Marrying your children???

[laloumen]

Hello,

On your site, on the page, http://www.answering-christianity.com/x_rated.htm, you state:

"The Bible in Leviticus 20:21 allows for parents to marry their children!"

And you reference Leviticus 20:21 to support your bold assertion,

If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity;
he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.
(Lev 20:21)

But this says nothing about parents marrying children.  So where do you get the idea that the Bible in Leviticus 20:21 allows parents to marry their children?

Simply put, what you've written is not true and the Quran says, "Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and lies." Surah 40:28.

You have sinned.  But, to make things very simple, forgiveness is not possible in Islam - God cannot be merciful to you without being unjust.  How can God forgive you for your sin without ignoring your guilt?  And, if God ignores your guilt, God is unjust.  You need a Savior!  You need to turn from your sin to the Lord, because in Him there is forgiveness, through His death on the cross on your behalf.  In this way, God is both merciful and just. 

But, if you persist in rejecting Jesus Christ, you reject the only way of salvation.  And God will not forgive your sins and there is nothing you can do to earn His forgiveness.  In rejecting the only way of salvation, you reject salvation and condemn yourself to an eternity in hell. 

Turn to Christ!!  God will forgive all your sins and you can know the peace that passes all understanding.

In Christ,
Jim

[QuranSearchCom]

On your site, on the page, http://www.answering-christianity.com/x_rated.htm, you state:

"The Bible in Leviticus 20:21 allows for parents to marry their children!"

And you reference Leviticus 20:21 to support your bold assertion,

If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity;
he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.
(Lev 20:21)

But this says nothing about parents marrying children.  So where do you get the idea that the Bible in Leviticus 20:21 allows parents to marry their children?

Peace be upon you Laloumen,

Welcome to the board.  Let us read the verse in question again:

If a man marries has sex with his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity;
he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.
(Leviticus 20:21)

In the article, http://www.answering-christianity.com/abrogation_in_bible.htm#marriage_with_children, I discussed the following possible meanings for "They will be childless":

1-  Either this is a false man-made scientific statement, like many of the false scientific statements, in the Bible, where they it says that it is biologically and physiologically impossible for the man and the woman in this case to impregnate the woman and have a child.  Visit: http://www.answering-christianity.com/bible_scientific_absurdities.htm.

2-  Or GOD Almighty in this verse rejects or invalidates the parent-child relationship in this situation if it were to happen.

3-  Or it is a false man-made "prophecy" and lie on GOD Almighty's Holy Mouth by giving a promise that the man and the woman will become physiologically barren, - unable to ever produce children ever again, - whether with each others or seperate with other people.

If interpretation or meaning #2 is valid, then this means that nothing on earth could stop the biological father from marrying his biological daughter, or for the biological mother to marry her biological son - should she divorce or become a widow.

You have sinned.  But, to make things very simple, forgiveness is not possible in Islam

I have neither sinned, nor is your knowledge about Islam correct.  Go read the Glorious Quran and see the 100s of Noble Verses that speak about GOD Almighty's Forgiveness and Mercy.  Visit: http://www.answering-christianity.com/mercy_of_allah.htm.

You need a Savior!  You need to turn from your sin to the Lord, because in Him there is forgiveness, through His death on the cross on your behalf.  In this way, God is both merciful and just.

Watch Dr. Zakir Naik's debate with Pastor Rukni on "Did Jesus Christ ACTUALLY DIE on the cross?".  Dr. Zakir thoroughly demonstrated and proved from the Bible's New Testament that Christ never died on the cross, nor was he ever resurrected.  In fact, the word resurrected was never even mentioned in the NT.  It says Jesus was raised, which means he never died.  Watch the debate and see all of the NT verses that Dr. Zakir Naik gave that thoroughly demonstrated and proved this:


http://www.answering-christianity.com/was_jesus_crucified_debate_between_dr_zakir_naik_and_pastor_rukni.wmv

But, if you persist in rejecting Jesus Christ, you reject the only way of salvation.  And God will not forgive your sins and there is nothing you can do to earn His forgiveness.  In rejecting the only way of salvation, you reject salvation and condemn yourself to an eternity in hell.

I am afraid you're the one who rejects GOD Almighty and His servant and creation and Prophet and Messenger, Jesus Christ, with your idol worship of Jesus and polytheism.  Visit: http://www.answering-christianity.com/at.htm.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

[laloumen]

Your logic leaves a great deal to be desired.  You leap from point to point without any logical connection whatsoever.

There are two possibilities for the judgment in this case:

1. Either by the judgment of God they shall have no children, or
2. their spurious offspring shall be denied by human authority the ordinary privileges of children in Israel.

Your rejection of #3 by claiming that it is a "false man-made prophecy" is simply assuming the point in question, whereas the verse itself could very well mean that it is God's judgment on that couple that they will have no children together.  It doesn't say that they couldn't have children from other people.  At least, not unless you presuppose what you want to prove - which is what you've done.

But then, your further conclusion "this means that nothing on earth could stop the biological father from marrying his biological daughter" is not only irrelevant (i.e. the conclusion is not based on the premises in any way at all) it is beyond all rationality to infer that this means "the Bible allows parents to marry their children."   

And, regarding the Qu'ran speaking of forgiveness - you miss my point.  I didn't say the Qu'ran didn't speak of forgiveness.  I said that under the doctrines of Islam, God could not be both righteous and merciful because righteousness requires that sins be punished.  And when God forgives, in your view, he is not punishing sin, hence he is not righteous.  Thus, your view of God is impossible.  Islam is a false religion because the most fundamental facts about God cannot be upheld - in fact are found to be contradictory under Islam's view of God.

Have a nice day.

In Christ,
Jim

[laloumen]

"Dr. Zakir thoroughly demonstrated and proved from the Bible's New Testament that Christ never died on the cross, nor was he ever resurrected.  In fact, the word resurrected was never even mentioned in the NT.  It says Jesus was raised, which means he never died.  Watch the debate and see all of the NT verses that Dr. Zakir Naik gave that thoroughly demonstrated and proved this:"

You're kidding right?  You're going to prove from the NT that Christ was not raised from the dead?  LOL.  Is that what passes for argumentation in Islam?  I'd be ashamed to post that video on my web site if I were you.  It is laughable.

To deal with your points in reverse order: how did you come to **make up** the idea that 'raised' means that Jesus never died? 

Here are some examples where 'raised' is explicitly placed in conjunction with 'died' or 'dead' to show that your idea is untenable:

And as they were coming down the mountain,
Jesus commanded them, "Tell no one the vision,
until the Son of Man is **raised from the dead**."
(Matthew 17:9)

Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised
(Romans 8:34)

He [Jesus Christ] was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was
made manifest in the last times for the sake of you who through him are
believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory,
so that your faith and hope are in God.
(1 Peter 1:20-21)

There are dozens of such places which demonstrate the completely arbitrary assertion you are making.  Please explain how 'raised' means that Jesus never died.  That ought to be interesting!!

But as for your initial point, that 'resurrected' is never used in the NT, it is a red herring.  It is a misleading assertion.  The word 'resurrection' is used in many places.  Why not mention those places?

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God,
which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son,
who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God
in power according to the Spirit of holiness by **his resurrection from the dead**,
Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about
the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations,
(Romans 1:1-5)

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to
his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead
(1 Peter 1:3)

Wow, I wish I could have debated that man.  It would not have been a pleasant experience for him.


In Christ,
Jim

[QuranSearchCom]

Your rejection of #3 by claiming that it is a "false man-made prophecy" is simply assuming the point in question, whereas the verse itself could very well mean that it is God's judgment on that couple that they will have no children together.  It doesn't say that they couldn't have children from other people.  At least, not unless you presuppose what you want to prove - which is what you've done.

I live in the USA.  The Jewish community, nation wide, is among the most sexually open ones in the nation.  It's so bad here that Rabbies are said to have secret group sex with many of their followers.  Now, I also grant you that there are many pious Jews in the USA and around the world.

But let's be real here.  You mean to tell me that if Kim Kardashian, a former porn star and a Jew who was made famous in the US' media, slept with her sister's husband, then she'll become barren?  Or if her brother sleeps with her other brother's wife, then they'll become barren?  Leviticus 20:21 is not just speaking about GOD-fearing Jews here.  It's also speaking about loose and ill-raised ones like the example I gave.  It's talking about if a brother has sex with his brother's wife.  This is something that is never approved for pious people to do, as you know.

As to Jesus resurrecting from the dead point, again, please do listen to the debate.  Dr. Zakir proved that the translation is actually "raised", and the word doesn't mean coming back to life from death.  Even the pastor that was debating him was silenced on many of the points that were given by Dr. Zakir Naik.  It's not as simple and shallow as you think.  Like you, I had my doubts, but when I saw the debate, I was really amazed.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

[laloumen]

The verse doesn't say anything about barrenness in general.  It speaks specifically of the possibility of children for those two sinners.  God's judgment is that they will not have children from their relationship.  I'm not sure why you're harping on this text so much.  It's not complicated.  Even if you could demonstrate a case in which their was such a union producing children, besides merely **supposing** what you want to prove, it doesn't mean anything because the verse could just mean that the children would not be counted as children under the Mosaic law.

But, that God does render such judgment is clear from Scripture.  For instance, David's child with Bathsheba was not permitted to live:

But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again?
I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.
(2 Samuel 12:23)

and the woman of Thyatira spoken of in Rev 2,

and I will strike her children dead.
(Revelation 2:23)

This has nothing to do with becoming barren, necessarily.  There are other ways to be childless, as is seen above. 

But it is clear that this verse doesn't even remotely support your assertion, that "the Bible in Leviticus 20:21 allows for parents to marry their children!"  Your logic is simply atrocious - actually, no, there is no logic in what you say - you simply make an assertion with no support at all. 

I don't know if you read Greek but I do - or if you simply naively accept what you hear but I don't.  The word ἐγείρω transliterated EGEIRW can mean to resurrect, as in the following verses: Mat 11:11, Mat 12:42, Mat 14:2, Mat 24:7, Mat 24:11, Mat 26:32, Mat 26:46, Mat 27:63, Mat 27:64, Mat 28:6, Mat 28:7, Mar 4:27, Mar 6:14, Mar 6:16, Mar 10:49, Mar 12:26, Mar 13:8, Mar 13:22, Mar 14:28, Mar 14:42, Mar 16:6, Mar 16:14, Luk 5:23, Luk 6:8, Luk 7:16, Luk 9:7, Luk 11:8, Luk 11:31, Luk 13:25, Luk 21:10, Luk 24:6, Luk 24:34, Joh 2:22, Joh 5:8, Joh 13:4, Joh 21:14, Rom 8:34, 1Co 15:4, 1Co 15:12, 1Co 15:13, 1Co 15:14, 1Co 15:15, 1Co 15:16, 1Co 15:20, 1Co 15:29, 1Co 15:32, 2Co 5:15, Rev 11:1.

In addition to EGEIRW, the Bible commonly uses ANASTASIS in such phrases as ἀναστασις ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν (ANASTASIS EK TWN NEKRWN) resurrection from the dead, and speaks of Christ's resurrection from the dead.  For instance,

And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the
resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.
(Acts 4:33 ESV)

In addition, the word EGEIRW and ANASTATIS are used synonymously, as in the following:

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead,
how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
(1 Cor 15:12)

The logic is clear - that if Christ is raised from the dead, then there is a resurrection from the dead.  This statement requires that being raised from the dead is the same as the resurrection from the dead.  So, there is simply no force whatsoever to Dr. Zakir's ludicrous attempts to prove his point from the Bible.  It is a laughable argument which deceives only those who do not take the time to think for themselves.

And where is your response about the impossibility of God being both righteous and merciful in Islam?  It is a crushing fact, no doubt, but I had hoped you would pose some sort of defense.

In Christ,
Jim Beale

[Egyptian]

And where is your response about the impossibility of God being both righteous and merciful in Islam?  It is a crushing fact, no doubt, but I had hoped you would pose some sort of defense.

In Christ,
Jim Beale

dear Jim , that point "God being both just and merciful " has nothing to do with the thread topic .... so plz start a new thread if you wish, on that matter ....
and I will be there to show you how you poisoned your own well.

regards

[Antiaparteid]

All I can say is... This thread is sinful. It just is. How can can you swist the bible like that? How can you draw such far-fetched conclusions? No wonder Christians also say disgusting things about islam and muslims! They learn from the best. Congrantulations. You've really managed to make things worse between muslims and christians. You've totally destroyed your credibility. I don't think many people will take your site "answering christianity" seriously. It's just getting ridiculous.

[QuranSearchCom]

Peace be upon you Jim,

Do you honestly believe that putting someone like Jesus Christ on the cross for 3 hours only, - a person who was able to fast for 40 days without eating anything, - and expect him to die?

And again, the NT is clear that Christ was ALIVE in the tomb.  Listen to the debate, and please respond to Dr. Zakir Naik's points, directly.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

[m2ariman]

All I can say is... This thread is sinful. It just is. How can can you swist the bible like that? How can you draw such far-fetched conclusions? No wonder Christians also say disgusting things about islam and muslims! They learn from the best. Congrantulations. You've really managed to make things worse between muslims and christians. You've totally destroyed your credibility. I don't think many people will take your site "answering christianity" seriously. It's just getting ridiculous.

Learn history. Who started it first?

-----

"But, to make things very simple, forgiveness is not possible in Islam - God cannot be merciful to you without being unjust.  How can God forgive you for your sin without ignoring your guilt?  And, if God ignores your guilt, God is unjust.  You need a Savior!  You need to turn from your sin to the Lord, because in Him there is forgiveness, through His death on the cross on your behalf.  In this way, God is both merciful and just.  "

"God cannot be merciful without being unjust." Says who? Are you God?
The fact that you are alive even after making that statement is the whole reason why God is merciful.

How can a God who sent his only son to commit suicide and yet cried for his father's help be a merciful and just God?

You call killing your Only PIOUS son for the sake of other SINFUL people just and merciful?

Have you no sense?

Why do God need a son anyways?

What guilt? You might wanna start a new thread on this.

-----

If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity;
he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.
(Lev 20:21)

Read Deut Chpt 25.

 "If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6 The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

7 However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.” 8 Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,” 9 his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line.” 10 That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled."

READ THIS TOO!

Also from Deut. Chpt 25

"11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, 12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."

Speaks for itself.

So, should the brother marry his brother's wife or not?

[laloumen]

Peace be upon you Jim,

Do you honestly believe that putting someone like Jesus Christ on the cross for 3 hours only, - a person who was able to fast for 40 days without eating anything, - and expect him to die?

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

First, you need to get your facts straight!  Jesus was not only three hours on the cross.  Mark wrote:

And it was the third hour when they crucified him.
(Mark 15:25)

And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
"Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God,
my God, why have you forsaken me?'
(Mark 15:34)

That is six hours.  And that was on top of the scourging and other abuse which obviously caused Him to lose a tremendous amount of blood.

Isaiah wrote of Him (about 700 years earlier) that

his appearance was so marred, beyond human semblance,
and his form beyond that of the children of mankind—
(Isaiah 52:14)

The type of beating to which Jesus was subjected was so severe that at times people would not even live through it to be crucified.  But Jesus did survive, as we read, and did go on to be crucified, although he collapsed while carrying the cross from the beating and the loss of blood. 

You haven't apparently bothered to do any independent thinking on this - I suppose you're just parroting what others have said without really thinking.  Be that as it may, I still need to answer your question/objection. 

The simple fact is that the Lord Jesus **willingly** laid down His life --

No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord.
I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again.
This charge I have received from my Father.
(John 10:18)

When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, "It is finished,"
and he bowed his head and **gave up his spirit**.
(John 19:30)

Why should He suffer beyond what was necessary to complete the work set out for Him to accomplish?  For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.  But those who do not believe are condemned already because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

He was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
(Isaiah 53:5)

He was not pierced for His own transgressions, as He had committed none.  He was not crushed for His own iniquities, as He had none.  He was crushed for the transgressions of others, as a Substitute - and when the penalty for those transgressions had been fully borne, He cried "it is finished" and gave up His Spirit.  Should he suffer needlessly?  So when His work was accomplished, He allowed Himself to die.

Peace be upon you Jim,

And again, the NT is clear that Christ was ALIVE in the tomb.  Listen to the debate, and please respond to Dr. Zakir Naik's points, directly.

Take care,
Osama Abdallah

First, the NT is clear that He died and was dead when He was laid in the tomb.  If you think that those Roman soldiers couldn't tell when a person was dead, you're sadly mistaken.  How many deaths had they witnessed do you suppose?  Hundreds?  Thousands?  They were perfectly capable of telling when a man was dead, as we read:

But when they came to Jesus and saw that **he was already dead**,
they did not break his legs. But one of the soldiers pierced his side
with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.
(John 19:33-34)

The piercing of the side of Christ obviously penetrated to the heart and the fact that water and blood came out is clear proof that he was already dead. 

But, in saying that the NT is clear that Christ was ALIVE in the tomb is patently ridiculous.  I suppose you will bring up Jonah at this point?  I will just be blunt - Dr. Naik's arguments are genuinely dumb.  But, if you're so keen on trying to prove your point, feel free to post what you think is the best of his arguments and we can discuss it.


In Christ,
Jim

[laloumen]

"But, to make things very simple, forgiveness is not possible in Islam - God cannot be merciful to you without being unjust.  How can God forgive you for your sin without ignoring your guilt?  And, if God ignores your guilt, God is unjust.  You need a Savior!  You need to turn from your sin to the Lord, because in Him there is forgiveness, through His death on the cross on your behalf.  In this way, God is both merciful and just.  "

"God cannot be merciful without being unjust." Says who? Are you God?

The fact that you are alive even after making that statement is the whole reason why God is merciful.

The problem is that in order for Allah to remain perfectly just and righteous, sin must be punished. If all men are sinful and have committed sin, and Allah is infinite and perfect in his attributes, there can be no mercy. For mercy then would function as a negation of his justice. This leads to the inevitable conclusion that in order for Allah to be both merciful (in the Quranic sense of ignoring the sins of some) and just, he must be an arbitrary and changing being - which is to say, that God, in the Islamic conception of God, does not and cannot exist.

Christianity does not have this problem.

For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had
passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time,
so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
(Romans 3:22-26)

Here is no arbitrary God!  Here is a God who is righteous and merciful.  He is **both** JUST and the ONE WHO JUSTIFIES those who place their trust in Christ. 

Here is reason to trust in Christ!!

Think about it.

In Christ,
Jim

[Final Overture]

Wow, really? Let's see:
Psalms 145:8 The LORD is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.
2 Thessalonians 1:6 God is just
And
Isaiah 6:6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. 7 And he touched my mouth and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for.”

[laloumen]

Wow, really? Let's see:
Psalms 145:8 The LORD is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.
2 Thessalonians 1:6 God is just
And
Isaiah 6:6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. 7 And he touched my mouth and said: "Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for".

It's not clear what your point is.  The first two verses are clear and simple but the latter verse clearly shows the need of an atonement. 

You know that he [Jesus Christ] appeared in order
to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
(1 John 3:5)

The types and foreshadowings of the OT pointed to, looked forward to, the work of Christ.  Those things did not have efficacy in and of themselves but only by virtue of their connection with Christ's sacrifice. 

Then one of the seraphim flew to me,
having in his hand a burning coal that he
had taken with tongs from the altar.
And he touched my mouth and said:
"Behold, this has touched your lips;
your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for."
(Isaiah 6:6-7)

This does not mean, that the fire from the altar had any physical effect to purify him from sin, but that it was emblematic of such a purifying; and probably, also, the fact that it was taken from the altar of sacrifice, was to him an indication that he was pardoned through the “atonement,” or expiation there made. The Jews expected pardon in no other mode than by sacrifice; and the offering on their altar pointed to the great sacrifice which was to be made on the cross for the sins of human beings. There is here a beautiful union of the truths respecting sacrifice. The great doctrine is presented that it is only by sacrifice that sin can be pardoned; and the Messiah, the sacrifice himself, is exhibited as issuing the commission to Isaiah to go and declare his message to people.

And, as a matter of interest to Muslims, John writes that what Isaiah saw was the preincarnate Christ:

Isaiah said these things because he saw his [Christ's] glory and spoke of him.
(John 12:41)

where Isaiah wrote:

And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips,
and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have
seen the King, the LORD of hosts!"
(Isaiah 6:5 ESV)

Thus, here is a declaration of the Deity of Christ - Isaiah calls him Jehovah and John says that Isaiah saw Christ's glory and spoke of HIM.  Thus, the efficacy of the burning coal is in the certain foreknowledge of Christ's own work by Him.

This is all straightforward.  However, it merely points out the utter lack of an atonement in Islam.  And, without an atonement, Allah cannot be righteous under Islam and forgive sins.  In order to be merciful, Allah must simply **ignore** the guilt of the guilty, and this makes Allah unrighteous in being merciful.  Thus, the Islamic view of God is false.

In Christ,
Jim

[Final Overture]

Wow, really? Let's see:
Psalms 145:8 The LORD is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.
2 Thessalonians 1:6 God is just
And
Isaiah 6:6 Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. 7 And he touched my mouth and said: "Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for".

It's not clear what your point is.  The first two verses are clear and simple but the latter verse clearly shows the need of an atonement. 

You know that he [Jesus Christ] appeared in order
to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
(1 John 3:5)

The types and foreshadowings of the OT pointed to, looked forward to, the work of Christ.  Those things did not have efficacy in and of themselves but only by virtue of their connection with Christ's sacrifice. 

Then one of the seraphim flew to me,
having in his hand a burning coal that he
had taken with tongs from the altar.
And he touched my mouth and said:
"Behold, this has touched your lips;
your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for."
(Isaiah 6:6-7)

This does not mean, that the fire from the altar had any physical effect to purify him from sin, but that it was emblematic of such a purifying; and probably, also, the fact that it was taken from the altar of sacrifice, was to him an indication that he was pardoned through the “atonement,” or expiation there made. The Jews expected pardon in no other mode than by sacrifice; and the offering on their altar pointed to the great sacrifice which was to be made on the cross for the sins of human beings. There is here a beautiful union of the truths respecting sacrifice. The great doctrine is presented that it is only by sacrifice that sin can be pardoned; and the Messiah, the sacrifice himself, is exhibited as issuing the commission to Isaiah to go and declare his message to people.

And, as a matter of interest to Muslims, John writes that what Isaiah saw was the preincarnate Christ:

Isaiah said these things because he saw his [Christ's] glory and spoke of him.
(John 12:41)

where Isaiah wrote:

And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips,
and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have
seen the King, the LORD of hosts!"
(Isaiah 6:5 ESV)

Thus, here is a declaration of the Deity of Christ - Isaiah calls him Jehovah and John says that Isaiah saw Christ's glory and spoke of HIM.  Thus, the efficacy of the burning coal is in the certain foreknowledge of Christ's own work by Him.

This is all straightforward.  However, it merely points out the utter lack of an atonement in Islam.  And, without an atonement, Allah cannot be righteous under Islam and forgive sins.  In order to be merciful, Allah must simply **ignore** the guilt of the guilty, and this makes Allah unrighteous in being merciful.  Thus, the Islamic view of God is false.

In Christ,
Jim

It's not clear what your point is.

Some sins were forgiven, even though there was no savior.

You know that he [Jesus Christ] appeared in order
to take away sins, and in him there is no sin.
(1 John 3:5)

Why did he break the Sabbath day, then?

And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips,
and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have
seen the King, the LORD of hosts!"
(Isaiah 6:5 ESV)

Thus, here is a declaration of the Deity of Christ - Isaiah calls him Jehovah and John says that Isaiah saw Christ's glory and spoke of HIM.  Thus, the efficacy of the burning coal is in the certain foreknowledge of Christ's own work by Him.

Hm, really? I don't find Jesus there. Look closely: "for my eyes have
seen the King, the LORD of hosts!"
And the very first verse: In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple.
John lived at the time of King Uzziah?