I
inJESUS
Guest
Justice, Bucaille is a joke…read the link given by Daniel …you’ll realize what kind of huge fallacies he made…seriously, he is no scholar but a pretendant…
- Status
A
amgid
Guest
I know why the Catholics have written these things in their books and encyclopedias. They have done it in order to counter the protestants’ emphasis on Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone). One of the major differences between Protestants and Catholics is that the Catholics believe in both scripture as well as (Catholic) tradition to be the authoritative sources of Christian doctrine (something similar to Koran and Sunnah, or Koran and Hadith in Islam); whereas the Protestants believe in scripture alone, and reject the tradition altogether. The Catholics have written these things in order to say that the Bible alone is not a reliable guide for extracting Christian doctrine; therefore you must augment it with (Catholic) Tradition in order to be able to obtain the full benefit of true Christian doctrine. What they don’t realize is that by so doing, they have pulled the rug from under their own feet by exposing themselves to the kind of criticism that you are now leveling against them. Well, you will be interested to know that there is an answer to that! I guess it takes a Mormon to come and pull them out of the hole that they have dug for themselves.
So allow me to tell you that the answer to that is.(Continued in the next post…)
amgid
A
amgid
Guest
(Continued from the previous post…)
All ancient manuscripts necessarily have variations among them. This is almost without exception. The only time when we don’t see variations is when only one copy has survived of an ancient manuscript. But in the majority of cases, more than one copy of a manuscript has survived, and these copies inevitably have variant texts. This is because in those days printing presses did not exist, and everything had to be copied by hand; and when people copy things by hand they tend to make mistakes. But this does not mean that these ancient documents are rendered completely useless just because there are variations in them. It is the job of modern scholars to collate and examine these variant texts, and extract from them, using some basic common sense criteria, what appears to be the closest thing to what the author of the original manuscript must have intended. The more of these variant texts have survived, the easier it becomes for scholars to get closer to the intent of the original author. So the number of variant texts becomes an asset in this research and reconstruction, not a liability. The more of them we have the better.
Let me illustrate my point with an example. Plato’s Republic is a very ancient book, even older than the New Testament. It has also been an enormously influential book in the history of the world. It has the profoundest influence in the thoughts and actions of mankind of all generations since it was written. It has even had an influence in the writing of the American Constitution. Now the origins of this book have been lost in antiquity. It is certain that the “Republic” that we now have is not identical to the one that Plato wrote down. The oldest manuscripts that have survived date from a much later period that when book was originally written, and there are variations in the existing manuscripts. Does that mean that Plato’s Republic is therefore a useless book? I think not! Suppose you took a philosophy course at the university, and when your processor of philosophy was lecturing on Plato’s Republic, you said to him, “You bring me the exact words of what Plato originally wrote down, and I will believe what you are telling me about Plato now”! I think that if you said that, your professor would look at you with funny eyes, and think that you had gone a bit up the creek. Well that is exactly what you are doing to the Christians with your objections to the Bible.
Even the Koran has had variant texts. The only difference is that you have destroyed all your variant texts, and the Christians haven’t! So how does that make the Koran superior to the Bible? I don’t see the logic in that. I can also turn your own logic around to you and say: “You show me the original words of the Prophet Mohamed, and I will prove to you that Islam was originally a Christian sect, and afterwards the Caliphate changed it to turn it into a separate and independent non Christian religion”. What is your answer to that? Whatever answer you give, I can always say, “Well you have destroyed all your variant texts, therefore we have no know way of knowing”.
So the bottom line here is not whether there are variant texts or not. Of course there are variant texts. There are always variant texts. But that is not the real issue here. The real issue is whether those variant texts support the Koranic version of events or not. That is the crux of the whole matter. And the answer to that of course is negative. There is nothing in the biblical variant texts to support the specific Koranic claims about the Bible. The Koran doesn’t just say there are variant texts in the Bible. It make specific claims about how the Bible have been altered. These claims strike at the most fundamental tenets of Christian belief. They are as follows:
amgid
All ancient manuscripts necessarily have variations among them. This is almost without exception. The only time when we don’t see variations is when only one copy has survived of an ancient manuscript. But in the majority of cases, more than one copy of a manuscript has survived, and these copies inevitably have variant texts. This is because in those days printing presses did not exist, and everything had to be copied by hand; and when people copy things by hand they tend to make mistakes. But this does not mean that these ancient documents are rendered completely useless just because there are variations in them. It is the job of modern scholars to collate and examine these variant texts, and extract from them, using some basic common sense criteria, what appears to be the closest thing to what the author of the original manuscript must have intended. The more of these variant texts have survived, the easier it becomes for scholars to get closer to the intent of the original author. So the number of variant texts becomes an asset in this research and reconstruction, not a liability. The more of them we have the better.
Let me illustrate my point with an example. Plato’s Republic is a very ancient book, even older than the New Testament. It has also been an enormously influential book in the history of the world. It has the profoundest influence in the thoughts and actions of mankind of all generations since it was written. It has even had an influence in the writing of the American Constitution. Now the origins of this book have been lost in antiquity. It is certain that the “Republic” that we now have is not identical to the one that Plato wrote down. The oldest manuscripts that have survived date from a much later period that when book was originally written, and there are variations in the existing manuscripts. Does that mean that Plato’s Republic is therefore a useless book? I think not! Suppose you took a philosophy course at the university, and when your processor of philosophy was lecturing on Plato’s Republic, you said to him, “You bring me the exact words of what Plato originally wrote down, and I will believe what you are telling me about Plato now”! I think that if you said that, your professor would look at you with funny eyes, and think that you had gone a bit up the creek. Well that is exactly what you are doing to the Christians with your objections to the Bible.
Even the Koran has had variant texts. The only difference is that you have destroyed all your variant texts, and the Christians haven’t! So how does that make the Koran superior to the Bible? I don’t see the logic in that. I can also turn your own logic around to you and say: “You show me the original words of the Prophet Mohamed, and I will prove to you that Islam was originally a Christian sect, and afterwards the Caliphate changed it to turn it into a separate and independent non Christian religion”. What is your answer to that? Whatever answer you give, I can always say, “Well you have destroyed all your variant texts, therefore we have no know way of knowing”.
So the bottom line here is not whether there are variant texts or not. Of course there are variant texts. There are always variant texts. But that is not the real issue here. The real issue is whether those variant texts support the Koranic version of events or not. That is the crux of the whole matter. And the answer to that of course is negative. There is nothing in the biblical variant texts to support the specific Koranic claims about the Bible. The Koran doesn’t just say there are variant texts in the Bible. It make specific claims about how the Bible have been altered. These claims strike at the most fundamental tenets of Christian belief. They are as follows:
- That Jesus was not the Son of God.
- That He was not a divine being.
- That He did not dies on the cross.
- That He did not atone for the sins of the world (by His death).
- That He was not resurrected (since He never died).
amgid
A
amgid
Guest
(Continued from the previous post…)
Well the variant texts of the Bible do not support any of these claims. On the contrary, these basic doctrines so overwhelmingly permeate the very fiber of the NT that it is impossible to presume that they are mere interpolations. As an example, take one of these basic tenets, His resurrection, and see how that doctrine permeates the NT:
Matt. 16:21 (17:23; 20:19; Mark 9:31; 10:34; Luke 18:33; 1 Cor. 15:4); killed, and be raised again the third day
Matt. 26:32 after I am risen again, I will go … into Galilee
Matt. 28:6 (Luke 24:6) not here: for he is risen
Mark 16:9 when Jesus was risen early the first day
Luke 24:39 a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have
Luke 24:46 it behoved Christ … to rise from the dead
John 2:19 Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it
John 10:17 lay down my life, that I might take it again
John 11:25 I am the resurrection, and the life
John 20:20 he shewed unto them his hands and his side
John 20:27 reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side
Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion
Acts 1:22 John … a witness with us of his resurrection
Acts 2:32 this Jesus hath God raised up
Acts 10:40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly
Acts 26:23 (D&C 18:12) first that should rise from the dead
Rom. 6:9 Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more
1 Cor. 15:22 in Christ shall all be made alive
Col. 1:18 firstborn from the dead
2 Tim. 2:8 Jesus Christ … was raised from the dead
Rev. 1:5 Jesus Christ … the first begotten of the dead
Rev. 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead
For that argument to be valid, all of these passages must be interpolations. Well there is no internal or external evidence for this. On the contrary, the internal consistency of all these passages taken together only supports and reinforces the conviction that they are original and genuine part of the NT texts. Was Paul lying when he testified that Jesus appeared to him after His resurrection, and to many others besides:
1 Corinthians 15:
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
What internal or external evidence do you have that all of these passages are corruptions or interpolations of biblical texts? The answer is none. The mere fact that there are variant texts does not in itself prove any such thing. The only way that you could make that claim would be if there were significant variant texts that actually omit or give varied accounts of all these same passages, which of course is not the case. To make that claim otherwise would be like saying that Plato’s Republic is worthless because there are variant texts. Well nobody is going to accept that. Therefore all the claims to biblical corruptions do not stand up to proper scrutiny. This is not to say that no corruptions have taken place. They have. But that is not the issue here. The issue is whether there is any evidence to support the Koranic version of events describing the kinds of changes that are claimed to have been made. The answer to that is a simple No. There is no such evidence. And that is the essence of the whole argument.
amgid
Well the variant texts of the Bible do not support any of these claims. On the contrary, these basic doctrines so overwhelmingly permeate the very fiber of the NT that it is impossible to presume that they are mere interpolations. As an example, take one of these basic tenets, His resurrection, and see how that doctrine permeates the NT:
Matt. 16:21 (17:23; 20:19; Mark 9:31; 10:34; Luke 18:33; 1 Cor. 15:4); killed, and be raised again the third day
Matt. 26:32 after I am risen again, I will go … into Galilee
Matt. 28:6 (Luke 24:6) not here: for he is risen
Mark 16:9 when Jesus was risen early the first day
Luke 24:39 a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have
Luke 24:46 it behoved Christ … to rise from the dead
John 2:19 Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it
John 10:17 lay down my life, that I might take it again
John 11:25 I am the resurrection, and the life
John 20:20 he shewed unto them his hands and his side
John 20:27 reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side
Acts 1:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion
Acts 1:22 John … a witness with us of his resurrection
Acts 2:32 this Jesus hath God raised up
Acts 10:40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly
Acts 26:23 (D&C 18:12) first that should rise from the dead
Rom. 6:9 Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more
1 Cor. 15:22 in Christ shall all be made alive
Col. 1:18 firstborn from the dead
2 Tim. 2:8 Jesus Christ … was raised from the dead
Rev. 1:5 Jesus Christ … the first begotten of the dead
Rev. 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead
For that argument to be valid, all of these passages must be interpolations. Well there is no internal or external evidence for this. On the contrary, the internal consistency of all these passages taken together only supports and reinforces the conviction that they are original and genuine part of the NT texts. Was Paul lying when he testified that Jesus appeared to him after His resurrection, and to many others besides:
1 Corinthians 15:
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
What internal or external evidence do you have that all of these passages are corruptions or interpolations of biblical texts? The answer is none. The mere fact that there are variant texts does not in itself prove any such thing. The only way that you could make that claim would be if there were significant variant texts that actually omit or give varied accounts of all these same passages, which of course is not the case. To make that claim otherwise would be like saying that Plato’s Republic is worthless because there are variant texts. Well nobody is going to accept that. Therefore all the claims to biblical corruptions do not stand up to proper scrutiny. This is not to say that no corruptions have taken place. They have. But that is not the issue here. The issue is whether there is any evidence to support the Koranic version of events describing the kinds of changes that are claimed to have been made. The answer to that is a simple No. There is no such evidence. And that is the essence of the whole argument.
amgid
G
George_Waters
Guest
Yes, you have recommended them several times. Thank you.
The bottom line is you as a Muslim can not provide me any evidence. What happened to this much touted Islam logic and simplicity we hear so much about? Why can’t you simply answer my questions or provide me with concrete evidence? You are saying the Bible is corrupt, but you can not prove it. Why is that?
J
Justice2006
Guest
George Waters:
The books I reffered to you proves that Bibles are corrupted, as such they are not the Word of God nor inspire by God/Holy Spirit per se.
You want me to dump the whole websites/all the contents of those books here which proves the corruption of your BIbles?
Why don’t you go thru the books and websites I recommended you, first?
By the way what is your view on your Bible verse –Ezekiel 4:12:
12 ** And thou shalt eat it as barley bread baked under the ashes: and thou shalt cover it, in their sight, with the dung that cometh out of a man. **— From Catholics’ Douay Rheims Bible
[Douay-Rheims Bible, Ezechiel (Ezekiel) Chapter 4]](Douay-Rheims Bible, Ezechiel (Ezekiel) Chapter 4])
Would you care to check this verse in your latest Catholic BIble-The New American Bible, and see how and where it is located?
Here is the link for The New American Bible:
usccb.org/nab/bible/ezekiel/ezekiel4.htm
God bless you.
.
Dear George,
The books I reffered to you proves that Bibles are corrupted, as such they are not the Word of God nor inspire by God/Holy Spirit per se.
You want me to dump the whole websites/all the contents of those books here which proves the corruption of your BIbles?
Why don’t you go thru the books and websites I recommended you, first?
By the way what is your view on your Bible verse –Ezekiel 4:12:
12 ** And thou shalt eat it as barley bread baked under the ashes: and thou shalt cover it, in their sight, with the dung that cometh out of a man. **— From Catholics’ Douay Rheims Bible
[Douay-Rheims Bible, Ezechiel (Ezekiel) Chapter 4]](Douay-Rheims Bible, Ezechiel (Ezekiel) Chapter 4])
Would you care to check this verse in your latest Catholic BIble-The New American Bible, and see how and where it is located?
Here is the link for The New American Bible:
usccb.org/nab/bible/ezekiel/ezekiel4.htm
God bless you.
.
J
Justice2006
Guest
Dear George & inJESUS,
Douay Rheims Bible
Deuteronomy 7:26
God Bless You.
Douay Rheims Bible
Deuteronomy 7:26
26 **Neither shalt thou bring any thing of the idol into thy house, lest thou become an anathema, like it. Thou shalt detest it as dung, and shalt utterly abhor it as uncleanness and filth, because it is an anathema. **
[Douay-Rheims Bible, Deuteronomy Chapter 7]](Douay-Rheims Bible, Deuteronomy Chapter 7])
Compare this verse in the New American Bible:
The New American Bible
Deuteronomy 7:26
26 **You shall not bring any abominable thing into your house, lest you be doomed with it; loathe and abhor it utterly as a thing that is doomed. **
[usccb.org/nab/bible/deuteronomy/deuteronomy7.htm]](http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/deuteronomy/deuteronomy7.htm])
.[Douay-Rheims Bible, Deuteronomy Chapter 7]](Douay-Rheims Bible, Deuteronomy Chapter 7])
Compare this verse in the New American Bible:
The New American Bible
Deuteronomy 7:26
26 **You shall not bring any abominable thing into your house, lest you be doomed with it; loathe and abhor it utterly as a thing that is doomed. **
[usccb.org/nab/bible/deuteronomy/deuteronomy7.htm]](http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/deuteronomy/deuteronomy7.htm])
God Bless You.
G
George_Waters
Guest
Do these books prove biblical corruption by offering concrete evidence or do they simply agree with the Islamic agenda and are therefore considered proof by Muslims?
I have repeatedly requested a primary source that proves corruption, but you can not offer one. I could write a book “proving” anything you want about the Bible or the Quran for that matter, but with out a primary source no one would even give my “proof” any serious consideration… sort of like all the “proof” you have so far offered.
If there was indeed concrete evidence of biblical corruption Muslims the world over would have it all memorized and ready to share in a heartbeat, but as I have said ad nauseam in fourteen centuries – nothing!
I wonder when someone starts a thread asking for proof of corruption in the Quran will you accept the same type of “evidence” and “proof” you have offered here?
J
Justice2006
Guest
A very useful qoute:
"The most famous of all Jewish-Christian disputations was between **the apostate Jew Pablo Christiani ** and Moses Nachmanides (the Ramban).
Nachmanides argued that the central issue separating Christianity and Judaism was not the issue of Jesus’ messiahship, but whether or not Jesus was divine. There was no basis in Judaism, Nachmanides said, for believing in the divinity of the Messiah or, indeed, of any man.
To Nachmanides, it seemed most strange :
simpletoremember.com/vitals/jewsandjesus.htm
God bless you all.
.
"The most famous of all Jewish-Christian disputations was between **the apostate Jew Pablo Christiani ** and Moses Nachmanides (the Ramban).
Nachmanides argued that the central issue separating Christianity and Judaism was not the issue of Jesus’ messiahship, but whether or not Jesus was divine. There was no basis in Judaism, Nachmanides said, for believing in the divinity of the Messiah or, indeed, of any man.
To Nachmanides, it seemed most strange :
“**that the Creator of heaven and earth resorted to the womb of a certain Jewess and grew there for nine months and was born as an infant, and afterwards grew up and was betrayed into the hands of his enemies who sentenced him to death and executed him, and that afterwards… he came to life and returned to his original place. The mind of a Jew, or any other person, cannot tolerate this.” **
Nachmanides told the Spanish monarch:
“** You have listened all your life to priests who have filled your brain and the marrow of your bones with this doctrine, and it has settled with you because of that accustomed habit.”
Had King James heard these ideas propounded for the first time when he was already an adult, Nachmanides implied, he never would have accepted them. ** "
Nachmanides told the Spanish monarch:
“** You have listened all your life to priests who have filled your brain and the marrow of your bones with this doctrine, and it has settled with you because of that accustomed habit.”
Had King James heard these ideas propounded for the first time when he was already an adult, Nachmanides implied, he never would have accepted them. ** "
simpletoremember.com/vitals/jewsandjesus.htm
God bless you all.
.
I
inJESUS
Guest
Justice, why do you post the same post everywhere? one thread is not enough? and do u think i should believe the interpretation of a jew who didn’t even realize that Jesus is the messiah? give us a break…we believe the jews who knew who \Jesus was.
J
Justice2006
Guest
Dear inJESUS,
You mean Nelson Mendala deserves **no listening ** simply because he was sent to jail for life by the then white Christian British occupying rulers of Black South Africa and Mr. Mendala did not even realise that white British people too were not just human beings but followers of Christ (the Messiah) too.?
And do you mean great Indian inspiring leader Gandhi was actually a criminal simply because he was sent to prison many times by the white British occupied empire of his time and Gandhi did not even realise that white British people were peaceful civilised Christians who came to his country/sub-continent to do business ONLY through East India Company?.
God Bless you.
I
inJESUS
Guest
Justice, you amaze me…what on earth does your reply have to do with what i was trying to say? 
my idea is this : Jesus fulfilled the OT in its law and meaning…hence the law of the “old” covenant is past and i follow the “new” one…jews reject any Christian idea just because they consider Jesus a “nothing”…should i believe them when they didnt even know from their scripture that Jesus IS the Messiah? if they failed to recognize this, why should i give credit to their interpretation of God since they did NOT understand God’s word about the Messiah? it is like a university graduate in math asking the interpretation of an elementary student…we have the “degree” that jews are still looking for…why should i ask them if they still lack the “truth” while we have it in the Messiah they rejected?
my idea is this : Jesus fulfilled the OT in its law and meaning…hence the law of the “old” covenant is past and i follow the “new” one…jews reject any Christian idea just because they consider Jesus a “nothing”…should i believe them when they didnt even know from their scripture that Jesus IS the Messiah? if they failed to recognize this, why should i give credit to their interpretation of God since they did NOT understand God’s word about the Messiah? it is like a university graduate in math asking the interpretation of an elementary student…we have the “degree” that jews are still looking for…why should i ask them if they still lack the “truth” while we have it in the Messiah they rejected?
J
Justice2006
Guest
Dear inJESUS,
Now you are coming to your senses though not fully by realising what you claim is no more than “your idea” and it is not an obligation on others to accept “your idea” as fact or as truth. because your perception is not necessarily a fact/truth all the time.
God bless you.
I
inJESUS
Guest
i’ll leave it to other members to give their opinions as well… just to see if it is “my” idea only or not
just to see if it is “my” idea only or not
J
Justice2006
Guest
Dear inJESUS,
Not all Jews rejected/reject the idea or possibility of a new Messiah for Jews.
Jesus himself was a Jew by birth and was circumcised and his mother went through purification alongwith Jesus/or and his supposed father, according to Jewish law.
Are you saying that those who reject Messiah-ship of Jesus in our period, too are guilty of “crucifying” Jesus? What a Jew of your time-period has to do with the “killing” of your supposed Man-God? Why can’t you listen to their other views/ideas which makes sense? Are you thinking that if someone reject a specific perception of yours deserve no listeing at all and he must be totally a worthless man. Is this what Jesus used to do with disciples and others such as Judas?
Did he (Philip) not ask Jesus to show him The father, while seeing and being with Jesus and being his disciple? Howcome such a man–Philip did not realise that he was God? Then, what did Jesus do? Did Jesus reject him totally simply because he did not see him (Jesus) as God? Or may be Philip too knew that Jesus not The Father (God) but a man only, a prophet only.
You are not even reading carefully your scriptures written mostly by unknown authors, which you hold as inspired word.
God bless you.
J
Justice2006
Guest
Mr. inJESUS,i’ll leave it to other members to give their opinions as well…
You mean, all who claim followers of Jesus, have or must have exact same ideas as yours? Do Unitarians agree with your Man-God, Trinity theory? Do JW agree with your idea of “Jesus was God”? Do a majority of modern day Anglican bishops believe in Godhead of Jesus?
You recently agreed/realised that Jesus **did not die ** as God but as a man. Do your all fellow Catholics share this idea of yours?
Death of a single-man means what to the Jews or others? A specific group of Jews tried to kill their own prophets of God thus prophets have been killed already. So, what makes a difference of killing of an another prophet- such as Jesus who according to your recent idea did not die as a God but as a man, (if I assume with you that he did die, for the sake of argument)?
Did you realise, your own previous/recent ideas as a Christian, are not even same ideas of all of your fellow Christians, let alone other people?
Basically, all who claim that they are followers of Jesus, are misguided when it comes to following him because you all have no 100% certain teachings/full accounts/whole picture of Jesus’ life and his mission, hence you have thousands of sects/denominations/cults who contradict/differ each other by going into different directions yet they all claim to have same Holy Spirit. I wonder why Holy Spirit is inspiring them “33,000” different views/ideas that no cult/sect/denomination is ready to give up or dismantel his Church/Ministry and merged with his fellow Christian cult/sect/denomination. Amazing!!
God bless you.
I
inJESUS
Guest
I
inJESUS
Guest
PS: what you say about the Holy Spirit proves you have absolutely no idea what the Holy Spirit is…in your opinion, it is a machine on which the same words are written and you need to press a button so that it prints you a book? the Holy Spirit is God…not everyone who claims to be inspired by God is one…Jesus said there will come many false teachers, & false prophets …in fact, according to Jesus, anyone after him is a liar.
And yes i believe in a God that takes care of His Word…i dont believe in a god that allows people to corrupt his word leading billions to Hell…i call this god satan…i believe in the Bible, written during 3000 years by 40 authors in different places, ages and to different audiance…i dont believe in a book given to one person who claims to hear a spirit that no one else heard except him, during only 23 years in which Allah changed his mind regarding many issues,and who gave contradictory teachings…this is not how God revealed himself to humanity for the past thousands of years…
Read this book online to know what exactly is the quran.
muhammadanism.com/haddad/nazaritic_mission/quran_nazaritic_mission_1.pdf
muhammadanism.com/haddad/nazaritic_mission/quran_nazaritic_mission_2.pdf
And yes i believe in a God that takes care of His Word…i dont believe in a god that allows people to corrupt his word leading billions to Hell…i call this god satan…i believe in the Bible, written during 3000 years by 40 authors in different places, ages and to different audiance…i dont believe in a book given to one person who claims to hear a spirit that no one else heard except him, during only 23 years in which Allah changed his mind regarding many issues,and who gave contradictory teachings…this is not how God revealed himself to humanity for the past thousands of years…
Read this book online to know what exactly is the quran.
muhammadanism.com/haddad/nazaritic_mission/quran_nazaritic_mission_1.pdf
muhammadanism.com/haddad/nazaritic_mission/quran_nazaritic_mission_2.pdf
G
George_Waters
Guest
Justice2006,
Have you posted a single thing beginning on #86 that has anything to do with the topic of this thread? What does Mandela or Gandhi have to do with evidence of biblical corruption? You can not produce any concrete evidence of biblical corruption so you change the subject. Why did you even post on this thread knowing you can not offer the evidence I inquired about?
inJesus,
Thank you for attempting to keep this thread on track.
Have you posted a single thing beginning on #86 that has anything to do with the topic of this thread? What does Mandela or Gandhi have to do with evidence of biblical corruption? You can not produce any concrete evidence of biblical corruption so you change the subject. Why did you even post on this thread knowing you can not offer the evidence I inquired about?
inJesus,
Thank you for attempting to keep this thread on track.
I
inJESUS
Guest
George Waters:
you know, a kinda secret-secret Bible lost to humanity for 3000 years check it …
George, on my thread, muslims could not prove that the Bible at mohammad’s time was corrupt…now Joseph came with a new idea : the Bible at mohammad’s time is not the same one Jews/Christians have now
you know, a kinda secret-secret Bible lost to humanity for 3000 years check it …- Status