What the Hell is Wrong with Sonoma County, California?

[jerry wagner]

It is a mishmash compilation of multiple religions.  Some from the judaeo belief, some from hindu and some from buddist, and some from the canaanite religions.


A prophet.
Abraham was not a prophet.
Mohammad did not write the koran. 
Muhammad died in 632. The earliest written material of his life is the sira of Ibn Ishaq (750), but Ibn Ishaq's work was lost. We only have parts of it available in quotation by Ibn Hisham (834). The hadith are even later. There are six authoritative collections of hadith: Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Maja, Abu Dawud, al-Tirmidhi, and al-Nisai. All are dated between 200 and 300 years after Muhammad.
Islam does not mean peace. Islam means complete submission to the will of Allah.
Well Christians do not go out and strap bombs to blow up innocents.  Shrug.  Kinda comparing apples to oranges there aren't ya.

Christians certainly have strapped bombs to blow up innocents..... ever heard of Ireland?

Also, the hands of the Christians are not clean..... the crusades ring a bell?  how about the witch hunts? I could continue but I think the point is made.

[Sarah]

Teresa, good point there about the scriptures being altered.
Many of the bibles published these days are from corrupt texts.
The King James Bible is true.  NIV and most others are not.
It's a mess out here in the so-called Christian churches and the
bibles are an indication of the confusion and un-belief.  But, we
still ought to find the truths and support 'em.

It's not the NIV is corrupt, but it is not a word for word translation.  It's a thought for thought translation and then there's the Living Bible that isn't really a translation at all, but rather a paraphrase.  I use KJV, NIV, Living Bible along with a couple of others.  But there are some Bibles out there that have totally changed the meaning of some words for whatever reason and those I stay away from.

[srkruzich]

Steve,

Your first point is that the koran was written 300-400 years after the death of the mohammad.  This isn't true.  the koran was put into written form by the fourth caliph Uthmān ibn 'Affān  This occured between 645 and 650 AD.  Uthman died in 656 AD.  Mohammad died in 632.  Some people say that Ali, who was mohammads cousin, kept a written koran from when mohammad was still alive.  You cite that hadith were compiled 300 years after the death of mohammed.  The hadith is not the Koran, their books are not like the bible.  The hadith is a seperate entity and is more of a biography of mohammed.  The koran is the religious text, not the hadith.

Some sources claim the first complete version that is used today is 3 -400 years after mohammed but this one source shows fragments exist of some texts as early as 100 years later.  

Two ancient copies of Koran that are in existence are the Samarqand MSS is in Tashkent, and the MSS housed in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul. What many Muslim's do not know, is that because these two manuscripts were written in a script style called "Kufic", practicing Muslim scholars generally date these manuscripts no earlier than 200 years after Muhammad died. Had these two manuscripts been compiled any earlier, they would have been written in either the Ma'il or Mashq script style. John Gilchrist, in his book, "Jam' Al-Qur'an" came to this same conclusion. (John Gilchrist, Jam' Al-Qur'an, Jesus to the Muslims, 1989)

Now we do have one ancient copy of the Koran written in the Ma'il style of script, that is housed in the British Museum in London (Lings & Safadi 1976:17,20; Gilchrist 1989:16,144). But scholar Martin Lings, who was not only a practicing Muslim, but also a former curator for the manuscripts of the British Museum, dates this manuscript at 790 AD, making it the earliest. On the other hand Yasir Qadhi notes one Islamic Masters/PhD scholar who believes the Samarqand MSS is the 'most likely candidate for the original'.

It is unknown, even by Muslims that authorities will not release photographs of the ancient Topkapi manuscript in Istanbul and so there are no known studies on it. This is why the Muslim apologist, M. Saifullah had to state "Concerning the Topkapi manuscript we are not aware of studies done it." (Who's Afraid Of Textual Criticism?, M. S. M. Saifullah, 'Abd ar-Rahman Squires & Muhammad Ghoniem) What is in this manuscript that Muslims are afraid to let the world see? After all in Qur'an 2:111 it says "Produce your proof if you are truthful."

Even the earliest fragmentary manuscripts of the Koran are all dated no earlier than 100 years after Muhammad died.

Add to this the fact that there is no archeological evidence dated at the time when Muhammad was alive, by way of artifact, manuscript or inscription has ever been found were Muhammad is actually referred to as "a prophet".

If you don't believe me, listen to faithful Muslim, Ahmad Von Denffer, in his book, Ulum al Quran, in a chapter called, Old Manuscripts Of The Qur'an, "Most of the early original Qur'an manuscripts, complete or in sizeable fragments, that are still available to us now, are not earlier than the second century after the Hijra. [or 800 AD] The earliest copy, which was exhibited in the British Museum during the 1976 World of Islam Festival, dated from the late second century.' However, there are also a number of odd fragments of Qur'anic papyri available, which date from the first century." (Grohmann, A.: Die Entstehung des Koran und die altesten Koran- Handschriften', in: Bustan, 1961, pp. 33-8)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthman_bin_Affan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koran

You do realize that wiki is edited by whomever wants to edit it.  Thats not a reliable source.

You say that most muslims will tell you they worship the moon god.  bullshit.  15% of the population here is muslim.  Believe me, you don't know what you're talking about.  I've talked with many of them about their religion, I've been to the middle east, I've never heard any muslim say that ever.  They all tell me that they worship the same god that christians and jews do.  Just because you say moon god 20 times doesnt make it true.

Of course they will claim to you that they worship the same God. This is a PR campaign.
The truth is in history on this.  Their use of the crescent moon is the symbol of the moon god. Allah was the name a pagan diety of Quresh tribe which had three daughters, Allat, Uzza and Manat. After islam Mohammed named the islamic diety as Allah.
Now since we know that the god allah originated from the quresh tribe, that coincides with the lineage of the tribe which dates back to ishmael.  Ishmael is the son of Abraham who BTW is from UR of the chaldeans, and there you get the connection with allah being the moon god.

Now, I said that the bible wasn't written until much later after the death of Jesus.  Of course the old testament originated from the Torah, which predates jesus, but the new testament is what i'm referring to. 

Well you didn't say the NT you said the bible.  I have been posting and quoting OT text
Gen Daniel and Psalms are in the OT not the NT.

The truth is, nobody knows exactly when it was compiled, however most scholars agree that it wasnt completed until 150 AD. 

It wasn't complete til around 125 ad since John had not completed revelations til 90 years after christ returned to heaven. so give it 25 more years to be compiled and thats pretty much as close as one can get to the original.  

You profess to believe that the king james version is the only correct version of the bible, fine.  It was written in 1611.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

It is the closest translation, of the original greek and hebrew texts into english that we can get.  Tynesdale or wycliff is pretty close but they include the apocrypha as actual biblical text i think.

Why did they write a new version?  because according to the reformation movement, the bible that ALL christians had been following for 1600 years was a bunch of garbage. 

Which bible did they rewrite??  Your talking about the kings scholars rewriting it?  What about Martin luthors translation?  

Imagine that.  So they all sat down and rewrote it according to what they thought it should look like.  No dead sea scrolls, no lost manuscripts, nothing.  In fact, it was done by committee.  47 old men got together, broke out into groups, and over a period of 8 years?  went about re-writing the bible.  At that time, there were dozens of different versions of the bible floating around.  So what they did was took all these different bibles, picked the passages they liked best, and used that in their bible.

 What are you talking about?  
Interestingly enough, while the KJ scholars primarily used tynesdales translation over 80% of his translation, and the rest through careful study of other texts, you can look at the kjv translation and word for word match it to the greek, it is the same.  The only possible discrepancies might be punctuation.  So to say they copied from whatever looked good is pure bunk

Now, here's were it really gets interesting.  You claim that you have access to the oldest greek and hebrew documents known.  You have been crying in post after post for me to cite my sources, here they are.  Where are yours?  Are you referring to the dead sea scrolls?  because those are pretty much just old testament stuff, and they don't mention jesus at all.

Textus receptus

Lets go down this little path.  You see, another committee got together, and looked at the same "documents" that you looked at and they came up with their own revision of the bible.  They call it the New International Version.  This bible is the most accurate if you believe that the oldest source is the most accurate.   

Yep and it is so politically corrupted that it is not worth wiping ones butt with.  The latest revison going on right now is to make it politically correct and gender neutral. Quite frankly the more they revise it, the more worthless it becomes.  

Now you don't believe in this version of the bible.  This version denies the trinity and the divinity of Jesus.

AND Thats what makes it worthless. When your originals do not deny the trinity or the divenity of christ why would this version be more accurate?? Again you go back to the original greek, and the divinity of Christ is very solid and proclaimed in it. Even Christ himself said he was God.

that John 3:16,  it doesn't say begotten, they changed it to unique.  We already had this discussion so i won't get into it again. 

that is not what the greek says.
it says begotten (mo-no-ge-nā's)
mo-no-ge-nā's means
1) single of its kind, only
     a) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents)
     b) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God
Now the root words that make up mo-no-ge-nā's  are
mo'-nos and gē'-no-mī

mo'-nos means
1) alone (without a companion), forsaken, destitute of help, alone, only, merely

And gē'-no-mī

1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
  a) of events
3) to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
   a) of men appearing in public
4) to be made, finished
   a) of miracles, to be performed, wrought
5) to become, be made
so unique is not what the translation would be.

I believe begotten is a mistranslation, you don't  Unfortunatly for you, the experts agree with me. 

Wiki and the NIV folks are not the experts.  

The reverend JErry Falwell has been quoted as saying that he knows the bible has been changed and isn't accurate.  To his defense, he was also saying that the bible's miracle was the effect that it has on people (he may have a point there, although it is arguable)

Jerry was a idiot too. Always inserted his foot into his mouth.

Now, you want to quote the bible to prove the trinity.  None of your quotes prove a trinity.  The word trinity is never used.  That word never passes through Jesus' mouth.

How do you explain God saying Let US make man in OUR own image.  
Now thats about as plural as one can get.  
Lets do the hebrew.

Gen 1:26 elohiym `amar `asah 'adam tselem dĕmuwth radah dagah yam `owph shamayim bĕhemah 'erets remes ramas 'erets

Note the word highlighted in red means our image.  Not counting asah which means let us make.

You post a lot of passages saying that jesus was referred to as the son of god, or lord etc.  My point is, everyone is the son of god in that sense, everyone is a lord in that sense.  As i mentioned already, i guess you missed it, Jesus called his disciples gods.  Furthermore, here are some quotes that show jesus was not god

bar 'elahh means son of God which refers to christians.  Secondly when God refers to believers he says sons of God. Third, christ himself said he is God.
The Jews therefore said to Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple. (John 8:57-59)

Here he says he was before Abraham, so that in itself out of his mouth says he is God. He existed before he was born into a human body.


"I and the Father are one." The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." (John 10:30-33)

EVEN THE JEWS recognized that he said he is God.


And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me does not believe in Me, but in Him who sent Me. And he who beholds Me beholds the One who sent Me. I have come as light into the world, that everyone who believes in Me may not remain in darkness." (John 12:44-46)

And so when He had washed their feet, and taken His garments, and reclined at the table again, He said to them, "Do you know what I have done to you? You call Me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for I am. If I then, the Lord and the Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another's feet." (John 13:12-14)

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father (John 14:6-9)

# John  14:16 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with you forever; even the spirit of truth."
# John  17:1-3 Jesus prays to God.
# Hebrews  2:17,18 Hebrews  3:2 Jesus has faith in God.
# Acts  3:13 Jesus is a servant of God.
# Mark  13:32 Revelation  1:1 Jesus does not know things God knows.
# John  4:22 Jesus worships God.
# Revelation  3:12 Jesus has one who is God to him.
# 1stCorinthians  15:28 Jesus is in subjection to God.
# 1stCorinthians  11:1 Jesus' head is God.
# Hebrews  5:7 Jesus has reverent submission, fear, of God.
# Acts  2:36 Jesus is given lordship by God.
# Acts  5:31 Jesus is exalted by God.
# Hebrews  5:10 Jesus is made high priest by God.
# Philippians  2:9 Jesus is given authority by God.
# Luke  1:32,33 Jesus is given kingship by God.
# Acts  10:42 Jesus is given judgment by God.
# Acts 2:24, Romans 10.9, 1 Cor 15:15 "God raised [Jesus] from the dead".
# Mark 16:19, Luke 22:69, Acts 2:33, Romans 8:34 Jesus is at the right hand of God.
# 1 Tim 2:5 Jesus is the one human mediator between the one God and man.
# 1 Cor 15:24-28 God put everything, except Himself, under Jesus.
# Philippians  2:6 Jesus did not believe being one with God was possible
# Matthew 27:46: "Around the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, saying "Eli Eli lama sabachthani?" which is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?""
# Mark 15:34: "And at the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, "Eloi Eloi lema sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?""

Your quotes are taken way out of context.  Try going back and checking out the passage to get context.  

Some random thoughts....
Jesus was not the second Adam, adam was married, had offspring, populated the earth and preformed no miracles. 

Jesus is betrothed, and won't marry his bride til he comes again.  
I never said Adam was jesus.  So Adam wouldn't preform miricles. I SAID that Jesus is the Second Adam.

The bible is more violent than the koran, and i will post again proving it.

quite the opposite.  The jews never promoted the concept of convert or die.  Wars happened.  
Most of the wars were perpetuated by the ammorites and descendents.  God had told the jews to kill the ammorites but some bleeding hearts didn't do what God said so were left with the violence even til this day.

The trinity was invented at Nicea, thought someone as "knowledgeable" as you are would have known that.  Notice how it's not in the Torah, i wonder why?

The trinity was never invented. The trinity is proven through the whole bible, the OT and the New, it is a Doctrine of the whole bible not just a part of it. So Nicea could not invent it.  The niceans only handled the NT.

Let me also say this again, more than a third of the nations founders were dieists, they did not believe in the trinity or the divinity of jesus.

so? I think there were a couple of athiests in there too.

I hope i answered all of your questions and points,  on my to do list is to show the violence in the bible, compare it to the koran.

Please point out the violence perpetuated by christ.

We have picked a fight with the muslim world, we started it.  Now we want to be angry because they are fighting back?  Thats very childish thinking.

No we didn't. The muslim world has been at war with christians and jews since 632 ad

[srkruzich]

Christians certainly have strapped bombs to blow up innocents..... ever heard of Ireland?

Well catholic church has been in apostacy for a very long time. And they perpetuated the war in the beginning between anyone not catholic and themselves.

Also, the hands of the Christians are not clean..... the crusades ring a bell?

Done by a apostate church, catholics.

how about the witch hunts? I could continue but I think the point is made.

Not really.  You see you have a period of darkness because the church at the time was trying to do what islam is trying to do. I'm not talking about christian churchs,but the catholic church.  The catholics were pretty much going with the concept of convert or die.  Same as Islam. It didn't work then.
The christians emerged from that era and grew because they kept the faith. 

[Teresa]

Like I said~~ you can't argue religion..
Steve.. No one will ever change your mind..as no one will ever change mine..  
I do agree about the Catholic Church..
but on the general belief system...
If your way works for you and you are a better person for it... then you are accomplishing what God intends..
I think that is how we as a human race should deal with all the different ways of belief..

Now... on the other hand.. if what a person is doing ISN'T making them a better person.. then I'd say a whole lot more to them..  

And I also think I am done with this subject...  

[redcliffsw]

Our best days have been with the King James Bible.  It's God's
preserved Word.  These modern versions are corrupt and more
are coming on the market or being revised to make a few more
dollars.  Years ago, folks did not need an "easy-reader" bible to
interpret the KJB for themselves, so why should we need or
trust an NIV or living bible today?  The KJB ought to be all we
need.

[Anmar]

new bibles are being released because the KJV isn't accurate.  They rewrote it without the manuscripts.  Now, new things are being found that prove the innaccuracy of the bible, which is why they released the NIV.

[Sarah]

new bibles are being released because the KJV isn't accurate.  They rewrote it without the manuscripts.  Now, new things are being found that prove the innaccuracy of the bible, which is why they released the NIV.

Actually, that is totally incorrect.  The NIV isn't even a word for word translation, unlike the Kings James Version.  The NIV was developed to help understand verses and most NIV Bibles are Schofield study Bible's with footnotes and annotations to make things clearer.  The NIV is a good stand alone Bible, but most people I know use it along side the KJV Bible and the New American Standard Bible.  The NIV had nothing to do with inaccuracy, but rather modern day language.  The New American Standard was used to even further expand on words and is also an excellent study Bible.  There are also newer Bibles that are "politically correct" in their wording.  Most people cannot possibly use just a KJV Bible and get all the indepth meaning in most verses.  Most people use more than one version along with study aids to get in depth into verses.  So, before we go accusing of inaccuracies, make sure you know what you're talking about.,

[srkruzich]

new bibles are being released because the KJV isn't accurate.  They rewrote it without the manuscripts.  Now, new things are being found that prove the innaccuracy of the bible, which is why they released the NIV.

There are no inaccuracies in the kjv.  it is a word for word translation of the greek and hebrew.  Can't be any inaccuracies if its a word for word translation of the originals.

[Sarah]

IF you REALLY want to know where and why the NIV was created, you can read it here:  http://www.biblica.com/niv/background.php

There are many Biblical translations.  None are meant to "correct inaccuracies in the KJV, but to put it into modern language or to be "politically correct" or to appeal to some special interest group, like "women's Bibles" or "Bibles for married couples" etc.