Like pillars are the supporting structures of the earth like atmosphere, oceans and the like.
When you talk about the 5 "pillars" of Islam, are they made of plaster, concrete or stone?
Pillars are not supporting structures such as the atmosphere, oceans etc...
But pillars are supporting structures, like the pillars of Islam. The oceans support the rains, that support the plants that produce oxygen that supports....
Because the Bible says:
Which shaketh the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble. (Job 9:6).
Does the atmosphere tremble?
No it doesn't. and neither do the oceans.
Did the earth shaketh out of her place? No. The earth is firmly established. Could God shake the earth out of her place? Of course.
Therefore it does not refer to oceans and mountains etc...
And why would God use metaphorical language.
So that one had to be regenerate to understand much of it. That's why those coming to Christ generally find Him first, in the clarity of the Gospels. The story of Jesus life, ministry, crucifixion, death and resurrection.
Jhn 1:29
The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.Isn't that confusing?
It requires study. Milk before meat.
1Cr 3:2
I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able [to bear it], neither yet now are ye able.Start with the Gospel of John or Mark, not Revelation.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/Yes.
But:
"For God is not the author of confusion..." (1 Corinthians 14:33).
The Bible is very confusing though.
The pillars of Islam are the 5 teachings of Islam. They are called pillars because they support the religion of Islam, just as pillars support the foundations of a building.
That is simple to understand, unlike Job 9:6.[/color]
Indeed it is. Does the earth wander around the universe? No. It's rotation doesn't change, it's orbit is cyclical, summer follows winter with the tilt, etc. These things don't change appreciably, and if they do it is cyclical.
Firmly established does not mean it has a fixed cycle etc...
Firmly established means that it does not move.
It means that it is established in a firm position.
That's what you want it to believe because you want God to lie.
Earth's rotation is established. It's orbit is established. It's seasonal tilt is established. You cannot deny that yet you persist.
In the start of the verse it says that the Earth cannot be moved, and in the end it says it is firmly established.
And even if it spoke of its rotation it would not make a difference, because men can easily change its revolution around the sun.
Today nukes are hard enough that they can just hit the Earth so hard, that it will fly out of its orbit, and either fall into the sun or fly our away from the sun.
That's preposterous. You could detonate all of the nukes on earth, in one location, and it wouldn't budge the earth.
But even if men could, it wouldn't change that the earth was ESTABLISHED in the way that God established it. If it becomes His will to change it He will. And I believe he will.
2 Peter 3:12
Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?That word translated as "elements" means elemental principles.
In either case the Bible is scientifically incoherent.[/color]
Many even Christians say that the entire book of Revelation is incoherent, because they don't put any effort into understanding. They start with presumptions they have drawn from the rest of scripture. But the book of Revelation is just that. It's better to take it on it's own merit, using the rest of the bible to define the terms, and from where we stand in history look backwards through scripture through the book of revelation. Here's how Isaac Newton described our times:
"This Prophecy is called the Revelation, with respect to the scripture of truth, which Daniel was commanded to shut up and seal, till the time of the end. Daniel sealed it until the time of the end; {Daniel 12:4, 9} and until that time comes, the Lamb is opening the seals:.... All which is as much as to say, that these Prophecies of Daniel and John should not be understood till the time of the end: .... But in the very end, the Prophecy should be so far interpreted as to convince many."
(Part II. Observations Upon the Apocalypse of St. John. Chap 1)
Indeed, from where we stand in history, we find that virtually all of the prophecy of the book of Revelation is fulfilled through the now-healed beast of Islam.
Is that really what it says or are you creating your own verse like Ahmed Deedat used to do, before he was silenced for the last 9 years of his life?
Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars. (Job 9:7)
So in other words this verse is saying when God commands the sun not to rise, it does not do so.
What this is implying is that the sun does rise in its normal basis, meaning it revolves around the Earth, and does not rise when God commands it not to.
But you belief is purely grounded in your desire to blaspheme God's Word, purely because it doesn't fit Mohammed's word.
Do you use the term sunrise or not? When you do are you "implying" that the earth does not spin?
That is false because the sun does not rise at all, and therefore the Bible is incoherent.
And yes Sheikh Ahmed Deedat (RA) was silenced by God for 9 years, because God love him and wanted him to learn spiritually and silently rather than teaching.
He wanted the Sheikh to be more spiritual by being silenced.
That would make him wiser and closer to God.
It could have simply been a stroke, but I doubt it:
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=119.0If you think that the Christian God silenced him, then you must also think that the Christian God is very stupid for silencing him at a time when all his works were published and all his life had been used to defend Islam rather than silencing him in the start.[/color]
Not at all. God demonstrates His power when He will.
The bible tells us that there were many antichrists even as John wrote the book of Revelation in 95 AD.
Deedat was just another antichrist.
It is up to the individual to discern these things.
Mat 7:13
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:God didn't promise He would make it easy, but it is SO easy through Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Ghost.
We use the same expression today. Scattered to the 4 corners of the earth. This is a reference to ALL directions. North, South, East and West. This is supported by reference to the 4 winds, in the same verse. Do you really think that the wind only blew from strictly 4 directions back then? No.
More importantly, the book of Revelation, after the third chapter is a prophetic VISION. All visions and dreams in God's Word use figurative language. Generally the interpretation of the terms can be found with careful hermeneutic study. You can readily see that the verse you refer to include four angels, standing on the four corners.
Were this the case the Bible would say six corners.
Because by saying North, South, East and West, it excludes front and back, which alludes a 2D figure of the Earth.
Do you see the lengths you go to?
What part in navigation of a boat for example includes a front and back?
Even your preposterous supposition is wrong.
If you wanted to include two more dimensions it would be top and bottom, depending on the stance of the person.
Your wheels are spinning off.
You never heard the expression 4 corners of the earth?
Therefore it is still incoherent.
And why does figurative language have to be used.
So that only those that ask God for help through the God's Spirit can understand it. I showed you before that the natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit of God. Here is the reason for parables, for example:
Mar 4:11
And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables: 12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them.You have to throw yourself at the feet of Jesus Christ and repent, and be washed by His blood, before you can understand the things of the Spirit of God.
You have to try to understand, not put your effort into MISunderstanding.
BUT FIRST YOU HAVE TO BE SAVED, through the shed blood of Jesus Christ.
God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), but figurative language is very confusing.
It's certainly not the stuff of a low IQ, 6th century, bedowin mentality, illiterate.
Therefore, whether Revelation 7:1, is figurative or literal, it is incoherent.[/color]
I believe that the moon in this passage (Matthew 24:29) is the church, because it reflects the light of the SON.
I do not care what you believe.
I want facts and the beliefs of Bible scholars, rather than normal people like yourself.
But bible scholars are in the same predicament that the Pharisees were:
Mar 7:13
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.When it comes to end-time prophecy and figurative language they walk in the doctrines of men, not the Word of God. They reject the Word of God for many of those doctrines. But the bible explains itself. There are many areas of broad agreement. For example if you Yahoo even in quotes "babylon, medo-persia, greece" you will find about 20,000 hits that agree that these are the identities of Daniel's lion, bear and leopard beasts. Then when we see them in Revelation 13 we can understand that the seats of those beasts are today, Iraq, Iran and Syria/Lebanon. The seat of the leopard-bear-lion composite end-time beast - Islam.
Even though there is broad agreement regarding Daniel's beasts, most then diverge and believe that John's "beast" of Rev 13 is some individual future boogeyman, with NO SCRIPTURAL support whatsoever.
However Daniel provides a major key to the book of Revelation. Please read the following link and see if it makes sense:
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/daniels_four_beasts.htmWould it be fair for me to interpret the Qur'an in the way that I wish?
For example, where it says "kill the idolaters wherever you may find them" (Surah at-Tawba 9:5), could I say:[/color]
Kill means to kill their disbelief.
No. I would answer it by showing the context of the verse, by showing what the next verse says. You cannot answer me by saying what you believe and neither can I.
You point out another excellent and frequently occurring opposite of Islam. Jesus said:
Jhn 8:7
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.Islam points out so well that generally the filthy reproabte men that consider themselves to be in positions of judgment of others, are FAR WORSE than those that they pass judgment against.
Sharia law is the opposite of the new covenant through Jesus Christ.
It is also contrary to norms of human decency.
Sharia law is the filth of satan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fbXvq_ZIbwIt says "moon" not "Church".
Does a scarlet beast with a harlot on it's back with 7 heads and 10 horns refer to any beast you know of?
Rev 17:3
So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.And it says stars will fall from heaven. Is that what it means? Did you read the link?
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/matthew_24_olivet_discourse.htm#matthew_24_29How can a star fall from heaven? Well what might a star be?
Rev 1:20
The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.The word anglos translated as angels means messenger. Can a messenger fall from heaven? What about Baker, Swaggart?
I believe that section is about the apostasy. If you read the link you will see how these conclusions are drawn through scriptural definitions. It is ONE LARGE PICTURE. You could not understand it through bits and pieces.
From the same verse, what do we see might a candlestick stand for?
And in the case of the Qur'an it says "kill", not "kill their disbelief".
Don't answer me by saying what you believe, or I could do the same and answer any attack on Islam, by making false interpretations of my own.
I say "I believe" because while some passages of scripture are not open to interpretation, like Jesus crucifixion, death and resurrection, other passages are WIDELY open to interpretation. That's is how traditions of men have divided the church into a few thousand denominations.
The last thing you would find me saying is "well the pope says", yet many believe him to be the head of the church. It's tragic because Jesus Christ is the head of the church.
If it meant the Church, Jesus would say the Church.
But he didn't.
If he meant it then he is confusing the listeners by alluding to the moon, without telling what he really means and that is confusing.
But God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33).
Again a major scientific error exists in Matthew 24:29.
Also in Matthew 24:34, Jesus says that all of this (what he said, about the false Prophets coming, people fighting each other and the world ending would come before THIS GENERATION passes.
There is an entire eschatology built around this false presumption. Indeed many falsely believe that Jesus second coming happened then. One would have to believe that to hold what you just put forward. But look at the word translated as "this" to understand what is meant:
This
New Testament Greek Definition:
3778
houtos {hoo'-tos} including nominative masculine plural
houtoi {hoo'-toy}, nominative feminine singular haute {how'-tay}
and nominative feminine plural hautai {how'-tahee}
from the article 3588 and 846;; pron
AV - this 157, these 59, he 31,
the same 28, this man 25, she 12,
they 10, misc 34; 356
1) this, these, etc.
You can see that on 28 other occasions houtos is translated as "the same". Now doesn't that make more sense? The same generation that sees all those things will not pass?
I put a lot of time into this study. Maybe I didn't get it all right. Maybe I didn't get much of it correct. But IT ALL FITS, unlike the traditions held by the church, and heretics that believe that Jesus already came His second time.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/matthew_24_olivet_discourse.htmBut it did not happen, and therefore that is a false Prophecy in the Bible.[/color]
You didn't even try to get a sense of the term translated as "generation". Is it strictly genealogical?:
generation - Check Strong's here
New Testament Greek Definition:
1074
genea {ghen-eh-ah'}
from (a presumed derivative of) 1085; TDNT - 1:662,114; n f
AV - generation 37, time 2, age 2, nation 1; 42
1) fathered, birth, nativity
2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family
2a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive
members of a genealogy
2b) metaph. a group of men very like each other in endowments,
pursuits, character2b1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse nation
3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time
4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive
generation), a space of 30 - 33 years
We can see that it could mean a group of men with the same attributes. Like the "generation of vipers" which describes the Pharisees that had the same attributes of allowing their tradition to trump God's Word. NOT a generation simply because of the happenstance of the dating of their birth.
Or a "generation" of Christian men.
2Sa 22:11 And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: and he was seen upon the wings of the wind.
You can add to your list that the bible says that the wind has wings too.
Yes I can.
But I am not stupid.
If it is symbolic, tell me what 2 Samuel 22:11, symbolises.
I am not studied in that verse and my time has been short lately. I may get to it though.
Like I said, you can add to your list that the bible says that clouds have wings,
from the very same verse. Do you think that God's Word literally means that clouds have wings?
And if it is symbolic then it is confusing, but God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33).
So it is either a contradiction or a general error.
No it is an area of scripture that requires study. Including apologetic study to put it in historical context.
Either way it is not the word of God.
Most of your defense was stupid, except Leviticus 11:13, and therefore the Bible is still not the word of God, because of the errors.[/color]
The defense was perfectly acceptable. You choose not to accept it because you wish God's Word was in error.
Do clouds have wings?
I am really enjoying our conversation, but I am desperate for you my friend.