Comments by "" (@fuuf102) on "Gaza: Israeli attack ignites deadly fire in hospital tent camp" video.
-
4
-
in Islam, we r to love our neighbour as ourselves whatever relgion they were.
thats why when Islam expanded, they allowed everyone to practice their own religion, with their own courts etc.
the only conditon was that they paid income tax. this tax was only upon men, of those only who could afford it. no elderly, women, were reruired to pay, and they wer exempt from militry duties.
whilst upon the muslims, zakat which is higher than the tax the non muslims paid, was upon men and women, and they had to do milit duties.
they did not force their relig onto others, and therefore didnt impoze zakat on them.
this is why when ch3wz were bein purse. cute. ted around europe, by the paul followers, they ran to muslm lands for safety....
these r facts. any1 can luk it up.
whilst when paulanity x. p4nd3d, it literally unn. 47ibed everyone who dint blieve.
and thats why you see the huge diff in numbers above.
the oldest churches in the wrld are in muz lands.
there are 10ml christians in egypt..
4
-
4
-
3
-
@joseph-uq4hn my manager told me her brother is "really good at it" which i discovered meant he is really good at leapfrogin thru scripture, putin 2 and 2 together to get 3, to satifify these beliefs from church, because its not there otherwise.
its basically a skill to be able to show the trinity, as its not there, and not from God.
pry..d.3 is such a dayn.jrus thing. it makes ppl give up all s77ns33rity, to remain believeing they have the truffe.
even the choose, wil tel you that the God of Christians is not the God of Abraham, but p0.l33. tr33..ism.
i urge you ppl, study. if you have a clean heart, you will realise very quick, that you have been m15l3d, come back to Jesus, back to Islam, the only religion God ever sent us
3
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joseph-uq4hn The trinity is nower. thats why they had to add it in.
my manager told me her brother is "really good at it" which i discovered meant he is really good at leapfrogin thru scripture, putin 2 and 2 together to get 3, to justify these beliefs from church, because its not there otherwise.
its basically a skill to be able to show the trinity, as its not there, and not from God.
pry..d.3 is such a dayn.jrus thing. it makes ppl give up all s77ns33rity, to remain deluded in believeing they have the truffe.
even the choose, wil tel you that the God of Christians is not the God of Abraham, but p0.l33. tr33ism.
i urge you ppl, study. if you have a clean heart, you will realise very quick, that you have been m15l3d, come back to Jesus, back to Islam, the only religion God ever sent us
1
-
1
-
Xtians claim that Jesus dng for our sins was prophesied in O.t. even though Jesus never ever made such a claim
The prophesy 🤦
1- Isaiah 53:3 says that "He" is despised by all men. In Luke 10:1, Jesus has at least 70 followers, and in other verses we're told that he fed and healed thousands (John 6:9-11, Luke 17:11-19 and other verses).
2- In Isaiah 53:5 it says he was wounded for our transgressions. Now right away one might assume this is the deff of Jesus. However it says he was WOUNDED not kiwd. But let us go with kiwd for your arguments sake. This is not what this verse is saying. It is saying that they made a mistake so he is paying for it. They plotted or accused against him. This is exactly what happened. And again, the verse says wounded, which further proves that Christ was never kiwd.
3- Isaiah 53:7 states that "he did not open his mouth". There are two possible interpretations and answers to this:
Jesus never literally spoke a single word during the crucifixion trial. This is obviously wrong because Jesus spoke during his trial with both Pontius Pilot and the Jews. And we all know Jesus' famous and final cry to GOD Almighty when he said: "Eloi Eloi lama sabachtani!", which translates: "My GOD my GOD, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46) So wrong. He did open his mouth.
Jesus did not object to GOD Almighty's Will. This is also wrong, because again, Jesus cried during the crucifixion "My GOD my GOD why have you forsaken me?", and he also prayed ENDLESSLY to GOD Almighty on the night of the crucifixion to not get crucified! (Matthew 16:39, Matthew 26:36-44, Luke 6:12) He even bowed down his face to Allah Almighty in worship endless times begging Him for a change in Decision. So yes, Jesus did object.
4- Isaiah 53:9 says that he made his grave with the wicked and the rich.
"in his deff" is also a false translation to the Hebrew Mawth. At the worst, it should be translated as "in deff", making the word a symbolic one as further confirmed in the Hebrew lexicon:
There are also two errors in the fulfillment of this Prophecy:
Jesus was never buried (Matthew 27:59-66, Matthew 28)! He was temporarily placed in a tomb and then his body disappeared after that. But he never ONCE was buried under ground as our dead get buried.
Jesus, who was never buried from the first place, was also NEVER BURIED with the wicked and the rich. His tomb was placed in an isolated area as recorded in the gospels.
Again, verse 9 says that he was to be buried with both the wicked and the rich. Jesus was alone.
5- In Isaiah 53:10-11, GOD Almighty will prolong Jesus' life and Jesus will live to even see his offspring (his children)! And Christ will see the Light and be satisfied after the suffering of his soul. The suffering of his soul here is referring to the overwhelming fear that Jesus had and the countless cries and Prayers that he made to Allah Almighty to save him. Psalm 91 further speaks clearly on this. Also, Jesus' life was never made long or extended. He only lived for 33 years, so we're told in the gospels, and he certainly never married any woman nor had any child from any woman. Yet, Isaiah 53:10 clearly says that he will live and he will have and see his children.
6- In Isaiah 53:12, we are told that Jesus' life or soul will be poured unto deff. To me, given the Islamic position about Christ never got crucified, and given the symbolic speech in Isaiah 53 chapter that most of it conflicts with what really took place with Christ in the gospels, and given the fact that many early writings in Palestine and elsewhere stated clearly that Jesus never got crucified such as in the Apocalypse of Peter and other ancient texts, then my interpretation of this verse about Jesus' life being poured unto defff means to me that Jesus' life will overpower def! This is indisputably proven in Psalm 91 where it states that not only Jesus will not get crucified, but GOD Almighty will also hear his cries and will send down the Angels to PROTECT HIM and SAVE HIM. And Psalm 91 also says that Christ will call upon GOD Almighty and GOD Almighty will HEAR him and HONOR him. Christ😢,
1
-
Look at what the bible says regarding salvation. Even the wickedest of the wicked can save themselves by repentance. Not just forgiven, God says He will forget the sin. And he says the son will not bare the inequities of the father ( original sin) and vice versa because God is just.
but after Paul's work, there is no salvation except by 8700..d?
He will not dye for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18But his father will dye for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people.
19“Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20The one who sins is the one who will dye. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.
21“But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not dye. 22None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23Do I take any pleasure in the deff of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
24“But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will dye.
25“Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin, they will dye for it; because of the sin they have committed they will dye. 27But if a wicked person turns away from the wickedness they have committed and does what is just and right, they will save their life,,,.,.
1
-
Islam didn't invent the fact Jesus wasn't crucified.
In his Trallians, Ignatius, the bishop ofAntioch (who died around 110
CE, and who wrote during the first decade of the second century CE), was
quite eloquent in his attack against the early Christians who denied that
the crucifixion of Jesus was anything more than an illusion. The following quotation from Ignatius (italics added for emphasis by the present
author) is directly to the point:
But if, as some say.. .his suffering was only an appearance, then
why am I a prisoner, and why do I long to fight with the wild beasts?
In that case, I am dying in vain."
80 The Cross & The Crescent
One cannot attack as heresy a belief or doctrine that does not yet
exist. The theology of Ignatius not withstanding, his attack against those
early Christians who believed that Jesus' crucifixion was only illusory,
demonstrates the existence of that belief among the early Christians.
Further, the fact that Ignatius even bothered to attack this doctrine suggests that the belief in the illusory nature of the crucifixion was quite
widespread by 110 CEo Clearly, the doctrine of or belief in the illusory
nature of the crucifixion was perceived by Ignatius to be a threat to what
would much later become the orthodox position of the Christian church
regarding the crucifixion. As it would take some years for such a belief
to become widespread across the vastness of the Roman Empire, it can
be deduced that the origin of the doctrine of the illusory nature of the
crucifixion must be dated well back into the first century CE, and quite
possibly right back to the time of the crucifixion itself.
When considering the above, it must be remembered that Ignatius
was attacking Christians, not non-Christians, although the particular
Christians being attacked shared a specific belief system at odds with
that of Ignatius when it came to the particulars of the doctrine of the
crucifixion. To millions of Christians raised with a Sunday School interpretation of Christianity, the above may come as something of a shock.
However, for those Christians, the shocks are only just the beginning.
Indeed, the shocks dramatically increase in voltage when one considers
the early Christian scriptures, both apocryphal and canonical. ,,
1
-
That Isaiah 9:6 has been misinterpreted can be seen from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Eternal Father” anywhere else in Bible. Since the Trinitarian doctrine teaches that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” (Athanasian Creed), how can the Trinitarians accept that Jesus is the “Eternal Father”? Let us consider additional facts impartially.
First, all the Hebrew verb forms in Isaiah 9:6 are in the past tense. For example, the word which the Christian Bibles render as “his name will be called” is the two words ‘vayikra shemo,’ which properly translated, should read “his name was called.” The word “vayikra” is the first word to appear in the book of Leviticus (1:1), and it is translated properly over there – in the past tense. In addition, the King James Version translates the same verbs elsewhere in the past tense in Genesis 4:26 and Isaiah 5:25. Only in Isaiah 9:6-7 are these verbs translated in the future tense!
Notice that it says “a child HAS been born to us.” This is an event that has just occurred, not a future event. Isaiah is not making a prophecy, but recounting history. A future event would say a child will be born to us, but this is NOT what the verse says. The Christian translations capitalize the word ‘son’ assuming that this is a messianic prophecy and the names of a divine son.
Second, the two letter word “is”, is usually not stated in Hebrew. Rather, “is” is understood. For example, the words “hakelev” (the dog) and “gadol” (big), when joined into a sentence - hakelev gadol - means “the dog IS big,” even though no Hebrew word in that sentence represents the word “is.” A more accurate translation of the name of that child, then, would be “A wonderful counselor is the mighty God, the everlasting father ...”. This name describes God, not the person who carries the name. The name Isaiah itself means “God is salvation,” but no one believes the prophet himself is God in a human body!
Third, the phrase “Mighty God” is a poor translation according to some biblical scholars. Although English makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god,” the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters, cannot. The Hebrew word “God” had a much wider range of application than it does in English. Some suggest a better translation for the English reader would be “mighty hero,” or “divine hero.” Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as “divine hero” in their Bibles.
Fourth, according to the New Testament, Jesus was never called any of these names in his lifetime.
Fifth, if Isaiah 9:6 is taken to refer to Jesus, then Jesus is the Father! And this is against the Trinitarian doctrine.
Sixth, the fact that the New Testament does not quote this passage shows that even the New Testament authors didn’t take this verse to be in reference to Jesus.
Seventh, the passage is talking about the wonders performed by the Lord for Hezekiah, king of Judah. Preceding verses in Isaiah 9 talk of a great military triumph by Israel over its enemies. At the time Isaiah is said to have written this passage, God had just delivered King Hezekiah and Jerusalem from a siege laid by the Assyrians under General Sennacherib. The deliverance is said to have been accomplished in spectacular fashion: an angel went into the Assyrian camp and cild 185,000 soldiers while they slept. When Sennacherib awoke to find his army decimated, he and the remaining soldiers fled, where he was cild by his own sons (Isaiah 37:36-38). Chapters 36 and 37 of Isaiah recount how Hezekiah stood firm in the face of Sennacherib’s vast army and his blasphemous words against the God. When all seemed lost, Hezekiah continued to trust in the Lord, and for this he was rewarded with a miraculous victory. It is interesting to note that the statement, “the zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this,” found at the end of Isaiah 9:7, is found in only two other places in the Bible: Isaiah 37:32 and 2 Kings 19:31. Both these passages discuss the miraculous deliverance of Hezekiah by God. Therefore, in light of the above, Isaiah is recounting God’s defense of Jerusalem during the Assyrian siege. Furthermore, Soncino’s commentary says the chapter is about the fall of Assyria and the announcement of the birth of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz.
1
-
Before Abraham was, I am .
Christians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. That argument is not correct. Saying “I am” does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., “I am.” The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as “I am” and the other as “I am the man,” is one reason it is so hard for the average Christian to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English. Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as “I am.” (Acts 26:29). Thus, we conclude that saying “I am” did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God. C. K. Barrett writes:
Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.”
The phrase “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he” or some equivalent (“I am he”—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I”—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be” —John 8:24 and 28.). It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as “I am” only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ [‘Eesa alayhissalaam] was speaking of himself as the Messiah (Maseeh) of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament.
The argument is made that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. There is no question that Jesus figuratively “existed” in Abraham’s time. However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he “existed” in the plan of God. A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge.
Here is another example where a Prophet existed in the knowledge even before he was born, yet he was not at all Divine, Jeremiah 1:5 – Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart, I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “I was a Prophet when Adam was between water and clay”
Yet, no Muslim claims that the Prophet was divine, the meaning has it in it that even when Nabi Adam or Abraham (alayhimussalaam) were present, Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) and Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) were Decreed to be the Messiah and the Last Prophet in Allah’s plan respectively. Attaching ‘Divinity’ to such statements shall be absurd and meaningless.
Many Christians use this verse to prove the existence of the Trinity. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) The issue with this verse is that it is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and historians, including thirty-two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, as being inserted by the Church later. Since it was proven that this verse is a fabrication, it has been deleted from some of the later Bibles, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version.
The authorship of the Gospel of John, the Fourth Gospel, is widely contested. Scholars have debated the authorship of Johannine literature since at least the third century, but especially since the Enlightenment.
1
-
in fact, its paul who made up riginal s77n, that God cannot for...give, so needs a payment, in b70uoid.
these unn.just concepts, that we inherit s77n, that Jesus ⚰ for the gill.tee are not from God, read ezek 1820, where God says doesnt do riginal s777ns, BECAUSE ITS UNnn.JUST, and that he can forgive the wr5t if they repent and thru his mercy, he forgives, because he is JUST.
this is what every prophet taught us, and they were sent to their people with these main concepts, but varying rules for the times and the ppl they were sent to.
1
-
in fact, its paul who made up riginal s77n, that God cannot f0....give, so needs a paay. me44nt, in b70uoid.
these unn.just concepts, that we inherit s77n, that Jesus ⚰ for the gill.tee are not from God, read ezek 1820, where God says doesnt do riginal s777ns, BECAUSE ITS UNnn.JUST, and that he can forgive the wr5t if they repent and thru his mercy, he forgives, because he is JUST.
this is what every prophet taught us, and they were sent to their people with these main concepts, but varying rules for the times and the ppl they were sent to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
What about “He who is without s77n, should k4st the f1r5t”?
On the other hand, every other early manuscript omits it, notably including two of the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, called Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75 that date from the second or early third century and were found in Egypt (closer to where John wrote). Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete copy of the New Testament (c. 325 CE), does not include it either. No pastor or theologian from the eastern side of the early church references it until the tenth century. In their commentaries and sermons, they go directly from John 7:52 to 8:12 (keep in mind that current chapter and verse breakdowns were added later). Finally, all the earliest translations of the Greek New Testament (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Old Latin, and Georgian) skip this story as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Xtians claim that Jesus dng for our sins was prophesied in O.t. even though Jesus never ever made such a claim
The prophesy 🤦
1- Isaiah 53:3 says that "He" is despised by all men. In Luke 10:1, Jesus has at least 70 followers, and in other verses we're told that he fed and healed thousands (John 6:9-11, Luke 17:11-19 and other verses).
2- In Isaiah 53:5 it says he was wounded for our transgressions. Now right away one might assume this is the deff of Jesus. However it says he was WOUNDED not kiwd. But let us go with kiwd for your arguments sake. This is not what this verse is saying. It is saying that they made a mistake so he is paying for it. They plotted or accused against him. This is exactly what happened. And again, the verse says wounded, which further proves that Christ was never kiwd.
3- Isaiah 53:7 states that "he did not open his mouth". There are two possible interpretations and answers to this:
Jesus never literally spoke a single word during the crucifixion trial. This is obviously wrong because Jesus spoke during his trial with both Pontius Pilot and the Jews. And we all know Jesus' famous and final cry to GOD Almighty when he said: "Eloi Eloi lama sabachtani!", which translates: "My GOD my GOD, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46) So wrong. He did open his mouth.
Jesus did not object to GOD Almighty's Will. This is also wrong, because again, Jesus cried during the crucifixion "My GOD my GOD why have you forsaken me?", and he also prayed ENDLESSLY to GOD Almighty on the night of the crucifixion to not get crucified! (Matthew 16:39, Matthew 26:36-44, Luke 6:12) He even bowed down his face to Allah Almighty in worship endless times begging Him for a change in Decision. So yes, Jesus did object.
4- Isaiah 53:9 says that he made his grave with the wicked and the rich.
"in his deff" is also a false translation to the Hebrew Mawth. At the worst, it should be translated as "in deff", making the word a symbolic one as further confirmed in the Hebrew lexicon:
There are also two errors in the fulfillment of this Prophecy:
Jesus was never buried (Matthew 27:59-66, Matthew 28)! He was temporarily placed in a tomb and then his body disappeared after that. But he never ONCE was buried under ground as our dead get buried.
Jesus, who was never buried from the first place, was also NEVER BURIED with the wicked and the rich. His tomb was placed in an isolated area as recorded in the gospels.
Again, verse 9 says that he was to be buried with both the wicked and the rich. Jesus was alone.
5- In Isaiah 53:10-11, GOD Almighty will prolong Jesus' life and Jesus will live to even see his offspring (his children)! And Christ will see the Light and be satisfied after the suffering of his soul. The suffering of his soul here is referring to the overwhelming fear that Jesus had and the countless cries and Prayers that he made to Allah Almighty to save him. Psalm 91 further speaks clearly on this. Also, Jesus' life was never made long or extended. He only lived for 33 years, so we're told in the gospels, and he certainly never married any woman nor had any child from any woman. Yet, Isaiah 53:10 clearly says that he will live and he will have and see his children.
6- In Isaiah 53:12, we are told that Jesus' life or soul will be poured unto deff. To me, given the Islamic position about Christ never got crucified, and given the symbolic speech in Isaiah 53 chapter that most of it conflicts with what really took place with Christ in the gospels, and given the fact that many early writings in Palestine and elsewhere stated clearly that Jesus never got crucified such as in the Apocalypse of Peter and other ancient texts, then my interpretation of this verse about Jesus' life being poured unto defff means to me that Jesus' life will overpower def! This is indisputably proven in Psalm 91 where it states that not only Jesus will not get crucified, but GOD Almighty will also hear his cries and will send down the Angels to PROTECT HIM and SAVE HIM. And Psalm 91 also says that Christ will call upon GOD Almighty and GOD Almighty will HEAR him and HONOR him. Christ😢,
1
-
1
-
1
-
Islam didn't invent the fact Jesus wasn't crucified.
In his Trallians, Ignatius, the bishop ofAntioch (who died around 110
CE, and who wrote during the first decade of the second century CE), was
quite eloquent in his attack against the early Christians who denied that
the crucifixion of Jesus was anything more than an illusion. The following quotation from Ignatius (italics added for emphasis by the present
author) is directly to the point:
But if, as some say.. .his suffering was only an appearance, then
why am I a prisoner, and why do I long to fight with the wild beasts?
In that case, I am dying in vain."
80 The Cross & The Crescent
One cannot attack as heresy a belief or doctrine that does not yet
exist. The theology of Ignatius not withstanding, his attack against those
early Christians who believed that Jesus' crucifixion was only illusory,
demonstrates the existence of that belief among the early Christians.
Further, the fact that Ignatius even bothered to attack this doctrine suggests that the belief in the illusory nature of the crucifixion was quite
widespread by 110 CEo Clearly, the doctrine of or belief in the illusory
nature of the crucifixion was perceived by Ignatius to be a threat to what
would much later become the orthodox position of the Christian church
regarding the crucifixion. As it would take some years for such a belief
to become widespread across the vastness of the Roman Empire, it can
be deduced that the origin of the doctrine of the illusory nature of the
crucifixion must be dated well back into the first century CE, and quite
possibly right back to the time of the crucifixion itself.
When considering the above, it must be remembered that Ignatius
was attacking Christians, not non-Christians, although the particular
Christians being attacked shared a specific belief system at odds with
that of Ignatius when it came to the particulars of the doctrine of the
crucifixion. To millions of Christians raised with a Sunday School interpretation of Christianity, the above may come as something of a shock.
However, for those Christians, the shocks are only just the beginning.
Indeed, the shocks dramatically increase in voltage when one considers
the early Christian scriptures, both apocryphal and canonical. ,,
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1. Neither book names the fruit, but the Bible alone calls it the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Qur'an does not call it such, but teaches that humans are already inspired with the knowledge of good and evil at creation in order to enable them to exercise choice between good and evil. This knowledge did not come as a result of eating from a forbidden tree.
2. The Bible says the deceiver was a serpent, but the Qur'an says it was Satan.
3. The Bible says that Adam was not deceived, but only Eve was deceived; it says that Eve then gave the fruit to Adam and he ate. On the other hand, more than one Qur'anic passages mention that they were both deceived. One passage specifically says that Satan approached Adam and deceived him. The Qur'an does not single out Eve for blame in any passage.
4. The Bible says that when the couple heard the sound of God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, they hid from him among the trees. So God called out to Adam asking where he was, and asking if he ate from the forbidden tree. On the other hand the Qur'an does not depict God in limited human form. The Qur'an and the Bible both teach that God knows everything always.
5. According to the Bible, when the couple was confronted with their mistake, they blamed each other, and Adam even blamed God because God gave him the woman who gave him the fruit. According to the Qur'an they did not pass the blame. Instead, both repented.
6. According to the Bible, God cursed them. According to the Qur'an, God forgave them and guided them.
7. According to the Bible, they were driven out of the garden because God was afraid that they may eat from the tree of life and live forever. According to the Qur'an, God's plan was to educate our first parents in paradise, then send them into the world for a limited time to resist Satan, the enemy. They were sent to earth as part of God's plan for them; not as a way of preventing them access to the tree of life, but as a test to distinguish those deserving of everlasting enjoyment in God's paradise.
8. According to the Bible, God had said that when Adam eats from the tree he would surely die, and the serpent said they will not surely die. The serpent was right - they did not die. Contrary to this, in the Qur'an, God said that if Adam and Eve eat from the tree they will become wrongdoers, then they will have to leave the garden and come out to where they will have to labour. Satan, however, promised them that if they eat from the tree they will live forever. Satan was wrong - they did not live forever.
9. According to the Bible, because of God's curse, serpents have to crawl and eat dust, women have to suffer in childbirth, and men have to sweat for a living. According to the Qur'an, no such curse was issued. The difficulties of life on earth are what makes it different from life in paradise.🎉
1
-
1