Here's something for you to think about. When Christ was born, what did the angels do?
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Islamic Scholar Ahmed Deedat's 50,000 Errors in the Bible
- Thread starter drifteri
- Start date
Here's something for you to think about. When Christ was born, what did the angels do?
And would this lead me to the answers to my question on deedat ?
Thanks buddy
My question was when was Christ born? And why do you celebrate it on dec 25th. If that has something to do with wat them angels did then I'll try that route if info. Thanks for enlightening
That's right, one can probably count 50,000 errors committed by Ahmad Deedat concerning the Bible.
If you already counted 50,000, what so difficult to point out one for discussion ?
If you already counted 50,000, what so difficult to point out one for discussion ?
Here's what others have pointed out. Save my time.
There are people (including abysmally ignorant village atheist drifteri) who quote the Jehovah Witnesses' claim that the Bible has 50,000 errors, taking as established fact any charge they read against the Bible without the slightest effort to verify it.
Deedat makes this claim as well, and uses only 4 examples to substantiate the claim. Since many people (including abysmally ignorant village atheist drifteri) use Deedat's material when they debate Christians it might be helpful here to go through them briefly:
1) The change by the RSV from using the word "virgin" (bethulah) to "young woman" (almah) in Isaiah 7:14 is Deedat's first example. This is not an error, but merely an issue of translation and interpretation. "Young woman" is a literal rendering of the word, though it always means an unmarried young woman. That is why some versions use the word "virgin," which helps put the meaning in it's context.
2) The change of the word in the RSV of John 3:16 from "begotten Son" to "only Son" as his second example is much the same issue. The original Greek word means "unique." Either way there is no difference between "only" and "begotten."
3) Deedat's third example is 1 John 5:7. Deedat naively continues that it is only this verse which supports the doctrine of the trinity. He would do well to read Matthew 28:19 and others which support this doctrine quite well.
4) Deedat's final example is rather odd, as he claims that none of the authors of the canonical Gospels recorded a single word about the ascension of Jesus. Yet, all four knew of it. John makes 11 references to it, Luke writes about it specifically in Acts 1:9, and both Matthew and Mark regularly speak of the second coming of Jesus from heaven. One wonders how Jesus could come from heaven if he had not first ascended there in the first place.
Deedat concludes with what he believes are two instances of tampering of the Biblical text: the Mark 16:9-20 and the John 8:1-11 passages. Most modern translations keep these passages in the text with an explanatory note stating that in some of the oldest manuscripts these verses do not appear. The problem is that in other old manuscripts these passages do appear. Thus the translators are by no means tampering with the text but are merely bringing our English translations as close as possible to
the original text. These then are the only examples of the 50,000 errors which he quotes from the J.W.'s. Obviously he has an enormous task to come up with the supposed 49,996 other errors; a task I indeed wouldn't envy.
Need for butt-kicks read for yourself http://answering-islam.org/Green/deedat.htm
I just need to tear down 1 or 2 lines.
1) The change by the RSV from using the word "virgin" (bethulah) to "young woman" (almah) in Isaiah 7:14 is Deedat's first example. This is not an error, but merely an issue of translation and interpretation. "Young woman" is a literal rendering of the word, though it always means an unmarried young woman. That is why some versions use the word "virgin," which helps put the meaning in it's context."
A young woman is not necessary an umarried woman, like a prostitute. There is a grave factual error between being born of a virgin and a young woman.
3) Deedat's third example is 1 John 5:7. Deedat naively continues that it is only this verse which supports the doctrine of the trinity. He would do well to read Matthew 28:19 and others which support this doctrine quite well.
You need to consider how a writer repeatedly used a certain term to know its contextual meaning, like 'butcha!' repeated used by fraido. 'The PM, the government and the nation are one', 'are one' connotates a collective meaning. Same applied to the bible. Trinity is a deliberate misinterpretation.
1) The change by the RSV from using the word "virgin" (bethulah) to "young woman" (almah) in Isaiah 7:14 is Deedat's first example. This is not an error, but merely an issue of translation and interpretation. "Young woman" is a literal rendering of the word, though it always means an unmarried young woman. That is why some versions use the word "virgin," which helps put the meaning in it's context."
A young woman is not necessary an umarried woman, like a prostitute. There is a grave factual error between being born of a virgin and a young woman.
3) Deedat's third example is 1 John 5:7. Deedat naively continues that it is only this verse which supports the doctrine of the trinity. He would do well to read Matthew 28:19 and others which support this doctrine quite well.
You need to consider how a writer repeatedly used a certain term to know its contextual meaning, like 'butcha!' repeated used by fraido. 'The PM, the government and the nation are one', 'are one' connotates a collective meaning. Same applied to the bible. Trinity is a deliberate misinterpretation.
The point is, Christ's birth was celebrated with angelic proclamation. This answers your question about whether to celebrate.
The Bible does not reveal the actual date, but that need not stop us from celebrating this on a date that has been selected for this purpose. This answers your question on the date.
Why 25 Dec was selected?
Exactly. Why not then select a date that is closest to Jesus birthday. Definitely not in winter. Even if the bible does not specify a date shouldn't it then be as accurate as possible. Cheers.
Then the mystery of the trinity which no one can explain. Sigh.
Three gods or one God ?
In this case Hinduism also has 5 god heads that are actually one!very similar so how ?
How accurate can you be when the Bible is silent on the actual date? Would this put an end to all debate if people start arguing that theirs is the more accurate? This would be a distraction, wouldn't it?
History is clear that the Christians chose the same day to honor their Lord instead of going along with the pagan celebrations. It was a testimony against paganism and a way to "redeem the days." I find nothing wrong with this at all. One must understand that God created the universe, the earth is His and everything in it, including the days, months and years. Everyday belongs to the Lord, the one and only God. Christians are only redeeming what rightfully belongs to God from the pagan religions. There is thus no need to squirm over the fact that a particular day is also being celebrated by another religion. If you want a more detailed response then go here https://bible.org/article/should-christians-celebrate-christmas
And yes, the Trinity is a mystery, revealed but not explained. It is a doctrine clearly taught, clarified, but beyond explanation. As a Christian I can live with that, since God is infinite and I am not. Do not confuse polytheism with monotheism. And there is unitarian monotheism and trinitarian monotheism you need to distinguish.
Last edited:
Why not. You have a problem with that? Oh, you have a problem with EVERYTHING Christian.
Which goes back to your big problem with God, your Creator, whom you refuses to acknowledge and wilfully suppress your knowledge of Him.
Last edited:
Why not. You have a problem with that? Oh, you have a problem with EVERYTHING Christian.
Which goes back to your big problem with God, your Creator, whom you refuses to acknowledge and wilfully suppress your knowledge of Him.
You yourself said 'a date that has been selected'. Why that date was selected? Don't skim the question.
You yourself said 'a date that has been selected'. Why that date was selected? Don't skim the question.
You have a problem reading "History is clear that the Christians chose the same day to honor their Lord instead of going along with the pagan celebrations."
So it is in history, which year? Which are the christian groups that came to the common agreement?
I don't know exact date, time, year, but I don't see why it should matter at all.
Amazing Lie! You can even say the year, the location, the event and who met to reach the agreement. The true is...You just fabricated it! That why you say it shouldn't matter at all! There is no historical record of such an important meeting to decide a very important date. Incredible answer.
Last edited:
Amazing Lie! You can even say the year, the location, the event and who met to reach the agreement. The true is...You just fabricated it! That why you say it shouldn't matter at all! There is no historical record of such an important meeting to decide a very important date. Incredible answer.
This is absymally ignorant village atheist failed logic at his best. Unable to tell specifics about a decision made 2000 years ago means the event never happened. He must be looking for some kind of AGM or minutes of meeting filed with Roman ACRA. LOL!
To me the term trinitarian monotheism is an oxymoron. Logically if there is such a thing as trinitarian monotheism then there's no need for the Unitarian monotheism.
Can't explain the concept of trinity ?? But wasn't it mentioned in the bible that God is not the author of confusion?
That being the case the whole concept of three Gods should be done away with. God almighty is One. Not three.
And I think drift can accept one God if he were to ever believe in God. But not three or three hundred million gods
Can't explain the concept of trinity ?? But wasn't it mentioned in the bible that God is not the author of confusion?
That being the case the whole concept of three Gods should be done away with. God almighty is One. Not three.
And I think drift can accept one God if he were to ever believe in God. But not three or three hundred million gods
Similar threads
