The False Trinity [Archive]

servant_of_Allah

14-03-2002, 19:06

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

Assalamu Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh to Muslims.

Hello and Good Day to others.

I am posting this message in response to Netcurtain's topic "The True Holy Trinity".

URL : http://www.aliasoft.com/iwc/index.cgi?az=read_count&om=125&forum=DCForumID4

Firstly, i'd like to apologize for a delay in responding to this topic and some others. There are have been various issues that kept me from replying to any topic.

Now, back to responding.

Firstly, i'd like to mention that i have made a slight correction in this post. The correction is in relation to the mass of an electron. I had stated earlier that the mass of a single electron is 0.000275 u, which is incorrect. The correct mass is 0.000 549 u. I had forgotten to take the 'mass defect' into consideration, whereby the potential energy (and hence mass) of nucleons increases upon seperation from the nucleus.

What surprises me is that no one noticed this mistake of mine, which makes me wonder, has anyone been reading my posts attentively?

Another thing i forgot to do the last time is explain what 'u' stands for. It stands for 'atomic mass unit'.

I will be repeating what i said in my last post, and add a few more things to this new one.

"Atoms are made up of THREE particles: ELECTRONS, NEUTRONS and PROTONS."

Atoms are indeed made up of three sub-atomic particles: electrons, protons and neutrons.

However, let us study this topic in detail for you (Netcurtains) and everyone else to understand better, Insha Allah.

Firstly, as you must know (or perhaps not), an atom CANNOT EXIST INDEPENDENTLY, i.e. it cannot exist on its own.

The smallest particle of an element or a compound that can exist independently is the MOLECULE.
An atom is the smallest particle of an element that can be identified as being from an element. It cannot exist independently.

So, what have we learnt uptill now. We have learnt that an atom can't exist independently. This very first point that i have presented refutes your theory.

But we shall go into greater depth.

Mass of 1 proton = 1.00728 u
Mass of 1 neutron = 1.00866 u
Mass of 1 electron = 0.000549 u

Charge of an electron = Negative charge
Charge of a proton = Positive charge
Charge of a neutron = no charge at all, it is neutral

Now, with regards to the concept of Trinity, Christians say: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God."

With regards to an atom, a proton is a proton, not an atom. An electron is an electron, not an atom. A neutron is a neutron, not an atom. And throughout our discussion on atoms, we must not forget that an atom cannot exist independently.

Christians also say : "In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent."

"the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal." is what the Christians say.

However, in the case of an atom, we see that not only are the masses of the 3 sub-atomic particles different, but their charges are different as well (in the case of a neutron, no charge at all).

"My theory has already been "proved" incorrect by athiests but I would be interested in an islamic take on the Quark bit."

Oh, very interesting, and did they refute your theory before the Muslims or after us? Just keen to know. Did they do it after or before my message dated 21-02-2002?

Regarding quarks, i will try to give general information on it, whatever little i know. Netcurtains mentioned 3 quarks, but he failed to mention the anti-quarks. I guess his theory on quarks is refuted right here.
Because he says that since there are 3 quarks, this proves the trinity, but then there are anti quarks as well. So is there an "anti-trinity" according to Netty?

But i shall try to go further, Insha Allah.

Scientists used to believe that there are only three flavours/types of quarks. However, now scientists believe there are SIX flavours/types of quarks, and not just three. Though i do not know much about the other 5 quarks. I know that evidence for the 6th quark (known as the top quark) was provided by scientists in USA, Chicago.

The names of these SIX types of quarks are :
UP
STRANGE
TOP
DOWN
CHARM
BOTTOM

DOWN, STRANGE and BOTTOM have a charge of -1/3 e and UP, CHARM and TOP have a charge of
+2/3 e.

Quarks combine in twos and threes only and can change from one flavour to another by emitting a lepton.

BTW, leptons are particles that do not experience a strong nuclear nuclear force.

I will give some examples of quark and antiquark combinations.

A neutron has a combination of udd

The total charge is 2/3e - 1/3e - 1/3 e = 0

Over here, u stands for UP and d stands for DOWN

A pie meson (now there is a symbol for the pie, and it is equal to 22/7, however, since it is difficult to type the 'pie' sign since there is no such key on one's keyboard, i have incorrectly used the word pie, so that people do know what i am talking about).

A pie meson (positve sign on top) has a combination of UP and ANTI-DOWN, and it has a charge of 2/3e + /3 e = e

You will see that Netcurtain's theory is not only incorrect, but extremely simplistic and does not take various factors into account (thus rendering it wrong). This is such a vast subject, and i cannot summarize it, since that would be simplifying this topic, and would not do justice to the subject. People can consult scientists for this topic, or read books to understand this vast subject better.

So, we see that although quarks do combine in threes, they ALSO combine in TWOs.

There is also such a thing as anti matter.

Matter is composed of quarks and leptons, whereas anti-matter is composed of anti-quarks and anti-leptons.

We also have to take into consideration their positve and negative charges. There is so much to take into consideration.

Thus, Netty, plz do not try to simplify this topic. And, do not preach falsehood here, or elsewhere.

I saw you show off many times about this theory of yours on this forum. In one place, you mentioned something like sending your theory to some church, to put it up there. Well, i certainly hope you send our refutation of your theory to that same church.

Next time, do not show off or act arrogant.

As for those people who say they were going to write the same critique, despite being Christians. My only question to them is, what kept you from doing so?

Anyway, i must end it right here, and i may be away for some time.

Wassalamu Alaykum Wa Rahmatullah to Muslims,
Bye to others,
Servant of Allah.

May Allah forgive me for any mistakes or sins, whether they are major sins or minor sins, whether done knowingly or unknowingly, in this post of mine, Ameen.

________
marijuana dispensary (http://dispensaries.org/)

Netcurtains

14-03-2002, 20:54

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 14-03-02 AT 09:57 PM (GMT)]Hi,
There are actually ony THREE Quarks in a Hydrogen Proton (it does not have a neutron) - you missed the point. THE SMALLEST particle is a HYDROGEN ATOM. It has no NEUTRON (no ANTI-QUARKs). IT CONSISTS OF JUST THREE QUARKS. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Athiests did indeed correct me first (but like you only particially).
Here is the link and dates and conversations:

http://pub90.ezboard.com/finstituteforunicornresearchfrm1.showMessage?topic ID=91.topic

The unified particle in the Universe (the Hydrogen atom) - the Stuff of the ACTUAL BIG BANG ITSELF is TRINITARIAN whether you like it or not.

Note the Athiests bought in Duo version of this but there is also a TRIO version - they had no answer to that either.

To their VERY GREAT CREDIT they did bring into the conversation the 11th Dimension. This is right at the cutting edge of science. Well done to them.

Perhaps "theists" here will like to attempt to answer "lone Wolfs" questions. I made an attempt at it but was a total failure.
Can you do better?

http://pub90.ezboard.com/finstituteforunicornresearchfrm4.showMessage?topic ID=11.topic

the ONE proton has THREE Quark aspects. It is surrounded by a bright HALO cloud (an Electron is one of the 12 leptons). TRINITY is THREE aspects to ONE "thing" - You can therefore quite clearly believe in a ONE god which has THREE aspects because there is SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that this THREE in ONE is possible and in fact is in the very fabric of the universe.

Rasha

15-03-2002, 01:04

:)

i might not be so smart in science... but.. just notice the difference way of arguments... NutCurtains....

:) do'nt be upset... just cause servant of Allah makes more sense doesn't mean you should be upset...

When i read the arguement of servant of Allah it made sense.... u didn't even attempt to prove him wrong.. u just picked on the hydrogen atom.... :) what about the rest??!

Netcurtains

15-03-2002, 01:27

lol - I'm not upset - my CAPS is a way of hi-lighting that my ORIGINAL idea was the SMALLEST and the SMALLEST is the HYDROGEN ATOM - which consists of THREE Quarks. I'm not upset. Off now for a snooze.

Sadiq

15-03-2002, 02:01

Salam to all!

Mashallah a very well detailed answer from the brother, now netty, there are two posts going on about trinity, to make it interesting for all, i will post some links that should help you, i think they are christian sites too...

1) 60 Questions on the Godhead- UPCI Tract
>>http://www.upci.org/tracts/godhead.htm

2) TRINITARIANISM'S INCORRECT VIEW OF "LOGOS" AND SONSHIP OF CHRIST
>>http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/mfblume/logos.htm

3) Paste from this christian site; >>http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Valley/5202

..................

A Brief Discussion on Trinitarianism
Before the Nicene Council (325 AD), the doctrine of the Trinity in Christianity did not exist as dogma. (Though it was around late in the third century, it was a new concept.) Most people were known as Modalists, which means they believed in One God in three different administrations. This is perfectly scriptural.
I Cor. 12:5 tells us, "There are differences of administrations, but the same Lord." Tertullian made the comment that the majority of believers had a Oneness view and were awed by the doctrine of three-in-one. While trying to convert the pagans who believed in many gods, the Catholic church decided to adopt some of paganism to help their conversion. According to Hislop,(author of The Two Babylons nearly all religions are based on the Babylonian Mysteries.
In Babylon, there was a holy trinity consisting of Osiris, Isis, and Horus. These figures were based on the first apostate after the flood which was Nimrod, his wife– Semiramis– and her child, Horus. The mythology had it that after Osiris was killed, Isis went out to the woods and was impregnated by the holy ghost (of Osiris) and therefore, her child was both her son and her husband. These three made up the godhead. Catholicism adopted this and created what we call Trinitarianism today.

The basic tenets of Trinitarianism is that there are three persons in the godhead. Each is co-equal and co-eternal. Although I cannot prove Trinitarianism via the Bible, I can prove the Oneness of God. I will, however, use the scriptures Trinitarians point to in order to prove their point. Gen 1:26 says "And God said let us make man in our image." The main argument the Jews have with Christianity is that they believe when the Messiah comes, He will be God in the flesh, not a second person. They believe this passage in Genesis is referring to God counseling with his own will.
If we look at the next verse, we see that it says "so God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him." Notice that there is only ONE image to which God created man. If there were three gods in the godhead, the passage would read "so God created man in their own images." But it doesn't read this.

Another passage Trinitarians like to quote is Mark 16:19 "he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God." This sounds pretty self-explanatory, but the phrase is not what it seems. It is an idiom. Much like we have the same phrase, "a right hand man." The book of the Revelation tells us "a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne." (4:2) This was referring to Christ. In 4:4 it says "and round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting."
This vision of heaven supports the fact that the Mark reference was an idiom. It does so by showing us that there are not two or three thrones; that Jesus is not sitting beside God, but rather, is surrounded by twenty-four elders.

So how can anyone prove there is only one God? It's easy. First, think of the first commandment. "I am the LORD thy God...thou shalt have no other gods before me." If Jesus was a separate god, wouldn't this have read "we are the LORDS thy GODS?" But in Is. 44:8 God says "Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any." So God himself has said there was no one up there with him. This by itself is enough to destroy the Trinitarian belief, but there is more.
Deut. 6:4 says "Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God is one Lord." Not three...ONE. Why was Christ crucified? Was it for claiming to be the Son of God? If you said "no" you are correct.
Christ was not crucified for claiming Sonship, but was crucified for claiming to BE God. In John 8:24 Jesus said "if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." When one looks in the KJV, they will see that "he" is italicized, which means the writers put it in for clarification. If you take the exact words of Christ, they read "if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins."
In Exod 3:14 God said to Moses "I AM that I AM." God was known as the great "I AM." And Jesus made the same claim.
In John 14:7, 9 Jesus says "If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth, ye know him, and have seen him...he that hath seen me hath seen the Father." What does this claim mean? It means when you look at Jesus you look at God. Why? Because JESUS IS GOD! You cannot take One God and make three and still have one! It's as simple as that! Why is the Trinity a thing of faith? Because they can't prove it. There is not one iota of scripture that stands against the Truth. The Bible says "Let God be true, but every man a liar." (Rom 3:4) If God said he's ONE what man can say otherwise?
As a last point, let us look at John 20:28. After Thomas saw the resurrected Christ, and placed his hands in the wounds, Thomas dropped down and said "My Lord and my God." Thomas recognized Jesus for who he was. If Thomas was wrong, Christ would have corrected him. But Christ DIDN'T correct him, because Thomas wasn't wrong.

.....................

4) 226 questions totally disproving the doctrine of the Trinity!
>>http://www.1lord1faith.org/wm/Oneness/226-toc.htm

5) What About Trinity "Proof Texts"?
>>http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/article_08.htm

I have been searching and using the net for good things, you know...i got to go...and i hope you explain the paragraph on my other thread..

Sadiq

Rasha

15-03-2002, 02:35

hmm...interesting post...

:)

I like it!

Just don't agree with all things in it of course... but seems very well written i think (except for some weak points here and there.. but some really really strong points too.)

:)

Netcurtains

15-03-2002, 08:36

I have Dealt With Jehavohs Witnesses elsewhere.
If you are using their evidence as proof of your position then you are indeed in very "dodgy" ground. Are you shifting towards Christianity?

servant_of_Allah

15-03-2002, 08:58

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

Hello Netcurtains !

"Hi,
There are actually ony THREE Quarks in a Hydrogen Proton (it does not have a neutron) - you missed the point. THE SMALLEST particle is a HYDROGEN ATOM. It has no NEUTRON (no ANTI-QUARKs). IT CONSISTS OF JUST THREE QUARKS. Sorry to burst your bubble."

<smiles> Burst my bubble? If you would have bothered to read my entire post attentively, you would have noticed that i was replying to your very first and very last message on that thread. I haven't read thoroughly and attentively, as of yet, what you said in the other messages. Though i think it is time i should, Insha Allah.

Essentially, you haven't even denied that what i said in my message here is incorrect. Rather, even i know (and so do you) that everything i said in my post is correct, Alhamdulilah.

"There are actually ony THREE Quarks in a Hydrogen Proton (it does not have a neutron) - you missed the point. "

You are correct, there are three quarks in a proton. And the same is the case with a hydrogen proton. And you are also correct that i missed your point. That's because i have only, as of yet, replied to your first article. You may go and read it. You have not once mentioned hydrogen atom there. You have only mentioned proton there.

"THE SMALLEST particle is a HYDROGEN ATOM. "

The smallest particle that CANNOT exist independently. Do you remember the definition of a molecule. I do think i mentioned it in the very beginning of my post to you. You have to begin using correct definitions.

"It has no NEUTRON (no ANTI-QUARKs). "

Now, with regards to a hydrogen atom, you are correct that it has no neutron, but i failed to understand what you meant by relating anti-quarks with a neutron? Because, since you do claim to have knowledge on quarks (and i openly declare i don't have much knowledge on this subject), then you should know that a neutron has no anti-quarks, so your assumption that it does, is incorrect. Infact, i did mention the quark combination of a neutron in my earlier post. It is udd (UP, DOWN, DOWN) . There is no anti-quark here.

"Athiests did indeed correct me first (but like you only particially).
Here is the link and dates and conversations:
http://pub90.ezboard.com/finstituteforunicornresearchfrm1.showMessage?topic ID=91.topic"

I have visited it and just skimmed through the messages and i find those atheists to be mannerless. Therefore, i will not bother reading their arguments in their entirety, for now at least.

"Note the Athiests bought in Duo version of this but there is also a TRIO version - they had no answer to that either."

Neither you, nor the atheists gave the information completely. Hydrogen has three isotopes.

The atheists mentioned Deuterium, which is heavy water.
You mentioned Tritium.
I mention Protium.

These are the 3 isotopes of hydrogen, each of them having DIFFERENT atomic masses.

And, your mentioning of Tritium, and feeling very happy about, is pretty short lived.

Unlike, protium and deuterium, which are stable, tritium is unstable, since it is radioactive. And radioactive elements continue to disintegrate until they reach a stable form (i think it was lead). Tritium has a half life of 12 years.

So, if the atheists couldn't answer you, doesn't mean an answer doesn't exist.

"To their VERY GREAT CREDIT they did bring into the conversation the 11th Dimension. This is right at the cutting edge of science. Well done to them."

I have no idea what that is. So, i cannot comment.

"Perhaps "theists" here will like to attempt to answer "lone Wolfs" questions. I made an attempt at it but was a total failure.
Can you do better?

http://pub90.ezboard.com/finstituteforunicornresearchfrm4.showMessage?topic ID=11.topic"

I did go here as well, but i found many posts by 'Lone Wolf' and some person named 'scigirl' (or was it something else?). I don't know which question you're talking about specifically.

"the ONE proton has THREE Quark aspects. It is surrounded by a bright HALO cloud (an Electron is one of the 12 leptons). TRINITY is THREE aspects to ONE "thing" - You can therefore quite clearly believe in a ONE god which has THREE aspects because there is SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that this THREE in ONE is possible and in fact is in the very fabric of the universe."

I do not think you should be all too happy about the hydrogen proton.

A proton has a quark combination of uud.

u = 2/3e
d = -1/3 e

So, we have 2 different types of quarks in a proton.

"the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal." is what the Christians say, with regards to the concept of trinity.

Whereas, if you see the charges of the quarks in a proton, we see that 2 of them have a positive charge, and one has a negative charge.

Thus, your theory is refuted right here.

Moreover, the three quarks in a proton are not even the same flavour ! Two of them are "UP" and one is "DOWN". Once again, your theory is refuted right here.

Another point you must remember always is that a hydrogen atom CANNOT exist independently, just like any other atom.
Again, your theory is proved wrong.

I have presented 3 refutations to your theory, chose whichever one you like, Insha Allah.

And, a hydrogen atom is made up of TWO sub-atomic particles, not three. Namely, a proton and an electron, no neutron. Why didn't you mention this?

Also, don't be too happy about Tritium. And don't even think about the 3 isotopes of hydrogen, since they have different atomic masses.

Take care,
bye,
Servant of Allah.

May Allah forgive me for any mistakes, or sins, whether they're major sins or minor sins, whether done knowingly, or unknowingly, in this post of mine, Ameen.

________
vaporizer volcano (http://volcanovaporizer.net/)

Netcurtains

15-03-2002, 09:13

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 15-03-02 AT 08:14 AM (GMT)]EXACTLY my Friend. You Grasp the Christian position.
Three ASPECTS but the aspects are not the same.
A hydrogen Proton consists of THREE Quarks that are not the same.
Even more evidence. Thankyou - I did not notice that side of it before. Well Done!

Another poster has put in Jehovahs witness links. Dodgy ground using another religion to back up your own. They have a bible which is not recognised by any group of christian scholars. They are nice people (I guess) but I do not really want to knock their beliefs further (here) without a Jehovahs witness being present to counter argue - it would not be fair. I do not think it fair to bring Jehovah witnesses into the dicussion for that reason - so I'll not reply to that aspect of this thread -sorry.

Rasha

15-03-2002, 12:14

:)

well no i'm not shifting to christianity. i was.. before I saw the beauty of islam. But it has long facinated me to study religions. I do'nt know about any difference in the sects...so i took it for granted all christians believe in the bible. I mean in islam we have some weird sects here and there...but never the less we all have the same quraan. they follow the same quraan as the main streem of islam which is the way the prophet followed.

i'm not using anything to backup anything...just responding to best of my understanding. i'm no scholar.... just a humble lil student in life.

servant_of_Allah

15-03-2002, 13:41

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

Hello Netcurtains !

"EXACTLY my Friend. You Grasp the Christian position.
Three ASPECTS but the aspects are not the same.
A hydrogen Proton consists of THREE Quarks that are not the same.
Even more evidence. Thankyou - I did not notice that side of it before. Well Done!"

<smiles> Although you won't admit it, your post shows how shell-shocked you are.

Anyway, my entire post, each and every point in it, refutes your theory, Alhamdulilah.

My post does not prove the Christian position, but refutes it, Alhamdulilah.

You said: "Three ASPECTS but the aspects are not the same."

Christians say : "In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent." (I think this is the Athanasian Creed )

Anyway, i'd like to bring to your kind attention the phrase (from the above paragraph), "Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal".

First, the hydrogen atom came into existence after the Big Bang, according to the Big Bang Theory. There is no difference as to origin. Whereas, according to the Athanasian Creed, there is a difference as to origin regarding the Trinity.

Second, the three quarks in a hydrogen proton (or any proton for that matter), are not co-equal (or same).

As far as i am aware, Christians say (and i have seen them state this many times on this site), that "The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God". This is what Christians say and believe.

Astagfarullah.
I seek refuge in Allah.

However, if you observe the quark combination in a proton, you will see that it is uud.

So, a 'u' is UP, another 'u' is UP, and the 'd' is DOWN.

It's not that all three are "UP, UP, UP" or "DOWN, DOWN, DOWN". But they are TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF QUARKS. I think you have to read this phrase another time, since you obviously didn't bother to read it in my last post.

The combination is "UP, UP, DOWN".

Two of them are same, with the same charge, one of them is different, with a different charge (and that too a negative charge). Get it?

On top of that, the charges are NOT equal. Whereas, with regards to the trinity, Christians say that the "Persons are co-equal".

Astagfarullah.
I seek refuge in Allah.

To put it very simply, your theory is ridiculous and untrue, Alhamdulilah.

You have to stop preaching falsehood and study science thoroughly, Insha Allah. And even I have to study science thoroughly, Insha Allah.

I hope you understood my post now.

"Well Done!"

Thank you so very much <smiles>

Bye,
Servant of Allah.

________
grape ape (http://trichomes.org/marijuana-strains/grape-ape)

Rasha

15-03-2002, 13:56

:)

learn science servant of Allah... well done akhee... :)

enjoyed it.

Baraka Allahu feek

Netcurtains

15-03-2002, 20:23

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 15-03-02 AT 08:00 PM (GMT)]Come on old fruit - Two up, one down. that is EXACTLY the Christian position. Jesus came DOWN to earth - lol.
A Son is not the equal of a Father.
A Spirit is quite different yet again.
lol.

I'll let you into a little secret, an athiest always feels a sense of victory when religious people discuss science.

When the Roman empire killed Christians, they didn't do it because they thought them 'Christian' - no they were killed because the Romans considered them Athiests. Jesus's whole way of life was obviously ANTI-religion and PRO-common sense (science if you like).

I was looking at Horizon last night. Archimedes. He proved the kings crown was a fake. Look at religion under a microscope - is it a fake or can it stand the test.

I've put Christianity under the microscope many a time and it still is hanging in there. "The Son Of Man" - even an athiest can get that message. Can the Qu'ran survive under a smiliar barrage of ULTRA-MODERN intellectual investigation that Christians have put Jesus under? What do OXFORD DONS think of the Qu'ran - do you want their real views or their diplomatic views - you know what they think of Jesus don't you - not a lot.

servant_of_Allah

15-03-2002, 21:36

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

Hello Netcurtains !

"Come on old fruit"

Subhan Allah, wonderful manners. I'll tell you what i was taught when i was younger. The manners you display infront of others, reflect what type of a family and background you come from, as well as what type of culture.
Keep on going like that, you'll establish a very wonderful image infront of everyone else, unless of'course you haven't established one already.

"Two up, one down. that is EXACTLY the Christian position. Jesus came DOWN to earth - lol. "

Subhan Allah !

Do not tell me that all along, you've been thinking that just because the quark is named "DOWN", it is actually down in a literal sense. Don't tell me you thought that, did you? Because that is exactly what you're implying in this post of yours, and if that is the case, then i reiterate what i said earlier, go study science again, plz, especially atomic physics. Please, this is not a joke or an insult or making fun of. I mean it.

"A Son is not the equal of a Father."

Oh, interesting, so you're denying the Athanasian Creed? Because, as far as i am aware, according to the Athanasian Creed, "the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal".
Interesting, you do not believe in this creed?

Very very interesting indeed. Actually, i'll leave this between you and the other Christians to debate on, preferably on some other website, or some other place.

"A Spirit is quite different yet again.
lol. "

Well, now the Christians on this site cannot blame Muslims for not understanding the concept of trinity. Neither can they blame the rest of the world, nor can they blame their fellow Christians who absolutely fail to understand this concept.
When i say "not understand", i mean the "it's a mystery" phrase, so often used.

I mean, one Christian brings up one definition of the concept of trinity, and then another one brings up yet another definition. I'll leave it upto the Christians to decide, Insha Allah.

"I'll let you into a little secret, an athiest always feels a sense of victory when religious people discuss science."

So? What do i do?

"When the Roman empire killed Christians, they didn't do it because they thought them Christians - no they were killed because the Romans considered them Athiests. Jesus's whole way of life was obviously ANTI-religion and PRO-common sense (science if you like)."

Some Christians, as far as i am aware, have a different understanding than you do, on this subject.

"I was looking at Horizon last night. Archimedes. He proved the kings crown was a fake. Look at religion under a microscope - is it a fake or can it stand the test."

Horizon is a good programme. I do watch it whenever i get time to. Was it on BBC World or a "UK version", i.e. non-international BBC channel?

"I've put Christianity under the microscope many a time and it still is hanging in there."

Err.....and just what makes you come to such an untrue conclusion? I mean, not only have you failed to refute a single point from any of my articles on this thread. You have also shown that you do not believe in the Athanasian Creed, which will make some or rather all of your fellow Christians very unhappy.

On top of that, you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of atomic physics, especially quarks (you actually thought DOWN means down in a literal sense. It's just a name !).

You showed pride and arrogance at certain, or rather various, places. You have showed a lack of manners. And shown that you lack the qualifications to hold intellectual debates because of your mannerlessness.

And, you refuse to accept some very simple points that i have mentioned about quarks which outright refute your theory.
How many times do you want me to repeat the same thing again and again? This time, just go and read what i said in my posts above. And if you still refuse to understand, then please study science, and i say this with sincerety.

Otherwise, stop preaching falsehood.

So, your conclusion that "it is still hanging in there" is very much incorrect. It is not. You may not want to accept it. And it won't surprise me

As i mentioned earlier, i noticed at times you showed arrogance in your messages, and this i am sure will be accepted by not only the Muslim participants on Aliasoft, but the non Muslim participants as well (at least some of them). Anyway, people who are infected with arrogance usually take time to accept the truth, if at all they do accept it. And very rarely do such people accept their fault.

If you do not wish to accept what i have said, so be it. The article is there for everyone to read, Insha Allah.

Anyway,
Have a nice day,
bye,
servant of Allah.

________
vaporizer manufacturers (http://vaporizer.org/forum/vaporizer-manufacturers/)

Netcurtains

15-03-2002, 21:42

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 15-03-02 AT 08:55 PM (GMT)]lol - I think thats a "culture clash".
I'm a south londoner. "old fruit" is a term of endearment.
In my culture saying someone has bad manners is considered bad manners.
No offence - light hearted.

My real reply to "lone Wolf":

"
So Lone Wolf you point out all the bad stuff that 'Xian' has done or been party too.
I see it the reverse.
We both use the same book.
How can this be???

I have the answer (well an answer).

John's Gospel says "God is Light".

If this is true then some points:
1) He is trinitarian because there are three primary colours - if he is missing one then he is not all light just a bit of light.
2) If you have all the primary colours all set to MAX you eithter see JET BLACK or BRIGHT WHITE - It depends on how you perform your experiment!
"

I'm off to a party but just before I go - just to set the record straight:

1) I'm not here representing a religion - I'm here representing myself. To the Christians writing here I can say I have used the same arguments on Athiest boards - I'm not here picking fights with Muslims... I'm here because I enjoy the discussions. If you don't like my tone and want me to leave is that something wrong with me?

No offence - but look at it both ways.

servant_of_Allah

15-03-2002, 22:09

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

Hello Netcurtains !

"Can the Qu'ran survive under a smiliar barrage of ULTRA-MODERN intellectual investigation that Christians have put Jesus under? What do OXFORD DONS think of the Qu'ran - do you want their real views or their diplomatic views - you know what they think of Jesus don't you - not a lot. "

The Qur'an itself puts up a challenge to all those who disbelieve in it. Allah says in the Qur'an, that were it (the Qur'an) from other than Allah, one would find many inconsistencies in it. But, Alhamdulilah, that is not the case. The Qur'an is the Word of Allah.
Glory be to Allah.

Another very interesting point is that i have presented no false theories infront of others. Whereas you have, and have therefore been thoroughly refuted, Alhamdulilah.
And if you're proud of this false theory which you presented (which has already been refuted), then, what more do you want me to say?

Another thing, do you think i am the least bit bothered what the 'Oxford Dons' think of any subject? You think it matters to me?

If they choose to believe in the Qur'an and accept Islam, they have done good to themselves only, and if they choose to disbelieve, they have done harm to themselves only. It does not affect the believers, Alhamdulilah.

No, i do not know what they think of Isa ibn Maryam (peace be upon him), and unlike you, i do not want to know, because it doesn't matter.

There were disbelievers in the past, and there are disbelievers at present, and Allah Willing, there will be disbelievers in the future.

The Pharoah was a disbeliever, and he refused to accept the truth which Moses (peace be upon him) was preaching. The Pharoah held a prestigious position, being the ruler of his kingdom. But just because he held that position, it did not mean he was right. On the contrary, he was a disbeliever. And he died the death of a disbeliever.

That is why i am asking you to not preach falsehood here. Because, eventually falsehood will perish.

Remember, when you originally posted your theory on Aliasoft, and no one repleid to it. You assumed no one had replies, and then you began showing off about it. But eventually, Alhamdulilah, replies came. And today, your theory is in ruins, Alhamdulilah.

Remember, how proud you felt that the atheists had no reply to your "tritium theory", but Alhamdulilah, the Muslims refuted it, and today that theory of yours is in ruins.

Look, if you're interested in learning, then we can continue discussing, but if you've only come to preach your religion, then bye bye from me. I am not interested. Make up your mind. Choose what you want to do. The ball is in your court.

Moreover, you always keep mentioning crime rates and atheists. You keep saying that atheists compromise only a small percentage of prisoners. Whereas, those who follow religions, compromise higher percentages.

My comment on this is, so what?

Statistics also show that blacks compromise higher percentages of prisoners in various nations, than whites. Does this mean blacks are evil people? No, certainly not.

Does it mean that blacks are more prone to commit crimes. That would be the most ridiculous thing i will ever hear.

It means nothing. At least not to me. Maybe to you.

Then, your posts on atheists usually seem to show them as non violent people (example your prison statistics posts, etc.) Well, whenever you mention atheism, you must never forget to mention Communism.

The Bolsheviks, who came to power in Russia in a BLOODY revolution, were communists, and atheists. Stalin was an atheist, and how many people did he kill? Mao Tse Tung was an atheist. He didn't come to power by handing out flowers. It was a violent revolution as well.

Moreover, some of your posts seem to suggest that religions cause wars. What about the Vietnam War? Was it because of religion? What about the Korean War, was it because of religion? What about the Gulf War, was it because of religion? What about World War 1, was it because of religion? What about World War 2, was it because of religion? What the French Revolution, was it because of religion? What about the English Civil War, was it because of religion? What about the American War of Independence, was it because of religion? I can go on and on.

In the end, i'll just like to state once again. Although i would want you to become a Muslim, and i would want all the non Muslims in this world to become Muslims, if they or you choose not to, then it is your own choice. I cannot do anything about it, and Allah knows best.

If you think that i'll be concerned with what you say or think, or what others say or think, then that is a misconception. I am not bothered.

Also, you keep commending those atheists you debated with. I saw their manner of debating. Those people were absolutely mannerless. You feel proud of such people?

And you too, sir, ought to learn to respect others, and speak in a proper manner when addressing others. It doesn't have a good reflection on your character, though by no i have arrived at the assumption that you don't care.

By far, your counterparts, i.e. jcecil3, JBJ and even Tita are far more well mannered, comparitively. You can learn a lesson or two from them.

Anyway,
take care,
bye,
Servant of Allah.

________
vapor genie vaporizer (http://www.vaporshop.com/vaporgenie-vaporizer.html)

servant_of_Allah

15-03-2002, 22:20

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 15-03-02 AT 09:22 PM (GMT)]In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

<Smiles>. Whenever i return, i see you posted a new message.

Anyway, i shall continue responding to you whenever i have time. I have to address JBJ right now.

But, i wish to address some important points before i leave.

First, i apologize for misunderstanding your use of the term 'old fruit'. And if you felt i was impolite, then i apologize.

Second, i see you have not denied the point i raised saying that you disbelieve in the Athanasian Creed.
Though it maybe that you didn't even notice that point.

With regards to what you said to Lone Wolfe, or to any atheist. I told you my opinion of those atheists.

And with regards to your light theory. I will do further study on light, Insha Allah.

But really, you're making me study alot of science. And it's not easy. Inorder to refute your theory on quarks, you do not know how much work and study i had to do.

Now you want me to study light. Subhan Allah.

If Allah Wills, i will do so.

Now, do not start another topic. I am already over-stretched. Plus, as i had mentioned earlier on, in this thread, i may be away for some time, in the coming days. So any absence that you note, you ought to know what it is.

I am not here inorder to have fun. I am here only to refute lies, as much as Allah Wills, and to preach the truth, as much as Allah Wills.
Glory be to Allah.

I would greatly appreciate it if you speak (or type) a bit more politely. People, including myself, can get offended. And it is my policy not to talk to rude people.

Bye,
Servant of Allah.

________
70 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Honda_70)

servant_of_Allah

15-03-2002, 23:15

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 20-03-02 AT 12:48 PM (GMT)]The post has been removed by means of editing.

________
Jeep Commander (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Jeep_Commander)

Netcurtains

16-03-2002, 02:32

Hi,
I am not a scientist. I am not an athiest.
I am a NORMAL WESTERN male.
-------===================
(I've underlined this point as it is important).
A normal western male is SOMETIMES religious and SOMETIMES an athiest.
When he is religious he relates to Jesus.
When he is an athiest he relates to science.

The other guys who write here who are not Muslim try to fit in so that they appear acceptable to you (IMHO). What is so wrong in me being myself?

You write down some Christian creed or other - but so what? You have to deal with WESTERN people not dogma. In my Catholic church I could easily be sitting next to a MAFIA DON one day or a COLOMBIAN DRUG BARON and the next day a SOUTH AFRICAN SAINT. We are all VERY VERY VERY different and probably believe very different things. The Creed you mentioned is not the creed that is said in a MASS. The cread we say out loud is the NICENE CREED which goes like this:

"We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen."

If you read it carefully no where does it say the THREE ASPECTS of God are IDENTICAL - FAR FROM IT. It gives FAR MORE POWER/AUTHORITY TO THE FATHER. However it is JESUS that we ALL relate to... but of course the HOLY SPIRIT is becoming more and more and more to the forefront of the modern chruch.

Good night. Of course I apologise if I appear rude - I am not meaning to be rude - please just see me as the TYPICAL south london male. If you ban me you are banning Mr South London. Seriously.

Lulua

16-03-2002, 06:49

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 16-03-02 AT 04:40 PM (GMT)]Assalaamu alaikum ya muslimeen.

Greetings and good day to all.

Interesting thread. Great job, br. servant of Allah. Do keep up the good work, brother...and take it easy on yourself, as well. Know it is work, hard work sometimes...coming with the revelant responses and references for correct refutation. May Allah reward you kindly.

As for netcurtains...interesting responses, and I would like to remind you...just my observations, by your latest response, and in view of the previous interaction of discussion...no one has threatened you outright with banment...so why the supposition that it is lingering? hehe.

Anyways...would like to also comment on this 'nicene creed'...it is also intermittingly called the 'apostle's creed'...and it is quite similar, if not exact, to the creed/dogma required of christians to repeat in services of worship in the protestant churches, not only in the catholic churches, as indicated by your comment that it is repeated in mass (mass is relevant or indicative only of the catholic church).

Would also like to note your (netty) interesting comment on the separation of yourself into your 'christian aspect' and then the 'atheist aspect'...revealing that you are considering yourself religious at times, and then atheist at times of viewing scientific themes. This I find particularly interesting. Where is it...in religion...that there is need to separate religion from science?

In Islam...the two...science and religion...support one another. You can find, if you merely read, in the Quran...instance after instance...where there is comparison of religion with science, support of religious claims (islamic) with scientific PROOF...read...and you shall see for yourself. This, my friend, is a basic proof of the reality and truth of Islam...in that what is said to us in the Quran as form of guidance and directives is based on and proved by scientific PROOF!!

Read and find out for yourself.

ANd...for the Islamic outlook or understanding of the relation of God and light...'Allahu nur as-samawaati wal-ardh'...'Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth'...you can see that Allah is the generation source of light...and it also refutes outright the false claim to the trinity. As well as proves itself by proof in nature and science. The challenge is there for all...the 'oxford dons' included.

Lulua.

Netcurtains

16-03-2002, 10:38

Hi,
I don't seperate religion from science - you misunderstand me.

Sometimes I am religious and other times I'm an athiest. Everyone who writes here appears not to relate to this everyday aspect of the majority of people on the planet.

Why do people feel they have to be spokesmen for their religion - why can't they write about their doubts as well as their certainties?

What about confession? We catholics like to proclaim our sins. Do muslims confess?

Why did it take servant_of_allah so long to research into Quarks? is he pulling my leg? If you put QUARK as a search parm in GOOGLE you'll get all what he said (and I said) in 2 minutes - try it yourself.

It boils down to this. Gods creation is in a sense part of him. To human beings much of it appears THREE (dimensions, light, atoms etc etc) however in reality there is more to God's creation then threes but perhaps not for us. Science talks of 11 dimensions but in fact we are designed to just see THREE. There are more colours then the visible spectrum but the HUMAN EYE copes with just using the THREE PRIMARY colours to create all the other lights humans can see (its the way our eye works). So yes I do believe Muslims are correct in that there is more to God and Creation then THREE however the non-three aspects are much less obvious.

At least Christians and Muslims can both agree that we evolved from Apes.

servant_of_Allah

16-03-2002, 11:53

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

"Why did it take servant_of_allah so long to research into Quarks? is he pulling my leg? If you put QUARK as a search parm in GOOGLE you'll get all what he said (and I said) in 2 minutes - try it yourself."

The reason it took me some time (or quite some time) to do research on quarks, atoms, mass defect, etc. (Atomic physics in general), is because i didn't do the research on the net, but through books.

The net doesn't provide half the info. you can get from books. Even if it does, you have to go through site after site looking for the suitable one.

This explains why you have demonstrated little understanding of quarks. You've been doing research only via the net. While i do agree that the net can prove useful in learning. Books prove far more beneficial. Which is why upto this day, formal education is carried out mostly with books, not with internet only.

And, no i am not pulling your leg.

Take care,
bye,
Servant of Allah.

________
herbalaire vaporizer (http://www.vaporshop.com/herbalaire-vaporizer.html)

Netcurtains

16-03-2002, 11:53

Apes are vegetarian - should we be too?

Quarks - THREE - Science - let the SCIENTISTS have the FINAL WORDS - then YOU INDIVIDUALLY CAN SAY WHETHER I'M RIGHT OR SERVANT_OF_ALLAH IS RIGHT:

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/matter/madeof/index.html

servant_of_Allah

16-03-2002, 12:05

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

I skimmed through the article, and Insha Allah, will read it throughly, if Allah permits, later on.

Now, as Netcurtains said, let everyone individually decide who is right.

Netcurtains said:
"Quarks - THREE - Science "

Now, lets see what the scientists said:
"For some reason nature has elected to replicate this first generation of quarks and leptons to produce a total of SIX quarks and six leptons, with increasing mass. "

And what did i say:
"Scientists used to believe that there are only three flavours/types of quarks. However, now scientists believe there are SIX flavours/types of quarks, and not just three. Though i do not know much about the other 5 quarks. I know that evidence for the 6th quark (known as the top quark) was provided by scientists in USA, Chicago."

If you read the article, they confirm that the sixth quark is top, and they confirm that there are six types of quarks.

Netcurtains is right, let the people view it for themselves, Insha Allah.

________
buy silver surfer (http://vaporizer.org/reviews/silver-surfer)

Netcurtains

16-03-2002, 14:17

Perhaps a scientific picture might help:

http://www.bnl.gov/rhic/primer.htm

Remember a Hydrogen Atom is the smallest and it only has a Proton (no Nuetron).

Lulua

16-03-2002, 17:47

Well, netty...for one thing, before I even continue on reading the rest of the responses to this all...I will first of all remind you that not all of us who come to such discussion boards actually live on the net. I mean...most ppl do have other lives to continue living. As for br. Servant of Allah...he is busy as a student now, and nearing an important time of exams...and therefore not always available to your beck and call for his answers and in-depth studies which have time and time again proved not only your incorrectness in assumptions of certain theories, but as well your sheer arrogance in mannerism!

Now...as for ppl becoming or evolving into spokespersons for their religion...that is certainly a personal preference. Whether they are muslim or christian or otherwise.

As for most of the muslims here...you will find that because this is mainly and firstly a muslim site...that they will be first and foremost to represent their religion in the best light...as well, you will find, in fact, a general atmosphere of these very muslims dedicated to the cause of Islam, and therefore seeming to you as representing themselves as spokespersons for Islam.

Personally, I would be honored if I am considered as such...whether by you, netty, or by others...or most importantly, by Allah, to be a spokesperson for Islam.

Does that seem strange? That one should be so dedicated to religion to aspire to being a spokesperson for the religion? Not THE spokesperson...but A spokesperson. A great honor, actually. As well as a compliment. Perhaps you did not intend that comment as such.

Lulua.

Netcurtains

16-03-2002, 19:01

yes it does seem strange to me.
I would not want to be a spokesman UNLESS I was totally convinced.
This is not a game.

Rasha

16-03-2002, 19:16

so ur not convinced of Christianity? is that what you are saying??

Well....just to let u know.. every single one who defends islam is 100% convinced Alhamdulillah!

Netcurtains

16-03-2002, 21:47

Yes I'm not convinced by religion full stop.

I like some aspects of Christianity - especially Jesus,
I'm not sure I like "the father" too much, can't decide.
The holy spirit seems a cool concept. Some aspects of
Jainism (similiar to hindu) and Buddhism have much appeal.

If I had to pick something to believe under pain of death
I'd say I follow Jesus and the Holy Spirit, but only if forced
to pick something.

Rasha

17-03-2002, 23:06

how could u call urself christian if u don't believe in christianity as a whole!!

I thought anyone who says i'm christian would at least be ready to defend his faith to the fullest or admit that his faith is flawed!!

Netcurtains

17-03-2002, 23:34

I am willing to share with you (or any muslims) the spiritual events that have occured in my life if you want to listen. I'll not do it unless asked.

vancouver

18-03-2002, 00:08

As far as bible translations go, the New World Translation is approved by most bible scholars who have a knowledge of the original languages. It was voted as one of the top two bibles ever released. The other translation was the New Jerusalem Bible. The Greek scriptures were based on the Westcott and Hort translation. They were two monks from many centuries ago that worked seperately for thirty years on the translation and then came together to complete the translation.It was written with a view to rendering the nearest possible understanding of the original languages of Aramaik, Hebrew and Greek into the modern speech of our day. God's name appears about 7,000 times(only 4 in the king James Version). Most translations don't have it at all. They have changed it to a title(God). Yet God has a name and wishes us to use it. Even in the Lord's prayer it starts "Hallowed be your name". God promised to take a people for his name out of all nations of the earth. He is doing that right now.

Netcurtains

18-03-2002, 00:30

Hi,
If you put it in as a search parm in google you get plenty of sites that disagree with you (an example: http://www.eskimo.com/~jcw/jcw97.html).
I am no biblical scholar or theologian or even a "deep" believer so I cannot really argue either way on this topic - apart from to say "protestants" on the whole don't use that particular translation (IMHO).

vancouver

18-03-2002, 00:54

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 18-03-02 AT 06:03 PM (GMT)]I believe you will find that such web-sites as that one were originated by bitter ex-members who have only scant knowledge of the languages mentioned. We must remember that due to using God's name in vain many translators took it out of the text. That is why it is so important to get as old manuscripts as possible. Also many of the verses in the greek scriptures were often quotes from the hebrew scriptures where God's name was used only to be ommited in the Greek. It would be only fair to read those quotes as the original understanding. Another obvious nonsense was 'forever' and 'indefinately'. In scripture they mean the same thing anyway. These web-sites have no bible scolars involved. It is God's will that those who don't wish to follow him are separated from his name anyway. Most of so called Christianity is worse than all of the other religions, mainly because they have God's word but have abused it and do their utmost to keep others from it.

Netcurtains

18-03-2002, 01:01

Hi,
As I say I have no real knowledge - I can't speak Hebrew of Greek so I have to accept the word of experts. It seems a shame that the Jehovahs Witnesses just can't use the normal "protestant" bibles - it would be so much simplier. I can see why the Catholic bibles are different as we include the extra non-biblical books in our bible (not sure why - I guess so are ones are bigger then yours - lol).
good night - I'm off for some kip

vancouver

18-03-2002, 01:19

We are quite happy to use whatever bible the person we are talking to wants to use. Week in, week out, we use their bible in their bible study sessions if that is their wish. I have found no great descrepancies anyway. Providing one knows the spurious additions and the slight alterations there is no problem. But personally I like to read in modern day understandable language. People ought to know though that originally God's name was common throughout the Bible.

jcecil3

19-03-2002, 02:35

Greetings All!

There's so much to comment upon above. As in the prior post thread that carried over to this one, I think Servant of Allah is correct that we cannot prove the Trinity from atomic theory -- and I say that as a Christian.

Good for you Servant of Allah, and thanks agian for trying not to distort our teachings in making your point! I did not read the entire thread carefully, but I like the way you just quote us Trinitarians verbatim in most of your discourse, rather than interpreting what we say into something we would never say.

It seems to me that the job of science is to answer the "how" questions of life: i.e. -- How does the universe work?

The job of religion is to answer the "why" questions of life: i.e. -- Why am I here?

The only role of science in theological discourse should be to provide analogies -- not proofs. Likewise, the only role of religion in scientific discourse is to provide ethical guidelines for research, not to dictate the outcomes of research.

It just seems anachronistic to me to expect a religious world view that formed 2,000 years ago to be wedded to a scientific theory that would not form until several generations after the religion took shape. If science and religion do occassionlly seem to corraborate each other, swell. However, there is no reason to try to force a synthesis between them. They are different disciplines that answer different questions.

Vancouver -- I can read Greek and Latin, and I've dabbled with some Hebrew. I don't claim to be a "scholar" per se, because I do not hold a doctorate or a PhD. However, I have completed some graduate level studies in Scripture and theology -- enough for a Masters degree.

The New World Translation is not accepted by the vast majority of Bible scholars as an accurate translation of the Bible. Indeed, if you simply counted heads of those who do hold doctrorates and PhD's in Biblical studies, the New World Translation is rejected by the vast majority of these Bible scholars. There is no manuscript evidence for some of distortions of the text in the Watchtower version of the Bible, and there is internal inconsistency in the way the Watchtower translates certain words.

Note to the Muslims: Jehovah's Witnesses, who produce the New World Translation, are not Christians. They do not believe that Jesus is the God, and they deny the Trinity. But don't get too excited, Muslims. The Jehovah's Witnesses do seem to believe that Jesus was a god (one among many?). He was the archangel Michael, who seems to be like some sort of demi-god according to the JW's (mis)interpretaion of John 1:1.

Back to this "majority of Bible scholars" issue: Even if you don't trust PhD's and doctorates, The Jehovah's Witnesses, as a group, have just over 6 million active members according to their own counts (see http://www.jw-media.org/people/statistics.htm for my source). Outside sources are willing to grant them 14 million to put them in the top ten religions (see http://www.adherents.com/adh_rb.html#International)

By comparison, the Roman Catholic Church has over a billion members ( 71-166 Catholics for every one Jehovah's Witness, depending how you count the JW's). Protestants and Orthodox combine to around another half a billion Christians who are Trinitarian. So, the vast majority of Bible believers are Trinitarian, whether they acknowledge the Pope or not. No matter how you count it, the JW's do not have any sort of majority consensus for their New World Translation as Vancouver asserts. Indeed, for a long time, the JW's would not publish the names of the translators.

Again, a note to Muslims is that the JW's are a teensy tiny minority among those who use a Bible of any fashion, even if they mistranslate it. Consider that 14 million is only 0.9 percent of the total population that regards the Bible as God's word.

But for the JW's that should be good news, since they taught for years that only 144,000 would be saved! They also incorrectly predicted the end of the world a number of times.

There are so many other good Bible translations out there:

In translating any language, you must decide when to be literal, and when to translate "thought for thought".

For example, if I say in English, "It's raining cats and dogs outside", any American knows that I do not mean that there are animals falling out of the sky. If you translate this phrase into Spanish or Russian, you would just say "It is raining hard outside." However, the literal translation looses something.

The Revised Standard Version is probably as close as you can get to a word-for-word literal translation of the Bible in English.

The New International Version (NIV used by Evangelical Protestants), and the New American Bible (NAB used by Catholics) are both based on the oldest available manuscripts. These two versions try to stay word-for-word where they can, but switch to thought-for-thought where a majority of Bible scholars think the literal translation would be confusing. The NAB provides footnotes for you so that you know when the translators are making such judgements, and you can purchase such books as the New Jerome Biblical Commentary for additional insight on the original text and historic contexts of passages.

Vancouver, you are correct that the New Jerusalem Bible is also based on the oldest manuscripts. This is a good attempt at a word-for-word translation. However, this version was translated into French, then into English. It's a good Bible, but you read through the French filter unless you also know French to read the original translation.

Well, I've written enough for now.

Peace and blessings!

Jcecil3

vancouver

19-03-2002, 02:51

I see you have given a lot of false information in your post. With JW's they are 100% devoted and active. The Catholic church has less than 1% of its members devoted and active. The Bible Translation you criticise is the best one ever printed. The originals would have been hand-written. It has been proved that most translators have taken away God's name from the bible even though the dead sea scrolls vindicate its inclusion in the New World Translation. You need to be more careful how you post.(God is watching you).

jcecil3

19-03-2002, 15:57

Greetings Vancouver,

We really ought to continue a discussion of Jehovah Witness theology elsewhere than a Muslim web-site. But just to address your concerns...

With the info I provide regarding the JW's, I also provide some reference sources from their own sources.

Likewise, when I am making assertions about the Bible, I have personally seen some of the ancient Greek New Testament manuscripts in the Smithsonian in Washington, DC, and I have a copy of Nestle Aland's Greek New Testament based on the oldest manuscript evidence -- and I can read the Greek! I also have copies of the dead scrolls translated into English (but I'm not sure why you bring that up).

When I assert that the New World Translation is not the best translation, I am not just taking someone else's word for it -- I can read the Greek myself, and I know it is flawed. Can you read Greek?

But, you asserted that the "majority of scholars" think the New World Translation is the best. This goes beyond my own opinion. You are making an assertion that should be evident in Biblical journals, commentaries, and church usage. When we look at these evidences, it is obvious that on this point, you are flat wrong.

The simple fact is that the majority of scholars believe that the Watchtower translation contains several mistakes, inconsistencies, biased word choice, and ambiguous translations of the oldest manuscripts.

That's not to say that there may be a more accurate translation of a particular word or phrase here and there than in other English translations -- but the overall product is considered seriously flawed by the vast majority of the scholarly community and the Bible beleieving community at large.

However, as already stated, all of this debate about the JW's should not really continue on a Muslim web site. I simply provided the information above for the purpose of clearly distinguishing to Muslims some of the differences between Jehovah's Witnesses and Christianity, since such differences may not be known to many of them.

Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3

vancouver

19-03-2002, 16:33

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 19-03-02 AT 03:34 PM (GMT)]Thankfully it is what God knows to be correct that is important. If the Bible scolars were that good they would be followers of the teachings of the bible. I have used many translations and ours is the only one that has not omitted God's name(Jehovah in english). It also does not contain the spurious additions that have been mentioned on this thread. The doctrine of the trinity has warped many translations and they have been altered to try to prove an untruth.

Jehovah's Witnesses are the only ones that conform to the teachings of Christianity completely. They understand that satan is the ruler of this violent world and therefore take no part in its wars. They don't vote for governments that after all are in Satans hands. We are in the position that the early Christians were in. That is that the religious leaders of our day are embarrased by us and therefore look to ways to discredit us as did the Jewish religious leaders in Jesus day.

We are closer to your beliefs than any other Christian religion. You should respect that instead of being disrespectful to us.

Regarding our New world Translation:-

The translators who have a fear and love of the Devine Author of the Holy Scriptures feel especially a responsibility toward Him to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible. they also feel a responsibility toward the searching readers of the modern translation who depend upon the inspired Word of the Most High God for their everlasting salvation.

I would be careful if I was you. You may be guilty of insulting Jehovah, the Most High God. Read the translation carefully before making slanderous remarks.

jcecil3

19-03-2002, 17:23

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 19-03-02 AT 05:17 PM (GMT)]Greetings All!

To the Muslims, I apologize in advance if I am breaking the rules by defending my opinion too stridently in regards to Vancouver's claims. If you want me to discontinue, just say the word, and feel free to remove this post if you do not find it relevant to a Muslim site. On the other hand, what I am about to say may add value to a discussion of comparative religion....

Vancouver: Are you even aware that the Hebrew scriptures contain no vowels?

Are you aware that the ancient Jews never pronounced the name of the Lord that was written in Hebrew letters that would be transliterated as YHWH (called the tetragrammaton)?

Where YHWH appeared in the ancient text, it was read aloud as "Adonai" (the Lord), and to this day, the Jewish people writing in English use G-D to express the concept of the one whose name is so holy, it should never be written or pronounced aloud.

Now the question to the JW's is this: how do you even know with any certainty that the vowels in YHWH are such that you get Y(J)-e-H-o-W(V)-a-H? And where did you get the notion that the first sound is is a hard "J" and third a "V"? For all any scholar knows with certainty, the name given to Moses was pronounced "Yuhawieh", but the majority of scholars suggest "Yahweh", which is how it is translated in the New Jerusalem Bible, which you seem to like. At any rate, you make more of this issue than is warranted by serious Bible scholarship.

Some other mistakes in the NWT can be found at: http://www.eskimo.com/~jcw/jcw97.html

I have read the JW literature passed out in hospitals and by door to door preachers, and I find it consisently insulting and inflamatory to Roman Catholics -- so don't pretend to take the moral high ground about me being insulting to JWs. The JW's seem to build their entire spirituality around anti-Catholicism, which I find insulting as a Roman Catholic. I also find your unsubstantiated threat of divine punishment insulting to my intelligence.

If your assertion that the majority of Biblical scholars accepting the New World Translation is true, name the journal publications or even the internet resources that are not published by the Watchtower that I can go to find this claim substantiated!

Everything I have asserted can be backed up without appealing to specifically Catholic sources, though I am a Catholic. Can you back up your opinions with anything that does not come out of the Watchtower? When you assert that the majority of Bible scholars accept the NWT, you imply you can do this -- so I want to take you up on that challenge. Point me to the original scholarly sources outside the Watchtower that corraborate your claim.

Peace and Blessings!
jcecil3