Response To Objections From A Muslim
Carl
and Christianity in general. Statements like "millions of Christians worship
Allah" are not only misleading but blatantly dishonest. I ran into this
letter in response to a Muslim who objected to and made false claims about
the publication by John Ankerberg, John Weldon and Dillon Burroughs entitled
"The Facts On Islam." Several points I have made concerning the
incompatibility of Christianity and Islam are also addressed in this
response as well as my contention that the God of the Bible is not nor ever
has been the "Allah" of Islam. Since there are a couple of vehemently
dishonest Islam apologists currently posting on Usenet, I thought this would
benefit Christians and show how those Islam apologists err.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
Response To Objections From A Muslim
Ankerberg Staff Writer
[http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/islam/IS0103W2.htm]
Dear Sir:
We want to thank you for your recent letter. In response to your letter, may
we comment point by point?
You have said of the booklet The Facts On Islam[1] you are not sure whether
"to laugh at the ignorant statements or to cry because of the deliberate
lies." Of course, we will be happy to correct any factual errors (as opposed
to interpretative differences) if you would be so kind to point these out.
Hundreds of scholars have spent a lifetime studying Islam. They do not
always agree and sometimes they make errors. It is always possible that we
have also made errors and would appreciate the chance to make any needed
corrections.
Let us assure you that our motive was not, in any way, to produce a booklet
that contained distortion or lies. A lie is defined as a "false statement
made with the purpose of deceiving."
It would seem the problem between us is one of a priori assumption and
subsequent interpretation based on that assumption. For example, as long as
Muslims truly believe that the God of the Bible and the God of Islam are the
same God, it is virtually impossible that they would interpret the
conclusions in our booklet as anything else but "distortion," "false," and
"lies." If the Koran is God's latest revelation and it denies that God has a
Son, then obviously, Christians must have tampered with the Bible-and all
non-Koranic conclusions derived from the Bible are, by definition, false.
In other words, it is the assumption of Islam-that Allah really is the
author of both the Bible and the Koran and that Jehovah and Allah are one in
the same-that conditions and interprets the Muslim response to our booklet.
However, the real question is, "Is the assumption valid?" Only Muslims think
it is. Obviously, if Muslims are incorrect in this assumption, then the
conclusions in our booklet could be correct.
In light of their contrary premises and beliefs, perhaps it is best that
Muslims and Christians should "agree to disagree." From a Christian
perspective, it is difficult for Muslims and Christians to dialogue
effectively if Muslims insist upon changing the nature and attributes of the
biblical God into those of the Koranic Allah. But biblical teaching
concerning God cannot be so easily disposed, as we will later show. Even
scholars of comparative religion agree that the Muslim and Christian
concepts of God are not the same. It is only Muslim belief, based on the
teachings in the Koran, that accepts a belief that Allah is the one true
God, making Jehovah the same deity (now presumably corrupted by Christians.)
Have Muslims ever proven that Christians distorted God's nature as revealed
in the Bible? No. This is why Christians believe it is the biblical God who
is the one true God-and not Allah.
Among the specific charges you make are: "Among the 'facts' mentioned in
your book is the blasphemy that 'Allah' is one of the Arab pagan Gods! You
borrowed this one, like the others, from Anis Shorrosh."
But, in fact, never did we state that "Allah is [currently] one of the Arab
pagan Gods." We were careful to point out that the current conception of
Allah is different from the earlier pagan deity named Allah. Further, we did
not borrow this from Dr. Shorrosh. We noted the fact being referenced in
several texts on comparative religion.
When you say, "You can ask the Christians and Jews who speak Arabic: whom do
you worship?... They will tell you Allah", this is a good illustration of
the semantic problems that arise when God-concepts are confused.
Allah as a generic term for God is one thing. But for Muslims the term
"Allah" is imbued with the meaning that the Koran and Muslim tradition give
it-Allah is a specific kind of deity (e.g., Unitarian) with specific
attributes. He is not the Christian God who is trinitarian and also who has
specific attributes, some of which are different from Allah's.
The Christian God and the God of Islam are simply not the same God.
Therefore, true Christians and Jews who speak Arabic will not tell you they
worship Allah if by Allah you mean the God of Islam. Christians will tell
you they worship the God of the Bible and Jews will tell you they worship
the God of the Old Testament. But neither the God of the Old Testament or
the New Testament is the God of the Koran. (Again, Allah may be one of the
standard Arabic words for the generic term God-but one cannot logically
conclude from this that the God of Islam (Allah) and the God of the Bible
(Jehovah) are the same God.)
You have kindly encouraged us to "come and worship the God worshiped by
Jesus and by all the prophets. The God to whom Jesus fell to face and
prayed. The God to whom Jesus cried for help. The God of Adam, Noah,
Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. Your God and my God. The Creator of
all."
But if, as Christians, we are committed to the biblical God, who warns and
commands us in Exodus 20:3 "You shall have no other Gods before me," how can
we possibly come and worship a different God? If we did, we would be guilty
of idolatry.
This illustrates why as Muslims and Christians we must learn to "agree to
disagree." Based on their respective religious traditions, neither committed
Muslims nor Christians can logically be expected to change their beliefs. To
be a "Christian" requires obedience to the Person and teachings of the Jesus
of the New Testament-not the Jesus of the Koran. Why? Because the great
preponderance of the textual and archaeological data require the conclusion
that the gospels are accurate portrayals of the historical Jesus. This is
why it is a historical fact that Jesus did and taught what the New Testament
documents say he did and taught.
Those who disagree should be able to offer objective, independently
established evidence to the contrary before they can expect others to accept
their conclusions. Unfortunately, the frequently rationalistic and biased
critical conclusions of liberal Christian scholarship are simply not
objective, nor are they independently established, not are they very
convincing.
But to return to your earlier argument re: a "pagan" Allah, the paganism of
pre-Islamic religion and its connection to Islam are well known. But
unfortunately, as Dr. Morey remarks:
"Since the faith of Islam would deem it blasphemous to even suggest that the
teachings of Muhammad and the Quran find their source in earthly pre-Islamic
custom, culture, and religion, no Muslim scholars did any research on what
pre-Islamic Arabia was like.
It was thus left to Western scholars since the turn of the century to
discover the cultural and literary sources that Muhammad used in the
construction of his religion and of the Quran itself.
This is why every Western reference work on Islam begins with a section on
pre-Islamic Arabia and its influence on the teachings and religious rites of
Muhammad. The historical background of Islam cannot be ignored.
Indeed, if sources for Islam can be found in pre-Islamic Arabian culture,
custom, and religion, then the doctrine that Muhammad's faith and the Quran
were brought down from Heaven and do not have any earthly human origin would
be at stake.
Muslims frequently argue in a circle at this point. They argue that since
the faith of Islam and the Quran were sent down out of Heaven, there can be
no earthly sources or materials that were used in their construction. Thus
they begin with the assumption that such things cannot be.
But Western scholarship cannot make such a gratuitous assumption. As we
shall see, the Islamic faith and the Quran itself can be completely and
sufficiently explained in terms of pre-Islamic Arabian culture, custom, and
religion.
Special attention should be made to the pioneering work of Julius
Wellhausen, Theodor Noldeke, Joseph Halevy, Edward Glaser, William F.
Albright, Frank P. Albright, Richard Bell, J. Arberry, Wendell Phillips, W.
Montgomery Watt, Alfred Guillaume, Arthur Jeffery, etc." [2 ]
In other words, the paganism of pre-Islamic religion and its connection to
Islam have long been documented. For example, the Abingdon Dictionary of
Living Religions, states the following concerning Allah:
"Allah was a central figure in the pre-Islamic pantheon, but he seems not to
have been worshiped as the chief deity. The Quran (Sura 53:19-20) mentions
three deities who were apparently thought to be daughters of Allah: Manat,
Al-Lat, and Al-Uzza, who were widely venerated. This notion parallels the
position of Baal in the Northwest Semitic pantheon (Gordon). The Meccans
regarded Allah as the creator and possibly the controller of the weather,
functions appropriate to the head of a pantheon (see Sura 13:16; 29:61, 63;
31:25; 43:9-19). Jinn were also thought to be related to Allah (Sura 37:158)
and to associate with him in his activities (Sura 6:100).... In the Quran
God is seen as above his creation, directing it by his will. He guides whom
he wills and leads into error whom he wills (Sura 13:27; 74:31), sealing the
hearts of sinners (Sura 7:99-100)." [3]
The Encyclopedia Britannica asserts that during Muhammad's time, "some men
regarded Allah as a 'high god' who stood above lesser deities" (Vol. 12, p.
606). It also notes that "the earliest passages of the Quran... call on [the
Meccans]... to be grateful and to worship 'the Lord of the Kabah,' who was
thus identified with God" (ibid.).
In Volume 9, page 927, it observes: "The area of Mecca was a sacrosanct
territory that other tribes feared to attack, and its little temple, the
Kabah, sacred to a shadowy deity known simply as 'the god' (Allah, probably
from Al-Ilah, the god, and cognate with Aramaic Alaha), had been skillfully
raised by the Quraysh to the position of an Arabian pantheon in which all
the gods were worshiped (it even included Christian icons, or pictures) and
in which the Arab tribes came on pilgrimage to worship and to trade....By
the time that Muhammad was born,...the influence of both Judaism and
Christianity was experienced even in the inner areas of Arabia. A general
notion of a supreme and sovereign deity seems to have been held by many
Arabs, and some were identifying the God of the Jews and Christians with
Allah, the Lord of the Kabah."
This is why Dr. Robert Morey states in his book on Islam, "The
archaeological and linguistic work that has been done since the latter part
of the 19th century has unearthed overwhelming evidence that Muhammad
constructed his religion in the Quran from preexisting material in Arabian
culture."[4] Dr. Morey also points out that some 360 gods were represented
at the Kabah, and that a new deity could be added if a traveler came into
town and wanted to worship his own god at the holy site.
Morey also points out the following:
"Neither is "Allah" a Hebrew or Greek word for God as found in the Bible.
Allah is a purely Arabic term used in reference to an Arabian deity.
Hasting's Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states, "'Allah' is a proper
name, applicable only to their [i.e., Arab] peculiar God" [Vol. 1, p. 326].
According to the Encyclopedia of Religion, "'Allah' is a pre-Islamic
name...corresponding to the Babylonian Bel (Baal) [Paul Meagher, et. al.,
ed., The Encyclopedia of Religion, 1979, Vol. 1, p. 117]." [5]
He continues,
"Due to past experiences with recalcitrant students who found it hard to
believe that 'Allah' was a pagan name for a peculiar pagan Arabian deity in
pre-Islamic times, the following citations are given:
"Allah is found...in Arabic inscriptions prior to Islam" [The Encyclopedia
Britannica, Vol. 1, p. 643].
"Allah was known to the pre-Islamic Arab; he was one of the Meccan deities"
[Gibb, Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol. 1, p. 406]." [6]
Like us, he also cites Dr. W. Montgomery Watt, a professor of Arabic and
Islamic studies at Edinburgh University and visiting professor of Islamic
studies at College de France, Georgetown University and the University of
Toronto-who has done extensive work on the pre-Islamic concept of Allah.
Montgomery concluded:
"In recent years I have become increasingly convinced that for an adequate
understanding of the career of Muhammad and the origins of Islam great
importance must be attached to the existence in Mecca of belief in Allah as
a "high god." [Watt, Muhammad's Mecca, p. vii]" [7]
Morey further comments upon the "daughters of Allah" which we referred to
earlier:
"The name Allah was used as the personal name of the moon god versus other
titles that could be given to him.
Allah, the moon god, was married to the sun-goddess. Together they produced
three goddesses who were called "the daughters of Allah." These three
goddesses were called Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat.
The "daughters of Allah," along with Allah and the sun goddesses were viewed
as "high" gods. That is, they were viewed as being at the top of the
Pantheon of Arabian deities." [8]
Dr. Morey concludes:
"'The significance of the pre-Islamic source of the name Allah cannot be
overestimated' and, 'The Quran's concept of deity evolved out of the
pre-Islamic pagan religion of Allah-worship. It is so uniquely Arab that it
cannot be simply reduced to Jewish or Christian beliefs.'" [9]
In light of all this, we are forced to agree that:
"In the field of comparative religions, it is understood that each of major
religions of mankind has its own peculiar concept of deity. In other words,
all religions do not worship the same God under different names.
The sloppy thinking that would ignore the essential differences which divide
world religions is an insult to the uniqueness of these religions." [10]
Now let us turn to an even more important issue in Christian-Muslim
dialogue. Is it truly possible for Muslims to accept what the Koran teaches
concerning the Bible-and to simultaneously reject what the Bible teaches? We
discussed this subject in our booklet.
In a paper delivered September 29, 1989, Dr. Gleason L. Archer also made a
number of relevant observations on this topic. He shows that the Koran
accepts the plenary inspiration of the Old Testament and the Gospels of the
New Testament as being the authoritative Word of God. The Koran itself it
said to be a verification of the contents of the teachings of the Bible.
Dr. Archer alleges that the efforts of present day Muslim apologists to
discredit the teachings of the Bible places them in an impossible position
of contradicting the Koran.
For example, in Sura 5 Muslims are commanded to consult the Greek and Hebrew
Scriptures for confirmation of Muhammad's revelations in the Koran. Yet,
Muslims characteristically attempt to discredit the Greek and Hebrew
Scriptures, which their own Bible affirms to be the Word of God. This is
tantamount to rejecting the authority of the Koran that they claim to
defend.
Dr. Archer also points out that the only solution to the dilemma is if the
text of the Old and New Testament that we now possess is "radically
different" from that which existed in the period of Muhammad. Citing a
variety of manuscripts of the New and Old Testament (Codex Vaticanus, Codex
Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.) he proves that
the Bible we now possess is the same Bible that existed in Muhammad's time.
He then reveals:
"In view of this universally acknowledged evidence of the antiquity of the
[biblical] text of Scripture, the same Scripture which we now have with us
in the scholarly editions of the Bible in its original languages, it is
completely out of the question that the Quran could have been referring to
any other text than that which has been preserved to us down to the present
time. No other conclusion can be drawn from these data but that the Quran
certified the accuracy and binding authority of the Bible, even though in
point of fact it differs from it essentially in its doctrine of God and of
salvation. Any Muslim apologete, therefore, who seeks to discredit the text
of the Bible in any way, puts himself in rejection of the authority of the
Quran itself, for he implies the Quran is in error in regard to the Holy
Bible! There is no way in which he can evade the charge of imputing error to
the very Quran which he professes to uphold."
The problem this raises is obvious. The Koran and the Bible teach an
entirely different theology concerning the nature of God (Trinitarian vs.
Unitarian), the nature of Jesus Christ (incarnate God vs. a human only
virgin-born prophet), and the nature of salvation (by grace through faith
alone vs. faith and works).
In other words, the Bible and the Koran teach such entirely different
religious philosophies they cannot possibly be reconciled. As Dr. Archer
comments;
"There remains only one credible explanation of this paradox: the author of
the Quran did not really know the full or indeed the essential teaching of
the Bible as it existed in the early 7th century A.D. This ignorance
betrayed in the Quran would seem fatal to its claims of inerrant authority,
and serves to make it clear that the Quran was indeed composed by Muhammad
himself rather than having been revealed to him by God. The omniscient Lord
of the universe could have never dictated the statements cited in the Suras
above quoted, since they implied a harmony of doctrine between Bible and
Quran which simply does not exist."
For example, in the Koran Jesus is a Muslim. But this is not the Jesus of
the Bible-or history-as proven by the New Testament documents. In the Koran,
God is one Person only-but again, this is not the Trinitarian God of the
Bible.
In the Koran, salvation is achieved solely by faith and good works-but this
is not the teaching of the Bible which stresses again and again that
salvation comes only through the grace of God by faith alone. Biblically,
good works are the product and not in any manner the cause of salvation. It
is faith in the atoning death of Christ for our sins (alone) that saves men.
What all this means is that the Koran and Bible could not possibly be
inspired by the same God.
Another problem is seen in Sura 16:101 and 2:105 which clearly teach that
God supersedes and abrogates various Scriptures for other Scriptures. The
immediate impression one receives is that Allah has the authority to change
his mind or even contradict himself.
As Archer comments, "If so, this precludes the Muslim critic from attacking
the credibility of the Bible itself on the basis of alleged contradictions
between different passages. Yet we hasten to add that two propositions that
contradict each other cannot both be true. A credible defense of Scripture
must deal with alleged contradictions in such a way as to show that they are
only apparent, not real-even though the Quran does not regard this defense
is necessary."
Finally, Dr. Archer shows that despite the claims of Muslim apologists that
the Koran has not been accurately recorded or inerrantly transmitted:
"This claim is however very difficult to sustain in light of the account
given by Muslim authors considering the standardizing of the text of the
Quran. In the mishkatu' Imasabih chapter 3 we are informed that by the
command of the first caliph, Abu Bakr, the text of the Quran was "collected"
by Zaid Ibn Thabit "from palm leaves and stones and from the breasts of
those who had learned by heart" the various revelations. This earliest
collection took place in A. H. 14, or 636 A.D. after Muhammad's death. Abu
Bakr's copy was taken over by Caliph Umar after the former had died,
according to Al Bukhari. Later it came into the possession of Hafsah, one of
Muhammad's widows. Some time afterward the next Caliph, Uthman, commissioned
Zaid to make fresh copies of Hafsah's manuscript and send it out to various
centers of the Caliphate as the only authoritative text. The reason for this
was that there were by this time so many discordant forms of various Suras
even among the Hafizun disciples of the Prophet who had learned it by heart,
that standardization was absolutely necessary if later schisms were to be
avoided within the Muslim community. Qustalani even states that after Hafsah's
death her copy was torn in pieces by Mirwan, who was Governor of Medina, and
so the identity of Uthman's text with that of Abu Bakr is called in
question. The only motive for Hafsah's text to be destroyed could have been
that it was believed to be dangerously deviant or defective from the
standpoint of Governor Mirwan.... It should be added that the old cuphic
script in which Arabic was then written was of rather uncertain
interpretation. Not only did it lack any vocalization, but far more serious
was the lack of diacritical dots to distinguish consonants like b, t and th
and even n and y, all of which were written as a single vertical jog.
Needless to say, the fact that active verbs and passive verbs are often
identically written made for a good deal of disagreement as to what the
written text really meant, until such time as the vowel points were added at
some later period. These factors made for a great deal of disagreement far
more serious than was the case with the Sopherim text of the Old Testament,
which, to be sure, also lacked vowel points until the advent of the
Massorets around 800 A.D., but which accurately distinguished the consonants
in their writing system. In light of the foregoing data, it can only be said
that the problem of establishing the original, supposedly inspired, text of
the Quran is far more serious than is the case with the Hebrew Old
Testament, for which thousands of manuscript copies are still available for
textual criticism ranging in age from the 2nd century B.C. to the 11th
century A.D."
Our dear friends, let us assure you that we bear no ill will toward any
Muslims all of whom are created in God's image and loved by Him. But we
truly believe that Islamic teaching is a hindrance to accurate knowledge of
God and true salvation. This is why open dialogue is so vital.
But unfortunately, today, in Muslim countries worldwide, Christian missions
are prohibited by law, and Christians are still being persecuted by Islamic
governments.
Let us ask you a question. Are Muslim missions restricted or denied
permission to operate in America? Would they be in any nation where
democratic or Christian principles rule? Muslims are free to proselytize as
they choose.
Let us ask you another question. Do Muslim countries grant this courtesy to
members of the Christian faith? Do you think this is an equitable situation?
When Muslims have historically-and today-persecuted Christians and when
Muslim scholars characteristically slander Christianity-e.g., using the
false arguments of discredited liberal scholarship-(something you charge us
with) do you think those charges are truly fair?
Our God commands us to do good to all men and to respect the image of God in
them. But He also commands us to "preach the Gospel to all men" and to
"contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude
3). This was the intent in our booklet.
For six hundred years Christianity had already independently established its
truth claims before the world. God declares that Christ's resurrection from
the dead gave "proof to all men" of a coming day of judgment (Acts 17).
Centuries later, Muhammad arrived claiming that Jesus was not God, that He
was not resurrected from the dead and that Christianity was a false
religion.
Christians have a right to defend their personal convictions. When anyone
alleges that Christianity is a false religion, we think it is only fair that
a response be allowed which includes the critical evaluation of the specific
truth claims of those who make the allegations.
We do regret any unnecessary offense. We want to thank you again for your
letter.
Notes:
1 Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon, The Facts on Islam (Eugene, OR:
Harvest House Publishers, 1991)
2 Dr. Robert A. Morey, Islam Unveiled (Shermans Dale, PA: The Scholars
Press), pp. 33-34.
3 Keith R. Crim, Roger A. Bullard, Larry D. Shinn, eds., Abingdon Dictionary
of Living Religions (Abingdon Press, 1981), p. 23.
4 Morey, Islam Unveiled, p. 34.
5 Ibid., p. 46.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid., p. 48.
8 Ibid., p. 49.
9 Ibid., p. 51.
10 Ibid.
zayton
"Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote in message
news:gc4ap9$lb7$1...@news.utelfla.com...
> It's interesting when Islam apologists misrepresent the Bible, Jehovah God
> and Christianity in general. Statements like "millions of Christians
> worship Allah" are not only misleading but blatantly dishonest.
Since Allah is the Arabic erem for the Christian God. the statement is quite
accurate.
Do you realize that one of your own posts early in this thread, while
stressing differences between the understandings of God In Christianity and
in Islam acknowledges that Allah is the Arabic name for the same God?
You apparently don't even reaw hat you post.
Carl
> "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote in message
>
> news:gc4ap9$lb7$1...@news.utelfla.com...
>
> > It's interesting when Islam apologists misrepresent the Bible, Jehovah God
> > and Christianity in general. Statements like "millions of Christians
> > worship Allah" are not only misleading but blatantly dishonest.
>
> Since Allah is the Arabic erem for the Christian God. the statement is quite
> accurate.
>
> Do you realize that one of your own posts early in this thread, while
> stressing differences between the understandings of God In Christianity and
> in Islam acknowledges that Allah is the Arabic name for the same God?
>
> You apparently don't even reaw hat you post.
>
Actually I do. Apparently you have failed to comprehend what I have
posted concerning the topic and are confusing semantics and etymology
with hermeneutics and exegesis.
Raymond
> It's interesting when Islam apologists misrepresent the Bible, Jehovah God
> and Christianity in general. Statements like "millions of Christians worship
> Allah" are not only misleading but blatantly dishonest. I ran into this
> letter in response to a Muslim who objected to and made false claims about
> the publication by John Ankerberg, John Weldon and Dillon Burroughs entitled
> "The Facts On Islam." Several points I have made concerning the
> incompatibility of Christianity and Islam are also addressed in this
> response as well as my contention that the God of the Bible is not nor ever
> has been the "Allah" of Islam. Since there are a couple of vehemently
> dishonest Islam apologists currently posting on Usenet, I thought this would
> benefit Christians and show how those Islam apologists err.
>
> May God bless,
> Carl
> my website --http://www.nettally.com/saints/
>
Thank you Carl for this information, it is very informative.
Raymond Knapp, D.Div.
Pioneers for Jesus
www.pioneers-for-jesus.org
zayton
On Oct 3, 3:35 pm, "zayton" <zay...@newwavecomm.net> wrote:
> "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote in message
>
> news:gc4ap9$lb7$1...@news.utelfla.com...
>
> > It's interesting when Islam apologists misrepresent the Bible, Jehovah
> > God
> > and Christianity in general. Statements like "millions of Christians
> > worship Allah" are not only misleading but blatantly dishonest.
>
> Since Allah is the Arabic erem for the Christian God. the statement is
> quite
> accurate.
>
> Do you realize that one of your own posts early in this thread, while
> stressing differences between the understandings of God In Christianity
> and
> in Islam acknowledges that Allah is the Arabic name for the same God?
>
> You apparently don't even reaw hat you post.
>
Actually I do. Apparently you have failed to comprehend what I have
posted concerning the topic and are confusing semantics and etymology
with hermeneutics and exegesis.
******
Not in the Least.
Exegesis and hermenutics do not alter the identity or nature of God.
However differently he may be understood or misunderstood bu one group or
another, he is the same God; and both Christianity and Islam (as well as
Judiasm) worship him.
Zadok
"zayton" <> wrote in message ...
>
> "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote in message
> news:2cb424d3-5bbc-41af...@m74g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 3, 3:35 pm, "zayton" <zay...@newwavecomm.net> wrote:
Please stop replying to this SPAMMER.
You only encourage his idiotic posts.
Carl
> "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2cb424d3-5bbc-41af...@m74g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 3, 3:35 pm, "zayton" <zay...@newwavecomm.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Carl" <sai...@nettally.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:gc4ap9$lb7$1...@news.utelfla.com...
>
> > > It's interesting when Islam apologists misrepresent the Bible, Jehovah
> > > God
> > > and Christianity in general. Statements like "millions of Christians
> > > worship Allah" are not only misleading but blatantly dishonest.
>
> > Since Allah is the Arabic erem for the Christian God. the statement is
> > quite
> > accurate.
>
> > Do you realize that one of your own posts early in this thread, while
> > stressing differences between the understandings of God In Christianity
> > and
> > in Islam acknowledges that Allah is the Arabic name for the same God?
>
> > You apparently don't even reaw hat you post.
>
> Actually I do. Apparently you have failed to comprehend what I have
> posted concerning the topic and are confusing semantics and etymology
> with hermeneutics and exegesis.
>
> ******
> Not in the Least.
> Exegesis and hermenutics do not alter the identity or nature of God.
Actually you are. You, just as Steve Hayes, are playing semantic games
and ignoring the exegesis and hermenutics presented that clearly show
irreconcilable differences between the Christian God of the Bible and
the Islamic "Allah" of the Quran.
>
> However differently he may be understood or misunderstood bu one group or
> another, he is the same God; and both Christianity and Islam (as well as
> Judiasm) worship him.
Then you are espousing a different god than the Christian God of the
Bible for there is absolutely no logical, theological nor rational way
to equate the one, true God of the Bible with the false god of Islam
known by Muslims as "Allah." Even in the Wesleyan tradition and
official Methodist positions recognize this fact.
Again I put the following question to you: do you believe that the God
of the Bible is the same as the "Allah" or the Quran? Yes or no.
Carl
CORRECTION: My question should read "I put the following question to
you: do you believe that the God of the Bible is the same as the
"Allah" of the Quran? Yes or no."
May God bless,
Carl
Raymond
There is only ONE GOD that is true, Christians and Judaism know who
that ONE GOD is and do worship the same, as God. Islam is not worship
Him as they have a false holy book, false prophet and a god they call
Allah, which is NOT THE GOD of the HOLY BIBLE! Islam worship a
false god, and follow a false religion, Islam wants true Christians
dead and will kill their own followers as seen in Iran, Iraq and other
Islamic nations today. They have a god of hate for all others, while
the true Christ the Messiah wants all to Love on another and gave His
life for All People that they may live and enjoy life till He comes
again. Islam has a false messiah and look for a false messiah to
come, they destroy churches and want the Jews dead and gone, the
people God came to and said was His people. So there is not way the
devil of Islam and the True God would worship together. The devil
the father of lies is their god and falsehoods and false doctrine is
what the Koran Quran teach.
zayton
"Raymond" <rwk...@aim.com> wrote in message
news:ceb3b3f7-8fbd-429c...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
*****
They asknowledge him as the God taught about in the Old and New testament.
Islam worship a
false god,
*****
It is the same God we worship.
They just have different ideas about him.
Those ideas can't chang who he is.
and follow a false religion, Islam wants true Christians
dead and will kill their own followers as seen in Iran, Iraq and other
Islamic nations today. They have a god of hate for all others, while
the true Christ the Messiah wants all to Love on another and gave His
life for All People that they may live and enjoy life till He comes
again.
*****
Not according to the Jews, who you just said DO worship the same God.
Raymond
> "Raymond" <rwkn...@aim.com> wrote in message
Even the devil acknowlege that their is only one true God, that does
not mean the devil follows that One God. It is easy to say one thing
but they do another.
>
> Islam worship a
> false god,
>
> *****
> It is the same God we worship.
> They just have different ideas about him.
> Those ideas can't chang who he is.
To the unbeliever all are the same God as they do not know that true
God and they sure do not worship that true God. What the idea does is
keep that person from worshipping the true God, then since they never
had the One true God their ideas keep them from that God which
Christians do worship.
>
> and follow a false religion, Islam wants true Christians
> dead and will kill their own followers as seen in Iran, Iraq and other
> Islamic nations today. They have a god of hate for all others, while
> the true Christ the Messiah wants all to Love on another and gave His
> life for All People that they may live and enjoy life till He comes
> again.
>
> *****
> Not according to the Jews, who you just said DO worship the same God.
The Jews are the people, God came to and Jesus spoke to and healed
many, and the Jews are the ones that made up the first church. So to
many Jews they did and do worship the same God. The Jews are not
killing the Christians the Muslims are as well as killing their own
Islamic followers as seen in Iraq daily.
>
> Islam has a false messiah and look for a false messiah to
> come, they destroy churches and want the Jews dead and gone, the
> people God came to and said was His people. So there is not way the
> devil of Islam and the True God would worship together. The devil
> the father of lies is their god and falsehoods and false doctrine is
> what the Koran Quran teach.-