAY pa SILA nang LAGAY RITO ng mga DISKUSYON NAMIN.
E NUNG MAY PUMUNA at NATAWA dahil YUNG INILALAGAY NILA e KITANG-KITA ang PAGKASUPALPAL at PAGKALAMPASO NILA ay HINDI NA SILA NAGPO-POST DITO ng mga DEBATEXT NAMIN.
O, DI BA? BIGLA SILANG NAHIMASMASAN sa mga PAGKAKAUMPOG sa ULO NILA?
MABUTI pa nga po itong si ABDULLAH e. Tingnan po ninyo, tila BUMALIK na lang sa PAGBABAKASYON dahil ALAM NIYANG HINDI NIYA MAPATUTUNAYAN na MAY PAPEL sa PLANO ng DIYOS si ISMAEL.
ALAM din ni ABDULLAH na HINDI TINANGGAP ng DIYOS si ISMAEL bilang ANAK ni ABRAHAM.
Kaya nga po yata NANAHIMIK e.
Ito namang mga BASTOS at WALANG MODONG KAPATID ni ABDULLAH e MAS GUSTO na lang MAGMURA kaysa TUMAHIMIK.
Pero ANO pa nga po ba ang MAGAGAWA NATIN? BALIK ISLAM e. PARTE po yata ng ARAL ng BALIK ISLAM ang MAGING BASTOS at PALAMURA.
Ano po sa tingin ninyo?
nku po kahit ano pang sabihin ng mga muslim SALOT pa rin kayo sa mundo! sabi nila small percentage lng daw ang RADICAL MUSLIM hindi siguro! small percentage ang PEACEFUL MUSLIMS. Majority is either a TERRORIST or TERRORIST supporters. Salot sa U.S.A, salot sa Europe, walang ginawa kundi mag-recruit ng mga BILANGGO tpos ggawing terrorist. Walang ginawa kundi turuan ang mga BATANG MUSLIM na magalit sa America, Christians, Jews. kya mga bata plang mga terrorists na! Kahit ano pang sabihin nyo mga SALOT kayo manang-mana kayo sa ugat nyong MASS MURDERER AND PHEDOPILE MUHAMMAD!
ReplyDeleteABDULLAH BALIK ISLAM:
ReplyDeleteCHRIS AT MANNY NEXT TIME NA KO SASAGOT HA, NAUBOS ORAS KO DUN SA COMMENT KAY CENON EH. DUN SA Ismael kasama sa Tipan? . bAKA KASI di na mapansin ng iba yung mga comment ko dun. Isiningit kasi tong thread na ito sa kainitan ng diskusyon namin tungkol kay Ismael.
MANNY CRUZ:
HAHAHA! Pasensya na Abdullah kung medyo natawa ako sa sinabi mo ha! Anyway, malaya naman tayo rito eh. Nasa iyo na kung sasagot ka o mag bakasyon ka muna. Walang problema diyan. Ang problema nga lang e baka isipin ng iba na hindi ka na makasagot dahil naipit ka na sa usapan. Ako naman ay mas gusto kung paniwalaan na nais mo lang magpahinga. Hihintayin na lang namin ang sagot mo!
anti-muhammad said...
ReplyDelete...sabi nila small percentage lng daw ang RADICAL MUSLIM hindi siguro! small percentage ang PEACEFUL MUSLIMS. Majority is either a TERRORIST or TERRORIST supporters
MANNY CRUZ:
Gusto ko sanang maniwala na small percentage lang talaga ang mga radical muslims. Kasi kung dadami pa sila e di ko na ma imagine kung gaano kalaki ang pinsala na maidudulot nila sa buong mundo.
Ang tanong ko lang e nasaan na ang mga peace loving muslims? Bakit tila sa gitna ng karahasang ikinalat ng mga radical muslims, nananahimik lang sila? Di ko lang alam pero may narinig na ba kayong bigating Muslim na kinondena ang mga terroristang muslim? Meron na ba kayong narinig ng mga muslim "cleric" na nagsasabing bawal sa Koran ang ginawa ng mga terrorista ng 9/11?
Ang natatandaan ko kasi, pagkatapos ng 9/11, halos wala kang marinig na pagkondena sa panig ng mga peace loving muslims. May mga nagreact naman pero halos sinisi pa ang US. Kasalanan daw ng US kaya nangyari ang 9/11. Yan ang sabi ng mga peace loving muslims na narinig ko sa TV at nabasa sa diyaryo! Ulitin ko ang tanong, ikaw ba Abdullah at Mr Bulok Islam, sang-ayon ba kayo sa mga masasamang ginawa ng mga kapatid ninyong terorista?
ha! mukhang natauhan na ang muhammedans! nagising! at natakot na sumagot!
ReplyDeleteO baka naman busy sa paggawa ng improvised bombs?
Nagtatanong lang po.
The Christian Bible!!!
ReplyDeleteCHRISTIANS CONFESS
Dr. W. Graham Scroggie of the MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE, Chicago, one of the most prestigious Christian Evangelical Mission in the world, answering the question — "Is the Bible the Word of God?" (also the title of his book), under the heading: IT IS HUMAN, YET DIVINE. He says on page 17:
"Yes, the Bible is human, though some, out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, 1 have denied this. Those books2 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." (Emphasis added).
Another erudite Christian scholar, Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, says on page 277 of his book, "The Call of the Minaret":
"Not so the New Testament3 . . . There is condensation and editing; 4 there is choice, reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the Church behind the authors. They represent experience and history." 5
If words have any meaning, do we need to add another word of comment to prove our case? No! But the professional propagandists, after letting the cat out of the bag, still have the face to try to make their readers believe that they have proved beyond the shadow of any doubt that the Bible is the "irrefragable 6 Word of God." Their semantic gymnastics — equivocating, and playing with words — is amazing!
1. Out of ignorance.
2. The Bible is not Just a Book. It is a selection and compilation of many books.
3. As opposed to the Qur'an.
4. Another word for Interpolating.
5. Emphasis are mine.
6. Indisputable.
Both these Doctors of Religion are telling us in the clearest language humanly possible that the Bible is the handiwork of man, all the while pretending that the are proving to the contrary. An old Arab saying goes: "IF SUCH ARE THE PRIESTS, GOD BLESS THE CONGREGATION."
With this sort of drive, the hot-gospeller and the Bible-thumper is "inspired" to harry the "heathen." 1 A theological student — a not-yet-qualified young evangelist — from the University of Witwatersrand, became a frequent visitor to the Newtown Mosque in Johannesburg, with the "noble" thought of "witnessing"2 to the members of its congregation. When I was introduced to him, (and having learnt his purpose), I invited him to lunch at my brother's residence — a stone's-throw from the Mosque. While discussing the authenticity of the Bible over the dinner table and sensing his stubborn dogmatism, I put out a feeler: "Your Professor Geyser, (The Head of the Department of Theology) does not believe the Bible to be the Word of God." Without the slightest surprise he answered, "I know." Now I personally had no knowledge of the Professor's conviction about the Bible. I had only assumed so from a controversy which raged around him about the "Divinity of Christ." 3 He had taken issue with the orthodox believers on this point some years ago. I continued further, saying, "Your lecturer does not believe the Bible as being God's Word." The young evangelist, responded again, "I know" but he continued this time-with the words, "but I believe that it is the Word of God!" There is no real remedy for such people. Even Jesus bewailed this sickness:
THREE GRADES OF EVIDENCE
ReplyDeleteWe Muslims have no hesitation in acknowledging that in the Bible, there are three different kinds of witnessing recognizable without any need of specialized training. These are:
1. You will be able to recognize in the Bible what may be described as "The Word of God."
2. You will also be able to discern what can be described as the "Words of a Prophet of God."
3. And you will most readily observe that the bulk of the Bible is the records of eye witnessess or ear witnesses, or people writing from hearsay. As such they are the "Words of a Historian"
You do not have to hunt for examples of these different types of evidences in the Bible. The following quotations will make the position crystal clear:
The FIRST Type:
(a) I will raise them up a prophet . . . and I will put my words in ... and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." (Deuteronomy 18:18)
(b) I even, I am the Lord, and beside me there is no saviour." (Isaiah 43:11)
(c) "Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the end of the earth: for I am God, and there is non else." (Isaiah 45:22)
Note the first person pronoun singular (highlighted in green) in the above references, and without any difficulty you will agree that the statements seem to have the sound of being GOD'S WORD.
The SECOND Type:
(a) "Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani? . . ." (Matthew 27:46)
(b) "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord:" (Mark 12:29)
(c) "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God." (Mark 10:18).
Even a child will be able to affirm that: Jesus "cried" Jesus "answered" and Jesus "said" are the words of the one to whom they are attributed, i.e. the WORDS OF A PROPHET OF GOD.
The THIRD Type:
"And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he, (JESUS) came, if haply he (JESUS) might find anything thereon: and when he (JESUS) came to it, (Jesus) found nothing but leaves . . ." (Mark 11:13)
The bulk of the Bible is a witnessing of this THIRD kind. These are the words of a third person. Note the underlined pronouns. They are not the Words of God or of His prophet, but the WORDS OF A HISTORIAN.
For the Muslim it is quite easy to distinguish the above types of evidence, because he also has them in his own faith. But of the followers of the different religions, he is the most fortunate in this that his various records are contained in separate Books!
ONE: The first kind — THE WORD OF GOD — is found in a Book called The Holy Qur’an.
TWO: The second kind — THE WORDS OF THE PROPHET OF GOD, (Muhummed, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) are recorded in the Books of Tradition called The Hadith.
THREE: Evidence of the third kind abounds in different volume of Islamic history, written by some of high integrity and learning, and others of lesser trustworthiness, but the Muslim advisedly keeps his Books in separate volumes!
The Muslim keeps the above three types of evidence Jealously apart, in their proper gradations of authority. He never equates them. On the other hand, the "Holy Bible" contains a motley type of literature, which composes the embarrassing kind, the sordid, and the obscene — all under the same cover — A Christian is forced to concede equal spiritual import and authority to all, and is thus unfortunate in this regard.
THE MULTIPLE BIBLE VERSIONS
ReplyDeleteIt will now be easy for us to analyze a Christian's claim about his Holy Book.
SEPARATING THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF
Before we scrutinize the various versions, 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, (known as Gabriel in English), and perfectly preserved and protected from human tampering for the past fourteen hundred years! 1 Even hostile critics of Islam have grudgingly vouched for the purity of the Holy Qur'an: "THERE IS PROBABLY IN THE WORLD NO OTHER BOOK WHICH HAS REMAINED TWELVE CENTURIES (now fourteen) WITH SO PURE A TEXT." — (Sir William Muir)
The Tauraat we Muslims believe in is not the "Torah" of the Jews and the Christians, though the words — one Arabic, the other Hebrew — 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. 2
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.3
1. Whether Muslim or non-Muslim, you do not have lo accept this claim on faith alone. You can verify the fact that Al-Qur'an is the Word of God. See "AL-QURAN- The Miracle of Miracles";
2- More evidence later on — "Moses not the author of the Biblical "Torah."
3.. Later on you’ll read how Christian "Brains Trust" confess — "Author; Principally David, though there are other writers."
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):
1. "And Jesus went . . . preaching the gospel . . . and healing every disease among the people." (Matthew 9:35)
2. "... but whosoever shall lose his fife for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it." (Mark 8:35)
3. "... preached the gospel. . ." (Luke 20:1)
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. What passes off as the "GOSPELS" today are the works of anonymous hands!
The question before us is: "Do you accept that the Bible is God's Word?" The question is really in the form of a challenge. The questioner is not simply seeking enlightenment. The question is posed in the spirit of a debate. We have every right to demand in a similar vein — "Which Bible are you talking about?", we may ask. "Why, there is only ONE Bible!" he mutters.
THE CATHOLIC BIBLE
ReplyDeleteHolding the "Douay" Roman Catholic Version of the Bible aloft in my hand, I ask, "Do YOU accept THIS Bible as the Word of God?" For reasons best known to themselves, the Catholic Truth Society have published their Version of the Bible in a very short, stumpy form. This Version is a very odd proportion of the numerous Versions in the market today. The Christian questioner is taken aback. "What Bible is that?" he asks. "Why, I thought you said that there was only ONE Bible!" I remind him. "Y-e-s," he murmurs hesitantly, "but what Version is that?" "Why, would that make any difference?" I enquire. Of course it does, and the professional preacher knows that it does. He is only bluffing with his "ONE Bible" claim.
The Roman Catholic Bible was published at Rheims in 1582, from Jerome's Latin Vulgate and reproduced at Douay in 1609. As such the RCV (Roman Catholic Version) is the oldest Version that one can still buy today. Despite its antiquity, the whole of the Protestant world, including the "cults"* condemn the RCV because it contains seven extra "books" which they contemptuously refer to as the "apocrypha" i.e. of DOUBTFUL AUTHORITY. Notwithstanding the dire warning contained in the Apocalypse, which is the last book in the RCV (renamed as "Revelation" by the Protestants), it is "revealed":
". . . If any man shall add to these things (or delete) God shall add unto him the plagues written in this Book."
(Revelation 22:18-19)
But who cares! They do not really believe! The Protestants have bravely expunged seven whole books from their Book of God! The outcasts are:
The Book of Judith
The Book of Tobias
The Book of Baruch
The Buck of Esther, etc.
* This disparaging title is given by the orthodox to Jehovah's Witnesses, the Seventh Day Adventists and a thousand other sects and denominations with whom they do not see eye to eye.
THE PROTESTANT BIBLE
ReplyDeleteSir Winston Churchill has some pertinent things to say about the Authorised Version (AV) of the Protestant Bible, which is also widely known as the "King James Version (KJV)".
"THE AUTHORISED VERSION OF THE BIBLE WAS PUBLISHED IN 1611 BY THE WILL AND COMMAND OF HIS MAJESTY KING JAMES THE 1ST WHOSE NAME IT BEARS TILL TODAY."
The Roman Catholics, believing as they do that the Protestants have mutilated the Book of God, are yet aiding and abetting the Protestant "crime" by forcing their native converts to purchase the Authorised Version (AV) of the Bible, which is the only Bible available in some 1500 languages of the lesser developed nations of the world. The Roman Catholics milk their cows, but the feeding is left to the Protestants! The overwhelming majority of Christians — both Catholics and Protestant — use the Authorised (AV) or the King James Version (KJV) as it is alternatively called.
GLOWING TRIBUTES
First published, as Sir Winston says, in 1611, and then revised in 1881 (RV), and now re-revised and brought up to date as the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952, and now again re-re-revised in 1971 (still RSV for short). Let us see what opinion Christendom has of this most revised Bible, the RSV:-
1. "THE FINEST VERSION WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED IN THE PRESENT CENTURY." — (Church of England Newspaper)
2. "A COMPLETELY FRESH TRANSLATION BY SCHOLARS OF THE HIGHEST EMINENCE." — (Times literary Supplement)
3. "THE WELL-LOVED CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AUTHORISED VERSION COMBINED WITH A NEW ACCURACY OF TRANSLATION." — (Life and Work)
4. "THE MOST ACCURATE AND CLOSE RENDERING OF THE ORIGINAL" — (The Times)
The publishers (Collins) themselves, in their notes on the Bible at the end of their production, say on page 10: "THIS BIBLE (RSV), IS THE PRODUCT OF THIRTY-TWO SCHOLARS, ASSISTED BY AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPRESENTING FIFTY CO-OPERATING DENOMINATIONS." Why all this boasting? To make the gullible public buy their product? All these testimonies convince the purchaser that he is backing the right horse, with the purchaser little suspecting that he is being taken for a ride.
"THE WORLD'S BEST SELLER"
But what about the Authorised Version of the Bible (AV), the "World's Best Seller?" These Revisers, all good salesmen, have some very pretty things to say about it. However, their page iii, paragraph six of the PREFACE of the RSV reads;
"THE KING JAMES VERSION (alternative description of AV) HAS WITH GOOD REASON BEEN TERMED 'THE NOBLEST MONUMENT OF ENGLISH PROSE.’ ITS REVISERS IN 1881 EXPRESSED ADMIRATION FOR 'ITS SIMPLICITY, ITS DIGNITY, ITS POWER, ITS HAPPY TURNS OF EXPRESSION ... THE MUSIC OF ITS CADENCES, AND THE FELICITIES OF ITS RHYTHM.’ IT ENTERED, AS NO OTHER BOOK HAS, INTO THE MAKING OF THE PERSONAL CHARACTER AND THE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES. WE OWE TO IT AN INCALCULABLE DEBT."
Can you, dear reader, imagine a more magnificent tribute being paid to the "Book of Books" than the above? I, for one, cannot. Let the believing Christian, now steel himself for the un-kindest blow of all from his own beloved Lawyers of Religion; for in the very same breath they say:
"YET THE KING JAMES VERSION HAS GRAVE DEFECTS." And, "THAT THESE DEFECTS ARE SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS AS TO CALL FOR REVISION . . ." This is straight from the horse's mouth, i.e. the orthodox Christian scholars of "the highest eminence." Another galaxy of Doctors of Divinity are now required to produce an encyclopaedia explaining the cause of those GRAVE AND SERIOUS DEFECTS in their Holy Writ and their reasons for eliminating them.
The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "AWAKE!" Magazine dated 8 September, 1957, carried this startling headline — "50000 ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?"
ReplyDeleteWhile I was still formulating the theme of this booklet, I heard a knock at my door one Sunday morning. I opened the door. A European gentleman stood there, grinning broadly. "Good morning'" he said. "Good morning" I replied. He was offering me his "Awake" and "Watchtower" magazines. Yes, a Jehovah's Witness! If a few had knocked at your door previously, you will recognize them immediately. The most supercilious lot of people who ever knocked at people's doors! I invited him in.
As soon as he settled down, I produced the full reproduction of what you see below. Pointing to the monograph at the top of the page, I asked, "Is this your's?" He readily recognised his own. I said, "It says: 50 000 Errors in the Bible, is it true?" "What's that!" he exclaimed. I repeated, "I said, that it says, that there are 50 000 errors in your Bible." "Where did you get that?" He asked. (This was published 23 years ago, when he was perhaps a little nipper) I said, "Leave the fancy talk aside — is this your's?" pointing again to the monograph — "Awake!" He said, "Can I have a look?" "Of course," I said. I handed him the page. He started perusing. They (the Jehovah's Witnesses) are trained. They attend classes five times a week in their "Kingdom Halls." Naturally, they are the fittest missionaries among the thousand -and - one - sects - and - denominations of Christendom. They are taught that when cornered, do not commit yourself to anything, do not open your mouths. Wait for the Holy Ghost to inspire you with what to say.
I silently kept watching him, while he browsed the page. Suddenly he looked up. He had found it. The "Holy Ghost" had tickled him. He began, "The article says that "most of those errors have been eliminated." I asked "If MOST are eliminated, how many remain out of 50000? 5000? 500? 50? Even if 50 remain, do you attribute those errors to God?" He was speechless. He excused himself by suggesting that he will come again with some senior member of his Church. That will be the day!
ReplyDeleteIf I had this booklet ready, I would have offered him, saying — "I would like to do you a favour, give me your name and address, and your telephone number. I will lend you this booklet — IS THE BIBLE GOD'S WORD?" for 90 days. I want a written reply!" If you do this, And a few other Muslims do the same. They and the other missionaries will never darken your doors again. I believe that this publication will prove the most effective talisman to date. Insha-Allah!
This "cult" of Jehovah's Witnesses which is so strong in its condemnation of the orthodox Trinitarians, for playing with the "Word of God," is itself playing the same game of semantic gymnastics. In the article under review — "50000 ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?" — they say: "there are probably 50 000 errors . . . errors that have crept into the Bible text . . . 50000 such serious (?) errors… most of those so-called errors... as a whole the Bible is accurate." (?)
We do not have the time and space to go into the tens of thousands of — grave or minor — defects that the authors of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) have attempted to revise. We leave that privilege to the Christian scholars of the Bible. Here I will endeavour to cast just a cursory glance at a "half-a-dozen" or so of those "minor" changes.
1. "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold, a VIRGIN shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
(Isaiah 7:14 - AV)
The indispensable "VIRGIN" in the above verse has now been replaced in the RSV with the phrase "a young woman," which is the correct translation of the Hebrew word almah. Almah is the word which has occurred all along in the Hebrew text and NOT bethulah which means VIRGIN. This correction is only to be found in the English language translation, as the RSV is only published in this tongue. For the African and the Afrikaner, the Arab and the Zulu, in fact, in the 1 500 other languages of the world, Christians are made to continue to swallow the misnomer "VIRGIN."
BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE
"Jesus is the only begotten son of God, begotten not made," is an adjunct of the orthodox catechism, leaning for support on the following:
2. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only BEGOTTEN son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
(John 3:16 - AV)
No priest worth his cloth would fail to quote "the only BEGOTTEN of the Father!" when preaching to a prospective convert. But this fabrication — "BEGOTTEN" — has now been unceremoniously excised by the Bible Revisers, without a word of excuse. They are as silent as church-mice and would not draw the reader's attention to their furtive excision. This blasphemous word "BEGOTTEN" was another of the many such interpolations in the "Holy Bible." God Almighty condemned this blasphemy in the strongest terms soon after its innovation. He did not wait for 2000 years for Bible scholars to reveal the fraud. The Muslim World should congratulate the "Fifty cooperating denominations" of Christendom and their Brains Trust the "Thirty-two scholars of the highest eminence" for bringing their Holy Bible a degree nearer to the Qur-anic truth.
"CHRISTIAN MES-A-MATHICS"
ReplyDelete3. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the FATHER,
the WORD, and the HOLY GHOST: and these three are one."
1st Epistle of John 5:7 - AV
This verse is the closest approximation to what the Christians call their Holy Trinity in the encyclopaedia called the BIBLE. This key-stone of the Christian faith has also been scrapped from the RSV without even a semblance of explanation. It has been a pious fraud all along and well-deservedly has it been expunged in the RSV for the English-speaking people. But for the 1499 remaining language groups of the world who read the Christian concoctions in their mother tongues, the fraud remains. These people will never know the truth until the Day of Judgement. However, we Muslims must again congratulate the galaxy of D.D.’s who have been honest enough to eliminate another lie from the English (RSV) Bible, thus bringing their Holy Book yet another step closer to the teachings of Islam. For the Holy Qur'an says:
THE ASCENSION
One of the most serious of those "grave defects" which the authors of the RSV had tried to rectify concerned the Ascension of Christ. There have been only two references in the Canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and of John to the most stupendous event in Christianity — OF JESUS BEING TAKEN UP INTO HEAVEN. These two references were obtained in every Bible in every language, prior to 1952, when the RSV first appeared. These were:
4a. "So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was TAKEN UP INTO HEAVEN, and sat down at the right hand of God."
(Mark 16:19)
4b. "While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN."
(Luke 24:51)
Now please look at the image below, which is a photo copy where the quotation 4a above ought to appear. You will be shocked to note that Mark 16 ends at verse 8, and after an embarrassing expanse of blank space the missing verses appear in "small print" as a footnote at the bottom of the page. If you can lay your hands on a RSV 1952, you will find the last six words of 4b above, i.e. "AND WAS CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN" replaced by a tiny "a" to tell you to see the footnote if you please, where you will find these missing words. Every honest Christian has to admit that he does not consider any footnote in any Bible as the word of God. Why should the paid servants of Christianity consign the mightiest miracle of their religion to a mere footnote?
From the Chart — "The Origin and Growth of the English Bible" — appearing below, you will note that all the Biblical "Versions" prior to the Revised Version of 1881 were dependent upon the ANCIENT COPIES — those dating only five or six hundred years after Jesus. The Revisers of the RSV 1952, were the first Bible scholars who were able to tap the "MOST Ancient Copies" fully, dating three and four centuries after Christ. We agree that the closer to the source the more authentic is the document. Naturally "MOST" Ancient deserves credence more than mere "ANCIENT." But not finding a word about Jesus being "taken up" or "carried up" into heaven in the MOST ANCIENT manuscripts, the Christian fathers expurgated those references from the RSV 1952.
ReplyDeleteTHE DONKEY CIRCUS
The above facts are a staggering confession by Christendom that the "inspired" authors of the Canonical Gospels did not record a single word about the ASCENSION of Jesus- Yet these "inspired" authors were unanimous in recording that their Lord and Saviour rode a donkey into Jerusalem as his mission drew to a close.
". . . and they sat him thereon." (The Donkey)
(Matt. 21:7)
". . . and he sat upon him." (The Donkey)
(Mark 11:7)
". . . and they set Jesus Thereon." (The Donkey)
(Luke 19:35)
". . . Jesus ... sat thereon:" (The Donkey)
(John 12:14)
Could God Almighty have been the author of this incongruous situation — going out of His Way to see that all the Gospel writers did not miss their footing recording of His "son's" donkey-ride into the Holy City — and yet "inspiring" them to black-out the news about His "son's" heavenly flight on the wings of angels?
ALLAH IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE
ReplyDeleteThe Rev. C. I. Scofield, D. D. with a team of 8 Consulting Editors, also all D.D.’s in the "Scofield Reference Bible" thought it appropriate to spell the Hebrew word "Elah" (meaning God) alternatively as "Alah" The Christians had thus swallowed the camel — they seemed to have accepted at last that the name of God is Allah — but were still straining at the gnat by spelling Allah with one "L"! (Photographic reproduction of the Bible page showing the word "ALAH" is preserved here for posterity below). References were made in public lectures to this fact by the author of this booklet. Believe me, the subsequent "Scofield Reference Bible" has retained word for word the whole commentary of Genesis 1:1, but has, by a clever sleight-of-hand, blotted out the word "Alah" altogether. There is not even a gap where the word "Alah" once used to be. 1 This is in the Bible of the orthodox! One is hard pressed to keep up with their Jugglery.
DAMNING CONFESSIONS
ReplyDeleteMrs. Ellen G. White, a "prophetess" of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, in her Bible Commentary Vol. 1, page 14, has this confession to make about the fallibility of the "Holy Bible."
"THE BIBLE WE READ TODAY IS THE WORK OF MANY COPYISTS WHO HAVE IN MOST INSTANCES DONE THEIR WORK WITH MARVELLOUS ACCURACY. BUT COPYISTS HAVE NOT BEEN INFALLIBLE, AND GOD MOST EVIDENTLY HAS NOT SEEN FIT TO PRESERVE THEM ALTOGETHER FROM ERROR IN TRANSCRIBING."
In the following pages of her commentary, Mrs. White testifies further: "I SAW THAT GOD HAD ESPECIALLY GUARDED THE BIBLE" (from what?) "YET WHEN COPIES OF IT WERE FEW, LEARNED MEN HAD IN SOME INSTANCES CHANGED THE WORDS, THINKING THAT THEY WERE MAKING IT PLAIN, WHEN IN REALITY THEY WERE MYSTIFYING THAT WHICH WAS PLAIN, BY CAUSING IT TO LEAN TO THEIR ESTABLISHED VIEWS, WHICH WERE GOVERNED BY TRADITION."
DEVELOPED SICKNESS
The mental malady is a cultivated one. This authoress and her followers can still trumpet from roof tops that "Truly, the Bible is the infallible Word of God." "Yes, it is adulterated, but pure" "It is human, yet divine." Do words have any meaning in their language? Yes, they have in their courts of law, but not in their theology. They carry a "poetic licence" in their preaching.
THE WITNESSES
The most vociferous of all the Bible-thumpers are the Jehovah's Witnesses. On page 5 of their "FOREWORD" mentioned earlier, they confess:
"IN COPYING THE INSPIRED ORIGINALS BY HAND THE ELEMENT OF HUMAN FRAILTY ENTERED IN, AND SO NONE OF THE THOUSANDS OF COPIES EXTANT TODAY IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE ARE PERFECT DUPLICATES. THE RESULT IS THAT NO TWO COPIES ARE EXACTLY ALIKE" Now you see, why the whole "foreword" of 27 pages is eliminated from their Bibles. Allah was making them to hang themselves with their own erudition.
POT-LUCK
Out of over four thousand differing manuscripts the Christians boast about, the Church fathers just selected four which tallied with their prejudices and called them Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We will deal with each of them in their proper place. Here/ let us go over the conclusion of the Jehovah's Witnesses' research as recorded in the now expunged Foreword:
"THE EVIDENCE IS, THEREFORE, THAT THE ORIGINAL TEXT Of THE CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES 1 HAS BEEN TAMPERED WITH, THE SAME AS THE TEXT OF THE LXX THE SAME AS THE TEXT OF THE LXX2 HAS BEEN,"
Yet this incorrigible Cult has the effrontery to publish 9 000 000 (Nine Million) copies as a First Edition of a 192-page book entitled — "Is the Bible REALLY the Word of God?" We are dealing here with a sick mentality, for no amount of tampering, as they say, will "APPRECIABLY AFFECT THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE BIBLE" (?). This is Christian logic.
1. New Testament.
2. "LXX" meaning Seventy, is the JWs alternative title of the Old Testament Do not be mystified; they have a habit of calling a simple four letter word, a "tetragrammaton." meaning Seventy, is the JWs alternative title of the Old Testament Do not be mystified; they have a habit of calling a simple four letter word, a "tetragrammaton."
A PATIENT HEARING
ReplyDeleteDr. Graham Scroggie in his aforementioned book, pleads, on page 29. for the Bible:-
"AND LET US BE PERFECTLY FAIR AS WE PURSUE THE SUBJECT (Is the Bible the Word of God?). BEARING IN MIND THAT WE ARE TO HEAR WHAT THE BIBLE HAS TO SAY ABOUT ITSELF. IN A COURT OF LAW WE ASSUME THAT A WITNESS WILL SPEAK THE TRUTH, AND MUST ACCEPT WHAT HE SAYS UNLESS WE HAVE GOOD GROUNDS FOR SUSPECTING HIM, OR CAN PROVE HIM A LIAR. SURELY THE BIBLE SHOULD BE GIVEN THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, AND SHOULD RECEIVE A LIKE PATIENT HEARING."
The plea is fair and reasonable. We will do exactly as he asks and let the Bible speak for itself.
In the first five books of the Bible — Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy — there are more than 700 statements which prove not only that God is NOT the Author of these books, but that EVEN Moses himself had no hand in them. Open these books at random and you will see:
• "And the Lord said unto him. Away, get thee down . . ."
• "And Moses said unto the Lord, the people cannot come. . ."
• "And the Lord said unto Moses, Go on before the people . . ."
• "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying . ."
• "And the Lord said unto Moses, Get down, charge the . . ."
It is manifest and apparent that these are NEITHER the Words of God NOR of Moses. They indicate the voice of a third person writing from hearsay.
MOSES WRITES HIS OWN OBITUARY?
Could Moses had been a contributor to his own obituary before his demise? Did the Jews write their own obituaries? "So Moses . . . DIED . . . And he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM (Moses) ... he was 120 years old when he DIED ... And there arose not a prophet SINCE in Israel like unto Moses …" (Deut. 34:5-10). We will analyze the rest of the Old Testament presently from other angles.
Cenon Bibe:
ReplyDeleteTingnan po ninyo, NAGMARUNONG ang BALIK ISLAM kaya HINDI MAPATUNAYAN na DIYOS ang NAGTAYO ng KANILANG RELIHIYON.
NAGMARUNONG ang BALIK ISLAM kaya HINDI MAIPAKITA na DIYOS MISMO ang NAGSUGO sa KANILANG PROPETA.
Muslim;
Bueno po sa punto ng Katngahan mong ito Demon este Cenon Bibe pala bayaan po nating ang Bibliya mismo o si Kristo mismo ang Susupalpal sa Kamangmangan mo Demon este Cenon Bibe pala!
John 16:
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when HE, the Spirit of truth, is come, HE will guide you into all truth: for HE shall not speak of HIMself; but whatsoever HE shall hear, that shall HE speak: and HE will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for HE shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
Pansin nyo po ba ang HE? mailang beses po inuulit ang HE dyan? ang HE po ba ang ukol sa BABAE? ito din kaya ay Ukol sa ESPIRITU SANTO? Napag-aaralan nyo na po ba kong may KASARIAN ang Espiritu Santo?
Cenon Bibe;
NAGMARUNONG ang BALIK ISLAM kaya HINDI MAIPAKITA kung ALING SALITA o BAHAGI ng QURAN ang DIYOS MISMO ang NAGSABI sa KANILANG PROPETA.
Muslim:
S.3:19. Truly, the religion with Allâh is Islâm. Those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) did not differ except, out of mutual jealousy, after knowledge had come to them. And whoever disbelieves in the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allâh, then surely, Allâh is Swift in calling to account.
85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers
S.5:3...This day, those who disbelieved have given up all hope of your religion, so fear them not, but fear Me. This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islâm as your religion. But as for him who is forced by severe hunger, with no inclination to sin (such can eat these above-mentioned meats), then surely, Allâh is OftForgiving, Most Merciful.
Siguro naman sapat na ang iilan pa lamang na mga patunay na yan na mula mismo sa Dios na nasa Qur'an! Kahit na sa isang Tangang katulad mo Demon este Cenon Bibe pala, siguro naman nauunawaan mo kapag binabasa mo ang mga patunay na yan! Eh ang Bible nyo ba mayroong ganyan? hehehehehe!
BALIK ISLAM who CANNOT PROVE that GOD ACCEPTED ISMAEL as a SON of ABRAHAM QUOTING AHMED DEEDAT:
ReplyDeleteCHRISTIANS CONFESS
Dr. W. Graham Scroggie of the MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE, Chicago, one of the most prestigious Christian Evangelical Mission in the world, answering the question — "Is the Bible the Word of God?" (also the title of his book), under the heading: IT IS HUMAN, YET DIVINE. He says on page 17:
"Yes, the Bible is human, though some, out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, 1 have denied this. Those books2 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." (Emphasis added).
CENON BIBE:
THIS is RECYCLED TRASH that WE ALREADY REFUTED.
HINDI po MAPATUNAYAN ng mga BALIK ISLAM na ITINURING at TINANGGAP ng DIYOS na ANAK ni ABRAHAM si ISMAEL kaya GUMAGAMIT na lang SILA ng mga IMBENTO at PAGSISINUNGALING ni DEEDAT.
Tulad po ng NASABI na NATIN ay NAPATUNAYAN na po NATING PANLOLOKO LANG ni DEEDAT ang ISINULAT NIYANG IYAN.
Katunayan ay NASA ILALIM po ang SAGOT NATIN sa PANLOLOKO na IYAN ni DEEDAT.
TINGNAN po NATIN itong "patunay" raw ng KWENTISTANG si AHMED DEEDAT para palabasin na gawa lang ng tao ang BIBLIYA.
ReplyDeleteSINIPI NIYA ang sinulat ni Dr. W. Graham Scroggie of the MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE.
Sinabi raw po ni Scroggie sa sagot niya sa tanong na: "Is the Bible the Word of God?"
"Yes, the Bible is human, though some, out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, 1 have denied this. Those books2 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." (Emphasis added).
Ano po ang KONKLUSYON nitong KWENTISTANG MUSLIM?
HETO po:
"If words have any meaning, do we need to add another word of comment to prove our case? No!"
Ang KONKLUSYON po nitong KWENTISTANG [at MANLOLOKONG] MUSLIM ay "hindi salita ng Diyos" ang BIBLIYA dahil sinabi ni Scroggie na "Yes, the Bible is human."
HINDI na raw KAILANGANG DAGDAGAN pa ang mga sinabi ni Scroggie dahil "malinaw" na raw ang lahat.
Talaga pong HINDI na PADADAGDAGAN nitong KWENTISTA ng ISLAM ang SINABI ni Scroggie dahil MAKIKITA ng LAHAT na MALI ang UNAWA NIYA sa sinabi ng BIBLE SCHOLAR.
MAY SINABI po ba si SCROGGIE na "The BIBLE IS NOT the WORD OF GOD?"
WALA po.
DAGDAG LANG IYAN ng PALAGAWA ng KWENTO na si DEEDAT.
Katunayan, sa mismong PAMAGAT ng SINULAT ni SCROGGIE ay MAKIKITA po NATIN ang TUNAY NIYANG SINASABI.
Sabi sa PAMAGAT ng sinulat ni Scroggie: IT [THE BIBLE] IS HUMAN, YET DIVINE.
Sa Pilipino: "IYON [ang BIBLIYA] ay SA TAO, PERO SA DIYOS DIN."
NAPAKALINAW po, di po ba?
Diyan ay kitang-kita natin na SINASABI ni SCROGGIE na ang BIBLIYA ay TUNAY ngang SA DIYOS o SALITA ng DIYOS, pero IYON din ay SA TAO.
Ano po ang ibig sabihin niyan?
Bakit po SA DIYOS o SALITA ng DIYOS ang BIBLIYA?
Dahil po GALING SA DIYOS ang mga NAKASULAT DIYAN.
MAKIKITA natin na MISMONG DIYOS ang NAGSALITA o NANGUSAP sa mga PROPETA na SIYANG SINISIPI sa BIBLIYA.
Halimbawa noong KAUSAPIN ng DIYOS si MOISES sa Exodus 3:14-15.
Diyan ay MISMONG DIYOS ang NAGBIGAY ng PANGALAN NIYA sa isang TUNAY na PROPETA.
Ngayon, SA TAO o HUMAN din ang BIBLIYA dahil ISINULAT IYAN GAMIT ang SALITANG KILALA at NAUUNAWAAN ng TAO.
Halimbawa po, UNANG NASULAT ang SALITA ng DIYOS sa WIKANG HEBREO.
Bakit HEBREO?
Dahil po IYON ang WIKANG NAUUNAWAAN ni MOISES at ng mga ISRAELITA.
Kung ISINULAT IYON sa WIKANG INGLES ay MALAMANG na HINDI IYON NAUNAWAAN ng mga ISRAELITA. MABABALE WALA ang PAGSASALITA ng DIYOS sa TUNAY na PROPETA.
Sinasabi rin iyan na SA TAO o HUMAN dahil HINAYAAN ng DIYOS na MAGAMIT sa PAGSLAT DIYAN ang mga PAMAMARAAN na NAUUNAWAAN ng TAO, partikular ng mga HEBREO.
Halimbawa po, GINAMIT ng DIYOS ang mga PAGLALARAWAN na MAY KAUGNAYAN sa PAGPAPASTOL o sa DISYERTO.
Bakit?
Dahil noong KAUSAPIN ng DIYOS si MOISES ay mga PASTOL ang mga HEBREO at PAMILYAR sa KANILA ang DISYERTO.
Kung GUMAMIT ang DIYOS ng PAGLALARAWAN na PATUNGKOL sa GUBAT o DAGAT ay MALAMANG na HINDI IYON NAUNAWAAN ng mga HEBREO.
MATALINO at MARUNONG po ang DIYOS. Para MAUNAWAAN SIYA ay HINAYAAN NIYA na MAGAMIT ang mga SALITANG NAUUNAWAAN ng TAO para MAIPAHAYAG ang KANYANG MGA SALITA.
Kaya nga po ang BIBLIYA ay sinasabi na WORDS OF GOD WRITTEN in WORDS of MEN.
Iyan po ang pakahulugan ng sinabi ni Scroggie na The BIBLE is HUMAN, YET DIVINE.
HINDI po IYAN NAUNAWAAN ni AHMED DEEDAT at SINADYA NIYA na HINDI IYAN MAUNAWAAN dahil MAS PINILI NIYANG MAMUHAY sa KAMALIAN at KABALUKTUTAN.
HINDI rin IYAN UUNAWAIN nitong PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM dahil GALIT SIYA sa KATOTOHANAN. At tila MAS MASAYA SIYA sa KASINUNGALINGAN at KAMANGMANGAN.
BALIK ISLAM who CANNOT PROVE that GOD SPOKE to THEIR PROPHET quoting AHMED DEEDAT:
ReplyDeleteMOSES WRITES HIS OWN OBITUARY?
Could Moses had been a contributor to his own obituary before his demise? Did the Jews write their own obituaries? "So Moses . . . DIED . . . And he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM (Moses) ... he was 120 years old when he DIED ... And there arose not a prophet SINCE in Israel like unto Moses …" (Deut. 34:5-10). We will analyze the rest of the Old Testament presently from other angles.
CENON BIBE:
THIS is WHAT HAPPENS when IGNORANT PEOPLE, like MUSLIM REVERTS or BALIK ISLAM, try to EXPLAIN BIBLICAL MATTERS.
This IGNORANCE, perpetrated by AHMED DEEDAT, is like an ILLNESS that PLAGUES MANY if not ALL MUSLIM REVERTS or BALIK ISLAM.
DEEDAT is CONFUSED because HE DOES NOT KNOW what AUTHORSHIP MEANS. Or should we say DEEDAT and MUSLIM REVERTS are IGNORANT of WHAT AUTHORSHIP MEANS?
AUTHORSHIP DOES NOT ONLY REFER to SOMEONE who WROTE a PIECE of WORK.
HINDI po IYAN para lang sa MISMONG GUMAWA ng ISANG KASULATAN.
AUTHORSHIP CAN ALSO REFER to the SOURCE or ORIGINATOR of a WRITTEN DOCUMENT.
Here is a DEFINITION forAUTHORfrom wikipedia:
An author (sometimes, in reference to a woman author, authress or authoress) is broadly defined as "the person who originates or gives existence to anything" and that authorship determines responsibility for what is created. Narrowly defined, an author is the originator of any written work.
With that DEFINITION of what an AUTHOR is, GOD can be ATTRIBUTED as the AUTHOR of the BIBLE because HE ORIGINATED or GAVE EXISTENCE to the HOLY BOOK.
And since MOISES ALSO HELPED ORIGINATE or GIVE EXISTENCE to the PENTATEUCH or the FIRST FIVE BOOKS of the BIBLE, IT is ONLY PROPER to CALL HIM an AUTHOR of that part of the HOLY BOOK.
MOISES ORIGINATED the PENTATEUCH because HE was the ONE USED by GOD to TELL the ISRAELITES the WORDS of GOD.
THIS is SUCH a VERY SIMPLE THING but because MUSLIM REVERTS or BALIK ISLAM CHOOSE to BECOME IGNORANT of the TRUTH, THEY are UNAWARE of SUCH a SIMPLE THING.
SABI po NATIN:
ReplyDeleteTingnan po ninyo, NAGMARUNONG ang BALIK ISLAM kaya HINDI MAPATUNAYAN na DIYOS ang NAGTAYO ng KANILANG RELIHIYON.
NAGMARUNONG ang BALIK ISLAM kaya HINDI MAIPAKITA na DIYOS MISMO ang NAGSUGO sa KANILANG PROPETA.
PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM:
Bueno po sa punto ng Katngahan mong ito Demon este Cenon Bibe pala bayaan po nating ang Bibliya mismo o si Kristo mismo ang Susupalpal sa Kamangmangan mo Demon este Cenon Bibe pala!
John 16:
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
13 Howbeit when HE, the Spirit of truth, is come, HE will guide you into all truth: for HE shall not speak of HIMself; but whatsoever HE shall hear, that shall HE speak: and HE will shew you things to come.
14 He shall glorify me: for HE shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
Pansin nyo po ba ang HE? mailang beses po inuulit ang HE dyan? ang HE po ba ang ukol sa BABAE? ito din kaya ay Ukol sa ESPIRITU SANTO? Napag-aaralan nyo na po ba kong may KASARIAN ang Espiritu Santo?
CENON BIBE:
NANAGINIP NA NAMAN po nang GISING itong BALIK ISLAM.
SAAN PO SINABI sa mga TALATANG IBINIGAY NIYA na DIYOS ang NAGTAYO sa RELIHIYONG INANIBAN NIYA?
WALA po.
INULIT LANG po ULI NIYA ang PANLOLOKO sa SARILI NIYA.
Gusto niyang palabasin na ang PROPETA NILA ang ESPIRITU ng KATOTOHANAN na BINABANGGIT sa John 16:12-14.
ESPIRITU BA ang PROPETA NILA?
Kung ESPIRITU e BAKIT NAG-SEX ng 9-ANYOS na BATA?
Ang ESPIRITU po ay GUMAGAWA ng MILAGRO at HINDI NANGSI-SEX ng WALANG MALAY na PASLIT.
Tingnan po NINYO kung PAANO GUMAWA ng HIMALA ang ESPIRITU SANTO noong MAGDALANGTAO ang BIRHENG MARIA.
GAMIT ang KAPANGYARIHAN ng DIYOS ay NAGDALANTAO si MARIA.
E ang PROPETA po ng BALIK ISLAM? KAHIT po SINIPINGAN ang 9-ANYOS ay NAGAWA po ba itong MABUNTIS?
HINDI po.
So, PAANONG MAGIGING ESPIRITU ang PROPETA ng ISLAM?
MALINAW po na NILOLOKO LANG nitong BALIK ISLAM ang KANYANG SARILI.
INIINSULTO RIN nitong BALIK ISLAM ang KANILANG PROPETA. At KINUKUNSINTI SIYA ng mga KAPWA NIYA BALIK ISLAM kahit pa MASYADO NIYANG SINISIRAAN ang KANILANG PROPETA.
HINDING-HINDI MAPATUNAYAN na DIYOS ang NAGTAYO ng INANIBAN NIYA kaya KUNG ANU-ANONG GUNI-GUNI ang KANYANG SINASABI.
Hindi po ako MAGTATAKA kung GUMAWA ng SARILI NIYANG AKLAT ang BALIK ISLAM na ITO. MARAMI rin SIYANG PANAGINIP habang tila NAHIHIBANG e.
SABI po NATIN:
ReplyDeleteNAGMARUNONG ang BALIK ISLAM kaya HINDI MAIPAKITA kung ALING SALITA o BAHAGI ng QURAN ang DIYOS MISMO ang NAGSABI sa KANILANG PROPETA.
PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM na WALANG MAIPAKITA na SALITA MISMO ng DIYOS sa KANILANG AKLAT:
S.3:19. Truly, the religion with Allâh is Islâm. Those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) did not differ except, out of mutual jealousy, after knowledge had come to them. And whoever disbelieves in the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allâh, then surely, Allâh is Swift in calling to account.
85. And whoever seeks a religion other than Islâm, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers
S.5:3...This day, those who disbelieved have given up all hope of your religion, so fear them not, but fear Me. This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islâm as your religion. But as for him who is forced by severe hunger, with no inclination to sin (such can eat these above-mentioned meats), then surely, Allâh is OftForgiving, Most Merciful.
Siguro naman sapat na ang iilan pa lamang na mga patunay na yan na mula mismo sa Dios na nasa Qur'an! Kahit na sa isang Tangang katulad mo Demon este Cenon Bibe pala, siguro naman nauunawaan mo kapag binabasa mo ang mga patunay na yan! Eh ang Bible nyo ba mayroong ganyan? hehehehehe!
CENON BIBE:
NASAAN ang PATUNAY RIYAN na DIYOS MISMO ang NAGSABI ng mga SINIPI NITONG PALAMURANG BALIK ISLAM?
Kung DIYOS po ang MISMONG NAGSABI ng mga IYAN ay BAKIT HINDI po GUMAMIT ng FIRST PERSON ang DIYOS?
Halimbawa po, sabi po sa SINIPI ng BALIK ISLAM sa S3:19,
And whoever disbelieves in the Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, signs, revelations, etc.) OF Allâh, then surely, Allâh is Swift in calling to account.
KUNG DIYOS po MISMO ang NAGSABI NIYAN e HINDI po ba DAPAT ay SINABI na "And whoever disbelieves in MY (Allah's) Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, signs, revelations, etc.), then surely, I (Allâh) AM Swift in calling to account."
HINDI po FIRST PERSON ang GINAMIT kaya hindi po ba MALINAW na HINDI ang DIYOS ang NAGSABI ng mga SINIPI ng BALIK ISLAM?
Sa S5:3 naman po ay GANITO ang PAGKAKASIPI ng BALIK ISLAM:
"then surely, Allâh is OftForgiving, Most Merciful."
KUNG ang DIYOS MISMO ang NAGSABI NIYAN ay DAPAT po ay FIRST PERSON din ang GINAMIT NIYA.
DAPAT ay "then surely, I (Allâh) AM OftForgiving, Most Merciful."
MULI po ay HINDI GANYAN ang PAGKAKASABI.
So MALINAW po na HINDI DIYOS ang MISMONG NAGSABI NIYAN.
NILOLOKO NA NAMAN NITONG BALIK ISLAM ang KANYANG SARILI. At NILOLOKO LANG NIYA ang MGA KAPATID NIYANG PILIT na NAGBUBULAG-BULAGAN sa KATOTOHANAN.
So, MAY NAIPAKITA po bang SALITA MISMO ng DIYOS itong BALIK ISLAM?
WALA po.
Ang IPINAKITA NIYA ay KUNG PAANO NILA NILOLOKO ang SARILI NILANG MGA PAGMUMUKHA.
NAKAKAAWA po SILA pero SILA PO ang MAY GUSTO na NILOLOKO NILA ang KANILANG SARILI.
NAGPAPAKAHIRAP po SILA sa PANINIWALA na NAKABATAY sa MGA KASINUNGALINGAN LANG NILA.
THE MYTHS OF ISLAM
ReplyDeleteMYTH NO. 1: ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE.
Sura 5:51;9:5,29,41 reads:
"Take not the Jews and Christians as friends...SLAY the idolaters [non-muslims] wherever ye find them...FIGHT AGAINST such...as believe not in Allah..."
The Koran is a warrior code containing more than 100 verses that advocated the use of violence to spread Islam.
MYTH NO. 2: ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF LOVE.
The Koran did not give even a single verse that commands muslims to love one another. Where is Koran's equivalent of Deut 6:5 or Lev 19:18? There is none.
MYTH NO. 3: ALLAH IS THE GOD OF THE BIBLE
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a Father who keeps his promises. Allah is not a Father and is presented as capricious, as he would do just anything to get what he wants. The God of the Bible is Immanent, as He became Man who "lives among us." Allah is only transcendent, a master to his slaves, and is so far away and infinitely distant and coldly detached from human beings.
MYTH NO. 4: KORAN IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE BIBLE.
The Koran borrows many Biblical stories and repackaged them differently. The Bible names Isaac as the one offered by Abraham. The Koran did not mention Isaac, leading many muslims to believe - erroneously of course - that it was Ismael whom Abraham tried to sacrifice on Mt. Moriah.
MYTH NO. 5: ISLAM VENERATES JESUS CHRIST.
Only in words, but not in deeds. Worse, Isa and Jesus are two distinct individuals being anomalously forged as one in the Koran. Jesus died on the cross and rose again. Isa never died on the cross, never went down to the souls in prison, and never ascended to the right hand of the Father.
There are many more myths of Islam. But these five will do for now. But first let's allow Abdullah and Bulok-Islam to give their violent reactions.
Kala ko naman tinanggap na ng mga teroristang muslim na mga ito ang hamon ni Bro Cenon na hiwalay na post para bigyan ng pagkakataon ang mga teroristang muslim na ipaliwanag o ipaglaban ang kanilang paniniwala na tinanggap o kinilala ng Dios bilang anak ni Abraham si Ismael..
ReplyDeleteTsktsk copy paste lang na naman hehehe..
[COPY-PASTER IN QUOTATION MARKS, MINE ALL CAPS]
ReplyDelete"We Muslims have no hesitation in acknowledging that in the Bible, there are three different kinds of witnessing recognizable without any need of specialized training."
WITHOUT SUFFICIENT TRAINING, ONE WILL ONLY END UP DISTORTING THE MEANING OF THE WORD OF GOD.(2 Peter 3:16-18. [Paul's] letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which IGNORANT AND UNSTABLE people DISTORT, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.) NO DOUBT, THIS IS THE ESSENCE OF DEEDAT'S FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE.
NOW, LET US SEE HOW DEEDAT AND HIS "COPY-PASTER" SHAMELESSLY IMPOSED THEIR OWN ARTIFICIAL CRITERIA AND FALSE MINDSET FOR MISINTERPRETING THE BIBLE:
"1. You will be able to recognize in the Bible what may be described as "The Word of God."
2. You will also be able to discern what can be described as the "Words of a Prophet of God."
3. And you will most readily observe that the bulk of the Bible is the records of eye witnessess or ear witnesses, or people writing from hearsay. As such they are the "Words of a Historian"
FOLLOWING THEIR FANCY THINKING, THE FIRST APPLIES TO THE KORAN, THE SECOND, TO THE HADITH, AND THE THIRD, TO ISLAMIC HISTORY. THIS IS THE DICHOTOMY, (OR TRICHOTOMY, IF YOU WILL) THAT THEY FIRST APPLIED TO THE ISLAMIC TRADITION. NOW, THEY IMPOSED THIS ON THE BIBLE, IN EFFECT DOING VIOLENCE TO THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD.
THE BIBLE IS THE "INSPIRED WORD OF GOD." THE DOCTRINE OF DIVINE INSPIRATION REMAINS A PUZZLE FOR THE DEEDAT ET AL. DEEDAT'S CONFUSION IS SHOWN WHEN HE QUOTED SCROGGIE SAYING, "IT [THE BIBLE] IS HUMAN, YET DIVINE." THEY COULD NOT UNDERSTAND THAT GOD USED HUMAN LANGUAGE, HUMAN CULTURE, AND EVEN HUMAN MINDSETS, TO WRITE HIS WORDS.
INDEED, WHILE DEEDAT AND HIS "COPY-PASTER" STAUNCHLY BELIEVED THAT THE KORAN IS THE "WORDS OF GOD", THEY CONVENIENTLY FORGOT THAT THE KORAN ITSELF IS WRITTEN IN ARABIC. WHETHER THEY LIKE IT OR NOT, ARABIC IS A HUMAN LANGUAGE SPOKEN WITHIN THE CONFINES OF A HUMAN CULTURE AND MINDSET. SO IT IS A GROSS HYPOCRISY TO DISMISS THE BIBLE ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS "HUMAN", WHEN THE KORAN ITSELF, BY DEEDAT'S OWN DEFINITION, IS ALSO "HUMAN".
wala pa bang sagot ang mga muslim?
ReplyDeleteAng lahat ng parangal, papuri at pagdakila ay para lamang sa Nag-iisang Tunay na Diyos na Tagapaglikha.Tumitestigo ako na walang sinuman ang may karapatang sambahin kundi Siya lamang na walang kapara, kawangis, katulad at kahambing, Natatangi at Nag-iisa, walang ama, ina, anak, asawa o kapatid.
ReplyDeleteSa aking kapatid na Muslim, mayroong tamang kaparaanan kung papaano natin ipapaunawa ang Islam sa mga taong may kakarampot na kaalaman ukol dito.
Inutusan tayo na imbitahan ang lahat sa daan ng ating Panginoon, gamit ang maganda at magalang na pagpapaliwanag, gamit ang karunungan, at ang pakikipagtalastasang may respeto at paggalang sa paniniwala ng iba.
Iwasang makipagtalo at kung hindi lubos ang kaalaman sa paksang tinatalakay ay bumalik muna sa silid aralan - pag-aralan ang mga ito o dili kaya ay magtanong-tanong upang maipagkaloob sa kanila ang tama, tumpak at mahusay na kasagutan.
Ang pagkakaroon ng magandang intensiyon ay hindi sapat para magabayan ang ibang tao, kinakailangan ay tama din ang kaalaman at tama ang kaparaanan..
Ipakita at ipaunawa sa kanila ang tunay na Islam, upang hindi man sila maniwala o magbalik-Islam ay makuha mo naman ang kanilang respeto at paggalang.
Ako ay isa ring balik Islam, subalit iginagalang ko ang kanilang paniniwala at pinakikinggan ang kanilang mga ipinapaunawa..
Sa huli, sa araw ng Paghuhukom ay ang tunay na pagkabatid sa tunay na talunan at tunay na nagtagumpay.
Magandang araw sa inyong lahat..
Tagapagpaunawa said...
ReplyDeleteSa aking kapatid na Muslim, mayroong tamang kaparaanan kung papaano natin ipapaunawa ang Islam sa mga taong may kakarampot na kaalaman ukol dito.
CENON BIBE:
SALAMAT po sa PAGPAPAALALA NINYO sa INYONG mga KAPATID.
SANA po ay PAKINGGAN NILA KAYO para po MAGPATULOY ang MAAYOS na PAKIKIPAGTALAKAYAN ng LAHAT DITO.
KAYO rin po ay WELCOME na MAKIPAGPALITAN ng KAALAMAN sa AMING LAHAT.
SALAMAT po ULI.