From Morocco, I thank you very much my brother Shamsi. I like you my brother and may Allah bless you and reward you Al-jannah and all our brothers at Hyde Park.
After the Christian stopped talking in his opening statement, the best way to reply to that is actually very simple. Quote his sayings: "God has to punish your sins!" And also: "Christ dying is the only way God can forgive your sins!" Right there, what the man just did was ascribe a clear flaw to the Eternal by claiming that God, according to him, *has* to do something, and that He *must* do something, implying that the opposite is impossible for God Almighty. That's clear blasphemy. He is saying that God has needs and obligations and restrictions, and criteria that have to be met by Him himself, so that He can do something. God must be attributed with perfection, and having needs, obligations and restrictions would make Him less than perfect. This is simple logic that the sound mind accepts, regardless of religion. So in his opening statement, the Christian talked himself into a corner in less than 30 seconds. His concept of God has to be rejected, as a deity who has needs, wants, obligations and restrictions is not perfect, and so that's not the Exalted Creator.. rather; that's something else entirely. I've actually heard this absurd theological stance from other Christians, but when you point out to them what I just mentioned, they have no response. So that's the man's problem just the same; his concept of God is obviously flawed. Don't let him get away with such sayings. And always pay close attention to what they say about Allah, and correct their errors. Trust me, they do not have a counter argument to that, because they start with the devious idea that God is less than perfect. They all exit the conversation at that point, in my experience. No need to bring up any other points, no need to quote the Bible to them; they don't care about major theological contradictions in their own Bible, so put it to them plain and simple. See how they respond to that. They can't talk their way out of it. Honestly, I watch these videos up until a point where a speaker makes a serious blunder, especially when speaking of Allah SWT, and I don't bother listening to them beyond that. I'd point their flaw out to them, and if they cannot defend these blasphemous claims, and they certainly cannot, then I'd end the conversation, as that's sufficient to show them (and/or others) that their theology is unacceptable. So that's the end of the discussion imo.
What's the point of this? How does this relate to what I wrote? *GENESIS **3:15** And I (the Father God) will put enmity between you (Satan) and the woman (Eve), and between your offspring and hers; he (the Son of God) WILL CRUSH YOUR (Satan) HEAD, and you will strike his heel* In brackets are your own insertions and interpretations. Let's skip the interpretation of the meanings, and have a look at the translation you used. Here's the same verse from the TNK: *And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel* Notice the translation? It differs from yours. It says "they" instead of "He": "they shall bruise your head" instead of "He will crush your head". And "their" instead of "his": "their heel" instead of "his heel". Notice how yours says "crush" and this one reads "bruise"? In fact, this one has "bruise" twice, which is correct, because it's the same Hebrew word that is being used. So if you're going to translate it to "strike" for the heel, then you should also use "strike" for the snake's head. or you'd have to say "crush" in both cases. But the meaning is closer to bruising. Your translation says: "between your offspring and hers", but the text literally says: "between your seed and her seed". "Seed" is used both for Eve and the snake. "Seed" does not mean "sperm" here, it's a different word. The word for "seed" is a collective word in the plural form, and so the verse refers to the descendants of the snake, and those of the woman. The Tanak therefor translates it to "they" and "their", which is correct. The CEB also does this. Most other translations are done by Christians, who are trying to force their own theological views upon the text. This is why your translation is so inaccurate. It's quite sneaky too, since yours uses "He will crush..", with a capital, implying that this is about Jesus. But they hide it behind the preceding period. Besides, it looks like the Hebrew text does say "they" instead of "he". It's not that easy to determine, but I think the letter Yod there has a Tzere (two dots) underneath it. Other details seem to be indicating *third person future tense in the plural form* as well, but my Hebrew sucks, and I don't feel like wasting my time on this incoherent, irrelevant nonsense, because I honestly don't get what your point even is. "The Son of God explaining it: MATTHEW 22:41" You mean Matthew explaining it. That verse has nothing to do with the one in Genesis. "CONCLUSION: MUSLIMS ARE UNDER SATAN'S PAYROLL DOING SATAN'S WORK PERVERTING THE MESSAGE OF THE MESSIAH...." How does this conclusion follow from the verses you quoted? You're making absolutely zero sense. And how does any of this pertain to my initial comment? Edit: I now see you've been copy-pasting this exact comment of yours elsewhere, lol! You're a dummy.. please don't reply, I doubt it'll make any sense anyway. Take care, lol.
"look at this Muslim" It's just the two of us here, who are you talking to? Voices in your head..? "His quran says the previous book was a revelation from his allah." It doesn't. It says that previous prophets received revelation. The Qur'an nowhere names "the Bible". The revelations that are specifically mentioned are three, other than the Qur'an itself. Moses(as) was given the Thaurat. It also says that people changed the revelation, which I really don't have to elaborate on, as that is evident. Look, I actually told you not to reply.. this is why. I said it, didn't I? I anticipated more incoherent nonsense, and you deliver. How does this statement of yours relate to anything I said in my previous comment? Are you really this stupid? "And now, he's making fun of what Moses wrote" Did Moses(as) write that? Did he also write the parts after his death in those books? Because the books continue after mentioning that he died (peace be upon him). So who's writing there? Moses? And I'm not making fun of a prophet or the revelation that Allah gave him, I refuted your fraudulent translation. Deal with that or be quiet. "He's complaining about which word to use." I'm pointing out the obvious manipulation in the verse you randomly quoted. Go have a look at the actual Hebrew text then and see which translation is better. If you don't care for accuracy for when it comes to translating a book that you think has a divine source, then you're a fool. "Yet, 7 English version of his quran uses variation of english word." I never quoted a Quranic verse. All I did was reply to your Biblical passage. No Quranic verse was mentioned, so what's your point? "Here's a question. Where in the quran that says Muhammad defeated satan?" What's the significance here? Is the devil dead? The world no longer has to deal with the devil, according to you? It seems to me that you're suffering from satanic suggestions yourself. The devil lingers for as long as Allah wills it. I already showed you why the verse you brought from Genesis cannot be about Jesus(as). That's called a refutation. It means you either drop your argument, or you present a counter argument. Since you have miserably failed to defend your erroneous interpretation, then you should stop arguing over it, and stop using your forced reading of that fraudulent translation of Genesis 3:15. Logic: try it sometimes.. "Where in the quran that says your own allah defeated satan?" The devil will end up where he's destined to go, which is hellfire. Does that answer your question? Does Gen 3:15 say that God will defeat the devil, or does it say the descendants of Eve will? Hmm? Please refrain from replying again; this isn't going to get any better for you, you know that, right? Just quit now and safe yourself further embarrassment.
Jesus gave his life because he could regain it again, in your example you have not stated if the Father has power to resurrect his son, your example is far from Bible analogy...
Christian : hear me out people I'm going to tell lies because i want the church money so hear me out people. Even though my lies is so obvious. Even though it doesn't make senses. Even though its idiotic hear me out people yes i want my church money LMAO. welcome to Christianity
As Shamsi said, there's absolutely nothing in the OT that states God only forgives people because someone will come hundreds of years later to die for their sins - but instead the OT DOES say no one will pay for the sins of anyone else, it clearly states this with examples going over generations... The OT also clearly stats a son does not inherit the sin of his father and vice versa, again this is clearly stated, so the original sin is a big fat lie anyway (not that anyone who can think needs to be told this..). And if the original sin is untrue then this takes away the need for Jesus' sacrifice - and we can see it clearly for what it was - the corrupt Rabbis trying yet again to kill a Prophet of God because they disliked being told what they should or shouldn't be doing. In the OT anyone who is crucified and left over night earns the God's wrath and is cursed by the Angels, and Christians wear the crucifix around their necks in pride of this - so decieved they are.
Brother shamsi is on another level. You doesnt have to debate these type of preacher because he will use emotional and silly and confusing argument beyond human logics . No universal knowledge 😂
1.Can Christian worship God without Jesus . 2.Christian God can't be a God without human (Jesus) . jumping kangaroo religion sometimes said A sometimes said B. confusing railway to Haven 😳
From Morocco, I thank you very much my brother Shamsi.
I like you my brother and may Allah bless you and reward you Al-jannah and all our brothers at Hyde Park.
Forgiveness does not required any ransom or killing someone else on behalf.
After the Christian stopped talking in his opening statement, the best way to reply to that is actually very simple.
Quote his sayings: "God has to punish your sins!" And also: "Christ dying is the only way God can forgive your sins!"
Right there, what the man just did was ascribe a clear flaw to the Eternal by claiming that God, according to him, *has* to do something, and that He *must* do something, implying that the opposite is impossible for God Almighty. That's clear blasphemy. He is saying that God has needs and obligations and restrictions, and criteria that have to be met by Him himself, so that He can do something. God must be attributed with perfection, and having needs, obligations and restrictions would make Him less than perfect. This is simple logic that the sound mind accepts, regardless of religion. So in his opening statement, the Christian talked himself into a corner in less than 30 seconds. His concept of God has to be rejected, as a deity who has needs, wants, obligations and restrictions is not perfect, and so that's not the Exalted Creator.. rather; that's something else entirely.
I've actually heard this absurd theological stance from other Christians, but when you point out to them what I just mentioned, they have no response. So that's the man's problem just the same; his concept of God is obviously flawed. Don't let him get away with such sayings. And always pay close attention to what they say about Allah, and correct their errors. Trust me, they do not have a counter argument to that, because they start with the devious idea that God is less than perfect. They all exit the conversation at that point, in my experience. No need to bring up any other points, no need to quote the Bible to them; they don't care about major theological contradictions in their own Bible, so put it to them plain and simple. See how they respond to that. They can't talk their way out of it.
Honestly, I watch these videos up until a point where a speaker makes a serious blunder, especially when speaking of Allah SWT, and I don't bother listening to them beyond that. I'd point their flaw out to them, and if they cannot defend these blasphemous claims, and they certainly cannot, then I'd end the conversation, as that's sufficient to show them (and/or others) that their theology is unacceptable. So that's the end of the discussion imo.
What's the point of this? How does this relate to what I wrote?
*GENESIS **3:15** And I (the Father God) will put enmity between you (Satan) and the woman (Eve), and between your offspring and hers; he (the Son of God) WILL CRUSH YOUR (Satan) HEAD, and you will strike his heel*
In brackets are your own insertions and interpretations. Let's skip the interpretation of the meanings, and have a look at the translation you used. Here's the same verse from the TNK:
*And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; they shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise their heel*
Notice the translation? It differs from yours. It says "they" instead of "He": "they shall bruise your head" instead of "He will crush your head". And "their" instead of "his": "their heel" instead of "his heel".
Notice how yours says "crush" and this one reads "bruise"? In fact, this one has "bruise" twice, which is correct, because it's the same Hebrew word that is being used. So if you're going to translate it to "strike" for the heel, then you should also use "strike" for the snake's head. or you'd have to say "crush" in both cases. But the meaning is closer to bruising.
Your translation says: "between your offspring and hers", but the text literally says: "between your seed and her seed". "Seed" is used both for Eve and the snake. "Seed" does not mean "sperm" here, it's a different word. The word for "seed" is a collective word in the plural form, and so the verse refers to the descendants of the snake, and those of the woman. The Tanak therefor translates it to "they" and "their", which is correct. The CEB also does this.
Most other translations are done by Christians, who are trying to force their own theological views upon the text. This is why your translation is so inaccurate. It's quite sneaky too, since yours uses "He will crush..", with a capital, implying that this is about Jesus. But they hide it behind the preceding period. Besides, it looks like the Hebrew text does say "they" instead of "he". It's not that easy to determine, but I think the letter Yod there has a Tzere (two dots) underneath it.
Other details seem to be indicating *third person future tense in the plural form* as well, but my Hebrew sucks, and I don't feel like wasting my time on this incoherent, irrelevant nonsense, because I honestly don't get what your point even is.
"The Son of God explaining it: MATTHEW 22:41"
You mean Matthew explaining it.
That verse has nothing to do with the one in Genesis.
"CONCLUSION:
MUSLIMS ARE UNDER SATAN'S PAYROLL DOING SATAN'S WORK PERVERTING THE MESSAGE OF THE MESSIAH...."
How does this conclusion follow from the verses you quoted? You're making absolutely zero sense. And how does any of this pertain to my initial comment?
Edit: I now see you've been copy-pasting this exact comment of yours elsewhere, lol! You're a dummy.. please don't reply, I doubt it'll make any sense anyway. Take care, lol.
"look at this Muslim"
It's just the two of us here, who are you talking to? Voices in your head..?
"His quran says the previous book was a revelation from his allah."
It doesn't. It says that previous prophets received revelation. The Qur'an nowhere names "the Bible". The revelations that are specifically mentioned are three, other than the Qur'an itself. Moses(as) was given the Thaurat. It also says that people changed the revelation, which I really don't have to elaborate on, as that is evident. Look, I actually told you not to reply.. this is why. I said it, didn't I? I anticipated more incoherent nonsense, and you deliver. How does this statement of yours relate to anything I said in my previous comment? Are you really this stupid?
"And now, he's making fun of what Moses wrote"
Did Moses(as) write that? Did he also write the parts after his death in those books? Because the books continue after mentioning that he died (peace be upon him). So who's writing there? Moses? And I'm not making fun of a prophet or the revelation that Allah gave him, I refuted your fraudulent translation. Deal with that or be quiet.
"He's complaining about which word to use."
I'm pointing out the obvious manipulation in the verse you randomly quoted. Go have a look at the actual Hebrew text then and see which translation is better. If you don't care for accuracy for when it comes to translating a book that you think has a divine source, then you're a fool.
"Yet, 7 English version of his quran uses variation of english word."
I never quoted a Quranic verse. All I did was reply to your Biblical passage. No Quranic verse was mentioned, so what's your point?
"Here's a question. Where in the quran that says Muhammad defeated satan?"
What's the significance here? Is the devil dead? The world no longer has to deal with the devil, according to you? It seems to me that you're suffering from satanic suggestions yourself. The devil lingers for as long as Allah wills it. I already showed you why the verse you brought from Genesis cannot be about Jesus(as). That's called a refutation. It means you either drop your argument, or you present a counter argument. Since you have miserably failed to defend your erroneous interpretation, then you should stop arguing over it, and stop using your forced reading of that fraudulent translation of Genesis 3:15. Logic: try it sometimes..
"Where in the quran that says your own allah defeated satan?"
The devil will end up where he's destined to go, which is hellfire. Does that answer your question? Does Gen 3:15 say that God will defeat the devil, or does it say the descendants of Eve will? Hmm? Please refrain from replying again; this isn't going to get any better for you, you know that, right? Just quit now and safe yourself further embarrassment.
Lol abukid bolted, and deleted his comments. Good riddance!
Have you ever seen or heard a father who threw his only son in front of the wheels of a car to save pedestrians ?
No but I've heard of a father who killed himself 'cause someone he knows ate an apple.
Try the father is the son and the son asked the father to save him but he died anyway.
Not yet mate🤣😂🤣😂
Jesus gave his life because he could regain it again, in your example you have not stated if the Father has power to resurrect his son, your example is far from Bible analogy...
Allah huakhbar.. Bro shamsi 💪❤️
Dam Christians why you guy's don't think.well done Br Shamsi.
Christian : hear me out people I'm going to tell lies because i want the church money so hear me out people. Even though my lies is so obvious. Even though it doesn't make senses. Even though its idiotic hear me out people yes i want my church money LMAO. welcome to Christianity
Poor guy, first day in the park and he debates with hashim, Shamsi for sure he is finish..bad experience for preacher
As Shamsi said, there's absolutely nothing in the OT that states God only forgives people because someone will come hundreds of years later to die for their sins - but instead the OT DOES say no one will pay for the sins of anyone else, it clearly states this with examples going over generations... The OT also clearly stats a son does not inherit the sin of his father and vice versa, again this is clearly stated, so the original sin is a big fat lie anyway (not that anyone who can think needs to be told this..). And if the original sin is untrue then this takes away the need for Jesus' sacrifice - and we can see it clearly for what it was - the corrupt Rabbis trying yet again to kill a Prophet of God because they disliked being told what they should or shouldn't be doing. In the OT anyone who is crucified and left over night earns the God's wrath and is cursed by the Angels, and Christians wear the crucifix around their necks in pride of this - so decieved they are.
Shamsi sended him away by canon proofing him wrong and still standing by with his ignorance
Brother shamsi is on another level. You doesnt have to debate these type of preacher because he will use emotional and silly and confusing argument beyond human logics . No universal knowledge 😂
Islam brakes the Colonial chains on your mind.
Jazaka allahu khairan brother shamsi but u don't have to debate foolish people. This guy is not even a feather weight opponent xD
1.Can Christian worship God without Jesus .
2.Christian God can't be a God without human (Jesus) .
jumping kangaroo religion sometimes said A sometimes said B.
confusing railway to Haven 😳
Lot Christian do blasphemy..even christian preachers without relise it...
Why Christian GOD PUNISHMENT Him Self.. ?? 😲😲😲 GOD is GREATER for ALL.. GREATER Punishment And GREATER FORGIVEN.. 👍😊👍
*Is he a father of aron ?*
samsi u has to calm...talk slowly too...we cannot hear well...bcause not clear english...