I
inJESUS
Guest
to make a long story short, the Dead Sea Scrolls prove we have the same OT…maybe you can refute history and archeology ?thx
- Status
I
inJESUS
Guest
it seems you read the read part of this passage and stopped there.
Can you prove to me, without a shadow of a doubt that you have absolutly the same quran as the one burnt by Uthman? if the original quran were burnt, then i wont believe you have the same one until you find one of Uthman’s copies that “slipped” out of fire.
And you did not answer my question : do you find any difference in these 2 sentences?
Alwaladu katala
Alwaladu kutila
G
George_Waters
Guest
I am afraid you have failed to offer any evidence from the criteria I requested. By posting on this thread you agreed to follow the stated criterion. You have not done so.
You claim the Bible is corrupt, but can not produce a pre-biblical source proving corruption of the Bible, you can not produce a contemporary source to the Bible proving corruption, nor can you provide a Muslim work that demonstrates each and every corruption.
The claim of biblical corruption is central to Islam, yet Islam can offer no evidence except personal opinions as you have done, the Quran which was written centuries after the Bible and attempts to prove transnational corruption based on a preconceived Islamic agenda.
After fourteen centuries Islam is still not able to prove the claim of biblical corruption. While Islamic dogma and indoctrination requires Muslims to believe that biblical corruption is indeed a fact, there is no real evidence to support this accretion.
J
Justice2006
Guest
George Waters:
It appears that you have not read the links I gave you nor the qoutes I provided from your Bibles and the Catholic Encyclopedia.
What could be best evidence other than your B]Catholic Encyclopedia in your eyes, as an independent source?
You are keep repeating like a broken record that Bible’s corruption is not proven.
If Bibles’ corruption is not proven then all Muslims (who do believe in the priniciple that previous Prophets were given Revelation from God, such as Taurait, Zaboor and Injeel), would have accepted your Bibles centuries ago.
But since your Bibles are not preserved in pure form in original text thus they are not 100% God’s/inspired Word of God, thus no two of the so-called thousands of Greek “original” manuscripts are alike besides contradictions, inconsistencies, improbabilities and scientific errors.
And I am amazed that you** either missed** the following clear admission of your own Catholic Encyclopedia regarding the alteration in the Books of New Testament, or your deliberately turning a blind eye, Here again, I qoute, in case if you really have missed it:
IV. TRANSMISSION OF THE TEXT
Dear George,
It appears that you have not read the links I gave you nor the qoutes I provided from your Bibles and the Catholic Encyclopedia.
What could be best evidence other than your B]Catholic Encyclopedia in your eyes, as an independent source?
You are keep repeating like a broken record that Bible’s corruption is not proven.
If Bibles’ corruption is not proven then all Muslims (who do believe in the priniciple that previous Prophets were given Revelation from God, such as Taurait, Zaboor and Injeel), would have accepted your Bibles centuries ago.
But since your Bibles are not preserved in pure form in original text thus they are not 100% God’s/inspired Word of God, thus no two of the so-called thousands of Greek “original” manuscripts are alike besides contradictions, inconsistencies, improbabilities and scientific errors.
And I am amazed that you** either missed** the following clear admission of your own Catholic Encyclopedia regarding the alteration in the Books of New Testament, or your deliberately turning a blind eye, Here again, I qoute, in case if you really have missed it:
IV. TRANSMISSION OF THE TEXT
** No book of ancient times has come down to us exactly as it left the hands of its author–all have been in some way altered. The material conditions under which a book was spread before the invention of printing (1440), the little care of the copyists, correctors, and glossators for the text, so different from the desire of accuracy exhibited to-day, explain sufficiently the divergences we find between various manuscripts of the same work. To these causes may be added, in regard to the Scriptures, exegetical difficulties and dogmatical controversies. To exempt the scared writings from ordinary conditions a very special providence would have been necessary, and it has not been the will of God to exercise this providence. More than 150,000 different readings have been found in the older witnesses to the text of the New Testament–which in itself is a proof that Scriptures are not the only, nor the principal, means of revelation. In the concrete order of the present economy God had only to prevent any such alteration of the sacred texts as would put the Church in the moral necessity of announcing with certainty as the word of God what in reality was only a human utterance. Let us say, however, from the start, that the substantial tenor of the sacred text has not been altered, not withstanding the uncertainty which hangs over some more or less long and more or less important historical or dogmatical passages. Moreover–and this is very important–these alterations are not irremediable; we can at least very often, by studying the variants of the texts, eliminate the defective readings and thus re-establish the primitive text. This is the object of textual criticism.**
[CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: New Testament]](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm])
[CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: New Testament]](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm#IV])
Dear george, I hope, by now you can read atleast the highlighted part of your Catholic Encyclopedia. It is not a Muslim source, it’s your own source. Also keep in mind the letters of Saint Augustine to Saint Jerome, especially this part:
**From Augustine to Jerome (A.D. 405) **
" But you [Jerome] will say it is better to believe that, the Apostle Paul wrote what was not true, than to believe that the Apostle Peter did what was not right.
On this principle, we must say (which far be it from us to say), that it is better to believe that the gospel history is false, than to believe that Christ was denied by Peter; and better to charge the book of Kings [second book of Samuel] with false statements, than believe that so great a prophet, and one so signally chosen by the Lord God as David was, committed adultery in lusting after and taking away the wife of another and committed such detestable homicide in procuring the death of her husband.
God Bless You.
[CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: New Testament]](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm])
[CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: New Testament]](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm#IV])
Dear george, I hope, by now you can read atleast the highlighted part of your Catholic Encyclopedia. It is not a Muslim source, it’s your own source. Also keep in mind the letters of Saint Augustine to Saint Jerome, especially this part:
**From Augustine to Jerome (A.D. 405) **
" But you [Jerome] will say it is better to believe that, the Apostle Paul wrote what was not true, than to believe that the Apostle Peter did what was not right.
On this principle, we must say (which far be it from us to say), that it is better to believe that the gospel history is false, than to believe that Christ was denied by Peter; and better to charge the book of Kings [second book of Samuel] with false statements, than believe that so great a prophet, and one so signally chosen by the Lord God as David was, committed adultery in lusting after and taking away the wife of another and committed such detestable homicide in procuring the death of her husband.
God Bless You.
I
inJESUS
Guest
Justice, read the full passage you provided not only the first sentence. And you did not answer my previous questions…could you answer them please?
I
inJESUS
Guest
to make you understand what i am saying, i’ll elaborate a bit more:
Are there scribal variations in the Bible? sure. Do they affect doctrine? no. Can we compare them to the original copy we have?yes. Can we spot the scribal error? yes. Did we lose the original copy from which the Hebrew & Greek Bible was translated? yes. Why? coz of persecutions and cities burning down.Is there evidences about the Bible? yes, thousands of manuscripts and archeological discoveries.
Are there scribal variations in the quran? sure; do they affect doctrine?no. Can we compare them to the original one we have?yes. did the first quran survive? no. Why? Uthman burnt it. Is there evidence about the quran? yes .
Why do you accuse us of something you can’t prove for your own book? you always say : the teachings of Jesus are lost…then prove to us the teachings of quran burnt by Uthman is exactly the same one you have now…prove to us that muslims spotted the exact millions of variations intended by Allah…can you? of course not.
Bottom line: you either believe in a God that preserves His teachings coz He wants people on the right path, or a deceiver.
The things you are pointing out so far do not prove corruption; your posts are absolutly neither a novelty nor a problem to us.Understand about the Bible first , and take off your islamic eyeglasses; the Bible is written by humans, just like the quran but the difference is that the Bible was written over a period of 2500 years, with more that 40 authors, in different places, countries, conditions and to different audiances; It traces the history of God with His people and has a unified theme… the quran was written over 23 years by one author.
Are there scribal variations in the Bible? sure. Do they affect doctrine? no. Can we compare them to the original copy we have?yes. Can we spot the scribal error? yes. Did we lose the original copy from which the Hebrew & Greek Bible was translated? yes. Why? coz of persecutions and cities burning down.Is there evidences about the Bible? yes, thousands of manuscripts and archeological discoveries.
Are there scribal variations in the quran? sure; do they affect doctrine?no. Can we compare them to the original one we have?yes. did the first quran survive? no. Why? Uthman burnt it. Is there evidence about the quran? yes .
Why do you accuse us of something you can’t prove for your own book? you always say : the teachings of Jesus are lost…then prove to us the teachings of quran burnt by Uthman is exactly the same one you have now…prove to us that muslims spotted the exact millions of variations intended by Allah…can you? of course not.
Bottom line: you either believe in a God that preserves His teachings coz He wants people on the right path, or a deceiver.
The things you are pointing out so far do not prove corruption; your posts are absolutly neither a novelty nor a problem to us.Understand about the Bible first , and take off your islamic eyeglasses; the Bible is written by humans, just like the quran but the difference is that the Bible was written over a period of 2500 years, with more that 40 authors, in different places, countries, conditions and to different audiances; It traces the history of God with His people and has a unified theme… the quran was written over 23 years by one author.
J
Justice2006
Guest
Dear inJESUS,
Few things you should keep in mind regarding the Dead sea Scrolls:
- What percentage of OT’s text is found in the text of Dead Sea Scrolls.
- Why it took decades to expose the contents of those scrolls?
(You can read the book: **Dead Sea Scrolls Deception ** by Michael Baigent & Richard Leigh) - The Text of the OT was corrupted even before the time period of Dead Sea Scrolls.
- If you think mere an old thing is a proof enough, then how about Nag Hammadi Manuscripts?
G
George_Waters
Guest
Justice2006,
You have only offered examples of what you believe proves biblical corruption from independent sources as I asked about in my initial post. The issue as I am sure you know, with modern post-biblical sources is that individual interpretation can be applied to meet a personal agenda and does not offer any documentary evidence. Pre or contemporary evidence is critical if your claim is to be taken seriously. If I were to claim the Quran has been corrupted you would expect me to show you a copy of the Quran that proves corruption, e.g. documentary evidence.
I have also asked if you can offer a pre-biblical or contemporary source to the Bible or a Muslim work proving corruption. You have not offered any evidence from any of these sources, once again documentary evidence. I must assume you do not have any documentary evidence. The Catholic Encyclopedia is not a pre-biblical source, a source contemporary to the Bible, nor is it a Muslim scholarly work. It can also be interpreted to meet a preconceived agenda. It does not offer documentary evidence.
Considering Islam has declared for fourteen centuries that the Bible is corrupt I am surprised that you can not offer any documentary evidence what so ever that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bible is corrupt. 1400 years and nothing. Kind of makes you think there isn’t anything doesn’t it?
Without documentary evidence the claim of biblical corruption can not be proven and will be viewed as nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of Muslims whose entire religion is based on the unproven supposition that the Bible is corrupt.
You have only offered examples of what you believe proves biblical corruption from independent sources as I asked about in my initial post. The issue as I am sure you know, with modern post-biblical sources is that individual interpretation can be applied to meet a personal agenda and does not offer any documentary evidence. Pre or contemporary evidence is critical if your claim is to be taken seriously. If I were to claim the Quran has been corrupted you would expect me to show you a copy of the Quran that proves corruption, e.g. documentary evidence.
I have also asked if you can offer a pre-biblical or contemporary source to the Bible or a Muslim work proving corruption. You have not offered any evidence from any of these sources, once again documentary evidence. I must assume you do not have any documentary evidence. The Catholic Encyclopedia is not a pre-biblical source, a source contemporary to the Bible, nor is it a Muslim scholarly work. It can also be interpreted to meet a preconceived agenda. It does not offer documentary evidence.
Considering Islam has declared for fourteen centuries that the Bible is corrupt I am surprised that you can not offer any documentary evidence what so ever that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bible is corrupt. 1400 years and nothing. Kind of makes you think there isn’t anything doesn’t it?
Without documentary evidence the claim of biblical corruption can not be proven and will be viewed as nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of Muslims whose entire religion is based on the unproven supposition that the Bible is corrupt.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
What of it ? How does this prove anything against the OT ? What makes you think that the scribes referred to are writing any texts now in the Bible ?
We could use the same reasoning to prove that because there are the “satanic verses” in the Koran, the whole thing is junk. It may indeed be junk - but that argument is not going to prove it. ##
This is no news at all, but the position on the authorship of these books which is most widely held by those competent to judge in such matters - and it does nothing to invalidate the text of those books, or their inspiration
And the same goes for Deuteronomy 34. It does not have to be by Moses to be canonical or inspired.The Church is not Fundamentalist - the only people these objections will upset, are Fundamentalist Christian. Most Christians, Catholic or otherwise, won’t be disturbed in the slightest.
And since the CC, like most other Churches, has no objections in principle to the use of criticism in the study of the Bible, that fact of such study is no worry either. It doesn’t matter how many authors the Biblical books have - they are still inspired by God as by their Primary Author. The first five books may have one author, three, four, 12, or twenty - it doesn’t matter.
For some reason, all Muslim objections to the Bible - such as those stated by Ahmed Deedat - are about 100 years old, or more. Muslims show no knowledge of any Biblical study later than 1900 or so: and a lot has happened since then. ##
[continued…]
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
…continued & ended]
And Catholic doctrine regarding the Bible maintains its inspiration. ##
That it is unreliable, is not so much as hinted at. We are not even told in what this unreliability consists - so, how is it unreliable ?
Which learned Muslim would that be ? The 64 editors of the NAB, with five exceptions, were Catholics; of these five, one was a Jew; the other four were Protestants.
As the NAB was sponsored by Catholic bishops, it is a very safe assumption that the translation and the notes were considered not to contradict any Catholic doctrine.And Catholic doctrine regarding the Bible maintains its inspiration. ##
J
Justice2006
Guest
George Waters:
Pre-Biblical evidence? You must be joking right? Do you realise what are you actually asking?
How can your dad tell about you being/becoming either a good or a bad boy before your birth (before you coming into physical existence from the state of nothing) ?
How can someone tell you about the corruption or non-corruption of a text, before it is coming into existence?
The only one thing a pre-Torah text can tell is, a previous God’s Revelation, prophecying about an advent of new Prophet/Messenger in order to let people prepare to accept it when it is arrived in the future.
As to a contemproray evidence, well, if a certain contemproray source **does agree ** with non-corruption of Judeo-Christian Scriptures, then that source is technically not an independent source but inherently either a pro or hidden Judeo-Christian under the garment of “independent” because the most a true independent source can agree is merely an existence of a text in his period same as you have now but without casting a verdict on the “inspirational” nature of it’s contents. So, we are again back to look for ourself whether the text itself is good-enough to be considered as inspirational.Thus this independent source is basically either not acceptable or not really helpfull to your debating opponent, as such you and your opponent have no firm common premise.
Now, if a certain contemprory independent source **does not agree ** with Biblical text’s authenticity then are you going to take it’s verdict/word more reliable than the inspired word of God by rejecting your belief in your Bible? Do you accept all Nag Hammadi manuscripts as evidence against your Bible? Do you agree with this part of The Gospel of Philip which relates,
Dear George,
Pre-Biblical evidence? You must be joking right? Do you realise what are you actually asking?
How can your dad tell about you being/becoming either a good or a bad boy before your birth (before you coming into physical existence from the state of nothing) ?
How can someone tell you about the corruption or non-corruption of a text, before it is coming into existence?
The only one thing a pre-Torah text can tell is, a previous God’s Revelation, prophecying about an advent of new Prophet/Messenger in order to let people prepare to accept it when it is arrived in the future.
As to a contemproray evidence, well, if a certain contemproray source **does agree ** with non-corruption of Judeo-Christian Scriptures, then that source is technically not an independent source but inherently either a pro or hidden Judeo-Christian under the garment of “independent” because the most a true independent source can agree is merely an existence of a text in his period same as you have now but without casting a verdict on the “inspirational” nature of it’s contents. So, we are again back to look for ourself whether the text itself is good-enough to be considered as inspirational.Thus this independent source is basically either not acceptable or not really helpfull to your debating opponent, as such you and your opponent have no firm common premise.
Now, if a certain contemprory independent source **does not agree ** with Biblical text’s authenticity then are you going to take it’s verdict/word more reliable than the inspired word of God by rejecting your belief in your Bible? Do you accept all Nag Hammadi manuscripts as evidence against your Bible? Do you agree with this part of The Gospel of Philip which relates,
"…the companion of the Savior [Jesus] is Mary Magdalene. But Christ loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples were offended… They said to him, "Why do you love her more than all of us? the Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you as I love her?"
[webcom.com/gnosis/naghamm/nhlintro.html]](http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/naghamm/nhlintro.html])
Did you see, what are you actually demanding, by ignoring/over-looking the internal evidence of what you have in your hands in the name of the Holy Bibles?
What could be the best evidence than the internal Biblical contradictions, inconsistencies, improbabilities and scientific errors against it’s corruption?
But if you like to have a meaningful debate with someone who does not believe in your scriptures, then the best independent source would be the yard stick of literal evidence or scientific evidence. which is common to both debating parties.
So either you look into the internal Biblical evidence or what your own religiously researched encyclopedia says or compare the Biiblical text with scientific facts.The internal contradictions of the Bible is an evidence of it’s corruption and the scientific errors is proof of not being from God in it;s entirety…
[webcom.com/gnosis/naghamm/nhlintro.html]](http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/naghamm/nhlintro.html])
Did you see, what are you actually demanding, by ignoring/over-looking the internal evidence of what you have in your hands in the name of the Holy Bibles?
What could be the best evidence than the internal Biblical contradictions, inconsistencies, improbabilities and scientific errors against it’s corruption?
But if you like to have a meaningful debate with someone who does not believe in your scriptures, then the best independent source would be the yard stick of literal evidence or scientific evidence. which is common to both debating parties.
So either you look into the internal Biblical evidence or what your own religiously researched encyclopedia says or compare the Biiblical text with scientific facts.The internal contradictions of the Bible is an evidence of it’s corruption and the scientific errors is proof of not being from God in it;s entirety…
J
Justice2006
Guest
Gottle of Geer:
But the doctrine of any sect/denomination/church is meaningless to it’s opponent, especially when talking/debating about the issue of “Evidence of Biblical Corruption”.
Everyone is entitiled to have his/her inherited or programmed or brainwashed opinion/faith/doctrine, as a genuine/infallible faith, regardless of its’ corruption.
Now let me qoute an another passage from the Catholic Encyclopedia about the “Books of Moses”:
But Catholic tradition does not necessarily maintain that Moses wrote **every letter of the Pentateuch ** as it is to-day, and that the work has come down to us in an absolutely unchanged form.
This rigid view of the Mosaic authorship began to develop in the eighteenth century, and practically gained the upper hand in the nineteenth. The arbitrary treatment of Scripture on the part of Protestants, and the succession of the various destructive systems advanced by Biblical criticism, caused this change of front in the Catholic camp.
In the sixteenth century Card. Bellarmine, who may be considered as a reliable exponent of Catholic tradition, expressed the opinion that Esdras had collected, readjusted, and corrected the scattered parts of the Pentateuch, and had even added the parts necessary for the completion of the Pentateuchal history (De verbo Dei, II, I; cf. III, iv).
The views of Genebrard, Pereira, Bonfrere, a Lapide, Masius, Jansenius, and of other notable Biblicists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are equally elastic with regard to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Not that they agree with the contentions of our modern Biblical criticism; but they show that to-day’s Pentateuchal problems were not wholly unknown to Catholic scholars, and that the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch as determined by the Biblical Commission is no concession forced on the Church by unbelieving Bible students.
[CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Pentateuch]](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11646c.htm])
This is what your own source is informing you and all.
God bless you.
Dear Gottle of Geer,
But the doctrine of any sect/denomination/church is meaningless to it’s opponent, especially when talking/debating about the issue of “Evidence of Biblical Corruption”.
Everyone is entitiled to have his/her inherited or programmed or brainwashed opinion/faith/doctrine, as a genuine/infallible faith, regardless of its’ corruption.
Now let me qoute an another passage from the Catholic Encyclopedia about the “Books of Moses”:
But Catholic tradition does not necessarily maintain that Moses wrote **every letter of the Pentateuch ** as it is to-day, and that the work has come down to us in an absolutely unchanged form.
This rigid view of the Mosaic authorship began to develop in the eighteenth century, and practically gained the upper hand in the nineteenth. The arbitrary treatment of Scripture on the part of Protestants, and the succession of the various destructive systems advanced by Biblical criticism, caused this change of front in the Catholic camp.
In the sixteenth century Card. Bellarmine, who may be considered as a reliable exponent of Catholic tradition, expressed the opinion that Esdras had collected, readjusted, and corrected the scattered parts of the Pentateuch, and had even added the parts necessary for the completion of the Pentateuchal history (De verbo Dei, II, I; cf. III, iv).
The views of Genebrard, Pereira, Bonfrere, a Lapide, Masius, Jansenius, and of other notable Biblicists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are equally elastic with regard to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. Not that they agree with the contentions of our modern Biblical criticism; but they show that to-day’s Pentateuchal problems were not wholly unknown to Catholic scholars, and that the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch as determined by the Biblical Commission is no concession forced on the Church by unbelieving Bible students.
[CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Pentateuch]](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11646c.htm])
This is what your own source is informing you and all.
God bless you.
J
Justice2006
Guest
Gottle of Geer:
Thus the main foundation of Trinity dogma is removed by your lastest Catholic Bible.
Did Buddhist or Jews tell the Catholic Church/Papacy to take out** 1 John 5:7** ?
God bless you.
But this New American Bible threw out the Trinity verse :1 John 5:7, just like how some other **Protestant Bibles ** too just recently have rejected as a later insertion/interpolation.\ in the main text body of the Bible.
Thus the main foundation of Trinity dogma is removed by your lastest Catholic Bible.
Did Buddhist or Jews tell the Catholic Church/Papacy to take out** 1 John 5:7** ?
God bless you.
I
inJESUS
Guest
all of it except the book of esther
great isn’t it? because it was a HUGE discovery…thousands and thousands of manusripts.
yea it talks about some catholics who tried to hide some manuscripts…this book is refuted by many books already…this book however does NOT say the Bible is not the same one we have
that was my initial point…i even have the 3 set volume of the DDS…great…proof
and based on what? the quran refutes your claim badly, but really badly and you think an old proof is irrelevant now don’t you?
thats’ archeology…it proved mohammad wrong and silenced all crtitics of the OT…
I
inJESUS
Guest
these things are adressed in the link Daniel gave…you still haven’t read it obviously…
I
inJESUS
Guest
why do u keep asking the same question? this was already answered…do you think you are bringing us some news? these muslim questions are veryyy old…they are history to us…and they don’t present any problem to us
PS: you did not adress my post, why is that? can you prove to me what i asked in it? and can you answer the comparison between the 2 different sentences? before you jump up between different ideas, answer the basic ones so that we continue arguing on the same level
G
George_Waters
Guest
Justice2006,
Yes, I do realize what I am asking. I am asking if any documents have been discovered that pre-date the books of the Bible that actually prove biblical corruption. I am not referring to a some imagined text written before Abraham or other such nonsense. My apologies if I did not make myself clear.
So what you are saying is that nothing that agrees with non-corruption of Judeo-Christian Scriptures can be trusted? Convenient for you isn’t it?
The truth of the Bible or the Quran is a matter of faith pure and simple. I believe in one faith you believe in the other. Unfortunately for you, your faith is dependent on biblical corruption. If you are going to persuade me of the truth of Islam than you will have to present me, not truth for that is God’s purgative to depart to us, but fact. For over fourteen hundred years Muslims have said the Bible is corrupt and we both know you have no facts to support that claim. You can say you have the Quran and that is all you need. That is fine for Muslims, but if you wish to make all of humanity to see the error of our ways and embrace Islam you will have to do so with your much touted Islamic logic and offer facts. The problem for you is that you have no facts.
The gospel of Phillip is not part of the Bible and does not offer any evidence that the Bible is corrupt. If anything it is it’s owe best evidence that it is not and should not be part of the Christian canon.
Internal evidence? What better way to debunk your opponent’s argument than with there own evidence, eh? You do realize that many Jews and Christians have done the same with the Quran and Muslims always cry that Jews and Christians don’t really understand the text so their conclusions are categorically false. That is why I said we would only address independent evidence. This thread will not convince either of us of the truth of the other faith; it was never intended to do so, but to offer facts.
“But if you like to have a meaningful debate with someone who does not believe in your scriptures, then the best independent source would be the yard stick of literal evidence or scientific evidence. which is common to both debating parties.” You are correct. So do you have any literal or scientific evidence, e.g. facts, or just your version of truth?
This whole discussion is about facts. You claim the Bible is corrupt, I am simply asking for your facts. Fourteen hundred years and not one fact. If you wish to futilely claim you do not have an agenda and prove to us from the Bible that it is corrupt will you offer the same courtesy when a Jew or Christian proves to you the Quran is not inspired by God? We both know the answer, so why don’t we keep our own agendas out of this?
Yes, I do realize what I am asking. I am asking if any documents have been discovered that pre-date the books of the Bible that actually prove biblical corruption. I am not referring to a some imagined text written before Abraham or other such nonsense. My apologies if I did not make myself clear.
So what you are saying is that nothing that agrees with non-corruption of Judeo-Christian Scriptures can be trusted? Convenient for you isn’t it?
The truth of the Bible or the Quran is a matter of faith pure and simple. I believe in one faith you believe in the other. Unfortunately for you, your faith is dependent on biblical corruption. If you are going to persuade me of the truth of Islam than you will have to present me, not truth for that is God’s purgative to depart to us, but fact. For over fourteen hundred years Muslims have said the Bible is corrupt and we both know you have no facts to support that claim. You can say you have the Quran and that is all you need. That is fine for Muslims, but if you wish to make all of humanity to see the error of our ways and embrace Islam you will have to do so with your much touted Islamic logic and offer facts. The problem for you is that you have no facts.
The gospel of Phillip is not part of the Bible and does not offer any evidence that the Bible is corrupt. If anything it is it’s owe best evidence that it is not and should not be part of the Christian canon.
Internal evidence? What better way to debunk your opponent’s argument than with there own evidence, eh? You do realize that many Jews and Christians have done the same with the Quran and Muslims always cry that Jews and Christians don’t really understand the text so their conclusions are categorically false. That is why I said we would only address independent evidence. This thread will not convince either of us of the truth of the other faith; it was never intended to do so, but to offer facts.
“But if you like to have a meaningful debate with someone who does not believe in your scriptures, then the best independent source would be the yard stick of literal evidence or scientific evidence. which is common to both debating parties.” You are correct. So do you have any literal or scientific evidence, e.g. facts, or just your version of truth?
This whole discussion is about facts. You claim the Bible is corrupt, I am simply asking for your facts. Fourteen hundred years and not one fact. If you wish to futilely claim you do not have an agenda and prove to us from the Bible that it is corrupt will you offer the same courtesy when a Jew or Christian proves to you the Quran is not inspired by God? We both know the answer, so why don’t we keep our own agendas out of this?
S
srp643
Guest
George - i commend you for your patience and thoughtfulness. I think we both know the answers to your original questions.
Maybe there is another way to look at this. It is my understanding that Islam reveres certain “prophets” including certain of the OT prophets revered in Catholicism. My question is, if the Bible is corrupt in the eyes of Islam, then what was the source used to establish these people as prophets? Maybe it was by word of mouth for 1500 years.
Maybe there is another way to look at this. It is my understanding that Islam reveres certain “prophets” including certain of the OT prophets revered in Catholicism. My question is, if the Bible is corrupt in the eyes of Islam, then what was the source used to establish these people as prophets? Maybe it was by word of mouth for 1500 years.
I
inJESUS
Guest
better yet, Allah allowed the corruption of his word thru 40 authors during 3500 years but did not allow the message of 1 person during 23 years to be corrupt…what kind of deity is this?
J
Justice2006
Guest
Mr. Waters,
I recommend these books:
The Bible, The Qur’an and Science
by Dr. Maurice Bucaille
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT
OF MODERN KNOWLEDGE
Translated from French
by Alastair D. Pannell and The Author
[witness-pioneer.org]](witness-pioneer.org])
witness-pioneer.org/
** What is the Origin of Man?**
The Answers of Science and the Holy Scriptures
Dr Maurice Bucaille
[witness-pioneer.org]](witness-pioneer.org])
witness-pioneer.org/[/INDENT]
.
God bless you.
I recommend these books:
The Bible, The Qur’an and Science
by Dr. Maurice Bucaille
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT
OF MODERN KNOWLEDGE
Translated from French
by Alastair D. Pannell and The Author
[witness-pioneer.org]](witness-pioneer.org])
witness-pioneer.org/
** What is the Origin of Man?**
The Answers of Science and the Holy Scriptures
Dr Maurice Bucaille
[witness-pioneer.org]](witness-pioneer.org])
witness-pioneer.org/[/INDENT]
.
God bless you.
- Status