December 5, 200520 yr Author I used the NASB, which is commonly known (amongst Bible readers) to have aimed more at accuracy than the NIV. Eternal ~ timeless... I was just reiterating it. Yes, and I'm calling in to question the accuracy of the Bible which you use. Do you know the Hebrew word for eternal (or timeless)? In any case, for the Old Testament, I use the Judaica Press Complete Tanach. The Old Testament was written FOR Jews BY Jews, so what better source as to its meaning than Jews themselves? 1. And you, Bethlehem Ephrathah-you should have been the lowest of the clans of Judah-from you [he] shall emerge for Me, to be a ruler over Israel; and his origin is from of old, from days of yore. 2. Therefore, He shall deliver them until the time a woman in confinement gives birth. And the rest of his brothers shall return upon the children of Israel. 3. And he shall stand and lead with the might of the Lord, with the pride of the Lord, his God: and they shall return, for now he shall become great to the ends of the earth. 4. And this shall be peace. Should Assyria come into our land, and should they tread upon our palaces, we will appoint over them seven shepherds and eight princes of men. 5. And they shall break the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod at its gates; and he shall save [us] from Assyria, who comes into our land, and who treads in our border. 6. And the remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many peoples-like dew sent by the Lord, like torrents of rain upon vegatation that does not hope for any man and does not wait for the sons of men. 7. And the remnant of Jacob shall be among the nations, in the midst of many peoples-like a lion among the beasts of the forest, like a young lion among the flocks of sheep, which, if it passes through, treads down and tears in pieces, and no one [can] save anything. [taken from: http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=16191] Not eternal. I'll readily admit that I do not speak Hebrew. But I think I'll trust the Judaica Press Complete Tanach over the NASB for the Old Testament anyday. Now, if this was the New Testament, I could take this further since I know a little Greek (The Greek word for eternal is ÃÆýÃâñÃÆýÃâùÃÆÃ
December 5, 200520 yr In any case, I fail to see how a military commander can't come in peace. Fidel is a military commander, and he isn't at war with anyone right now. I'd argue he's at war with his people, whom he oppresses, which can hardly be called peace. And he has been at war with the US at times. Anyhow, that's not really too relevant to the discussion, but I do think a military commander will at least *in general* not come in peace.
December 5, 200520 yr Thank you very much for answering the questions, however is there a link for the hadith in arabic if possible ? thnx
December 6, 200520 yr Author I'd argue he's at war with his people, whom he oppresses, which can hardly be called peace. And he has been at war with the US at times. Anyhow, that's not really too relevant to the discussion, but I do think a military commander will at least *in general* not come in peace. Castro has NEVER declared war on anyone period. The only time he even used his military outside of Cuba was when Cuban troops were sent to Marxist Ethiopia to assist Ethiopian forces in the Ogaden War with Somalia in 1977. That hardly counts as being at war with any nation, and Cuba has never been in a state of war while Castro has been in power. Does it even matter "in general"? We are talking about the Moshiach here, almost certainly not an "in general" type of person which is to be expected. Thank you very much for answering the questions, however is there a link for the hadith in arabic if possible ? I'm sorry, I don't have that link. To be honest, I don't really read Hadith. I mostly read the Noble Qur'an. You should ask on an Islamic Forum if you want a better answer.
December 6, 200520 yr Which makes this entire discussion, hell, all of Christianity (!) rather pointless does it not? I fail to see how a verse saying that anything is possible with God makes Christianity pointless. My point about that verse explaining away anything was that (if you read between the lines), it is often taken out of context. *With God*, anything is possible. If you're doing something contrary to God's character, you're hardly with God anymore, are you? It has to be something in God's will for it to be possible, as if you're not in God's will, you're not "with God". And I would argue that it is out of God's character to be contradictory, and as I believe, someone who will physically conquer (in your opinion) Assyria can not do so peacefully, it's a contradiction. God wouldn't make 2 = 3, and he wouldn't make peace not peace. But this is all my opinion, and can be ignored as a formal argument. In any case, I fail to see how a military commander can't come in peace. Fidel is a military commander, and he isn't at war with anyone right now. Yes but this military commander you speak of will conquer the Assyrians. and his origin is from of old, from days of yore. This verse really makes it seem like the military commander is always in existence. His origin *is* *from* old, *from* days of yore. Those are words usually used to speak in present or past tense. What do you make fo that verse? You explained away the presence of the word eternity, but left the basis of my argument (sort of a straw man). And lastly... And this shall be peace. This really sounds like a concluding statement. If there were a colon or semi colon (see v.3) after the word 'peace' instead of a period, I would believe the rest of the text selection to be talking about the same person, but it really seems to be concluding a thought, and then moving on. (sorry for the misorganization of my post)
December 6, 200520 yr Props on your good work, liked the way you made the topic, got nothing against islamic people im Hindu myself and know a few a few people of that backround but gotta say you know alot of your religion, only if more people in the world knew as much about religion, but theres always an ignorant person behind every corner.
December 6, 200520 yr Author I fail to see how a verse saying that anything is possible with God makes Christianity pointless. My point about that verse explaining away anything was that (if you read between the lines), it is often taken out of context. *With God*, anything is possible. If you're doing something contrary to God's character, you're hardly with God anymore, are you? It has to be something in God's will for it to be possible, as if you're not in God's will, you're not "with God". And I would argue that it is out of God's character to be contradictory, and as I believe, someone who will physically conquer (in your opinion) Assyria can not do so peacefully, it's a contradiction. God wouldn't make 2 = 3, and he wouldn't make peace not peace. But this is all my opinion, and can be ignored as a formal argument. Who's to say what God's character is? If God can order Moses and his army to pillage, kill, and rape whole towns, what puts this out of line? And yes, it is possible to peacefully conquer a place. With God it is. Yes but this military commander you speak of will conquer the Assyrians. Wait... I'm reading, and now I don't know what military commander you are even talking about. Looking at the verse, I see nothing about conquering Assyrians by a military commander, but rather, by "seven shepherds and eight princes of men". It states that the Assyrians will invade their land, and he (the Messiah) will save the people from the Assyrians. Jesus never did that, so he can't be the Messiah. This verse really makes it seem like the military commander is always in existence. His origin *is* *from* old, *from* days of yore. Those are words usually used to speak in present or past tense. What do you make fo that verse? You explained away the presence of the word eternity, but left the basis of my argument (sort of a straw man). All it says is that he will have old origins... nothing about "eternal" or "timeless". This really sounds like a concluding statement. If there were a colon or semi colon (see v.3) after the word 'peace' instead of a period, I would believe the rest of the text selection to be talking about the same person, but it really seems to be concluding a thought, and then moving on. If it was concluding a thought, why is it in the same verse? That's the part that shoots your argument down. The next sentence states "Should the Assyrians..." and it goes on to talk about what will happen when the Assyrians invade their land. 4. And this shall be peace. Should Assyria come into our land, and should they tread upon our palaces, we will appoint over them seven shepherds and eight princes of men. 5. And they shall break the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod at its gates; and he shall save [us] from Assyria, who comes into our land, and who treads in our border. See that "he"? That's talking about the same previous he. This is the Bible we are talking about, not some lame school essay written by a kid that throws random pronouns everywhere. The "he" is obviously referring to the previous time the word "he" is used (the one that becomes great to the ends of the world).
December 6, 200520 yr Who's to say what God's character is? If God can order Moses and his army to pillage, kill, and * whole towns, what puts this out of line? And yes, it is possible to peacefully conquer a place. With God it is. One would argue God's character is revealed in the Law. God can order Moses and his army to do all of that because God is sovereign. One would argue that God *cannot* murder, since no one is innocent in comparison to God. I would say that with God it is possible to peacefully conquer a place, but not in this circumstance, because And they shall break the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod at its gates... this doesn't sound like peace. If it was concluding a thought, why is it in the same verse? That's the part that shoots your argument down. The next sentence states "Should the Assyrians..." and it goes on to talk about what will happen when the Assyrians invade their land. Verses were put in by the translators, not the authors. First off, women didn't have any ancestry, period Read Numbers 27:1-14, it is possible for women to have ancestry.
December 6, 200520 yr Wow. Amazing. Thanks for putting in your time to come up with such a great...uh...FAQ for Islam. It will clear up lots of things for people who dont really know about it. Thanks! ...
December 8, 200520 yr I just want to ask you about islam's views on sacrifice oneself for the sake of others? Thx
December 9, 200520 yr Thank you so much for posting this. I was born in Saudi Arabia and both my parents are Lebanese so most of my friends assume that I'm Muslim and I have to clear up that common misconception. My mom, however, was Druze (not sure of the spelling) which is supposedly a type of Islamic belief but her family never really practiced it. I especially enjoyed the fact that you cleared up the stereotype of all Muslims being extremists. I've tried to explain it to my friends and they still don't get it. I don't think I could thank you enough.
December 9, 200520 yr I'd argue he's at war with his people, whom he oppresses, which can hardly be called peace. And he has been at war with the US at times. Anyhow, that's not really too relevant to the discussion, but I do think a military commander will at least *in general* not come in peace. Castro has NEVER declared war on anyone period. The only time he even used his military outside of Cuba was when Cuban troops were sent to Marxist Ethiopia to assist Ethiopian forces in the Ogaden War with Somalia in 1977. That hardly counts as being at war with any nation, and Cuba has never been in a state of war while Castro has been in power. Does it even matter "in general"? We are talking about the Moshiach here, almost certainly not an "in general" type of person which is to be expected. Cuba hosted missiles pointed at the US, which was the closest the world ever came to a nuclear war. Even though the nukes were russian, it's not a very 'peaceful' thing to do, hrm? Then, I literally said 'at war with his people'. Now, obviously, he hasn't formally declared war on his people. Doesn't mean he isn't opressing them.
December 17, 200520 yr Author One would argue God's character is revealed in the Law. God can order Moses and his army to do all of that because God is sovereign. One would argue that God *cannot* murder, since no one is innocent in comparison to God. I would say that with God it is possible to peacefully conquer a place, but not in this circumstance, because And they shall break the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod at its gates ... this doesn't sound like peace. What do you mean by that? Doing something peacefully may still require killing. Take the peace corps as an example. Verses were put in by the translators, not the authors. How do you think they decided to put the verses in? :roll: Read Numbers 27:1-14, it is possible for women to have ancestry. The passage is dealing with what to do when a father doesn't have any male children, and a question arises when his inheritance must be distributed. That's the only reason the ancestry of the women is shown in those verses. 1. The daughters of Zelophehad the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph, came forward, and his daughters' names were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. 2. They stood before Moses and before Eleazar the kohen and before the chieftains and the entire congregation at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, saying, 3. "Our father died in the desert, but he was not in the assembly that banded together against the Lord in Korah's assembly, but he died for his own sin, and he had no sons. 4. Why should our father's name be eliminated from his family because he had no son? Give us a portion along with our father's brothers. " 5. So Moses brought their case before the Lord. 6. The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 7. Zelophehad's daughters speak justly. You shall certainly give them a portion of inheritance along with their father's brothers, and you shall transfer their father's inheritance to them. 8. Speak to the children of Israel saying: If a man dies and has no son, you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter. 9. If he has no daughter, you shall give over his inheritance to his brothers. 10. If he has no brothers, you shall give over his inheritance to his father's brothers. 11. If his father has no brothers, you shall give over his inheritance to the kinsman closest to him in his family, who shall inherit it. This shall remain a decreed statute, as the Lord commanded Moses. I'll change my stance then. I will now say that non-Israelite women had no ancestry. It isn't that much of a change though, since Moses and his posse weren't raping Israelites. I just want to ask you about islam's views on sacrifice oneself for the sake of others? Sacrificing yourself for others is a very good thing to do. Cuba hosted missiles pointed at the US, which was the closest the world ever came to a nuclear war. Even though the nukes were russian, it's not a very 'peaceful' thing to do, hrm? Then, I literally said 'at war with his people'. Now, obviously, he hasn't formally declared war on his people. Doesn't mean he isn't opressing them. Cuba had no choice. Cuba was the Soviet Union's puppet. But still, there was no formal declaration of war on either side, ever. And "oppressing" your people, in the context of this debate, is not considered war.
December 17, 200520 yr Why do people do suicide bombings in the name of islam? whats that all about heh? 23 whip pks,3 dhorka,2 ahrims lvl 119 attack 99 strength 99 and defence 92 plus 94 mage
December 18, 200520 yr Author Why do people do suicide bombings in the name of islam? whats that all about heh? Hurting oneself is prohibited in Islam, so that extends to suicide bombings. I don't see what else there is to say.
Create an account or sign in to comment