Is Koran have more accurate prediction than Bible?

Yep. Crosses are wood which comes from trees.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/stauros.htm

Merry Christmas.

As a side note

I wonder if that's our happy little friend that was recently banned.

Jehovah's Witnesses try to shake a Christians faith by using those passages to try to confuse them. But, in the context of the Bible it's very clear that He was crucified on a cross. The reference to being hung on a tree is symbolic. I had forgotten about that curse from the OT. I had seen that years ago. It's very cool how the Bible brings everything together from the OT. This is the type of thing Jesus was probably talking to his desciples about after he was resurrected.

 

and when researched Roman history regarding their crucifixion's methods what did you find was the typical method?

Wheres your evidence that the passages to trees where metaphorically meaning crosses.

You are right.. crosses are made out of wood.. and wood comes from trees and they both contain atoms..how stupid of me not to have seen it before.

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

 

Interesting. The apostles were looking at two holes in his hand and a spear wound in his side. I guess they had no interest in the gapping hole where the stake would have impaled him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#History_of_crucifixion

Try again. Your article has no actual historical support and is pure hearsay. It also ironically contains a link

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101frs.asp

which debunks the article you link to. Historical writtings simply do not support your view.

From your link

So your article admits that the words use mean "cross" but JWs reject it because that type of thing supposedly wasn't used at the time of Jesus. No support is given for that claim. It's pure speculation with zero support. I imagine if there was historical proof of that they would have added it to the article.

 

KalvinB you seem to think we are having some kind of argument and winner will be crowned.

We're not and you're more than welcome to the crown.

 

You're right. There is no argument. There's no support for your claim besides hearsay. I've provided historical proof to support the Bible's claims that it was in fact a cross he was hung from. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clear that up for everyone. Lots of people have been fooled by your claims (by that I mean the claim that the Bible doesn't say he was crucified on a cross) in the past and hopefully anyone reading this thread won't be. Now we can all be assured in our knowledge that Christ was in fact crucified on a cross.

Whether he rose from the dead is an entirely different debate.

If you're going to spout off claims you've never investigated yourself don't be so surprised when someone does 30 minutes of research and shows your error.

 

You really think anyone else is reading your tripe? even i can't be bothered to read it.

 

mmmm tripe: Tripe is a type of edible offal made from the stomach of various domestic animals

it's his opinion...right or wrong he free to express it no?

 

Obviously. This is what got you into trouble in the first place; not bothering to read things. You not reading it is hardly an indicator of what other people are reading. Instead of whining and baselessly dismissing the information I'm posting, maybe you should take this opportunity to research your views a little more and see if you can't come up with some solid evidence to support your religion's theory.

 

you can't teach anyone anything, you can only make them think.. and some people not even that.

 

That pretty much sums it up for you. A mountain of evidence against you. No evidence supporting your view besides hearsay from your church. And you refuse to even read what's being shown to you. You'd rather plug your ears.

I actually learned quite a bit. You've obviously learned nothing and refuse to even consider what you're being told. I at least considered your view. Then I found out it was false. So now it's up to you to decide what to do. Keep believing the lies your church is telling you or do some research on your own and find out what the truth is.

If I kept telling you monkies are fish should I seriously expect you to just take my word for it? Would I be a sane person to reject facts under the guise that I can't make you think?

 

what view have i given?

- i don't go to church , no one ever said that i did.

reading is perhaps something you'd be good to practice.

 

That's makes me even more confused. Isn't it usually the church going folk that get accused on being in denial when presented with things and they refuse to acknowledge them?

I proved you wrong. I'm still waiting on an intelligent rebuttal. Or are you just going to admit that your view (suggestion, whatever that Christ didn't die on a cross) has no basis in historical fact?

 

.. i made no such claim..

having researched the historical facts of jesus. I believe he probably didn't even exist.. and if he did the bible is grossly inaccurate record of his life.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html

 

hallelughah! complience, straight on the path
Its not only that the Bible is inaccurate, its that there are so many different versions of it. How many words of God can there be? 1 most likely . 2 at a stretch, 3 if He was feeling prolific, 4 if He was feeling artistic
But 25, 50? Nah

 

That would put you in a very special category then. Very few people would say he didn't exist. By very few I mean virtually nobody. The debate is over who he was and what he did. It takes a special kind of special to deny his existance entirely.

Is that the same research that lead you to buy into the JW/Muslim version of events?

What "facts" have you found?

 

Name them.

 

I'm not sure if there are different names for the bible, usually its called The Bible

But if you walked into 5 different churches in 5 different states, you would find that the Bibles they use have inconsistencies...

 

King James Bible
Jefferson Bible
Hebrew Bible
New Revised Standard Version Bible
Golden Bible
Protestant Bible
Catholic Bible
New American Bible
The Living Bible
Vulgate Bible
Gnostic bible
Alexandrian Bible
Septuagint

Now go away.

 

it's not like the different versions have core differences, it's just the language.....the different versions are just to help people relate to the language better.

King James alone has like 3 different variations....BFD!!!

 

This is just getting lame. Lots of accusations. No concrete evidence to support their view.