Comment Left By Izrafil 2/26/06

I posted a title on this blog: "Izrafil Responds to Religion of Peace."

Izrafil again responded to my post with a huge commentary of his view of the Holy Bible. It was so large that I simply have not had the time to respond to it. Today! Yes today my friends, we tackle the misinterpretations of the Bible.

I probably will not extrapolate on all of Izrafil's misinterpretations, but enough to bring my Mohammedan friend's blood to boil. Here we go.
---------------------

Theway2k, you and I ,if ever we meet, could turn out to be best of pals. I do respect you as we are very much alike. However we may not always agree and we may not share the same point of view...

I agree with you the Holy Koran is violent at times but the Holy Bible is extremely violent. The Koran has 331 cruel and violent passages and the Bible has 837 such passages.Therefore Biblev/s Koran the Bible wins in terms of violent contents.
Bible violence range from killing of homosexuals to God ordering mothers to eat their own children...

I would ask you to take some time and read the 839 references of violence in the Bible listed here below...your comments are most welcome.

I am not even going to attempt to compare violence for violence in the Bible and the Koran. There is one major difference that makes the comparison a bad analogy. The majority of violence in the Bible is in the Old Testament. The violence that Izrafil speaks of is mostly the reporting of unrighteous acts not condoned by the True God of Abraham, Isaac (the son of promise) and Jacob.

The other acts of violence condoned by God are those that were to be carried out against peoples and nations whose sins had matured so much that judgment was their due (e.g. Sodom and Gamorrah, the heathen Arabs that murdered their children in acts idol worship and temple prostitution as an act of worship to name a few).

Koranic and Mohammed's acts of violence were not only carried out against idolators but Christians, Jews and those who simply disagreed with demonic advice from a devil pretending to be Gabriel the arch-angel.

The Acts of violence reported in the New Testament were performed by anti-Christians against Christ or the Disciples of Christ (i.e. Christians).

Genesis"God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." He purposefully designed a system that ensures the suffering and death of all his creatures, parasite and host, predator and prey. 1:31God likes Abel's dead animals better than Cain's fruits and vegetables. Why? Well, no reason is given, but it probably has something to do with the amount of pain, blood, and gore involved. 4:3-5Because God liked Abel's animal sacrifice more than Cain's vegetables, Cain kills his brother Abel in a fit of religious jealousy. 4:8God is angry. He decides to destroy all humans, beasts, creeping things, fowls, and "all flesh wherein there is breath of life." He plans to drown them all. 6:7, 17

God designed a system that was good. He said so! The test was the "Tree of Life" and the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." The first Adam could eat freely. The second Adam was commanded not to eat or his life would be cursed (i.e. spiritual death affecting physical life) and the earth itself would be cursed. In essence Adam's disobedience was a selling of the authority God had given to tend and protect the earth to Satan (Mohammed's eventual friend).

From that time forth all that Satan represented infected the creation of earth and humanity twisting the image of God in humanity and twisting the goodness of God's creation on earth.

As for Cain and Abel: Abel offered a better sacrifice. To cover the sin of Adam, blood must be offered. Life is in the blood. There was no life in Cain's offering. This is why in Temple worship the blood of bulls, goats, lamb, etc was necessary to cover the sins of man. This is also why God so love THE EARTH that He Gave His Only Begotten SON. The Blood of Jesus is the last Blood offering, offered last and once and for all for all who believe. The True Believers are not Mohammedans that to this day continue to spill blood in unrighteous causes, they are those who Believe in the Redemptive Sacrifice of Jesus Christ Savior of the World.
[See Jude 8,11; Hebrews 11:4; Leviticus 17:11; Genesis 4:3-6.]

To free Lot from captivity, Abram sends an army of slaves to pursue and smite his captors. 14:14-15God tells Abram to kill some animals for him. The needless slaughter makes God feel better. 15:9-10

How absurd is this interpretation? Anyone who reads this knows sent an army to liberate that which was stolen from him and from some heathen kings that Abraham sojourned. The kings were so grateful they were going to give Abraham some of their stuff. However, since Abraham gave glory to God, he would have none of the kings' stuff so they could not claim that they made Abraham rich. Abraham's dependance is on God.
As for your claim of the needless slaughter of animals, Arabs sacrificed animals as well, knowing that life is in the blood. If Mohammedans do not understand that now it is because Mohammed stole and warped the Christian practice of no more blood sacrifice. Christians have the once and for all sacrifice blood of Christ. I have no idea why Mohammed ended blood sacrifice, but I am certain it was some inticement to get Jews and Christians to join his merry band of death cultists.

Hagar conceives, making Sarai jealous. Abram tells Sarai to do to Hagar whatever she wants. "And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled." 16:6

Actually if you read the Bible, Sarai knows the promise to God about a male heir. Sarah figures she is past the age of conception, so hands over her handmaiden Hagar to produce an heir. A common practice back in those days. However the Promise is to Sarai and Abram, who become Sarah and Abaham. Sarah does conceive and has the child of Promise, making Ismael the child of the slave woman Hagar. Just so there is no misunderstanding who is going to the heir - child of Promise or the child of the slave woman - God tells Abraham to listen to Sarah. Sarah says adios muchacha, your son will not be the heir.

Lot refuses to give up his angels to the perverted mob, offering his two "virgin daughters" instead. He tells the bunch of angel rapers to "do unto them [his daughters] as is good in your eyes." This is the same man that is called "just" and "righteous" in 2 Pet.2:7-8. 19:7-8God kills everyone (men, women, children, infants, newborns) in Sodom and Gomorrah by raining "fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven." Well, almost everyone -- he spares the "just and righteous" Lot and his family. 19:24Lot's nameless wife looks back, and God turns her into a pillar of salt. 19:26

A Christian's justification and righteousness is not his own, these are positions that exist because of the Saving Blood of Christ. A human's own righteousness is as filthy rags, it is the imputed Righteousness in Christ that a Believer receives Justification and Righteousness. In the same way Abraham prayed for wicked Sodom and Gomorrah would be saved from destruction. Abraham prayed a stay of execution if at least 10 people living in the area had the imputation of Righteousness. Lot called on the name of the same Lord that Abraham did. Abraham's prayers and Lot's faith placed him in the "position" of justification and righteousness.
Lot's two daughters and his wife could have benefitted for familial reasons. Of course there were not 10 righteous people and the Angels delivered Lot, wife and two daughters from the destruction for very wicked living. Unfortunately for Lot's wife, her act of looking back was an act of longing for the wicked lifestyle. Boom - the unrighteousness of her longing turned her to salt.

"And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds.)"—2 Pet. 2: 7, 8

Peter’s evaluation of Lot, despite his history, was that
he was "just" and had a "righteous soul." Noting Lot’s involvement with the Sodomites, he assures us that this was vexing to his soul. It is worthy of note that the word translated "vexed" in verse 7 is very different from the one
translated "vexed" in verse 8.

Both the New International Version and the Revised Version translate verse 7 with the word "distressed." Lot was distressed with the unrighteous acts of his neighbors. He did not agree with them. He probably sought his judgeship with a hope of reforming the city, perhaps enacting a more strict legal code on moral matters.

The word "vexed," however, in verse 8, comes from the Greek basanizo, a word often translated "torment:" but which, according to Strong’s Concordance, meant literally "a touch stone." A touch stone was used in gold mining, to assay the gold content of ore. The ore was rubbed against the stone and, if containing gold, would leave streaks of gold on the touch stone. Idiomatically, it came to signify a "putting to the
test, an investigation, to assay or assess."

The thought, then, in our text, is that, being distressed with the unrighteousness surrounding him, Lot’s soul was put to the test. How would he react. Would he seek to reform, or would he flee? It was, indeed, a vexing question.

Thus, in spite of the deterioration of Lot’s faith and his continuing association with the Sodomites. he earns Peter’s
judgment as "just" and "righteous." But, as the story shows, being righteous does not necessarily mean being right. His righteousness related to his heart intents. They were good. He was vexed, distressed, by the wickedness which surrounded him. But his decisions were not right. (Righteous
Lot )

The key is position not acts.

After Judah pays Tamar for her services, he is told that she "played the harlot" and "is with child by whoredom." When Judah hears this, he says, "Bring her forth, and let her be burnt." 38:24

Jewish law said if a husband died and the husband had a brother or next of kin, that brother or next of kin would conceive a child in the dead kin's name, ergo an heir would continue. Tamar went through two of Judah's sons and the next was too young. When the youngest became of age Judah ignored Tamar. So Tamar disguised herself as a harlot and had relations with Judah. When Judah heard Tamar was pregnant he did not know he was daddy. So Judah ordered her execution for harlotry. Then Tamar showed Judah he was the dad. That shamed Judah because his dead children were not provided and heir. Incidently the moral of that story is that Jesus Christ is a direct descendant of Judah and Tamar. Once again proving righteousness is not inherent in humanity but in the Redeeming Blood of Christ.

Moses murders an Egyptian after making sure that no one is looking. 2:11-12

Yeah this is the last one I am commenting on because this is the classic example of the absurdity of Izrafils comparisons. Moses murders the Egyptian because the Egyptian was beating a Hebrew. If Moses had not intervened the Egyptian would have murdered the Hebrew. This act became public knowledge among the Hebrews. One day two Hebrews were having a dispute. Moses intervened on the side of the good Hebrew. The bad Hebrew said, "What are you going to do? Kill me as you did the Egyptian?" This is when Moses realized he had acted ahead of his time. Moses fled to the desert for 40 years. Came back under the power of God and delivered the Hebrews from hard bondage under Pharaoh and Egypt.

Now the Koran comparably is all about murdering righteous people that disagreed with Mohammed. About Mohammed breaking treatied with the lame excuse of infidel non-believers. About plunder and rape and pillage for the psuedo-prophet Mohammed. Yeah, no compare there!