who are that dogs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ahmadhassan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
water said:
It is weird and sad to see some Muslims consider Jesus to be great prophet while other Muslims talk Him down.
Click to expand...
if you read my first post ,you will see that we didnt believe that the christ did so ,its of corruption of bible šŸ™‚
 
jfallaw said:
Unfortunately in ancient Israel, all non-Jews were called ā€œdogsā€ and ā€œswineā€. A sad fact, but a fact nonetheless. Jesus merely used the vernacular of the day. Was he trying to be insulting? Who can say?
Click to expand...
oh you mean when the christ used so he was doing like jews ,he agreed with them and did like them .

what about ,in that days (ancient israel) they were commiting adultery ,did christ did that as the vernacular of the day?

we muslims are better than you christians ,we dont believe that prophets to be adulterers,idol worshippers,commiting sex with their daughters ,fighting God like israel šŸ˜Š oh i dont know how you believe that about prophets ,prophets must be a good example for ppl
they are the purest human have ever been šŸ™‚
 
ahmadhassan said:
we muslims are better than you christians ,we dont believe that prophets to be adulterers,idol worshippers,commiting sex with their daughters ,fighting God like israel šŸ˜Š oh i dont know how you believe that about prophets ,prophets must be a good example for ppl
they are the purest human have ever been šŸ™‚
Click to expand...
Itā€™s real easy: we donā€™t start saying something is ā€œgoodā€ because our prophets did them, like muslims do.

For us, itā€™s still bad to have sex with children, kill people for being smarter than us, deny the holocaust, and make war against civilians.
 
water said:
where is it? šŸ™‚
Click to expand...
here is one but there is many
which is the true translation
translation must not add or ommit from original text
KJV - 6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth], the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

NRSV - 6 This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one that testifies, for the Spirit is the truth. 7 There are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree.

TEV - 6 Jesus Christ is the one who came with the water of his baptism and the blood of his death. He came not only with the water, but with both the water and the blood. And the Spirit himself testifies that this is true, because the Spirit is truth. 7 There are three witnesses: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and all three give the same testimony.
Code: 
* [Words in brackets and italics] = The 16th Century additions to (corruptions of) what was in the original text of the New Testament.
* Words in bold font = The correct original wording of 1Jo 5:7,8.
* The non-bold and non-italized text from 1Jo 5:6 is included here to provide the context for 1Jo 5:7,8.
Commentary

1Jo 5:7-8 - in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth - (based on the original textā€™s correction of KJVā€™s Greek text)
Code: 
*

  This text is not found in any modern English versions, i.e., not found in those versions that are translated from the current representations of the original texts. (The NKJV is not such a modern translation. It is still totally dependent upon the KJV and the same faulty Hebrew and Greek texts from which the KJV was translated. )
*

  For additional details regarding the corruption of the Textus Receptus that was the basis of the Greek text used by the KJV translators, browse [bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm#1jo0507](http://www.bibletexts.com/kjv-tr.htm#1jo0507). Below is an excerpt from that article.

        Even up to the fifth and final edition of Erasmus' Greek text in 1535, Erasmus fell prey to pressure and manipulation from church authorities to add to subsequent editions phrases and entire verses that he strongly (and rightly) suspected were not part of the original text. (Ibid., pages 100-101, which document how Erasmus was conned to include what is translated in the KJV in 1Jo 5:7-8, the following text: "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth." Conservative biblical scholar F.F. Bruce (History of the English Bible, Third Edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 1978, pages 141-142) explains the sad history of how 1Jo 5:7-8 had been errantly added to Erasmus' Greek text:

            The words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth."] omitted in the R.V. [Revised Version, 1881] were no part of the original Greek text, nor yet of the Latin Vulgate in its earliest form. They first appear in the writings of a Spanish Christian leader named Priscillian, who was executed for heresy in A.D. 385. Later they made their way into copies of the Latin text of the Bible. When Erasmus prepared his printed edition of the Greek New Testament, he rightly left those words out, but was attacked for this by people who felt that the passage was a valuable proof-text for the doctrine of the Trinity. He replied (rather incautiously) that if he could be shown any Greek manuscript which contained the words, he would include them in his next edition. Unfortunately, a Greek manuscript not more than some twenty years old was produced in which the words appeared: they had been translated into Greek from Latin. Of course, the fact that the only Greek manuscript exhibiting the words belonged to the sixteenth century was in itself an argument against their authenticity, but Erasmus had given his promise, and so in his 1522 edition he included the passage. (To-day one or two other very late Greek manuscripts are known to contain this passages; all others omit it.)
 
[For more details on Erasmusā€™ addition of the 1Jo 5:7,8 text, see Metzgerā€™s The Text of the New Testament, Second Edition, pages 101-102.]
In the Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (NY: United Bible Societies, 1994, page 647-649), Bruce Metzger writes a detailed textual commentary regarding this verse, excerpts from which are below:
Code: 
  After marturountes [the Greek word meaning "testifying", Strong's #3140] the Textus Receptus adds the following: en to ourano, ho Pater ho Logos, kai to Hagion Pneuma. kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisi (8) kai treis eisin hoi marturountes en te ge. That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.

        (A) EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.

              (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a traslation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate... The eight manuscripts are the following:
                  # 61: codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.
                  # 88v.r.: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
                  # 221v.r.: a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
                  # 429v.r.: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbuttel.
                  # 636v.r.: a varant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.
                  # 918v.r.: a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
                  #

                    2318v.r.: an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.

              (2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certaily have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies...

              (3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions.
 
thanks for the long post.
before I take my time to read it all. Do you mind posting where you get this information from? šŸ™‚
 
Ahmadhassan ~

With all due respect, are you going to actually ANSWER the questions that have been posed to you?

I see no answers from you. You have spewed answers sometimes, but you do not answer. I hope you do not fall into the silly belief that if we do not ask you that means we do not know anything.

Can we conclude from your silence that because you give no answer it is because your religon is not all you say? Or what?

YOU are the one that creates this question.
 
thanks, but I donā€™t think that was what I really wanted to knowā€¦
I wanted to know where do you get the ā€œcorruptionā€ commentary from.

For example:

Here is a part from your posts.
  • [Words in brackets and italics] = The 16th Century additions to (corruptions of) what was in the original text of the New Testament.
  • Words in bold font = The correct original wording of 1Jo 5:7,8.
  • The non-bold and non-italized text from 1Jo 5:6 is included here to provide the context for 1Jo 5:7,8.
Click to expand...
what are you referring to?
unfortunately, I donā€™t see any word in brackets or italics, or boldā€¦in your post. šŸ˜ƒ
 
MelanieAnne said:
Ahmadhassan ~

With all due respect, are you going to actually ANSWER the questions that have been posed to you?

I see no answers from you. You have spewed answers sometimes, but you do not answer. I hope you do not fall into the silly belief that if we do not ask you that means we do not know anything.

Can we conclude from your silence that because you give no answer it is because your religon is not all you say? Or what?

YOU are the one that creates this question.
Click to expand...
look madam or lady
here is my rules
if the question asked is of the topic of the thread ,i answer it
if the question asked isnt of the topic of the thread i`m free to answer it or not ,thats my choice ,
if you want an answer to a topic not of the thread just open a new thread with the question .šŸ™‚
 
water said:
thanks, but I donā€™t think that was what I really wanted to knowā€¦
I wanted to know where do you get the ā€œcorruptionā€ commentary from.

For example:

Here is a part from your posts.

what are you referring to?
unfortunately, I donā€™t see any word in brackets or italics, or boldā€¦in your post. šŸ˜ƒ
Click to expand...
oh sorry thats bec this forum dont allow direct copy ,i will recheck it and do it manually šŸ™‚
commentaries is from bible gateway and esword program (its a nice program of the bible ,actually its marvellous and free too ,what about getting it e-sword.com
 
ahmadhassan said:
[For more details on Erasmusā€™ addition of the 1Jo 5:7,8 text, see Metzgerā€™s The Text of the New Testament, Second Edition, pages 101-102.]
In the Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament, Second Edition (NY: United Bible Societies, 1994, page 647-649), Bruce Metzger writes a detailed textual commentary regarding this verse, excerpts from which are below:
Code: 
  After marturountes [the Greek word meaning "testifying", Strong's #3140] the Textus Receptus adds the following: en to ourano, ho Pater ho Logos, kai to Hagion Pneuma. kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisi (8) kai treis eisin hoi marturountes en te ge. That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.

        (A) EXTERNAL EVIDENCE.

              (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a traslation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate... The eight manuscripts are the following:
                  # 61: codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.
                  # 88v.r.: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
                  # 221v.r.: a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
                  # 429v.r.: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbuttel.
                  # 636v.r.: a varant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.
                  # 918v.r.: a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
                  #

                    2318v.r.: an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.

              (2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certaily have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies...

              (3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions.
Click to expand...
Donā€™t you know the difference between ā€œproofā€ and ā€œopinion?ā€

What am I asking? ā€¦
itā€™s obvious you donā€™t.
 
Dogs? The topic is dogs?

Here a picture of my puppyā€¦ Heā€™s a newfieā€¦ a year old, about 120 lbs so far. The sweetest pup Iā€™ve ever had.

So whatā€™s your favorite dog?

šŸ˜ƒ
 
BelFarfalla said:
Dogs? The topic is dogs?

Here a picture of my puppyā€¦ Heā€™s a newfieā€¦ a year old, about 120 lbs so far. The sweetest pup Iā€™ve ever had.

So whatā€™s your favorite dog?

šŸ˜ƒ
Click to expand...
oh its still a dog šŸ™‚
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top