Posted on 10/12/2001 10:19:27 AM PDT by ArGee
As I begin this series, I aim to be concise. My goal is to distill for you summary truths about Islam and the Bible. At all times, feel free to have me explain something futher in a subsequent email installment, or to question my sources, reasonings, etc. In each email I intend to address two stated subjects, and I will number them sequentially thoughout the entire series.
Godspeed,
John
The Qur'an (which means "Recitation") is the holy book of the religion of Islam (a word which means "submit"). The Islamic people are known as Muslims. The origin of this word is uncertain, either from a people in sixth century A.D. who originally followed a prophet named Maslamah, or it may mean "traitor," used originally as a derogatory word by those who opposed Islam, but later adopted as a badge of honor by followers of Islam. The Qur'an is composed of 114 Surahs. The first Surah is short and gives a model prayer for Muslims. Surahs 2-114 do not have a historical or theological order, but they go in order from the longest to the shortest. Surahs may be regarded as chapters, but not in the biblical sense of an ordered larger text. Rather, each Surah is regarded as a distinct revelation given by the Muslim god Allah to the otherwise illiterate Muhammad (ca. 570-632 A.D.), during the last 22 years of his life. The Qur'an is designed for recitation by faithful Muslims who are expected to submit to it without questions.
Thus, we note some crucial distinctions. The Bible starts with the origin of history, and traces history to the time of Jesus's first disciples, and is written by many people over thousands of years who belong to a redemptive community. The witness of many, where cross-examination of truth claims is assumed. The Qur'an comes through one man over 22 years, starts with a doctrinal prayer, and is historically and theologically unordered thereafter. The witness of one, where there is no cross-examination of truth claims.
The name of Allah comes from a pagan male deity in Arabia at the time, who had his female consort, Al-Lat. The Qur'an represents Allah as the true and all-powerful god. But in historical terms, we shall see how Muhammad elevated a local tribal deity to be the One God, in order to advance his stature as the Prophet of the One God.
Thus we see a conflict, which solid historical work reveals: Unbelievers seek to reduce the true God in Genesis to the level of a pagan and limited deity; the god of Islam is in reality an obscure pagan deity who has been raised to the level of being the "One God."
Shalom.
Is Islam a religion of peace?
Don Walker Oct. 11, 2001
In recent weeks a lot has been said about the religion of Islam. Undoubtedly, some of what has been said is for the purpose of creating political alliances and a climate of tolerance. Islam has been described by some as "a religion of peace." In fact, it has been pointed out the word "Islam" itself means "peace." We are told that the acts of the Islamic terrorists are an aberration of the true Muslim faith.
It has been said that, "The terrorists are to Islam what the Ku Klux Klan is to Christianity." Is this really the case, or are the terrorists acting within the borders of an Islamic worldview and an interpretation of the Koran believed by many of their clerics?
Let us begin with the word "Islam." It is an Arabic word that is etymologically related to the Hebrew word "Shalom," which is translated as "peace." In the Western world, our understanding of "peace" differs to a great extent from that of the Middle Easterner. To the Middle Easterner, "peace" connotes the idea of "having your foot on your enemies neck" i.e.; "surrender" or "submission." To the Muslim, peace can only come when there is a surrender and submission to Allah. I dare say, this is a far cry from what most Westerners mean by "peace."
The noted historian Paul Johnson,writing in National Review, makes this comment, "The word Islam does not mean peace but submission." He goes on to say that Islam is "an imperialistreligion, more so than Christianity has ever been and in contrast to Judaism."
We, in the Western world, are far too ignorant of the second largest religion in the world. We are naive regarding the intentions of Islam and ignorant of its history. The very "root" of Islam is in military conquest, and the "fruit" we observe today springs forth from this root.
Here is a little history lesson.
Muhammad, whose name means, "highly praised," was born approximately 570 A.D. in Mecca. He lived a rather unremarkable life until, according to Islamic tradition, the angel Gabriel visited him at 40 years of age and called him into the service of Allah. Judaism and Christianity probably influenced Muhammad, along with the folk religions of the region.
As he sought to propagate his new religion, he was met with opposition. Town after town rejected Muhammad, as he sought to establish himself as Allah's messenger. Finally, the little town of Yathrib invited him and his small band of followers to take up residence. The town later changed its name to Medina ("the prophet's city") to honor him. Muhammad's move to Medina is called "the Hegira," meaning the "breaking off of one's own tribe." Today this marks the beginning of the Muslim era: September 622 A.D.
With the Hegira began a period of Muslim expansion. The people of Mecca who had rejected him became Muhammad's enemies; and in the name of Allah he began to prepare a "holy war" (Jihad) against them. Arming his followers, Muhammad conquered one village after another, building strength for an assault on Mecca. In 630 A.D. he entered Mecca as a conqueror and ordered the over 350 idols worshipped in the chief shrine, Kaaba, be destroyed. He declared that no unbeliever should enter Mecca again.
Two years later, having returned to Medina, Muhammad became ill and died at the age of 61 on June 8, 632 A.D. By this time he had conquered most of Arabia.
As I trust you can see, from its very beginning Islam was spread by the edge of a sword. The history of Islam is replete with violence and warfare, from its birth to the present day. When the Muslims invaded Spain, it took over seven centuries to drive them out. The Muslim Ottoman Turks slaughtered a million Armenians in 1915-16 (a fact still ignored by much of the Western world). Today, in the Sudan over two million Christians have been slaughtered, and many more sold into slavery, all under the direction of the Islamic General Umar Bashir. In Indonesia, Muslims have killed over 300,000 East Timorese Catholics since 1975.
Please understand I am not ignorant of the Crusades, the Spanish conquistadors, or other deeds done in the name of Christ. I am well aware of the abusiveness of "Christianity" over the centuries and find it repugnant. But I do not find conquering by the sword the standard M.O. of Christianity. Unlike Muhammad, Jesus and His followers did not initiate the spread of their faith by military force.
What does Islam teach regarding the concept of jihad?
One finds many injunctions with in the Koran exhorting believers to defend and spread the faith. The character of this defense is determined by how one interprets the doctrine of jihad ("struggle for the faith"), which is discussed in numerous verses in the Koran. In one sense, it is understood as the individual's struggle with his own nature to follow the precepts of Allah. But one cannot deny that it also calls for one to literally fight for his faith.
Philip K. Hitti, in his book entitled Islam in the West, describes it this way: The doctrine of jihad ("holy war") divided the world into two realms, the abode of peace and the abode of war, and made it incumbent upon the believer to keep on pushing the wall between the two until the whole world is Islamized - reminiscent of the modern communist theory. He who fell on the battlefield was promised immediate entry into Paradise.
Allow me to quote from the Koran. From reading its injunctions, it is quite easy to see the justification the Islamic terrorists find for their actions.
O believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Let them find firmness in you. (Sura:9, Ayat:123)
Fight those who believe not... even if they be People of the Book until they have willing agreed to pay the tribute in recognition of their submissive state. (Sura:9, Ayat:29)
You will be called to fight a mighty nation; fight them until they embrace Islam. (Sura:48, Ayat:16)
Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them. And seize them,beleaguer them and lie in wait for them, in every stratagem (of war). (Sura:9, Ayat:5)
Is Islam a religion of peace? The actions of Muhammad, its history, and the words of the Koran seem to say otherwise. Therefore, the real answer to Islamic terrorism will not be found in physical weapons of war. It is a religious system which will continue to produce followers, who will faithfully wage jihad against the "infidels." They will not play the game of "leave us alone and we will leave you alone." It's against their religion.
The real answers is in converting them to Christianity (as the Celts did the barbarous Vikings) and, thus, transform the Islamic nations into Christian ones. Is that not what the Great Commission tells us to do? To disciple the nations and teach them to obey Christ's commandments (Mt. 28:19-20). It maybe that the current situation is part of God's strategy to open the Islamic world to Christian missionaries in an unprecedented way. I pray that this is so, because I know of no other hope for the world apart from the Prince of Peace and His gospel.
Shalom.
Shalom.
The Gospel according to
St. Matthew
Chapter 5
The Holy Bible
King James Version 2000Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Mohammed:
Medina Suras
The Chapter of Women
[Chapters from the Koran]
The Harvard Classics 1909–14But if there befalls you grace from God, he would say—as though there were no friendship between you and him—‘O would that I had been with thee to attain this mighty happiness!’ Let those then fight in God’s way who sell this life of the world for the next; and whoso fights in God’s way, then, be he killed or be he victorious, we will give him a mighty hire.
What ails you that ye do not fight in God’s way, and for the weak men and women and children, who say, ‘Lord, bring us out of this town 19 of oppressive folk, and make for us from Thee a patron, and make for us from Thee a help?’
Those who believe fight in the way of God; and those who disbelieve fight in the way of Tâghût; fight ye then against the friends of Satan, verily, Satan’s tricks are weak.
Do ye not see those to whom it is said, ‘Restrain your hands, and be steadfast in prayer and give alms;’ and when it is prescribed for them to fight then a band of them fear men, as though it were the fear of God or a still stronger fear, and they say, ‘O our Lord! why hast thou prescribed for us to fight, couldst thou not let us abide till our near appointed time?’ Say, ‘The enjoyment of this world is but slight, and the next is better for him who fears;’—but they shall not be wronged a straw.
... Why are ye two parties about the hypocrites, when God hath overturned them for what they earned? Do ye wish to guide those whom God hath led astray? Whoso God hath led astray ye shall not surely find for him a path. They would fain that ye misbelieve as they misbelieve, that ye might be alike; take ye not patrons from among them until they too flee in God’s way; but if they turn their backs, then seize them and kill them wheresoever ye find them, and take from them neither patron nor help,—save those who reach a people betwixt whom and you is an alliance—or who come to you while their bosoms prevent them from fighting you or fighting their own people. But had God pleased He would have given you dominion over them, and they would surely have fought you. But if they retire from you and do not fight you, and offer you peace,—then God hath given you no way against them.
Ye will find others who seek for quarter from you, and quarter from their own people; whenever they return to sedition they shall be overturned therein: but if they retire not from you, nor offer you peace, nor restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wheresoever ye find them;—over these we have made for you manifest power.
No rebuttal here! That was my first impression after reading some of the Qur'an on September 12. If it's not God's word (and Allah is NOT God!) then who else could he be?
In Mecca, on the mideastern shores of the Red sea, in the year 596AB and 153 years after the opening of the Fourth Seal when Death began to ride the Pale Horse, Mohammed, the son of Abdallah, was born. One day, at the age of forty, he was wandering among the rocks at the foot of Mount Hara. He entered the mouth of a cave and sat there musing. As he mused he was shaken by an unseen power. And he sat there trembling and disturbed, suddenly a light flashed and the Angel Gabriel stood before him and in the name of God (Allah) commanded him to preach the true religion.
Mohammed is reported to have run home and told his wife that he was possessed of a devil and had gone mad. She listened to the account of his experience and told him he was to be a prophet to his people. But Mohammed was tortured with the thought that the revelations he was receiving might be from the Evil One. John declared that Mohammed was inspired from the Bottomless Pit, so his apprehensions and fears were well founded
"And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit. An he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit."
That would be the abridged, or Protestant Bible, which is missing seven complete books from the Old Testament, seven chapters of Esther, 66 verses of the third chapter of Daniel and chapters 13 and 14 of Daniel.
There are ways to test such a proposition. This series John is working on provides some good insights. I already have #3 and #4. I'll post them soon. Some of your questions might be answered there.
Hint. If I told you that George W. Bush was quoted as saying: "Have her meet me in the alcove off the Oval Office. I want to see if she has the right qualifications as an intern." Would you suspect that I wasn't quoting W. but was, in fact, quoting someone else?
Shalom.
It is true that Rev. Rankin is a Protestant pastor. I believe that, if we ignore this minor difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant denominations the rest of what he says is something that we can all support.
If you agree, then perhaps we can avoid sniping at one another for a while and seek the Unity that our Lord and Savior prayed we would seek.
Shalom.
There are many who will say, regarding the undeclared war since the atrocities of 9-11, that we are not in a religious war, that we are not to wage war on Islam but on the terrorists who seek to embroil the world of Islam in a global struggle against anything non-Islamic. Make no mistake, it is a religious war to the terrorists. Let us now explore the fundamental differences (religious/cultural/philosophical in nature) in belief systems as they apply to the current conflict.
If Islamism is to be eradicated, it will have to be done by Muslims. It will become apparent why, shortly, for what Osama bin Laden seeks to export worldwide is a sub-sub-sect of Islamic faith. [The following essay regarding Islam, Christianity, and Judaism will be cursory at best where fundamentals of three great religions are concerned. No attempt will be made to completely summarize what takes vast written volumes just to enumerate. We will try only to touch the highlights as they apply to the current worldwide struggle against terrorism.]
The three great religions of note in the current struggle are Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Setting Christianity aside for a moment, it is essential to note that both Jew and Arab are descended from the patriarch, Abram, or Abraham.
In scriptures acknowledged by both Islam and Judaism the story of Abram’s first two sons is the line of original demarcation for these two great religious traditions. Arabs claim the blessings of God through Abram to Ishmael; Jews claim the blessings of God through Abram to Isaac; there are people to be studied that are older than both, the Bedouin, who inhabited the world in which Abram sojourned and whose traditions were undoubtedly known and followed by Abram before and after God called him out of Ur. We will get back to the Bedouin in a moment.
Both Judaism and Islam claim human lineage back to Adam. That is essential, especially for Islam since the holy Kaaba in Mecca is believed by Muslims to have been rebuilt many times since Adam’s first construction. [The Kaaba predates Judaism and Islam; readers should search this word to dig deeper into Muslim traditions. We won’t try to elucidate the Kaaba here ... http://www.encyclopedia.com/articlesnew/06791.html.]
Both Judaism and Islam lay claim to interaction with God, the Creator of us all. Both religions have at their core the notion of earning from God a place in the afterlife. Both religions deem evil as a real force, personified in a being that is not God. Both religions at one time or now may be understood as a matrix of religion and culture, thus both religions have traditions of non-separation of ‘church and state’; both—especially the extreme fundamentalist forms of both—are still deeply engrossed in this meld of religion and societal institutions. This is very different from our American way of thinking, but it is not necessarily bad, just a different way of constructing society.
The essence of our current clash with Islamism (the radicalized deadly tumor growing near the heart of Islam) may be understood best as totalitarian, where adherents seek to force fundamental religious behavior on others and justify killing in the name of this ‘conversion’, even to the extent of killing without remorse those fellow Muslims who do not follow the strict rigors of Islamism.
It is important to note that adhering to strict fundamental rigors of Islam doesn’t necessarily breed killing such as seen 9-11, for there is in Saudi Arabia the sect of Wahhabism which is very restrictive, yet this sect doesn’t seek to kill any who do not conform, Muslim or non-Muslim … but it is from this fundamentalist form of Islam that Osama bin Laden has arisen, and some few in Saudi Arabia have supported him all along.
For American understanding, let’s compare this phenomenon of Islamism to a very restrictive sect within the Baptist denomination of Christianity gradually building a hatred for modern life with its degradation of women, children, the poor, the … well, you get the gist; this imaginary sect of radical Baptists become so incensed that they take up terrorism against television networks and bars and strip joints to force an end to these abominations as they perceive the clash of their belief system and the world around them. Radicals seeking to force adherence to ‘righteousness’, as they define it, would perceive their struggle as a holy war, while America in general would perceive their acts and their underlying beliefs as totalitarian in nature.
We must not make the mistake of painting the entire of Saudi Arabia with the radical paint of bin Laden’s ‘holy aggression/holy terror’ for the sect from which his beliefs arise is at peace within Saudi Arabia and they have every right to exist and live as they wish within their own society. As contrast, we don’t have the right to force women’s liberation and ‘abortion on demand’ on societies outside of America, no matter what N.O.W. may claim; emancipation of women, if it is to occur, must occur within the context of each society as it exists in the arena of its cultural heritage; if we try to force adherence to our cultural peculiarities, we are behaving as an Osama bin Laden. Osama seeks to export by force his fundamentals, to ‘evangelize’ the entire world and force conversion to his belief system, in his demented service to allah, the allah of his definition, not Allah of the Koran, the Allah of Islam.
Let’s turn now to Islam and Judaism as different from Christianity, in the context of our current struggle against terrorism. If Islam and Judaism are religions of works, of earning blessings from God, Christianity may be seen as religion of grace not of works to achieve paradise; paradise is to be earned in Islam and Judaism, whereas it is the gift of God in Christ as defining Christianity, then the good works follow as evidence of a transformed soul. In a way, the ‘law’ of Judaism and the submission of Islam are to be contrasted with the grace principle of Christianity. Where Islam has most fundamental issue with Christianity is the notion of the trinity, of God in three persons, for the basic tenet of Islam is ‘there is only Allah’, not three god persons, thus Islam defines Christianity as polytheism, yet they recognize Jesus as a prophet from God. Interestingly, the founder of Wahhabism, Sheik Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab (18th century), took a similar approach to the veneration of Muhammed, the Prophet of Islam, as of Jesus described above; he believed Muslims raised the worship of Muhammed to a level of polytheism, equating the Prophet with the position of Allah, and to him this was an abomination.
Before there was Judaism or later Islam, there were Bedouin (actually, nomadic Arabs) all across the Middle East and North Africa. The Bedouin have a well-defined system of ethic and culture that holds highest esteem for the family and tribe, loyalty and honesty. Bedouin tradition is the garden from which the cultural aspects of Judaism and Islam have arisen, though I doubt the high leaders of either religion would admit to such an anthropology.
The ferocity with which Islamic and Judaic traditions remain inflexible has roots in the traditions of the Bedouin. To understand how the Saudis can allow our involvement for commerce and defense, while expecting us—as far as possible—to not violate their rigors of religion and societal construction, one should look to Bedouin traditions, not bin Laden’s insanities. Ruling the kingdom, al Saud family has sought to bring some measure of modernity to the people while maintaining the rigors of their faith, but they haven’t sought to kill anyone that does not submit … being tossed out of Saudi Arabia is fairly easy, but the guest that does not blaspheme their faith is welcome in a way few in the West could understand, for generosity is a Bedouin grace and al Saud have raised this grace to a high art one can understand only after experiencing it directly, and not with a Western filter!
We should differentiate the totalitarian nature of bin Laden’s extreme Islamism from the great tradition of Islam that can co-exist and has co-existed for over a thousand years. Yes, Wahhabism of the Saudis is extreme faith, but even in its extreme it has shown the ability to co-exist if treated with the dignity any religious fervor is allowed in a complex world of clashing cultures. Osama bin Laden’s mutation from Wahhabism cannot co-exist with other religions nor with less extreme Muslim traditions, and thus it is a danger for all humankind, not the least of which are the faithful in the Middle East, especially Saudis who are not on his wavelength of death and mayhem.
What bin Laden represents and is seeking to achieve is best understood as totalitarian, as subjugation, with annihilation for those who will not bow before his extreme. Because of this holy terror, Osama bin Laden and his network must be eradicated from the earth, and the use of terror must be ended in theaters of international and regional interaction.
Osama—and most casting their lot with him in his extremism—would have the state of Israel annihilated and the Middle East wedded to Islamism, ‘purifying’ the region and eventually the entire world to the exclusion of all other faiths. To achieve that goal, these fanatics will destroy America with religious zeal, believing they generate a debt owed to them by God that they will collect the instant of their death, forcing their way even into paradise. Such insanity (for they awaken in Hell) cannot be negotiated with and certainly cannot be allowed to continue as these terrorist acquire weapons of mass destruction and the delivery systems, for they have proven they will go to any extreme to foster their totalitarian ends; they don’t want to co-exist! This had better not be Islam’s future, for once the evil jinns of biological weapons are released en masse they cannot be stuffed back into their rocks, back into their confinements. [When you read the history of Bedouin, the reference to jinns will be apparent. It would behoove we Westerners to strive for better understanding of Bedouin traditions that have lent their influence forward in time in the Middle East, for they are fundamental to Israeli and Islamic thinking processes.]
I strongly disagree - especially with the capricious part. G-d is extremely reliable. However, it's hard to have a discussion around generalities. Would you care to pick a specific example so we can discuss it? I am not an M.Div. or anything but I have read the OT a few times and would enjoy the conversation.
Shalom.
The Bible, OT and NT, have certain themes that are consistent throughtout. This is often called the fingerprint of God. Does the Qu'ran also contain these fingerprints that litter the OT and NT?
We can use an example of the fingerprint, or consistent theme, of shedding innoscent blood to atone for sin. First there were Adam and Eve that God gave them animal skins to cover themselves after they sinned. Later there was animal sacrifice. The grand finale was God becoming man and becoming the ultimate sacrifice to cover sin.
Any ideas?
God is not limited, therfore by definition he can not be petty or capricious. Jealous, yes. He states that very clearly.
I'm not sure which translation you are using, but your first quote isn't quite correct. Every word of G-d proves pure or flawless or perfect. The Hebrew supports the rendering "pure." The word "true" can apply, but not as in G-d being incapable of lying. I don't believe G-d lies, or that you have supported that He does. But you have incorrectly shared Proverbs verse.
According to my review of the remaining verses, G-d did not decieve anyone. The only verse that you quoted that could possibly provide support was the Jeremiah verse. But even then, it does not make it clear that G-d himself has uttered a prophecy to deceive. It does make G-d responsible for the deception. But a very reasonable interpretation of the verse is that the Jews were deceived because G-d was not punishing them. Ecclesiastes and Habakkuk both speak to this point. When G-d delays punishment men's hearts are hardened to commit sin.
Shalom.
As far as I know, John is going to explore the inconsistencies between the themes of the Christian Bible (OT and NT) and the themes of the Q'uran. I don't know if John is going to explore the internal consistency of teh Q'uran but I can ask.
Or you can.
Shalom.
Satan would never admit that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, to save mankind from sin. The New Testament clearly says this, so Satan could not have dictated it.
It may or may not have been Satan himself, but if it was not him, it was one of his fellow fallen angels, who would not do it without getting his permission.
Shalom.
Having said that, I commend him and anyone else for furthering the dialogue and trying to bring about a greater understanding and tolerance of Islam.
I'm sorry. You missed some good stuff.
The Protestant Bible is comprised of 66 books. The Roman Catholic Bible is a little larger. We divide the Bible into OT and NT, but G-d did not. It is one story from Genesis to Revelation.
Shalom.
This is indeed a difficult thing to understand and it takes some serious discipleship to deal with it. This is a stumbling block for new Christians. They have to trust G-d until they get to know Him better and understand both how He operates and how He speaks before they are truly comfortable with it.
Methinks most of us go to our grave with questions about this one.
Since the answer is not simple, I will not try to present my limited understanding of the whole thing nor why I have come to that understanding. Here is a short version.
If I threaten my son with something too small, I actually encourage him to disobey. You could say I harden his heart. But if I go directly to the punishment that is sufficiently harsh to cause him to obey, he would call me unjust because I had not given him an opportunity to do well with a lighter threat. So, which should I do? The just step-by-step approach which gives him the chance to do well before the punishment is severe or simply jump to where I know I will wind up, skipping the preliminaries.
Pharoah was not going to let the Israelites go until the death of his son. That's what it was going to take all along. The smaller measures only served to cause Pharoah's heart to harden. G-d took responsibility for that because G-d knew that would be the result. But who realy did the hardening? G-d or Pharoah?
In the end, Pharoah had the full choice to let the Hebrews go whenever he wished. Pharoah takes the full blame for the destruction of Egypt.
But G-d knew it would happen, and the merciful G-d did not lay all the blame on Pharoah. The merciful G-d also provided a way for Pharoah to be with Him in Heaven. His name is Jesus.
Do you know Him?
Shalom.
Is that a family name?
From: Hard Sayings of the Bible: IS GOD THE AUTHOR OF FALSEHOOD? (1 KINGS 22:20-22)
Could the God of truth be guilty of sponsoring or condoning falsehood? Some have charged just that. The passages that are raised to back this charge are 1 Kings 22:20-23, 2 Chronicles 18:18-22, Jeremiah 4:10, 20:7 and Ezekiel 14:9.
Such a charge is possible only if one forgets that many biblical writers dismiss secondary causes and attribute all that happens directly to God, since he is over all things. Therefore, statements expressed in the imperative form of the verb often represent only what is permitted to happen. Accordingly, when the devils begged Jesus to let them enter the swine, he said, “Go” (Mt 8:31). This did not make him the active sponsor of evil; he merely permitted the demons to do what they wanted to do. In a similar manner, Jesus commanded Judas, “What you are about to do, do quickly” (Jn 13:27). But Jesus did not become the author of the evil perpetrated on himself.
God can be described as deceiving Ahab only because the biblical writer does not discriminate between what someone does and what he permits. It is true, of course, that in 1 Kings 22 God seems to do more than permit the deception. Without saying that God does evil that good may come, we can say that God overrules the full tendencies of preexisting evil so that the evil promotes God’s eternal plan, contrary to its own tendency and goals. Because Ahab had abandoned the Lord his God and hardened his own heart, God allowed his ruin by the very instrument Ahab had sought to prostitute for his own purposes, namely, prophecy. God used the false declarations of the false prophets that Ahab was so enamored with as his instruments of judgment.
That God was able to overrule the evil does not excuse the guilty prophets or their gullible listener. Even though the lying spirit had the Lord’s permission, this did not excuse the prophets who misused their gifts. They fed the king exactly what he wanted to hear. Their words were nothing less than echoes of the king’s desires. Thus the lying prophets, the king and Israel were equally culpable before God. The responsibility had to be shared. These prophets spoke “out of their own minds.”
This principle is further confirmed when we note that the passage in question is a vision that Micaiah reveals to Ahab. God is telling Ahab, “Wise up. I am allowing your prophets to lie to you.” In a sense, God is revealing further truth to Ahab rather than lying to him. If God were truly trying to entrap Ahab into a life-threatening situation, he would not have revealed the plan to him! Even so, Ahab refuses to heed God’s truth, and he follows his prophets’ advice.
The other two passages used to charge God with falsehood are easier to understand. In Ezekiel 14:9 we have another case of God allowing spiritual blindness to take its course. The biblical writer merely attributes the whole process of hardening of heart followed by judgment as falling within God’s sovereignty. The strong statement of Jeremiah 20:7 is a complaint by the prophet, who had mistaken the promise of God’s presence for the insurance that no evil or derision would come on him or his ministry. However, these verses cannot be cited as the basis for giving any credence to the charge that God is deceptive.
Another instance where God sent an evil spirit was in Judges 9:23. There, one of Gideon’s sons, Abimelech, acted as king for three years over the city of Shechem. But after those three years, God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the citizens of Shechem so that they “acted treacherously against Abimelech.” In this case, the “evil spirit” was the breaking out of discord and treachery against Abimelech. Once again, under the direction of his providence, but not in any positive agency, God allowed jealousies to arise, which produced factions and in turn became insurrections, civil discontent and ultimately bloodshed. God remained sovereign in the midst of all the evil that ensued—much of it deservedly happening to those who deliberately refused the truth and preferred their own version of reality.
Nope, how about "I agree!"
It's actually the old word for papyrus, based on the name of the Phoenicean city Byblos from where papyrus was imported. Papyrus is what they used to use to write on, like paper. Paper as a word is the modern form of the old word papyrus.
Akin to...
07121 qara' {kaw-raw'}
a primitive root [rather identical with 07122 through the idea of
accosting a person met]; TWOT - 2063; v
AV - call 528, cried 98, read 38, proclaim 36, named 7, guests 4,
invited 3, gave 3, renowned 3, bidden 2, preach 2, misc 11; 735
1) to call, call out, recite, read, cry out, proclaim
1a) (Qal)
1a1) to call, cry, utter a loud sound
1a2) to call unto, cry (for help), call (with name of God)
1a3) to proclaim
1a4) to read aloud, read (to oneself), read
1a5) to summon, invite, call for, call and commission, appoint,
call and endow
1a6) to call, name, give name to, call by
1b) (Niphal)
1b1) to call oneself
1b2) to be called, be proclaimed, be read aloud, be summoned,
be named
1c) (Pual) to be called, be named, be called out, be chosen
Hmmm, Koran could be a word play with...
07160 qaran {kaw-ran'}
a primitive root; TWOT - 2072; v
AV - shine 3, has horns 1; 4
1) to shine
1a) (Qal) to send out rays
1b) (Hiphil) to display or grow horns, be horned
Maybe, but consider this...I would have had a lot more confidence in Moses on the day of departure if I had witnessed all of plagues and works God had wrought. The Red Sea would have sealed the deal for me. Then I could have made that long hike.
In contrast, although Muslims say they "Respect" the Bible, the Quoran contradicts it in numerous regards. The Bible says that God's blessing and favor passed from Isaac to Jacob, but Muslims say it really passed to Ishmael--one of numerous such differences. For a Christian it is hard to see how Islam can be anything but a heresy. (Yes, I know many Freepers don't like the word, because it makes them think of the Spanish Inquisition and they want the freedom to think what they like. But simply put, any "heresy" is a false version of a religion that cannot be squared with the true one.) If Islam is true, then Judaism and Christianity must be wrong on many critical points--including especially the nature of Jesus.
It was for that reason that Christians all through the middle ages referred to Mohammed as Mahound, and identified him with the Devil.
Notice that I am not arguing intolerance toward all Muslims. That is another issue. But I am saying that the Koran cannot be squared with the Bible. It often echoes it, but it also distorts and contradicts it in numerous ways.
Yeah, you'd think, wouldn't you? Yet all those who asked Aaron to cast a calf of gold and then held an orgy of worship to it were witnesses to all of G-d's wonders. They knew because they had seen, yet they still doubted the moment the wonders stopped.
People are fickle. There's no two ways about it. And our faithlessness is not cured by G-d's miracles.
Shalom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.