When it comes to scientific claims, the Bible has the dumbest claims, with all due respect to Jews and Christians. The Bible claims that Earth has four ends and four corners. Nobody can ever think a ball or a cycle to have corners and ends! Only flat items can have corners and ends, and this is exactly what the bible is trying to express regarding the shape of the earth. The earth is not flat, as once thought and it has no corners or ends at all. If Magnetic Poles can be taken as ends or corners of earth, then this definitely opposed to the axis of rotation.

Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Does the Earth have 4 corneres ?????????

Another ABUSRD verse:

"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5)"

Here the bible tells us the EARTH can never be moved !!!!!!

AND THIS IS THE MOST ABSURD:

"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. (From the NIV Bible, Ecclesiastes 1:5)"

Here, the scientifically accurate bible is telling us that it is the SUN which hurries back to where it rises !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Once the Arabs had acquired an empire, a coherent religion was required in order to hold that empire together and legitimize their rule. In a process that involved a massive backreading of history, and in conformity to the available Jewish and Christian models, this meant they needed a revelation and a revealer (prophet) whose life could serve at once as a model for moral conduct and as a framework for the appearance of the revelation; hence the Koran, the Hadith, and the Sira, were contrived and conjoined over a period of a couple of centuries. Topographically, after a century or so of Judaeo-Muslim monotheism centered on Jerusalem, in order to make Islam distinctively Arab the need for an exclusively Hijazi origin became pressing. It is at this point that Islam as we recognize it today - with an inner Arabian biography of the Prophet, Mecca, Quraysh, Hijra, Medina, Badr, etc. - was really born, as a purely literary artefact. An artefact, moreover, based not on faithful memories of real events, but on the fertile imaginations of Arab storytellers elaborating from allusive references in Koranic texts, the canonical text of the Koran not being fixed for nearly two centuries. This scenario makes at least as much sense of the sources as the traditional account and eliminates many anomalies.


from an article
By Frank R. Zindler

This article was published in The American Atheist Vol. 40 #1, Winter 2001-2002.

The "four corners" of the earth is an expression.


Here, the scientifically accurate bible is telling us that it is the SUN which hurries back to where it rises !!!!!!!!!!!!!

So what? It is an poetic section not directly the words of God. You have to differentiate between God speaking and speaking under inspiration of God. Further, one of the Hadith's says something similar.

Move is entirely based on referance.

Originally posted by Proud_Syrian
AND THIS IS THE MOST ABSURD:

"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. (From the NIV Bible, Ecclesiastes 1:5)"

Here, the scientifically accurate bible is telling us that it is the SUN which hurries back to where it rises !!!!!!!!!!!!!
If the sun seems to rise and set what is the fun with telling that its hurrying back to where it rises.!?

PS, as for defying scientific truths, both the bible and quran seems to compete with each other. for that matter all the religions do the same to quite some extent. you seem to enjoy when the christians retaliate quoting quran.

Originally posted by okinrus
The "four corners" of the earth is an expression.

So what? It is an poetic section not directly the words of God. You have to differentiate between God speaking and speaking under inspiration of God. Further, one of the Hadith's says something similar.

Move is entirely based on referance.

What loads of CRAP ? The above verses are from the BIBLE ( your true word of God ) it is not poetic expressions, it is describtion of how ABSURD the bible is.

Originally posted by everneo
If the sun seems to rise and set what is the fun with telling that its hurrying back to where it rises.!?



There is NO fun in claiming that the sun is the one whic hurries back, it is just PURE SCIENTIFICAL ERROR in a book which is supposdly a true word of God !

:rolleyes:

<i><b>
What loads of CRAP ? The above verses are from the BIBLE ( your true word of God ) it is not poetic expressions, it is describtion of how ABSURD the bible is. </b></i>
No, well it could be how absurd someone views a book. If you believe that the whole message of the passage was that the earth was flat than you are mistaken. When someone speaks by the Spirit everything is true but the author will add examples that is from their world. For example, Paul gives an example where he constrasts the different elements of the luminaries, earth, water and flesh. But this wasn't a scientific argument. Far from it in fact.

Your example, however, is flawed. The earth is flat to one who wants to see it flat. The surface of the earth could be spread out onto some plane but only made to appear to us as round. Furthermore, whether the foundation of the earth is viewed as gravity or a series of huge poles is only human perception. Reality itself is only perception.

The "four corners" of the earth is an expression.And why are there four Gospels? Ask Irenaeus of Lyon.

Yes, Tiassa. A passage such as The phrase "attacked in all four corners is often used. We have four gospels because these were the only one deemed true. We have four gospels because this is what the apostles gave us.

LOL.

Try this -

http://www.shine.org.uk/part5.htm

Originally posted by Cris
LOL.


why u laughing sir?

Originally posted by tiassa
And why are there four Gospels? Ask Irenaeus of Lyon.

Well said, you see, those christians never discuss the specific verses but they rather turn around the topic ending up by their famous sentence: JESUS LOVES YOU.

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by okinrus
Your example, however, is flawed. The earth is flat to one who wants to see it flat. The surface of the earth could be spread out onto some plane but only made to appear to us as round. Furthermore, whether the foundation of the earth is viewed as gravity or a series of huge poles is only human perception. Reality itself is only perception.

If someone wants to see the earth as FLAT, then this someone is FOOL.

I sensed in your response an attempt to 'explain' the scientific absurdity of the bible, something which is beyond belief.

:eek:

Attention!

Discovered here at Sciforums:

Proud Syrian's head is flat!

Story at eleven!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by okinrus
[B]The "four corners" of the earth is an expression.

So what? It is an poetic section not directly the words of God. You have to differentiate between God speaking and speaking under inspiration of God. Further, one of the Hadith's says something similar.

Move is entirely based on referance.
----------
M*W: In many other posts you and all the other Christians have stated that the "Bible is the inspired word of God." Now it seems that the "poetic" sections are NOT "directly the words of God."

Secondly, please elaborate, for those of us who are non-Christian, the difference between "God speaking directly" and "speaking under the inspiration of God." How does one discern when "God is actually speaking" to them? How do you recognize God's voice? How do others discern when an individual is "speaking under the inspiration of God?" How does one go about determining that which is "directly the words of God" as opposed to that which is the non-essential "poetry?"

Thirdly, why is it that "poetry" cannot be classified as the "actual" or "inspired" word of God? How do you know the difference between what is "poetry" and what is not? Does it have a specific rhyme scheme that would set it apart or make it stand out from the "direct words of God" as opposed to the "inspired word of God?"

Fourthly, considering all the translations of the thousands of translations of Bible scripture, how do you know when you hear God speak which translation he is referring to? It seems like that would be the most confusing part, especially since the modern Bible has well-documented errors in translation.

And last, but not least: Is there a difference between the OT and NT "when God speaks directly to man," when the scripture is "inspired by others," and the differences in the "poetic" sections? What is your understanding of the gift of discernment and how is it applied in the modern world? With the advent of the Internet, and the use of the media, do you believe these avenues could be a possible tool for modern age discernment?

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
---------
M*W: In many other posts you and all the other Christians have stated that the "Bible is the inspired word of God." Now it seems that the "poetic" sections are NOT "directly the words of God."

Secondly, please elaborate, for those of us who are non-Christian, the difference between "God speaking directly" and "speaking under the inspiration of God." How does one discern when "God is actually speaking" to them? How do you recognize God's voice? How do others discern when an individual is "speaking under the inspiration of God?" How does one go about determining that which is "directly the words of God" as opposed to that which is the non-essential "poetry?"

Thirdly, why is it that "poetry" cannot be classified as the "actual" or "inspired" word of God? How do you know the difference between what is "poetry" and what is not? Does it have a specific rhyme scheme that would set it apart or make it stand out from the "direct words of God" as opposed to the "inspired word of God?"

Fourthly, considering all the translations of the thousands of translations of Bible scripture, how do you know when you hear God speak which translation he is referring to? It seems like that would be the most confusing part, especially since the modern Bible has well-documented errors in translation.

And last, but not least: Is there a difference between the OT and NT "when God speaks directly to man," when the scripture is "inspired by others," and the differences in the "poetic" sections? What is your understanding of the gift of discernment and how is it applied in the modern world? With the advent of the Internet, and the use of the media, do you believe these avenues could be a possible tool for modern age discernment? [/B]

:D:D

Thank you for addressing this, MW!! I have asked this question before (not as detailed) and haven't received an answer. I would love to hear one. I hope you get a reply.

We have four gospels because these were the only one deemed true. We have four gospels because this is what the apostles gave us.I thought I told you to ask Irenaeus.

Your response has nothing to do with Irenaeus.

(Hint: Cris' link covers the issue well enough.)

Originally posted by Proud_Syrian
When it comes to scientific claims, the Bible has the dumbest claims, with all due respect to Jews and Christians........................................ .........................................
Here, the scientifically accurate bible is telling us that it is the SUN which hurries back to where it rises !!!!!!!!!!!!!

:rolleyes:

Your 'Holy Quran' is even dumber!
For instance consider this outrageous claim:
Mohammed of Arabia wrote in his Quran that 'Dhil Qarnain', supposedly 'Alexander the Great' saw the sun goes through a pond of muddy water at the west end of the earth!
That is despite the fact that the size of the sun is more than 300,000 times the size of the earth.
What a folly! What a blunder! What a stupid mistake!

:D

Tiassa, I'm well aware that gospels were founded on the tradition of the Church and held in authority because of tradition handed down by the apostles. Origen also mentiones that the four gospels were held in authority. So too Iraenaeus, who knew Polycarp and would have recieved the proper tradition from the disciple of John. The article mentions Marcion. Hardly a truthful character. He gave out corrupted versions of Paul's gospels and did not accept the God of the old testament as a true God.

567,

why u laughing sir?Because of -

“We have four gospels because these were the only one deemed true. We have four gospels because this is what the apostles gave us.”.

Which doesn’t reflect history only dogma.

Try this which gives a more thorough view of how the gospels were contrived and manipulated.

http://www.tempemasjid.com/maurice/10sources.htm

Another confusion in the bible:

The Genealogy of Jesus.

a) From David to Jesus 41 names (generations) are given by Matthew [although he claims there are 42] as against the 26 names [generations] given by Luke [Luke 3]!

A difference of 15 whole generations in the genealogy of the same man !

Matthew mentions that Jesus was the seed of David through Solomon, while Luke says that Jesus was the seed of David through Nathan [Solomon's brother]. This is a contradiction as the seed of David could never reach Jesus through Solomon and his brother Nathan at the same time. According to Matthew Jesus' grandfather is Jacob [the father of Joseph] while according to Luke it is Heli !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Cris
567,

Because of -

“We have four gospels because these were the only one deemed true. We have four gospels because this is what the apostles gave us.”.

Which doesn’t reflect history only dogma.

Try this which gives a more thorough view of how the gospels were contrived and manipulated.

http://www.tempemasjid.com/maurice/10sources.htm


but it is word of god. how come it is manipulated. it is troublesome if you are right.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by heart
[B]:D:D

Thank you for addressing this, MW!! I have asked this question before (not as detailed) and haven't received an answer. I would love to hear one. I hope you get a reply.
----------
M*W: Me, too... but I'm not holding my breath!

567,

but it is word of god. how come it is manipulated. it is troublesome if you are right.It is only claimed to be the word of a god. No one has yet shown that a god or gods can or do exist or have ever existed, or are even possible in any shape or form.

That such texts can be shown to be; inconsistent, ambiguous, plain wrong, have been manipulated for political purposes, plagiarized from other myths, or just pure myths, should come as no surprise if one takes even a cursory but independent and objective examination of the history of Christianity.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Proud_Syrian
Another confusion in the bible:

[B]The Genealogy of Jesus.

a) From David to Jesus 41 names (generations) are given by Matthew [although he claims there are 42] as against the 26 names [generations] given by Luke [Luke 3]!

A difference of 15 whole generations in the genealogy of the same man !

Matthew mentions that Jesus was the seed of David through Solomon, while Luke says that Jesus was the seed of David through Nathan [Solomon's brother]. This is a contradiction as the seed of David could never reach Jesus through Solomon and his brother Nathan at the same time. According to Matthew Jesus' grandfather is Jacob [the father of Joseph] while according to Luke it is Heli !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
----------
M*W: Yes, it is confusing. If you're really interested in the true genealogy of Jesus, you should read Bloodline of the Holy Grail and Genesis of the Grail Kings by Laurence Gardner. It blows the Gospels right out of their holy moly book! Here's another site I just found (I haven't had a chance to read it! Here are two links you might enjoy!

http://jcolavito.tripod.com/lostcivilizations/id6.html

http://www.karenlyster.com/genesis.html

Which doesn’t reflect history only dogma.
Try this which gives a more thorough view of how the gospels were contrived and manipulated.
http://www.tempemasjid.com/maurice/10sources.htm

The Didache dated around 50AD mentions a Gospel. Thus your article begins with an inaccurate statement. More so, Polycarp, Ignatius, and Justin extensively quote from new testament before 140AD. I suggest that you <i>only</i> trust primary sources due to the nature of this topic. Your article posted, however, is not primary nor even secondary. You can read the Church Fathers if you wish at www.ccel.org If you want to argue the nature of how the bible was created and what book became authoritative you will have to trust primary christian sources. There is no way around it. Either you admit to have <i>no</i> inforrmation on the subject or you trust what they say.

Matthew mentions that Jesus was the seed of David through Solomon, while Luke says that Jesus was the seed of David through Nathan [Solomon's brother]. This is a contradiction as the seed of David could never reach Jesus through Solomon and his brother Nathan at the same time. According to Matthew Jesus' grandfather is Jacob [the father of Joseph] while according to Luke it is Heli !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is of your own opinion that both genologies are of Jesus. There is no reason why the one in Luke could not have been of Mary.

Okinrus,

If you want to argue the nature of how the bible was created and what book became authoritative you will have to trust primary christian sources.That’s like trusting an alleged criminal to tell the truth.

At length, when they came to a valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants, get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it."

So he smiled, amused at her speech; and he said: "O my Lord! so order me that I may be grateful for Thy favours, which Thou has bestowed on me and on my parents, and that I may work the righteousness that will please Thee: And admit me, by They Grace to the ranks of Thy Righteous Servants."

-- Sura An-Naml [The Ant] (27):18-19


in contradiction to the Qur'an, ants do communicate using smells, not modulation of sounds. Solomon could not have heard any talk since ants do not produce any.

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
M*W: Yes, it is confusing. If you're really interested in the true genealogy of Jesus, you should read Bloodline of the Holy Grail and Genesis of the Grail Kings by Laurence Gardner. It blows the Gospels right out of their holy moly book! Here's another site I just found (I haven't had a chance to read it! Here are two links you might enjoy!

http://jcolavito.tripod.com/lostcivilizations/id6.html

http://www.karenlyster.com/genesis.html

Thanks my dear lady, you are really such a MEDICINE in this jungle !

:)

All you are proving is that the Bible is as stupid as the Qur'an.

:D So the writers didn't have as much astronomical knowlege as we have now. Big deal. :p Anyway, I think it should be taken literally. :)

Matthew mentions that Jesus was the seed of David through Solomon, while Luke says that Jesus was the seed of David through Nathan [Solomon's brother]. This is a contradiction as the seed of David could never reach Jesus through Solomon and his brother Nathan at the same time. According to Matthew Jesus' grandfather is Jacob [the father of Joseph] while according to Luke it is Heli !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yeah well they are different writers. I try to judge what each writer was actually like as a person, from their writings, and then I can decide who I beleive. John the baptist (or Johnny B as I like to call him) is probably highly accurate because he and Jesus seem to be quite close. When Mary found out she was pregnant she went to see Elizabeth at Zechariah's house, where she stayed for 'about three months' (and all the sources I have seen give roughly the same time period). Apparently that is when Elizabeth (who was supposedly unable to give birth) became pregnant too: 'filled with the holy spirit'. I get the impression Jesus and John were quite close because of this. Whatever the case I beleive the geneology of Jesus is what is central to Christianity!

What does the Quaran say about the world and how it was created?

Proud Syrian, firstly, (James 4:6 NKJV) But He gives more grace. Therefore He says: "God resists the proud, But gives grace to the humble."

Secondly, can you say "hermeneutics"???? Goood, I knew you could....

Just to throw in my two cents on the flat earth thing: to say that the Bible is ignorant of Science because it says "four corners of the Earth" is like calling someone ignorant of Science for saying," Look at the pretty sun rise." Oh yeh and check out Isaiah 40:22.
Originally posted by Proud_Syrian
Another confusion in the bible:
The Genealogy of Jesus.

a) From David to Jesus 41 names (generations) are given by Matthew [although he claims there are 42] as against the 26 names [generations] given by Luke [Luke 3]!

A difference of 15 whole generations in the genealogy of the same man !

We all have two genealogies, one from our father and one from our mother.

Matthew's Genealogy begins with Abraham and goes to Christ(Counting Christ that's 42). Luke's goes backward from Christ to Adam(76 generations, 56 to Abraham though.) This can be explained in that there are some holes in the genealogy(Uzziah is the great-great-grandson of Joram.) The wording occasionally indicates that the latter is a remote ancestor than an actual father. Matthew never actually establishes a paternal relationship; he just says that so-and-so begot such-and such. Indeed, this is the case(to say my grandfather begot me is not incorrect, b/c he did, just indirectly through my father)

Also in Matthew 1:11, it mentions Jeconiah. According to Jer. 22:24-30, a curse was upon his lineage. Matthew's genealogy is through Joseph, so there fore Jesus couldn't be the Christ if Joseph begot him. BUT, Christ comes through Mary"of whom was born" rather than "begot" This means that Jesus was not born in the normal fashion. So Jesus wasn't under the curse of his father's lineage.

Matthew mentions that Jesus was the seed of David through Solomon, while Luke says that Jesus was the seed of David through Nathan [Solomon's brother]. This is a contradiction as the seed of David could never reach Jesus through Solomon and his brother Nathan at the same time.

Not quite. Matthew gives the legal genealogy of the father, who is of Solomon's lineage. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary, who is of Nathan's lineage.(see next paragraph) In fact the two are very distant cousins(I should emphasize the "distant" before anybody gets some inbred ideas) Jesus was thought to be Joseph's son, but actually Joseph by marriage of Mary, gave her son the rights to the inheritance.

But in Luke 3:23, it says son of Joseph, who was son of Heli. This can still be Mary's lineage. The Greek language has no separate word for "son-in-law". So they had to use the next best thing, son. This clears up the Heli or Jacob thing also.

Only problem is "adopted" children do not inherit a tribe. No matter which tribe Joseph belonged to, Jesus never was of that tribe. This status is worked out from the birth parents, which Joseph isn't.


Also, tribe is inherited from the father, never the mother. So whatever tribe Mary belonged to doesn't matter.

in luke 3:23 "being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph. It was just assumed that Jesus was Joseph's child (see Luke 4:22 and John 6:42).

But even then, Joseph and Mary were of the same tribe so the inheritance wouldn't have gone anywhere.

in luke 3:23 "being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph. It was just assumed that Jesus was Joseph's child (see Luke 4:22 and John 6:42).


I guess people can then assume that he was not the son of G-d either. Doesn't matter.



But even then, Joseph and Mary were of the same tribe so the inheritance wouldn't have gone anywhere.

I suppose this depends on whether you prefer lukes or matthews interpretation of the genaeologies.
According to Matthew there is a line (Jehoiakim) that is disqualified for kingship. Whereas in Luke this is not mentioned at all.

Originally posted by Mogget
I guess people can then assume that he was not the son of G-d either. Doesn't matter.

No, people assumed that Jesus was Joseph's son. (Read Luke 4:22 and John 6:42)
In reality, Jesus was born the son of God, not of man or by normal circumstances.

I suppose this depends on whether you prefer lukes or matthews interpretation of the genaeologies.
According to Matthew there is a line (Jehoiakim) that is disqualified for kingship. Whereas in Luke this is not mentioned at all.

Absolutely. The line in Matthew is Joseph's. In that line a curse is pronounced by God onto Jeconiah that none of his lineage would sit upon David's throne. Had Jesus actually been Joseph's son, then he indeed would have been disqualified for the throne. But in Luke, Mary's genealogy was given. She is also from David's line, through Nathan, so she is where Jesus can be called the seed of David.

No, people assumed that Jesus was Joseph's son. (Read Luke 4:22 and John 6:42)
In reality, Jesus was born the son of God, not of man or by normal circumstances.

Yes they can. And I did read them. All this proves that back then people saw him as the son of Joseph, not as the son of G-d right? DId they retract that statement later on? If they thought he was the son of Joseph, then why can't I?

In reality then Jesus is not a viable for Kingship through the Davidic line either way you look at it.


Absolutely. The line in Matthew is Joseph's. In that line a curse is pronounced by God onto Jeconiah that none of his lineage would sit upon David's throne. Had Jesus actually been Joseph's son, then he indeed would have been disqualified for the throne. But in Luke, Mary's genealogy was given. She is also from David's line, through Nathan, so she is where Jesus can be called the seed of David.

My earlier point was that tribal inheritance (including kingship) cannot be through the mother. Its only ever and always has been through the father.

Originally posted by Mogget
Yes they can. And I did read them. All this proves that back then people saw him as the son of Joseph, not as the son of G-d right? DId they retract that statement later on? If they thought he was the son of Joseph, then why can't I?

Look at Matt. 13:55. They thought that his father was Joseph, but that couldn't explain how he did the things he did and taught the things he taught.

In reality then Jesus is not a viable for Kingship through the Davidic line either way you look at it.

But if Joseph is reckoned as Mary's father's son in law, then Mary's inheritance is transferred to Joseph and from there to Jesus.


My earlier point was that tribal inheritance (including kingship) cannot be through the mother. Its only ever and always has been through the father.

If there are no sons then it can go through the daughter, but if and when she marries, then her inheritance is transferred to her husband. See Numbers 27:8

but that couldn't explain how he did the things he did and taught the things he taught.

The things he taught, were revealed to him by God, because he was a messenger.
The things he did-- miracles, were by permission from God.



"The Messiah (‘Issa) bin Marium, was no more than a Messenger, many who were Messengers have passed away before him. His mother (Mary) was a Sidiqah (believed in Words of Allah). Both of them used to eat food (as all other human beings). Look how We make the Ayat (proofs, evidences, lessons, examples) clear to them; yet look how they are deluded away (from the truth)." Al-Ma’idah (5:75)

Allah (SWT) mentions this to us in the concluding verses of Surat al-Ma’idah.

"And (remember) when Allah will say (on the Day of Ressurection):

‘O ‘Issa, son of Marium! Did you say unto men: ‘Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah?’’

He (‘Issa) will say: ‘Glory is to You (Alone)! It was not for me to say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, You surely, have known it. You know what is in my inner-self though I do not know what is in Yours; truly You, only You, are the All-Knower of all that is hidden and (unseen).’

‘Never did I say to them except what You (Allah) commanded me to say: ‘Worship Allah, My Lord and Your Lord.’ And I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them, but when You took me up, You were the Watcher over them; and You are a Witness to all things.’

http://islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=547

so you read the bible or are these just quotes from another site? because i am sure if you would read the bible start to finish you will get a better understanding that the bible are just many stories for the simple minded, to get a better understanding of Christianity. is all good saying there are not 4 corners on the earth and the world is not flat, and you cant go to the ends of the world but as was touched on earlier it was an expression, to illustrate how much they would do for god, or something similar.
like i mean there are more stupid things in the bible, i mean on the first couple of pages it says, god created the world in 7 days, but when did that first day start? if there is no earth the sun would not be rising on it so how does that work.

So why is it that Mohammed never did miracles?
* shaking head * but my deear, Muhammad (peace be upon him) DID do miracles. There are literally thousands of them.
I'm going to take the lazy way out, & give you a link to one of my fav sites
http://islaam.com/Article.aspx?id=596

I'm sure you can proably find other articles on the topic as well.

But we must remember now, there was no competition between Jesus and Muhammad. We in this forum make it sound like a competition. It's not. They were both prophets, but different men, with different admirable traits and characterisitcs.

Originally posted by Vienna
So why is it that Mohammed never did miracles?
Is it because he was not the true messiah?
Why didn't God give Mohammed the gift of making miracles?

Mohammed (saw) never meant to be messiah, Jesus was, he was just a Prophet. Messiah was Jesus's title.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=487927#post487927

Originally posted by miss khan

But we must remember now, there was no competition between Jesus and Muhammad. We in this forum make it sound like a competition. It's not. They were both prophets, but different men, with different admirable traits and characterisitcs.

Miss Khan, did Jesus claim to be the Son of God?

Miss Khan, did Jesus claim to be the Son of God?
You say that he did. I say he did not, which is where we disagree. But you already know that :confused: so why are you asking?

So that link I showed you is wrong? How can you ignore all those references?

But the trinity is not in the original Bible, and Jesus being the son is intertwined with the Trinity concept.

The Anglican theologian J. H. Newman, (Church of Rome in 1845) wrote:
". . . the doctrines (that is, concerning Father, Son and Holy Spirit) have never been learned merely from Scripture" (The Arians of the 4th Century, p.50).
Dr. W. R. Matthews, Dean of St. Paul's, London:
". . . the doctrine of the Trinity . . . formed no part of the original message. St. Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed" (God in Christian Thought and Experience, p.180). (The italics in the above quotations are the present writer's.)

SO WHERE DID the trinity concept COME FROM??

The Nicene Creed, 325 A.D. (NOTE THE DATE!! 300 YEARS AFTER JESUS!), says
"the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds . . . God of God, Very God of Very God, being of one substance with the Father . . . The Holy Ghost with the Father and Son together is worshipped and glorified . . ."
The Athanasian Creed, soon after 500 A.D. (500 YEARS LATER!!!) :
"We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity . . . there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate . . ." All are declared to be eternal, "yet they are not three eternals, but one eternal". The Creed concludes with the ominous statement: "He that will be saved must think thus of the Trinity."

This new teaching created controversy for more than 100 years between church leaders. The official Doctrine of the Trinity was proclaimed in the 4th & 5th centuries, and its acceptance made obligatory.
(^^^^This is from the book : Jesus: God the Son or Son of God?^^^)

Here's a Christian priest who didnt believe Jesus was the son of God:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/05/08/ireland.priest/ <--------- jus a little side note :)

"In the Bible, "son" is a term expressing an intimate relationship with someone or something; basically, it indicates origin, but it is also used to express close association or identification with persons or things. Even when indicating origin, this term does not limit oneself to one's father and mother. One may be called the "son" of the following: his father and mother, his family, his tribe, his people, his place of birth (city or country), and the time or circumstance of his birth. The if "father-son" terminology is also used in connection with kings and their vassals or subjects, masters and servants, teachers and disciples, and almost any situation in which someone is subordinate to or dependent on someone else. The basic requirement of the "son" is to honour and obey his "father", but he should also love him and emulate him.
The term "son" is used in many other ways in the Bible, some of which are connected with origin but others of which mainly express some sort of association with or resemblance to persons or things. A large, somehow homogeneous group may be called "sons" (occupational and ethnic groups especially). Sometimes characteristics or qualities themselves are personified and regarded as having "sons" - those who possess that same characteristic or quality. Still also other uses of the term "son" in the Bible reflect the versatile and imaginative use of this term especially in the Hebrew language." Jesus as the Son of God by Luther Engelbrecht & Ernest Hahn

"Son" in Bible can mean lots of things!!:
1. The people chosen by God (Exodus 4:22f.; Jeremiah 31:9,20; Hosea 11:1; Romans 8:14; II Corinthians 6:18; Galatians 3:26; Hebrews 2:10; Revelation 21:7)
2. Heavenly beings (Job 1:6)
3. Kings and rulers (II Samuel 7:14; Psalm 2:7; 82:6; 89:26f.)
4. Pious, godly individuals (Matthew 5:9; Luke 6:35)

"Servant" and "son" are very closely related in the Bible. This does not mean that Jesus, who was the servant of God, was His son.

If this is the case, that Jesus claimed that he was only the servant of God, then why did everyone want to stone him and/or tore their clothes when he said it? Obviously it meant to them that he was claiming equality with God.

Most christians when they say that Jesus is the Son of God do not mean that Jesus is the biological son of God or that Jesus came after God. While Nicene creed was developed in 325AD, there was no mistake in Jesus' sonship or Jesus being divine by the early church. The only controversy at Nicene was arianism. This was the belief that Jesus was a god lower than the Father and this is basically polytheism. The doctrin of the Trinity, however, contends that God's nature is one. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vienna
[B]Love the link.....lol!

This is like Beckham saying he doesn't believe in soccer.

Joking apart, the comments from this priest doesn't surprise me. Everything that the Church and Christianity stands for is being torn apart in the UK, I have said this before.
----------
M*W: No, I HAVE SAID THIS BEFORE! Quit plagarizing ME, Mr. Little Weenie.

What's being torn apart is the apostasy that Christendom, the back-row birds that are so many of the "Christians" of today. To many Christ is nothing more than a ritual, a mechanistic routine where they are about as moved as Everest. This is what being torn apart. So shall it be and so be it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jcarl
[B]What's being torn apart is the apostasy that Christendom, the back-row birds that are so many of the "Christians" of today. To many Christ is nothing more than a ritual, a mechanistic routine where they are about as moved as Everest. This is what being torn apart. So shall it be and so be it.
----------
M*W: Call it what you want, Christendom is dying all over the world.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vienna
[B]Yeah you did, you said it first M*W, you get the teampoint.

Anyways my country is nothing much to write about, Mr Blair and the government is nothing much to write about. Political correctness has taken a hold over the country, no free speech. The latest law to be passed is that it will be an offence to say anything against the government, democracy in the UK has gone. The country is full of anti-monarchists. Anything that is half decent gets slagged off by the British gutter press, then there's the BBC propagandist news. Blah blah ramble.
Christianity in the UK is on its way out, and the schools here teach crap. Blah ramble *Gets down from stool*

Basically M*W I haven't anything left to speak up for anymore, hmmm, this might as well be my last post. *Thinks* Yep might as well be going. So if I have upset anyone at all with my previous posts - tough! :D

Anyways to you M*W have a brilliant Christmas and a peaceful new year - and that goes to everyone on these boards.

Cheers
----------
M*W: Sounds like "Mr. Average" has found himself living in an "average" country. Too friggin bad.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vienna
[B]*Edit*

M*W - Drop dead bitch

I wish everyone (but Not M*W) on these boards a Merry Christmas and very peaceful new year.

My last post to you all

I'm outta here

Vienna
----------
M*W: It's not surprising that Mr. Averagewienie would be intimidated by a strong woman like me who is not afraid to express my convictions. I don't celebrate Christmas. I celebrate family, and I am sure we will have a wonderful holiday being with each other without any mention of Jesus. I do wish, however, that Mr. Averagewienie and his ordinary family have their usually mundane holiday together this season with the promise of another mediocre year to come. He must face the fact that he is just a run-of-the-mill fence-sitter. He lives his life in the middle-of-the-road and believes he can see the truth from there. "There are none so blind as those who cannot see."