vzkpswaqnkhgytd:


Quran is the final word. I stand behind every word. Quran is uncorrupted, free of any crookedness.

vzkpswaqnkhgytd:


Quran is the final word. I stand behind every word. Quran is uncorrupted, free of any crookedness.

promisechuks:

Still the so called un-corrupted was eaten up by a goat. What a shame!

Scholar8200:

Compare this with:

ANd since the Spirit here is not Gabriel, I believe this Spirit has a relationship with God far deeper than that of Gabriel who is a malaika.A Spirit from Himself selah!

How can that be since he was also created? Does that apply to the rest angels too?

But the definite article shows there has to be only One of that Kind. Could Gabriel's errands make him holier than the other malaikas?

So which do you accept?

Why is that? What position is the color highlighted text in relation to Allah?

That is the human spirit as distinct from the Holy Spirit as we know Him.

Now if we take the second understanding of the Mysterious Ruh Al-Qudus that refers not to Gabriel but to the Spirit that proceed from God and that is associated with Strength, is there any doubt that this is perfectly correct:

But He clearly declared that He was One with the Father! Jesus did not say the message would abide forever He clearly said He - the Holy Spirit- will abide with the believers forever. Besides, the Holy Spirit was to be sent in Christ's Name and indwell believers-two things He never did up till that time! In the past the Spirit was sent only to Kings and Prophets and that not permanently. But now He would be coming to indwell all believers! See the difference?

Consider that Genesis 18 carefully and ask who was the third Man called LORD and , like you just mentioned, Who is the Spirit that proceeds from God? Surely you agreed He is not an angel.
(for the records only, not related to thread)
If we say the God is One and that He is Three In One and that it is a mystery which we believe, Muslims mock, however there are instances in your reply where those you quoted implied that there were mysteries even they could not explain!

malvisguy212:
The Septuagint was the first translation
of the Hebrew Bible; and was made in
the third century B.C. by Jewish scribes,
who were direct descendents of those
trained in Ezra's Great Synagogue of
Jerusalem. They were complete experts
in the text, being very well versed in
Hebrew and Greek.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/tips/what-bible-did-jesus-use-11638841.html
Matthew 21:42
Jesus said to them, "Have you never
read in the Scriptures: "'The stone the
builders rejected has become the
cornerstone; the Lord has done this, and
it is marvelous in our eyes'?

Here,Jesus was quoting the psalm
Psalm 118:22
The stone the builders rejected has
become the cornerstone;

the same psalm which was used on the day of triumph when Christ was saluted with cries of "Hosanna!"

"These are My words which I spoke
to you while I was still with you, that
all things which are written about
Me in the Law of Moses and the
Prophets and the Psalms must be
fulfilled ." (Luke 24:44)

All the prophecy were fullfiled in the gospel.

Jesus referred to Psalm 82:6 as "Law": "Jesus answered them, "Has it not been
written in your Law, 'I said, you are
gods'?" John 10:34.


Why this major prophet were not in the quran? Isaiah,jerimaih ezekiel elijah hosea,this are the prophet that confirmed the coming of the messiah.

Empiree:

And that make him (Jesus) God?.

How can that be since he was also created? Does that apply to the rest angels too?

Did Angel not preceded human being? That's what i meant.

But the definite article shows there has to be only One of that Kind. Could Gabriel's errands make him holier than the other malaikas?

And which other malaikat is more commissioned according to your Bible?. Which other malaika transmitted Divine message to prophets and messengers besides Gabriel?

So which do you accept?

Very simple, Whether it's merely holy spirit or Gabriel, does that make Jesus God?. Quran says Jesus was conceived by word og Allah(God) "Be! and He was". How does that make Jesus(p) God?

Why is that? What position is the color highlighted text in relation to Allah?

See, here it's about Allah's Names and Attributes. Anything can emerge from His Almighty Names. I know that very well. Ruh Allah i:e Spirit Of Allah is a subject that has been dealt with many times. It is merely Word coming from Allah. Jesus is a word from Allah not "Word of Allah"

SPIRIT OF Allah IS BREATHED IN EVERY HUMAN BEING

A spirit from Allah does not indicate that Jesus (pbuh) is God. The Qur’an mentions in several places that Allah breathed into the human beings “His Spirit” in Surah Al-Hijr, chapter 15 verse 29 in Surah Sajdah, chapter 32 verse 9

Surah Al Hijr Chapter 15 verse 29

“When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit, fall ye down in obeisance unto him.” [Al-Qur’an 15:29]



Surah Sajdah Chapter 32 verse 9

“But He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him something of His spirit. And He gave you (the faculties of) hearing and sight and feeling (and understanding): little thanks do ye give!” [Al-Qur’an 32:9]

The verse above are talking abot Adam(p) and human beings generally. Why is Adam not God since God also breath is spirit in him as He did Jesus(p)?.

JOHN THE BAPTIST (PBUH) IS ALSO CALLED “A WORD” OF Allah

Yahya (pbuh) i.e. John the Baptist (pbuh) is also referred to in the Qur’an as Kalimatullah i.e. a word of Allah in Surah Ali ‘Imran, Chapter 3, verses 38-39

“There did Zakariya Pray to his Lord, saying: “O my Lord! Grant unto me from Thee a progeny that is pure: for Thou art He that heareth prayer!

While he was standing in prayer in the chamber, the angels called unto him: “Allah doth give thee glad tidings of Yahya, witnessing the truth of a Word from Allah, and (be besides) noble, chaste, and a Prophet – of the (goodly) company of the righteous.” [Al-Qur’an 3:39]

Why is John not God just because he was also word from Allah?.

But He clearly declared that He was One with the Father! Jesus did not say the message would abide forever He clearly said He - the Holy Spirit- will abide with the believers forever. Besides, the Holy Spirit was to be sent in Christ's Name and indwell believers-two things He never did up till that time! In the past the Spirit was sent only to Kings and Prophets and that not permanently. But now He would be coming to indwell all believers! See the difference?

So going by your word, for argument sake, let's assume the "Holy Spirit" sent in Jesus names dwells inside believers (even today) why then Christians doctrines are different?. Right now we have Christians who dont believe Jesus is God. Some Christians dont believe in trinity etc. Question is if the holy spirit sent in the name of Jesus is pure and dwell inside every christian, why do you not all believe the same way?. For instance, no Muslim believe Jesus or Muhammad is God. This is universal among concept Muslims. To believe otherwise is tantamount to disbelieve and blasphemy.

Pay close attention to my point again, if John 14 15 is referring to "holy spirit" which is supposedly dwell in every christian, why do churches and Christians' doctrines differ greatly in terms of salvation?. Some Christians believe Jesus is God; and to reject that concept is detrimental and jeopardizes their salvation. Some Christians believe Jesus is not God simply because he did not say so. They did not see that statement in their Bible. Now, is the holy spirit deceiving you people by giving you different doctrines?

Consider that Genesis 18 carefully and ask who was the third Man called LORD and , like you just mentioned, Who is the Spirit that proceeds from God? Surely you agreed He is not an angel.
(for the records only, not related to thread)
If we say the God is One and that He is Three In One and that it is a mystery which we believe, Muslims mock, however there are instances in your reply where those you quoted implied that there were mysteries even they could not explain!

"O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allah aught but the truth. The Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah and His Word, ("Be!" - and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam (Mary) and a spirit (Ruh) created by Him; so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not: "Three (trinity)!" Cease! (it is) better for you. For Allah is (the only) One Ilah (God), Glory be to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is All-Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs." Sura 004:171

Scholar8200:

Scholar8200:

Compare this with:

ANd since the Spirit here is not Gabriel, I believe this Spirit has a relationship with God far deeper than that of Gabriel who is a malaika.A Spirit from Himself selah!


And that make him (Jesus) God?.

Expatiate on this:
If the Spirit here in question proceeds from Allah, how come Jesus could say, " I will send Him unto you"? Which should be the exclusive preserve of Allah?
At this point I believe we can all agree that the Spirit promised by Christ was not a man.



How can that be since he was also created? Does that apply to the rest angels too?


Did Angel not preceded human being? That's what i meant.

Meaning he ranks with the other angels since they all precede man. Okay.


But the definite article shows there has to be only One of that Kind. Could Gabriel's errands make him holier than the other malaikas?


And which other malaikat is more commissioned according to your Bible?. Which other malaika transmitted Divine message to prophets and messengers besides Gabriel?

Many Angels were sent in the Bible with Divine Messages to prophets and people in general!!! Their names were not mentioned! Only two were mentioned-Gabriel and Michael, of the latter, a high title was attached which was not used for Gabriel in all Scripture!


So which do you accept?


Very simple, Whether it's merely holy spirit or Gabriel, does that make Jesus God?. Quran says Jesus was conceived by word og Allah(God) "Be! and He was". How does that make Jesus(p) God?

But then such an One could declare that He will send the Holy Spirit and that the Spirit will come in His Name! Interestingly, it was interchanged-sometimes He said "the Father will send" , other times He said "I will send" underscoring the Truth-I and My Father are ONE!
That is sure higher than what a man can do!




Why is that? What position is the color highlighted text in relation to Allah?


See, here it's about Allah's Names and Attributes. Anything can emerge from His Almighty Names. I know that very well. Ruh Allah i:e Spirit Of Allah is a subject that has been dealt with many times. It is merely Word coming from Allah. Jesus is a word from Allah not "Word of Allah"

As per the text in blue, do you mean the Spirit is the Word? Do shed more light!


SPIRIT OF Allah IS BREATHED IN EVERY HUMAN BEING

A spirit from Allah does not indicate that Jesus (pbuh) is God. The Qur’an mentions in several places that Allah breathed into the human beings “His Spirit” in Surah Al-Hijr, chapter 15 verse 29 in Surah Sajdah, chapter 32 verse 9

Surah Al Hijr Chapter 15 verse 29

“When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit, fall ye down in obeisance unto him.” [Al-Qur’an 15:29]



Surah Sajdah Chapter 32 verse 9

“But He fashioned him in due proportion, and breathed into him something of His spirit. And He gave you (the faculties of) hearing and sight and feeling (and understanding): little thanks do ye give!” [Al-Qur’an 32:9]

The verse above are talking abot Adam(p) and human beings generally. Why is Adam not God since God also breath is spirit in him as He did Jesus(p)?.

No one claims the Divinity of Christ based on the Anointing of the Spirit! I never said so! I know very well that there were many that were anointed and strengthened by the Spirit in the OT!


JOHN THE BAPTIST (PBUH) IS ALSO CALLED “A WORD” OF Allah

Yahya (pbuh) i.e. John the Baptist (pbuh) is also referred to in the Qur’an as Kalimatullah i.e. a word of Allah in Surah Ali ‘Imran, Chapter 3, verses 38-39

“There did Zakariya Pray to his Lord, saying: “O my Lord! Grant unto me from Thee a progeny that is pure: for Thou art He that heareth prayer!

While he was standing in prayer in the chamber, the angels called unto him: “Allah doth give thee glad tidings of Yahya, witnessing the truth of a Word from Allah, and (be besides) noble, chaste, and a Prophet – of the (goodly) company of the righteous.” [Al-Qur’an 3:39]

Why is John not God just because he was also word from Allah?.
Hear John speak:
"...He that comes after me is preferred before me; for He was before me!
John 1:15b
Making it clear that Jesus is, and was before him not on the basis of age since John was born before Jesus but on a greater and infinitely higher basis!

And hear what John's mum had to say:

"And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Luke 1:43
She said this at a time when she was pregnant with John.

The Word that was God became has been from the beginning and was made flesh!


But He clearly declared that He was One with the Father! Jesus did not say the message would abide forever He clearly said He - the Holy Spirit- will abide with the believers forever. Besides, the Holy Spirit was to be sent in Christ's Name and indwell believers-two things He never did up till that time! In the past the Spirit was sent only to Kings and Prophets and that not permanently. But now He would be coming to indwell all believers! See the difference?


So going by your word, for argument sake, let's assume the "Holy Spirit" sent in Jesus names dwells inside believers (even today) why then Christians doctrines are different?. Right now we have Christians who dont believe Jesus is God. Some Christians dont believe in trinity etc. Question is if the holy spirit sent in the name of Jesus is pure and dwell inside every christian, why do you not all believe the same way?. For instance, no Muslim believe Jesus or Muhammad is God. This is universal among concept Muslims. To believe otherwise is tantamount to disbelieve and blasphemy.


Pay close attention to my point again, if John 14 15 is referring to "holy spirit" which is supposedly dwell in every christian, why do churches and Christians' doctrines differ greatly in terms of salvation?. Some Christians believe Jesus is God; and to reject that concept is detrimental and jeopardizes their salvation. Some Christians believe Jesus is not God simply because he did not say so. They did not see that statement in their Bible. Now, is the holy spirit deceiving you people by giving you different doctrines?

The Word of God, not christian groups, is the final authority on matters like this. The Spirit works with the Word hence we try the spirits by the Word as commanded! Any body can claim to have the Spirit but the test is the Word! Jesus said the Spirit will reveal Truth and Himself to the disciples, that He will bring the Word to our remembrance etc Hence beyond the claims of having the Spirit, we examine the genuineness by the Word! Here many you have referred to fail!

If you will read the NT, you will see many prophecies that people will rise up to draw away disciples for themselves, teach heresies, deny the Lord and His Word etc Even at the beginning of the Church some false brethren tried to introduce things that had no place etc this is why every true christian stands with the Word, not denominational dogma especially when it contradicts the Word! I have seen so-called christians who will argue for their church practices and teachings even if you show them the Word is contrary to them, what then?



Consider that Genesis 18 carefully and ask who was the third Man called LORD and , like you just mentioned, Who is the Spirit that proceeds from God? Surely you agreed He is not an angel.
(for the records only, not related to thread)
If we say the God is One and that He is Three In One and that it is a mystery which we believe, Muslims mock, however there are instances in your reply where those you quoted implied that there were mysteries even they could not explain!


And how is this verse of Quran difficult for you to understand?. What you believe up there contradicts Oneness of God. It means you believe in Three gods. You getting really confused

A mystery does not mean the believers therein are confused!


"O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allah aught but the truth. The Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah and His Word, ("Be!" - and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam (Mary) and a spirit (Ruh) created by Him; so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not: "Three (trinity)!" Cease! (it is) better for you. For Allah is (the only) One Ilah (God), Glory be to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is All-Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs." Sura 004:171
Were these not the same people Muslims were asked to get clarification from being accused of exceeding limits? How do we reconcile this? And if the Quran was completed between 609-632, it means the Trinity was not a 17th century addition after all but had been there all along!

facheux:


Can you explain the trinity for us in laymen terms

AlMuflihah:


Just try to use ur brain if u have 1.....even if all d ones written down were eaten by goats... did any goat eat d ones memorised by the Muslims?in Islam, we lay more emphasis on d memory as storage dan what is written down abi do goats in ur village eat what's in ppu's heads? If dats d case, it explains ur emptu headedness. U just dey lament eaten by goats blah blah blah like a goat...where dd u get dat from sef?

Empiree:
Now you are professional literalist. Are you telling me that God threw down Holy Books from heavens to His prophets and messangers and these men looked up to the heavens to catch it?

You are funny man. Sahih International used "choice of words". Check others like Yusuf Ali, he used the phrase "Book". Shakir used "scripture". Khan also used "Book". If you think God sent down paper Books from heavens, then you would believe Cow jumped from the moon too. You are so amazing bro

Scholar8200:

Scholar8200:

Compare this with:

ANd since the Spirit here is not Gabriel, I believe this Spirit has a relationship with God far deeper than that of Gabriel who is a malaika.A Spirit from Himself selah!

And that make him (Jesus) God?.

Expatiate on this:
If the Spirit here in question proceeds from Allah, how come Jesus could say, " I will send Him unto you"? Which should be the exclusive preserve of Allah?

At this point I believe we can all agree that the Spirit promised by Christ was not a man.

Meaning he ranks with the other angels since they all precede man. Okay.

Many Angels were sent in the Bible with Divine Messages to prophets and people in general!!! Their names were not mentioned! Only two were mentioned-Gabriel and Michael, of the latter, a high title was attached which was not used for Gabriel in all Scripture!

But then such an One could declare that He will send the Holy Spirit and that the Spirit will come in His Name! Interestingly, it was interchanged-sometimes He said "the Father will send" , other times He said "I will send" underscoring the Truth-I and My Father are ONE!
That is sure higher than what a man can do!

As per the text in blue, do you mean the Spirit is the Word? Do shed more light!

No one claims the Divinity of Christ based on the Anointing of the Spirit! I never said so! I know very well that there were many that were anointed and strengthened by the Spirit in the OT!

Hear John speak:
"...He that comes after me is preferred before me; for He was before me!
John 1:15b
Making it clear that Jesus is, and was before him not on the basis of age since John was born before Jesus but on a greater and infinitely higher basis!

And hear what John's mum had to say:

"And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Luke 1:43
She said this at a time when she was pregnant with John.

The Word of God, not christian groups, is the final authority on matters like this. The Spirit works with the Word hence we try the spirits by the Word as commanded! Any body can claim to have the Spirit but the test is the Word! Jesus said the Spirit will reveal Truth and Himself to the disciples, that He will bring the Word to our remembrance etc Hence beyond the claims of having the Spirit, we examine the genuineness by the Word! Here many you have referred to fail!

If you will read the NT, you will see many prophecies that people will rise up to draw away disciples for themselves, teach heresies, deny the Lord and His Word etc Even at the beginning of the Church some false brethren tried to introduce things that had no place etc this is why every true christian stands with the Word, not denominational dogma especially when it contradicts the Word! I have seen so-called christians who will argue for their church practices and teachings even if you show them the Word is contrary to them, what then?

Empiree:


"told by others". Who are they?. Sorry you dont have a case yet. Quran is direct word of Allah(God) through Archangel (Jubril) to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Word for Word. No hearsays by men like your Bible. And who told you we dont know Jesus knew about Old Testament?






The holy verses of Qur'an agree with the Gospel where Jesus said:



The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) carried a Call that came to clarify previous Revelations and spell out what was misunderstood.



These verses show that we (muslims) know that Jesus knew about Old Book that came before him. I can go on and on. But you havent make any sense yet. Just hiding behind a skirt, you &past.kun

promisechuks:

Please who is deceiving who?

How true is it that they crammed it exactly?

Later you guys will come to argue the authenticity of the bible.

Shame on you!

AllNaijaBlogger:




The earliest copy of the quran is dated to 19 years after the death of the prophet.

http://irfi.org/articles/articles_401_450/oldest_quran_in_the_world.htm

AllNaijaBlogger:



Funny how all your claims are from spurious hadiths/testimonies/narrations that you will later claim are "weak" when they say something you do not agree with.


There is no exact day or date that the Quran was finally written.

Some of it was written during Muhammad's time but not all of it. If Muhammad saw the final quran, he would have mentioned it or at least yhhafith would have clearly stated that the prophet gave the quran to Uthman.



Also keep in mind that the prophet was an illiterate. An illiterate cannot express himself verbally or orally. Go and listen to the oration of any illiterate. You will understand it but writing it down will be a problem because you will correcting the grammar and sentence structure of the illiterate's speech.


If I recall, the Quran is written in classical Arabic which is even more difficult than standard Arabic. Does the writing of the Quran sound like that if an illiterate? No
The scribes and companions of the prophet must have added their own interpretations and better sentences to uplift Muhammad's uneducated speech.


Lastly, human memory is ver fallible. If I tell you that "I feel discombobulated, agitated and malaise", you might describe what I said the next day as "Allnaijablogger felt a headache and generally sick". Interpretations.



I hope you can see why I find this thread hypocritical. Your Quran comes from special origins- this means that you do not have the moral standing to point fingers at the origins or authors of the bible.

Empiree:

Can we Prove Quran is From God?

Muslims have something that offers the clearest proof of all - The Holy Quran. There is no other book like it anywhere on earth. It is absolutely perfect in the Arabic language. It has no mistakes in grammar, meanings or context. The scientific evidences are well known around the entire world, even amongst non-Muslim scholars. Predictions in the Quran have come true; and its teachings are clearly for all people, all places and all times.

Surprisingly enough, the Quran itself provides us with the test of authenticity and offers challenges against itself to prove its veracity. Allah tells us in the Quran:

Haven't the unbelievers considered if this was from other than Allah, they would find within it many contradictions? [Noble Quran 4:82]

Another amazing challenge from Allah's Book:

If you are in doubt about it, bring a chapter like it.[Noble Quran 2:23]

And Allah challenges us with:

Bring ten chapters like it. [Noble Quran 11:13]

And:



No one has been able to produce a book like it, nor ten chapters like it, nor even one chapter like it. It was memorized by thousands of people during the lifetime of Muhammad (peace be upon him) and then this memorization was passed down from teacher to student for generation after generation, from mouth to ear and from one nation to another. Today every single Muslim has memorized some part of the Quran in the original Arabic language that it was revealed in over 1,400 years ago, even though most of them are not Arabs. There are over nine million (9,000,000) Muslims living on the earth today who have totally memorized the entire Quran, word for word, and can recite the entire Quran, in Arabic just as Muhammad (peace be upon him) did 14 centuries ago.

Say, [O Muhammad], "The Pure Spirit has brought it down from your Lord in truth to make firm those who believe and as guidance and good tidings to the Muslims." (Quran 16:102)

Bukhari
Volume 4, Book 55, Number 605:
Narrated 'Aisha:

The Prophet returned to Khadija while his heart was beating rapidly. She took him to Waraqa bin Naufal who was a Christian convert and used to read the Gospels in Arabic Waraqa asked (the Prophet), "What do you see?" When he told him, Waraqa said, "That is the same angel whom Allah sent to the Prophet) Moses. Should I live till you receive the Divine Message, I will support you strongly."

I can elaborate on story of Waraqa if you want.

THE QURAN IS THE WORD OF GOD AND AN UNDENIABLE PROOF FOR MUHAMMAD’S PROPHETHOOD

The Quran is completely different from all the other books in the world

When we study the Quran even superficially from the viewpoint of its wording, styles, and meaning, we will certainly conclude that it is completely different from all the other books in the world. So, in rank and worth it is either below all of them-even Satan cannot claim this, nor does he conceive of it-or above them. Since it is above all of them, it must be the Word of God.

The Quran, which he brought, has challenged all mankind with all their literary geniuses and scientists, from the first day of its revelation to the Last Day, to produce a like of it or even a single chapter of it

The Quran openly declares:

You (O Muhammad) was not a reader of any Scripture before it, nor did you write (such a Scripture) with your right hand, for then those who follow falsehood might (have a right) to doubt it. (al-Ankabut, 29.48)

The verse^ refute allegations by evangelical Christians who say muhammad copied from christians.

It is an established, undeniable fact that the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings, was unlettered. Whereas the Quran, which he brought, has challenged all mankind with all their literary geniuses and scientists, from the first day of its revelation to the Last Day, to produce a like of it or even a single chapter of it:

If you are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down onto Our servant (Muhammad), then produce a chapter of the like thereof, and call your witnesses, supporters, who are apart from God, if you are truthful. (al-Baqara, 2.23)

Mankind have since been unable to produce a like of only one of its chapters, including, of course, its shortest ones like sura al-Ikhlas or sura al-Kawthar; those who have ventured to do that have all laid themselves open to ridicule. This is a clear proof for the Divine authorship of the Quran.

The Quran was revealed in 23 years, yet there are not any contradictory points in it

The revelation of the Quran lasted 23 years. It is inconceivable that any book written by a mortal being in 23 years, one which is a book of Divine truths, metaphysics, religious beliefs and worship, prayer, law and morality, a book fully describing the other life, a book of psychology, sociology, epistemology, eschatology and history, and a book containing scientific facts and the principles of a happy life, does not have any contradictory points. Whereas, the Quran openly declares that it has no contradictions at all and therefore is a Divine Book:

Will they not then ponder on the Quran? If it had been from other than God they would have found therein much contradiction and incongruity. (al-Nisa’, 4.82)

The Qur’an is beyond compare from the viewpoint of its styles and eloquence
The Quran is beyond compare from the viewpoint of its styles and eloquence. All the sentences, words and even letters used in the Quran form such a miraculous harmony that, with respect to rhythm, music, and even geometric proportions and mathematical measures, and with respect to how many times each is used in the whole of the Quran, each is in the exact place it must be and interwoven and interrelated with others. The literary masterpiece of no one, including the sayings of the Prophet himself, upon him be peace and blessings, cannot compete with the Quran.


I will stop here now. But I can go on if you want . This is about if Quran is from God according to you. Now if you want some details about Prophet Muhammad's encounter with Angel Gabriel, I will be willing to go into that as well, historically with evidences from Qur'an.

Empiree:
I think you are now really getting twisted and getting more confused. Quran is very straightforward. We have no doubt that Jesus(p) is a man, messenger and prophet of Allah FULL STOP. Your Bible, not only does it call him a man but also portrays his human attributes. Jesus was a word (command) "Be! and he was" that precedes from God. How is that difficult to grasp?

Jesus’ Human Body:

It is clear enough from the New Testament that Jesus has a human body. John 1:14 means at least this, and more: “The Word became flesh.” Jesus’ humanity is one of the first tests of orthodoxy (1 John 4:2; 2 John 7). Jesus was born (Luke 2:7). He grew (Luke 2:40, 52). He grew tired (John 4:6) and got thirsty (John 19:28) and hungry (Matthew 4:2). He became physically weak (Matthew 4:11; Luke 23:26). He died (Luke 23:46). And he had a real human body after his resurrection (Luke 24:39; John 20:20, 27). Does this sound like God to you?

Jesus’ Human Emotions

Throughout the Gospels, Jesus clearly displays human emotions. When Jesus heard the centurion’s words of faith, “he marveled” (Matthew 8:10). He says in Matthew 26:38 that his “soul is very sorrowful, even to death.” In John 11:33–35, Jesus is “deeply moved in his spirit and greatly troubled” and even weeps. God does not shed tears. John 12:27 says, “Now is my soul troubled,” and in John 13:21, he is “troubled in his spirit.” The author to the Hebrews writes that “Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears” (Hebrews 5:7) John Calvin memorably summed it up: “Christ has put on our feelings along with our flesh.”


Jesus’ Human Mind:

Jesus also has a human mind. Two key texts make this undeniable:

Luke 2:52: “Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man.”
Mark 13:32: “Concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

The second verse, of course, is striking. For Christians who clearly affirm Jesus’ deity, Mark 13:32 seems like trouble. But what looks difficult at first glance proves to be a glorious confirmation of Jesus’ humanity and a very helpful piece in formulating our 'Christology'.

If Jesus is God and God knows everything, how can Jesus not know when his second coming will be?

Expatiate on this:
If the Spirit here in question proceeds from Allah, how come Jesus could say, " I will send Him unto you"? Which should be the exclusive preserve of Allah?
Oh well, maybe we should reverberate similar statments made by other prophets/messangers who made similar divine statement that we can say only God is capable of saying. For instance, prophet Muhammad promised paradise. Read below

The Prophet (PBUH) said, "Whoever guarantees me (the chastity of) what is between his legs ( i.e. his private parts), and what is between his jaws ( i.e., his tongue), I guarantee him Paradise." Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 8.799 Narrated by Sahl bin Sad

Read this as well:


“I guarantee a house in Jannah (Paradise) for one who gives up arguing, even if he is in the right; and I guarantee a house in the middle of Jannah for one who abandons lying even for the sake of fun; and I guarantee a house in the highest part of Jannah for one who has good manners” [Prophet Muhammad SAWS - reported by Imam Abu Dawud]

There are more statements like this made by prophet muhammad and even prophets that came before him. Do these statements suggest his Divinity?.

At this point I believe we can all agree that the Spirit promised by Christ was not a man.
And where is that spirit that would lead all Christians to 'all truth' as visioned by Jesus?. That holy spirit MUST have same universal message for ALL Christians. Do you allhave same message?

So with this clear confusion from your Book, you still think Jesus and 'Father' means same thing?.

This is clear case of two distinct nature.

You have to question Bible writers here. They got you people confused Thats why Christians have different views of who Jesus truly was. We Muslims have no problem with that. This brings back my previous question, did Jesus approve NT?

As per the text in blue, do you mean the Spirit is the Word? Do shed more light!

But in Christianity, if you think this "holy spirit" which lives or dwells in you is what determine central or universal salvation of Christians, then there is no way you all could have universal doctrine. Universal Doctrine has to be plain and clear. So John 14 and 15 could not be talking about personal 'holy spirit' whereby individual would come up with their own version of Jesus.

No one claims the Divinity of Christ based on the Anointing of the Spirit! I never said so! I know very well that there were many that were anointed and strengthened by the Spirit in the OT!
Good to know. Allah still strengthen true believers today but it's very hard to be steadfast.

Quran speaks again of this in Sura


"Verily, those who say:, "Our Lord is Allah", and, further, stand straight and steadfast, the angels descend on them (from time to time): "Fear ye not!", "Nor grieve! but receive the Glad Tidings of the Garden (of Bliss), the which ye were promised!" (41:30)

So so long as a Muslim is firm in Faith with certainty, Allah will strengthen him/her even in 21 century. But the person must be Muslim, righteous and sincere.

Hear John speak:
"...He that comes after me is preferred before me; for He was before me!
John 1:15b
Making it clear that Jesus is, and was before him not on the basis of age since John was born before Jesus but on a greater and infinitely higher basis!
ANd this was supposed to amke Jesus God?. Quran speaks of "special most powerful prophets and messangers" namely:

Muhammad

Jesus

Abraham

Moses

Noah

Sura (33:7)

"And (remember) when We took from the Prophets their covenant, and from you (O Muhammad SAW), and from Nuh (Noah), Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses), and 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary). We took from them a strong covenant"

Tafsir(commentary) of this verse says these are 5 most powerful prophets and messangers of Allah. Now if Jesus is God because John(p) said his greater than him, then you may want to consider Muhammad to God since he too has authority to choose who goes to paradise.

And hear what John's mum had to say:

"And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
Luke 1:43
She said this at a time when she was pregnant with John.
Meaning?. What we are looking for is where Jesus recorded his own words saying he is God. Not what second or third party says. Luke was not written by Jesus and you said it yourself that Jesus did not read NT.

Meaning?. Are those christian who dont believe Jesus is God dont claim they have "holy spirit" as well?. They said their doctrine is inspired by holy spirit. So how many holy spirit?. Holy spirit supposed to give one universal message to Christians. Grab my point?

And by calling Jesus God,isnt that innovation introduced by some Christians?. Which of the disciples of Jesus called him God and he was not rebuked by Jesus?. The one place i know of in the Bible where Jesus is called God by 'disciple' was rebuked by Jesus himself. SO whether he is called God or son of God it is all innovation after ascension of Jesus.

I leave you with this verse again


"O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allah aught but the truth. The Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah and His Word, ("Be!" - and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam (Mary) and a spirit (Ruh) created by Him; so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not: "Three (trinity)!" Cease! (it is) better for you. For Allah is (the only) One Ilah (God), Glory be to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is All-Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs." Sura 004:171

Empiree:
@ bold, since you agreed that prophet muhammad(s.a.w) accepted Gospel, then why dont you believe in him and Quran?. Why do you hate him and rainy curses on him if he accepted Gospel?. Read below.....

The Hadith (sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad in Islam) as well point out to Biblical Corruption. Consider these hadith:

Narrated Abu Huraira: The people of the Scripture (Jews) used to recite the Torah in Hebrew and they used to explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. On that Allah's Apostle said, "Do not believe the people of the Scripture or disbelieve them, but say:-- "We believe in Allah and what is revealed to us." (2.136) (Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 12)


Narrated Ubaidullah: Ibn 'Abbas said, "Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Quran) which has been revealed to Allah's Apostle is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 92, Number 461)

Narrated 'Ubaidullah bin 'Abdullah: 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas said, "O the group of Muslims! How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which Allah has revealed to your Prophet contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the Scriptures have changed some of Allah's Books and distorted it and wrote something with their own hands and said, 'This is from Allah, so as to have a minor gain for it. Won't the knowledge that has come to you stop you from asking them? No, by Allah, we have never seen a man from them asking you about that (the Book Al-Qur'an ) which has been revealed to you. (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 614)


The first hadith is saying that as long as the Torah agrees with the Quran, it is to be believed however if the Torah doesn't agree with the Quran then it is not to be believed. Some Christian apologetics only quotes the third Bukhari Hadith #614 to point out that Islam doesn't have anything to say about Biblical corruption. But this hadith too is saying that the Bible is corrupt. When it says changed some of Allah’s books, it means the Torah, Psalms and the Gospels and that the Bible is not reliable and Muslims shouldn't go to the people of the scripture since their books are now distorted. Also pay attention to the hadith #461 I quoted. The hadith states that the Jews AND the Christians had distorted and wrote the scripture with their own hands that was given to them. In other words their books were not the same ones given to Moses and Jesus and that’s what the Quran 3:3 is speaking about… the original books of Prophets Moses and Jesus which we clearly don’t have today.


You don't understand what Qur'an is saying because your brain is suspended between heaven and earth.

As for why did previous Holy books like torah and Gospel not protected, now pay attention to this because i know you've been throwing this question around saying no muslims can answer it. If after this answer you keep asking again, then am done with you on it. Let me rephrase your question. It's something like this, correct?

Why did Allah preserve the Quran and allow His earlier books of divine revelation to be changed or lost?

The answer to that question lies in the following three facts:

The earlier prophets and their books were sent to a particular people in particular periods of history. Once the period ended, a new prophet was sent with a new book to replace the previous book. So, it was not necessary that these books be preserved by Allah. The preservation of the earlier books was left up to the people as a test for them. Thus, when the people went astray, they changed what was written in the books which their prophets brought in order to make allowable the things which were forbidden to them. In that way, all of the earlier books of revelation became either changed or lost.

Now, take a look at the essay I posted earlier about different authors of the Bible, sound familiar?. Even you can not deny that Bible scholars have faulted your Bibles. Read further below....

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the last prophet whom Allah sent, and he was not sent to a particular people or a particular time. He was sent to all of mankind until the end of the world. Allah said in the Quran,

"I have only sent you (Muhammad) as a giver of glad tidings and a warner to all mankind, but most men do not understand." [Noble Quran 34:28]

Thus, his book of revelation, the Quran, had to be specially preserved from any form of change or loss so that it would be available to all the generations of man until the last day of the world.


Scholars of the Bible say the Bible has been badly edited and corrupted over time

Critical scholars today are generally in agreement that the sources of the Pentateuch were 4 separate documents written in different times by different authors. These source documents were called the J (Jehowah/Yahweh), E (Elohim) D (Deuteronomic), and the P (priestly), documents. Internal evidence shows that “J” originated from the southern kingdom of Judah and was the earliest to be documented around 900BC; “E” was written in the northern kingdom of Israel probably about a century or so later. The “D” document is dated to about 700BC. The documents were then combined into one by the priesthood, who added their own “Priestly” tradition to it, during the Babylonian exile (after 560 BC). We are not concerned here with the basis of this theory as our purpose is simply to show that it could not have been written by Moses-a fundamentalist bedrock belief. For more on this read Anderson, A Critical Introduction to the Old Testament.

The gospels are not eyewitness accounts

-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School

Some scholars say so many revisions occurred in the 100 years following Jesus' death that no one can be absolutely sure of the accuracy or authenticity of the Gospels, especially of the words the authors attributed to Jesus himself.
-Jeffery L. Sheler

Even the Biblical book of Jeremiah clearly states that the scribes of the ancient Israelites altered the revealed scriptures given to the Israelites by Allah, and thus changed them “into a lie”.

[size=15pt]" 'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (Jeremiah 8:8 New International Version)[/size]

Anymore questions.........?

Ifeann:


Its translations ...the different versions are translations. .it's similar to the different translations u have of the quran. Eg. Pickthall, Yusuf Ali, Al-Hilali/Khan, Malik, Shakir, Sher Ali, Khalifa, Daryabadi, Asad etc
But there is a difference. .Read on..

I would always suggest people go for the KJV and good news versions. . Learn everything that is authentically translated .

It is important to note that Christianity is also attacked from bible versions ... for example the heretical Jehovah witness have their translation where they deliberately distort the translation. .I have seen this myself. .

Children and teen versions make the bible more captivating for kids as it contains pics and imagery etc..

A lot of translations are unnecessary but some are neccessary since the Eglish language changes with time eg.. we used to use words like ye, thou, thus, thy, thee but these aren't used any more..

limamintruth:



Oh, you mean just like your Caliph Uthman-created quran that also has various versions in english, as can be seen below :-

QURAN 37:102

Sahih International: And when he reached with him [the age of] exertion, he said, "O my son, indeed I have seen in a dream that I [must] sacrifice you, so see what you think." He said, "O my father, do as you are commanded. You will find me, if Allah wills, of the steadfast."
Pickthall: And when (his son) was old enough to walk with him, (Abraham) said: O my dear son, I have seen in a dream that I must sacrifice thee. So look, what thinkest thou? He said: O my father! Do that which thou art commanded. Allah willing, thou shalt find me of the steadfast.
Yusuf Ali: Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!"
Shakir: And when he attained to working with him, he said: O my son! surely I have seen in a dream that I should sacrifice you; consider then what you see. He said: O my father! do what you are commanded; if Allah please, you will find me of the patient ones.
Muhammad Sarwar: When his son was old enough to work with him, he said, "My son, I have had a dream that I must sacrifice you. What do you think of this?" He replied, "Father, fulfill whatever you are commanded to do and you will find me patient, by the will of God". E.T.C.



[ Therefore Mr. Ignoramus, Irrespective of how many times english as a language evolves, the content & message of the Holy Bible still remains the same forever].
Except maybe you were only referring to the alleged divine book with the following dubious history
:-

"The third caliph, Uthman, became famous, or rather infamous, for Quran burning. Distressing reports had filtered to him from battlefield generals who were fighting against the Armenians and other nations on the edge of his burgeoning Islamic empire: different versions of the Quran were overheard being recited.
Caliph Uthman had a bold idea. He made a new edition of the Quran and demanded that all other editions be surrendered and burnt. Not everyone liked this. After all, Uthman was not one of the four people Prophet Muhammad had said Muslims could trust to issue the Quran. Ibn Mas'ud, on the other hand, was. He refused point-blank to surrender his collection of the Quran, which he claimed he got directly from Muhammad.
Ali, the famous one who was Prophet Mohammed's son-in-law and the soon-to-be fourth caliph, at first refused to surrender his Quran to the flames. He finally gave in under pressure, but he was not pleased.
Some claim Ali's displeasure led him to participate in the assassination of Uthman -- staged while Uthman was reading his new version of the Quran. One report has the assassins dramatically screaming, "You changed Allah's Quran!" as they plunged knives into the fading caliph's body. Ali's followers, who became the Shiites, to this day feel that Uthman tampered with the Quran to deprive Ali's family of the hereditary right to lead Islam.
Caliph Uthman's bonfire dealt a blow to textual criticism of the Quran. Fortunately, some hidden pre-Uthmanic manuscripts survived and have slowly come to light, although access to them has been limited: their very existence goes against the party line that the Quran has never been changed. We know that Ibn Mas'ud's version was different from the modern Quran. For example, it did not include the important first sura, known as the 'Fatiha'.... "

Empiree:
Okay now, since you admire KJV and Good News very well especially King James Version. Now, you said to "learn everything that is authentically translated". Key word is "AUTHENTIC TRANSLATION".

Good. Let's put King James Versions against each other. Before that, I will like to remind you that we Muslims believe that Isa(Jesus- peace be upon him) is human being 100%. He's a prophet and messenger of God. He is indeed God's true servant. There is no need for me to quote Qur'an since Qur;an is clear on who Jesus(peace be upon him) is. Here are contradictory accounts of who Jesus in KJV, NKJV and GNV. Son and Servant are different meanings. Bible contradict itself and also agrees with Quran that Jesus is servant of God.

Acts 3:13

King James Bible
The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go.


Good News Translation
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our ancestors, has given divine glory to his Servant Jesus. But you handed him over to the authorities, and you rejected him in Pilate's presence, even after Pilate had decided to set him free.


New King James Version
The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go.

Now, dont even try to mess with me by twisting what is not and using same "taqqiyah" you used to cover up violence verses in your "holy book"....son does not equates servant. They are two different words with different meanings. Pay close attention to the two (2) KJVs carefully.

Empiree:
Too much talks doesnt solve anything. All you have to do is present Quran that contradict themselves. For instance, there are some Bibles that have some verses expunged. The like of Amplified Bible which is missing many books etc. I can go on and write out more examples. But in the Quran, even english translations they are consistent. I was reading a Bible(name withheld) 2days ago and it's missing a verse like say John 13:1,2,4,5,6,7,8,10. Can you spot what i am talking about?. But you will never see this with Quran.

Let me remind you again that Quran is in arabic. It's all the same. Once it's translated in to other language(s), it's no longer Quran, it's translation of the meaning. Your (Bible) original manuscripts are lost in history.

So if you think there are inconsistencies with Quran, kindly bring them forward. I dont want to hear much talks like you did up there. That's irrelevant. All i need from you is evidence. Simple right?. ifeaan and dejign already tried this but failed. You are next.

limamintruth:


Lmao, So after exposing your folly in respect of the Holy Bible's English translations you criticised by enlightening you about your beloved quran's many english versions too, all you could do is to hastily scribble down this balderdash of cheap talk right ? Why not then show me the Holy Bible translations that contradict themselves then?



You still have said nothing mister. Why are you shying away from quoting the Bible verse(s) allegedely missing in the translation as mentioned by you



BlaBlaBla... As i said earlier, kindly release the name(s) of the Bible translation(s) then. Or else, your allegation remains baseless.



Lol, this is really getting interesting . So you mean the quran english translation is not regarded as the actual arabic quran right? ?
Does that mean the english translation is only a mere book of interpretation, hence, shouldnt to refered to as the actual supposed 'divine' book? Lallai kam!

Mind you the Holy Bible is not limited to only one language because it is the true message of God that is meant for all nations of the world who speak diverse languages. Our God understand all languages and listens to prayers of the believers spoken in all languages. Our God is not a God of confusion. He has a purpose for allowing nations of the earth to speak in diverse tongues.

And at least, i accurately cited an example of some quranic versions, whereas, you havent cited any Bible verse to buttress your point in your lenghthy post of gibberish.
So i can see you are the kid here.

I'l leave you with the piece of uthman quranic translations with contradictory words for you ponder upon tonight :

Yusuf Ali : He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: in it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning);...

Pickthall : He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - ...

Shakir : He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive ...

(So kindly explain to us how the following terms (from the quranic texts above) mean the same thing mister-mallam-wannabe :-

- basic or fundamental (of established meaning)

- clear revelations

- some of its verses are decisive. )

limamintruth:



Yea, islam in europe and the west thrives solely because it is allowed to do so by the peace loving and tolerant indigents who are predominantly christians. Unfortunately, same cannot be said of countries with predominantly muslims because of the intolerance of islam against other non-islamic faiths, as seen in the average muslim. Nevertheless, all muslim countries (nothwitstanding their intolerance against other faiths and excluding the few countries controlled by islamic terrorists) are witnessing more christian converts by the day. These upsurge of new christian converts in mostly muslim countries the world over arent often publicly reported cos of the the threats of deaths by the muslim majority.

Christianity has survived hundreds of years of islamic brutality and still tops the chart as the greatest religion in the world. And this will never change no matter the attacks and threats by islamists worldwide.

limamintruth:


To appreciate my answer better, permit me to briefly take our minds back to history.

Over the centuries of salvation history, the Holy Spirit inspired the authors of Sacred Scripture to write down God's revelation to us. As time went on, the Church compiled these books of God's word to form a Canon—an authoritative set of Sacred Scripture.
The books of the Old Testament were written probably between 1000 and 100 BC, an are usually distinguished as three sets: The Law (or Torah, our first five books of the Old Testament), The Prophets and The Writings. Even in the New Testament itself, we find references to the reading of the Law and the Prophets in synagogue services (e.g. LK 4:16-19), Jamnia (90-100), at which time they established what books would be considered their Sacred Scripture. At this time, the seven "deuterocanonical books"—Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, I and II Maccabees (and Esther)— had also been incorporated in the Septuagint, the official Greek translation of the Old Testament (c. 100 BC). These were the latest writings of the Old Testament and were written in Greek rather than Hebrew; the other books of the Old Testament—the "protocanonical books"—were older and originally written in Hebrew. Modern scholars note that Jamnia did not exclude any books definitively; these books—including the deuterocanonical books—were read and honored. Thus, many Scripture scholars have no doubt that the early apostolic Church accepted the deuterocanonical books as part of its canon of Sacred Scriptures.

With this background, we can now address why the Protestant versions of the Bible have less books than the Catholic versions. In 1534, Martin Luther translated the Bible into German. He grouped the seven deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament under the title "Apocrypha," declaring. "These are books which are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures and yet are useful and good for reading." Luther also categorized the New Testament books: those of God's work of salvation (John, Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, I Peter, and I John); other canonical books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, rest of Paul's epistles, II Peter, and II John); and non-canonical books (Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation, and books of the Old Testament).

Nevertheless, his action had the permanent consequence of omitting the seven deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament in Protestant versions of the Bible.
The 39 Articles of Religion (1563) of the Church of England asserted that these deuterocanonical books may be read for "example of life and instruction of manners," although they should not be used "to establish any doctrine" (Article VI). Consequently, the King James Bible (1611) printed the books between the New Testament and the Old Testaments. It should also be noted that these deuterocanonical books are more of Jewish traditions than Christ's sacred gospel of salvation. And because the catholic church inculcates so much of traditions of early believers, it still maintains these deutrocanonical books as part of the church's English Bible translation.

Therefore, these books do not in any way contradict the content of other books in the Holy Bible.

............

And now to your second question,
how does an omitted text amount to a contradiction or inconsistency if i may ask?
In case you arent aware, verse 7-8 of 1 John 5 were originally marginal note that were sunsequently included by the latin translators of the Greek-lang. version of the Holy Bible for solely explanatory purposes.

These texts are absent in the early Greek Bible version (which existed prior to the latin translation) and some of the present English Bible translations are directly derived from the Greek translation, while the others are sourced directly from the latin Bible translation (that has the included margin notes) also.

Hence, understand once more that the inclusion and/or omission of the said texts does not, in anyway, alter or contradict the message of the Holy Bible.

So, the 'GRAVE DEFECTS' indicated by RSV preface is not with regard to the message/content of the Holy Bible, but with the specific K.J.V English language Bible translation. Thus,nothing in the included/omitted texts of v.7-8 contradicts the message of the word in the Holy Bible.
BTW, 1 John 5:7 is not the only Biblical text that highlights the concept of the Trinity or states that Christ Jesus is God.

Here's some more texts for reference:

- The Father is God ( John 6:27; Romans 1:7; 1 Peter 1:2). - The Son is God ( John 1:1, 14; Romans 9:5; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 1:8; 1 John 5:20). - The Holy Spirit is God ( Acts 5:3-4; 1 Corinthians 3:16).

limamintruth:


Lol, nice try, but so inadequate i must say
You tried so hard to portray the word 'basic/fundamental' as synonymous to the word 'decisive' to defeat my argument on the inconsistency of the Quran's English translation, but you once again only succeeded in shying away from the actual point in issue.
Anyways, 'basic &/or fundamental' clearly differs from the word 'decisive' in meaning. While the former refers to a foundation or start-point of sth, the latter refers to producing a specific result/output.
Therefore, these two distinct words cannot be used interchangeably because they are not synonymous in any way. Doing so will definitely create variations/inconsistencies. Enough said!


* I can also see you 'indirectly' asserted in your response that Quran in English lang. translation (which according to you, shouldnt even be refered to as the quran) is an inferior version of Quran in arabic right? So does that mean you 'allegedly perfect' quran automatically loses (more of) its value/perfection the moment it becomes translated to any non-arabic lang.?
If yes, then its obvious its supposed value/perfection as a divine book comes not from the message it carries/contains, instead, only on the language it was conveyed in. Now i know why the spirit of God remains absent in it.

..............



You think so right? Or better still, you wish so right?


I guess you need to sit back and allow me to enlighten you on your quran then, since its so obvious you know not your reverred book as i thought.

Lets start with a little bit of history as it relates to Quran:

"The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, as compiled by practising muslims, records the following thus:

Certain variant readings (of the Qur'an) existed and, indeed, persisted and increased as the Companions who had memorised the text died, and because the inchoate (basic) Arabic script, which lack vowel signs and even necessary diacriticals to distinguish between certain consonants, was inadequate;

In the 4th Islamic century, it was decided to have recourse (to return) to "readings" (qira'at) handed down from seven authoritative "readers" (qurra'); in order. Moreover, to ensure accuracy of transmission, two "transmitters" (rawi, pl.ruwah) were accorded to each. There resulted from this seven basic texts(al-qira'at as-sab', "the seven readings", each having two transmitted versions(riwayatan) with only minor variations in phrasing, but all containing meticulous vowel-points and other necessary diacritical marks. The authoritative "readers" are:
- Nafi`(from Medina; d.169/785)
- Ibn Kathir(from Mecca; d.119/737)
- Abu `Amr al-`Ala'(from Damascus; d.153/770)
- Ibn `Amir(from Basra; d.118/736)
- Hamzah(from Kufah; d.156/772)
- al-Qisa'i(from Kufah; d.189/804)
- Abu Bakr `Asim(from Kufah; d.158/778)"
.......

Therefore, it is an established fact that the Arabic Qur'an has been passed down from men called "the Readers". They were famous reciters of the Qur'an in the early centuries of Islam. The way these men recited the Qur'an was formerly recorded in textual form by other men called the "Transmitters". There are in fact more Readers and Transmitters than those listed above. The table below lists the some of the commonly accepted Readers and their transmitted versions and their current area of use.
The Reader | The Transmitter | Current Area of Use
"The Seven"
Nafi` | Warsh | Algeria, Morocco, parts of Tunisia, West Africa and Sudan
QalunLibya, Tunisia and parts of Qatar
Ibn Kathiral-Bazzi | Qunbul
Abu `Amr al-'Ala'al-Duri | Parts of Sudan and West Africa
al-Suri |
Ibn `AmirHisham | Parts of Yemen
Abu Bakr `Asim | Hafs | Most of muslim world in general.
[See Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi,An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur'aan, at p. 199.]

What the above means is that the Arabic Qur'an has come to exist through many transmitted versions. One cannot recite or read the Qur'an except through one of these versions. Each version has its own chain of narrators (isnad) like a hadith. There are more versions than those listed above but they are not considered authentic because their chain of narration is considered weak. Not all of these versions are printed or used today, but several are.

Lets then examine two of these accepted versions and their contrasts.


A COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO ARABIC QUR'AN. VERSIONS


To make things easy to understand, lets now compare two arabic Qur'ans from different parts of the world to see if they are identical. The Qur'an on the left is now the most commonly used Qur'an and is according to Imam Hafs' transmitted version. The Qur'an on the right is according to Imam Warsh's transmitted version and is mainly used in North Africa.
When you compare these Qur'ans it becomes obvious that they are not identical.

There are four main types of differences between them.
1.Graphical/Basic Letter Differences
2.Diacritical Differences
3.Vowel Differences
(4.Basmalah Difference; which i'l exclude here cos the disparity here is basically a matter of each transmitter's opinion than facts)
The following examples of these differences are from the same word in the same verse. On some occasions the verse number differs because the two Qur'ans number their verses differently. Also, the letter Qaaf in the Warsh version is written with only one dot, and the Faa has a single dot below.

1. Graphical/Basic Letter Differences
THE QUR'AN ACCORDING TO IMAM HAFS | THE QUR'AN ACCORDING TO IMAM WARSH

http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven/hafs_21.4.gif qaala 21:4

He said(qaala): "My Lord knows ..."

http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven/warsh_21.4.gif qul 21:4

Say(qul): "My Lord knows ..."
These words are spelt differently and mean different things. This difference changes the subject of the verb. In the Hafs version the subject is Muhammad, "He (Muhammad) said, 'My lord knows ...'", but in the Warsh version the subject is God, "Say: My lord knows ..." as in a command.


2. Diacritical Differences
Arabic uses dots to distinguish certain letters that are written the same way. For instance the basic symbol http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven/root.gif represents five different letters in Arabic depending upon where the diacritical dots are placed: http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven/baa.gif baa', http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven/taa.gif taa', http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven/thaa.gif thaa', http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven/nuun.gif nuun, http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven/yaa.gif yaa'. Here we see another difference between these two Qur'ans for they do not have the dots in the same place. The result is that different letters are formed.
THE QUR'AN ACCORDING TO IMAM HAFS | THE QUR'AN ACCORDING TO IMAM WARSH

http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven/hafs_3.81.gif ataytukum

I gave you ... 3:81

http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven/warsh_3.80.gif ataynakum

We gave you ... 3:80

There are different letters in these words. This difference changes the meaning from,"I", to, "we".


3. Vowel Differences
Arabic uses small symbols above and below the letters to indicate some of the vowels of a word. Here we see another difference between these two Qur'ans for they do not have the same vowels in the same place.
THE QUR'AN ACCORDING TO OF IMAM HAFS | THE QUR'AN ACCORDING TO OF IMAM WARSH

http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven/hafs_3.146.gif qatala

And many a prophet fought(qatala) 3:146

http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven/warsh_3.146.gif qutila

And many a prophet was killed(qutila) 3:146
[Also as in 3:144 in both versions]

There are different vowels in these words. This changes the meaning from the active to the passive. E.T.C

Note that only two versions of the arabic Qur'an are considered above, but as stated at the beginning, there are many other versions that could also be examined for variants. The quranic book below does this. It is a Qur'an that lists the variants from the Ten Accepted Readers.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven/10cover.jpg

(Translation)
Making Easy the Readings of What Has Been Sent Down
Author
Muhammad Fahd Khaaruun
The Collector of the 10 Readings
From al-Shaatebeiah and al-Dorraah and al-Taiabah
Revised by
Muhammad Kareem Ragheh
The Chief Reader of Damascus
Daar al-Beirut
The copyright page of the book reads as follows.
Copyright is for the publisher.
First Print
1420 - 1999

In this edition of the Qur'an, Muhammad Fahd Khaaruun has collected accepted variant readings from among the Ten Accepted Readers and included them in the margin of the Hafs version of the Qur'an. These are not all the variants. There are other variants that could have also been included but the author has limited himself to the variants of the Ten Accepted Readers. As the title suggests, this makes it easy to know what the variant readings are because they are clearly listed.

Below is a copy of a random page from this Qur'an. You can see the variant readings listed in the margin. Approximately two thirds of the verses of the Qur'an have some type of variant. This is approximately 4000 variants.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/seven/10page.jpg

I know some muslims will claim that the differences between these arabic Qur'an versions are only a matter of dialect, accent or pronunciation, and that they do not have any effect on the meaning at all. However this is clearly not the case. The examples of the differences given earlier show that the differences are far more than dialect, accent or pronunciation. The differences change the subject of the sentence, whether the verb is active or passive or whether it is singular or plural. These differences do affect the meaning. Comprende'?

limamintruth:


Abeg park well jare; you are nothing but a confirmed dum..bo mister. Are you trying to tell us now that the words "fought" and "kill" are synonymous or what Pls just because you are dumb doesnt mean we all are ok.

Cos of these two entirely different words, what we now have in your arabic quran is one verse with different meanings. And that is a very good example of quran's several pure contradictions.


As for your deliberate Bible mistinterpretation, I initially didnt want to reply to it, with the way it reeks of pure desperation.
However, being the generous guy that i am , i'l answer you. But first, i'l advise you go back and carefully re-read the Bible verses you quoted

I want you to note that the Holy Bible indeed records that Saul reigned for 42yrs as king in all. And nothing in 1 Samuel 13:1 negates this; rather, 1 samuel 13 only gives a detailed narration of what happened in Saul's second year reign.
Thus, 1 Sam. 13:1 is not there to inform us(the readers) about the number of years Saul reigned as king over Isreal, but to let us know the event that actually occurred in his 2nd year reign as king.

Thus, to explain the verse to you in simple, this is what it states:
"Saul reigned first year; and when he had reigned the second year(or 2yrs) over Isreal, [.dash.dash.dash happened as recorded in the subsequent verses] .

So this verse is not conclusively saying that Saul only reigned for two years as king, but only informs us of what happened in his 2nd yr as king.




Abeg park well jare; you are nothing but a confirmed dum..bo mister. Are you trying to tell us now that the words "fought" and "kill" are synonymous or what Pls just because you are dumb doesnt mean we all are ok.

Cos of these two entirely different words, what we now have in your arabic quran is one verse with different meanings. And that is a very good example of quran's several pure contradictions.


As for your deliberate Bible mistinterpretation, I initially didnt want to reply to it, with the way it reeks of pure desperation.
However, being the generous guy that i am , i'l answer you. But first, i'l advise you go back and carefully re-read the Bible verses you quoted

I want you to note that the Holy Bible indeed records that Saul reigned for 42yrs as king in all. And nothing in 1 Samuel 13:1 negates this; rather, 1 samuel 13 only gives a detailed narration of what happened in Saul's second year reign.
Thus, 1 Sam. 13:1 is not there to inform us(the readers) about the number of years Saul reigned as king over Isreal, but to let us know the event that actually occurred in his 2nd year reign as king.

Thus, to explain the verse to you in simple, this is what it states:
"Saul reigned first year; and when he had reigned the second year(or 2yrs) over Isreal, [.dash.dash.dash happened as recorded in the subsequent verses] .

So this verse is not conclusively saying that Saul only reigned for two years as king, but only informs us of what happened in his 2nd yr as king.




Of course i know you have nothing sensible to scribble down in response to my post; Its so obvious my comment is beyond your comprehension. Hence you need not sweat it @empiree.




Wow, with all due respect now you sound like a hopeless clo.wn indeed.
I indirectly referred you to that particular link on purpose, so that you wil have something to make further research on without having to drag me into your silly endless argument on same issue.

- First, you mocked the Holy Bible for having several English translations and i immediately proved to you that your qur'an also has several English translations also. (Yours with even many terrible inconsistencies.

- You then went ahead to myopically claim that your English Qur'an is not to be regarded as the actual Qur'an (cos according to you, the only original quran there is, is the one written in arabic) & you further alleged that your arabic Qur'an is just one with no version at all.
Thus in my last post, i once again exposed your ignorance about the many versions of your arabic qur'an in existence.


Thus far, i'v now realise that you are just a very confused kid who totally lacks any sensible thing to offer in this discuss.

I therefore politely ask you to quit mentioning me henceforth boy.





[Do take this as my parting gift though ]:

Subhii al-Saalih, a respected Islamic scholar summarized the differences in the several (arabic) Qur'an versions into seven categories.
1.Differences in grammatical indicator (i`raab).
2.Differences in consonants.
3.Differences in nouns as to whether they are singular, dual, plural, masculine or feminine.
4.Differences in which there is a substitution of one word for another.
5.Differences due to reversal of word order in expressions.
6.Differences due to some small addition or deletion.
7.Differences due to dialectical peculiarities.
(And also the difference in the status of the Basmalah as well ).

limamintruth:
For the very last time, my simple response to your barrage of irritating questions on the omitted/included Bible verses ish is thus:

Most of the books of the Bible were originally written in Hebrewaic language. Thus, the first Bible was in Hebrewaic language i.e to say the Hebrewaic Bible existed first.
Subsequently, with the spread of christianity in Rome and much of europe, it was necessary to have a Latin Bible translation. However, because of the wide disparity between the Hebrewaic dialect and the Latin dialect, the translation wasnt an easy task to do. Thus, the translators had to attach certain marginal notes to specific chapters for easy understanding.

Then as years went by, it once again became imperative to introduce an English Bible translation also. The K.J.V became the first printed English Bible and it was solely derived directly from the Latin translation. Remember that the Latin Bible translation had marginal notes included therein as i'v clearly stated above. Hence, while both the first hebrewaic & greek Bible translations remained as they were, the Latin Bible translation had some marginal notes included in it.

However, when the latin Bible was being translated to English (and titled K.J.V), these existing marginal notes were included, not as notes again, but as verses on their own accord. Understand also that the Holy Bible, as one of the oldest existing Holy books on earth (2nd only to the Jewish Torah from whence much of the old testament is even derived), has transcended through several civilisations, peoples and languages from the Hebrewaic Bible at first to the Greek Bible, then the Latin Bible translation; & finally the English translations (as well as the availability of the Bible in thousands of other smaller languages across the globe now ).

Therefore in conclusion, kindly note that while those English Bible versions with the omitted verses(e.g R.S.V) were derived directly from the ancient Greek Bible translation, the likes of K.J.V that possess further explanatory verses attached were derived directly from the ancient latin Bible.

This is my final answer to your back&forth questions on omitted &/or added verses please.
The presence and/or absense of this explanatory verses does not in any way contradict or alter the perfect message of God as recorded in the Holy Bible. Hence, the Bible account on King Saul as narrated in 1 Samuel 13 of ALL versions are both true and correct. There is absolutely no contradiction therein cos one of the two accounts there is an extension of the other (i.e to say they complement the message; not conflict with each other) and we christians are aware of these extensions/further explanatory verses in our Bible study. Hence, its never an issue for believers



Mu..mu, the Arabic Quran has DIFFERENT VERSIONS too and two of these several versions were mentioned in my previous post i.e Hafs version & Warsh version. So what again are you blabbing

And about the contradictions in these Quranic versions, kindly go thru my previous post for that. I'm done with the back&forth ish.




The OT Scriptures were first given to Israel, God's chosen nation of old. Romans 3:1-2 tells us that God had committed to the Jews the safekeeping and writing of the Holy Scriptures.

Knowing well the divine nature of the Scriptures, that the words of the sacred pages were the very words of the Almighty God, they copied the Scriptures with great precision and accuracy employing very strict rules.

For instance:
(1) "No word or letter could be written from memory; the scribe must have an authentic copy before him, and he must read and pronounce aloud each word before writing it."
(2) "The revision of a roll must be made within 30 days after the work was finished; otherwise it was worthless. One mistake on a sheet condemned the sheet; if three mistakes were found on any page, the entire manuscript was condemned."
(3) "Every word and every letter was counted, and if a letter were omitted, an extra letter inserted, or if one letter touched another, the manuscript was condemned and destroyed at once."

These very strict rules of transcription show how precious the Jews had regarded the inspired words of God, and how precise their copying of these inspired words must have been. Such strict practices in writing "give us strong encouragement that we indeed possess authentic Old Testament scripture just like the New Testament; being the same one which was originally given by inspiration of God."

The words of the Scriptures are important (Deut 8:3, Matt 4:4, Luke 4:4). God uses His words to communicate His Truth so that we might know who and what He is and how we might be saved through Him. The Bible clearly tells us that it is God's written words (i.e"All of Scripture) that are inspired (2 Tim 3:16); and from these inspired words come all the doctrines that are sufficient and profitable for the spiritual growth and maturity of the believer (2 Tim 3:17).

The Bible also clearly says that God Himself will preserve all His inspired words to the jot and title without the loss of any word, syllable or letter (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35).
...................

Now to your question(s), i want you to note that the Word of God in the Holy Bible is forever infallible and inerrant.The Church today has a 100% Perfect Bible without any iota of error of contradiction.

Bible account on how Judas died is as rightly recorded in the book of Mathew, while Apostle Peter's brief analogy on Judas in verses 18 & 19 of Acts 1 is solely stated figuratively, hence shouldnt be interpreted literarily.

Lets carefully analyse the aforementioned Acts 1:18 & 19 then:-

v.18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity(i.e sin of betrayal), and falling headlong(i.e deeper in sin by further committing suicide), he bursts asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out(i.e his innate secret was exposed).

v. 19 further states:
And it was known unto all the dwellers in Jerusalem(meaning all residents of Jesus heard about Judas now uncovered sin against Jesus, as committed by him in secret) [..& can you now see how this v.19 corroborates my explanation above ]; in so much as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. (& is named as such cos the field was bought with blood money).

Therefore, Acts 1:18 never mentioned or inferred that Judas fell from any hill/rock/mountain as you wrongly assume. Why not even reason it this way if really you are smart:
lets say Judas did actually die by falling from a high surface 'headlong' as erronously assumed by you, why then was it his belly that burst open & not his head/brain? Hope you can now understand my position that there's absolutely nothing contradictory here. cos if only you applied an unbiased mind without deliberately seeking fault(s) where none exist, you would have been able to discern the true content of these verses rightly. But alas, your desperation for faults got the best of you and you became misled.

Empiree:
Isaiah 9:6Good News Translation (GNT)
A child is born to us!
A son is given to us!
And he will be our ruler.
He will be called, “Wonderful[a] Counselor,”
“Mighty God,” “Eternal Father,”
“Prince of Peace.”

Isaiah 7:14Good News Translation (GNT)
Well then, the Lord himself will give you a sign: a young woman[a] who is pregnant will have a son and will name him Immanuel

According to footnote of Isaiah, it defines Immanuel as: This name in Hebrew means “God is with us.” My question is how's "Immanuel equate "Mighty God", "Eternal Father"?

Saul killed himself 1 Sam.31:4
Samuel 31:4Good News Translation (GNT)
He said to the young man carrying his weapons, “Draw your sword and kill me, so that these godless Philistines won't gloat over me and kill me.” But the young man was too terrified to do it. So Saul took his own sword and threw himself on it.

Someone killed Saul. 2 Sam.1:5-10
2 Samuel 1:5-10King James Version (KJV)
10: So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord.

limamintruth:


Just like Caliph Uthman & the subsequent seven Readers distorted the Quran right?




Lol, lemme indulge you cos I can see this has become a mantra of some sort for you.

The R.S.V preface amongst some others, have indeed critiqued K.J.V as being defective primarily due to the change (since 1611) in English usage. Many forms of word expressions have become archaic/obsolete and no longer understood by the common reader. Thereby posing a great problem, as some of the English words in constant use by K.J.V now convey a different meaning from that which they had in 1611.
Some few examples of such archaic expressions in the King James Version are the use of: "wottest" for '"know"; "let" for "restrain" ( II Thess. 2); "conversation" for "conduct"; "take no thought" for "be not anxious" ( Matt. 6); etc. The K.J.V has transcended to such an extent in time wherein 17th century English becomes unintelligible, and a new translation is not only permissible, but even demanded. This was a vital concern of the Reformation & the subsequent revisions.





Now you are really beginning to sound confused mister
Or else, how would you claim to have a problem with the word 'version' and not have a problem with 'translation'? It sounds dumb to me really.

In case you dont know, the word "Version" is simply "A particular form of something differing in certain respects(e.g lang., punctuations, expression style e.t.c) from an earlier form or other forms of the same type of thing". Thus, 'version' & 'translation' are two similar words that can be used interchangeably as clearly shown in the Thesaurus dict. below:

"translation [ trans- ley -sh uh n, tranz- ]
Main Entry: translation
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: rewording; interpretation
Synonyms: adaptation, construction, crib*, decoding, elucidation, explanation, gloss, key, metaphrase, paraphrase, reading, rendering, rendition, rephrasing, restatement, simplification, transcription, transliteration, VERSION"

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/translation

So you see, these are synonymous words that are identical; hence, you cant claim to be in love with one and detaste the other.



.

Lol, you are just being unnecessarily adamant @empiree. Everything you pasted above is totally offpoint pls

This is what a renown Islamic website states on the issue in question:

"There are various versions of the Arabic Quran that are still in print. They differ in many aspects although they convey the same meaning. God has provided us with the tool to verify the correct version and confirm His preservation of the Quran. The Mathematical miracle of the Quran has proved that the Hafs transmission maintained the built-in mathematical structure of the Quran."

http://submission.org/verify_are_all_Arabic_versions_of_Quran_the_same.html


Many other famous scholars hav also referred to the Hafs, Warsh, e.t.c as Quranic versions too. So i wonder why you are being adamant against the truth.





Dont tell me you are this desperate in your faultfinding quest?

How on earth does "O.T scriptures" become synonymous to "old covenant"
This are totally two different things; the first refers to the entire books that make up the Old testament, while the latter refers to the 'covenant that existed between God and His people in the time of the ancient Prophets.

So while the Old Testament scriptures have & will always remain unchanged, the Old covenant needed to be renewed with the coming of Christ Jesus. If you wish, i can make out time from my tight schedule to acquaint you more on this issue.

...................
Also, the two verses you quoted in Isaiah are very clear and precise.

The first verse you cited there highlights the titles of christ Jesus,
while
The second unequivocally states His name. i.e Immanuel

Again if you want, i dont mind giving you an illustration using you as example.
A name is different from a title e.g your name may be Obafemi, while your title is 'His Excellency'. Understand?




Sorry i'm not yoruba (neither do i understand or speak the lang.)

And i cant spot any blaspemy in the Malachi verse you quoted pls.
So if you dont mind, kindly highlight and bring out the blasphemy that you allege lies therein. Peace!

limamintruth:

This is for you @empiree cool :-

Notable Islamic scholars have in the past, affirmed the omission/loss/absense of various qur'anic verses(that existed prior to the the time of Caliph Uthman as was revealed to the Prophet) in the subsequent Uthman's standard codex Qur'an presently in use.

An example of such scholar is 'As-Suyuti' (died 1505), who was one of the most famous and revered of the commentators of the Qur'an, & quotes Ibn ‘Umar al Khattab as saying:
"Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Quran, for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Quran has been lost, thus let him say, ‘I have acquired of it what is available’" (As-Suyuti,Itqan, part 3, page 72). cheesy


Again, A’isha the favorite wife of the Prophet, says, also according to a tradition recounted by As-Suynti,
"During the time of the Prophet, the chapter of the Parties used to be two hundred verses when read. When ‘Uthman edited the copies of the Quran, only the current (verses) were recorded" (73).

As-Suyuti also tells this story about Uba ibn Ka’b, one of the great companions of Muhammad:
This famous companion asked one of the Muslims,
"How many verses in the chapter of the Parties?" He said, "Seventy-three verses." He (Uba) told him, "It used to be almost equal to the chapter of the Cow (about 286 verses) and included the verse of the stoning". The man asked, "What is the verse of the stoning?" He (Uba) said,
"If an old man or woman committed adultery, stone them to death."
Since there was no single document collecting all the revelations after Muhammad’s death in 632 C.E., many of his followers tried to gather all the known revelations and write them down in codex form. Soon we had the codices of several scholars such as Ibn Masud, Uba ibn Ka’b, ‘Ali, Abu Bakr, al-Aswad, and others (Jeffery, chapter 6, has listed fifteen primary codices, and a large number of secondary ones).

As Islam spread, we eventually had what became known as the metropolitan codices in the centers of Mecca, Medina, Damascus, Kufa, and Basra. As we saw earlier, ‘Uthman tried to bring order to this chaotic situation by canonizing the Medinan Codex, copies of which were sent to all the metropolitan centers, with orders to destroy all the other codices.

If then there were omissions in the present Qur'an, the next question begging for answer will definitely be if there were additions also?
In response to this question, it is worthy of note that the authenticity of many verses in the Qur'an has been called into question by several Muslims themselves.

1. Many Kharijites, who were followers of ‘Ali in the early history of Islam, found the sura recounting the story of Joseph offensive, & an Intimate tale that did not belong in the Qur'an.

2. Most scholars believe that there are interpolations in the Koran; these interpolations can be seen as interpretative glosses(or further explanatory notes) on certain rare words in need of explanation. More serious are the interpolations of a dogmatic or political character, which seem to have been added to justify the elevation of ‘Uthman as caliph to the detriment of ‘Ali. Then there are other verses that have been added in the interest of rhyme, or to join together two short passages that on their own lack any connection.

3. Because of the process by which the Quran came into being, an average reader of the Qur'an in use will notice how historical narratives are jumbled together and intermingled; an evidence that many different hands have been at work therein, and caused discrepancies, adding or cutting out whatever they liked or disliked. Are such, now, the conditions of a revelation sent down from heaven?


CONTRADICTIONS IN THE QURAN:

The supposed 'perfect' Qur'an consist of several contradictions and inconsistencies that most muslims wont want to admit lipsrsealed

A typical example lies thus:

Who Was the First Muslim according to the Qur'an?Muhammad [6:14, 163], Moses [7:143], some Egyptians [26:51], or Abraham [2:127-133, 3:67] or Adam, the first man who also received inspiration from Allah [2:37]?

According to several passages in the Quran, MUHAMMED was the first Muslim:
Say: Shall I choose for a protecting friend other than Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth, Who feedeth and is never fed?Say: I am ordered to be the first to surrender [aslama] (unto Him). And be not thou (O Muhammad) of the idolaters. Surah 6:14 Pickthall
Say, verily my Lord hath directed me into a right way, a true religion, the sect of Abraham the orthodox; and he was no idolater. Say, verily my prayers, and my worship, and my life, and my death are dedicated unto God, the Lord of all creatures: He hath no companion.This have I been commanded:I am the first Moslem(Wa 'Ana 'Awwalu Al-Muslimin). Surah 6:161-163 Sale
He hath no associate. This am I commanded,and I am the first of the Muslims. Surah 6:163 Rodwell
Say (O Muhammad): Lo! I am commanded to worship Allah, making religion pure for Him (only).And I am commanded to be the first of those who are muslims(surrender unto Him). Surah 39:11-12 Pickthall
..............

This is however contradicted by both the Quran and various Islamic traditions which refer to the presence of true believers both before and during Muhammad’s alleged "call" to prophethood.

The Quran mentions that Adam, Noah, the Patriarchs, the twelve tribes of Israel, Moses, Jesus etc., were all believers and many of them even messengers who lived a long time before Muhammad:
(One of such verses that states this are as seen below)

Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said: "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said: "I know what ye know not."… And behold, We said to the angels: "Bow down to Adam" and they bowed down. Not so Iblis: he refused and was haughty: He was of those who reject Faith. We said: "O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden; and eat of the bountiful things therein as (where and when) ye will; but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression."… When learnt Adam from his Lord words of inspiration, and his Lord Turned towards him; for He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.
Surah 2:30, 34-35, 37


So why the inconsistencies then?
And which verse should we then believe as the right answer to the question on who the first muslim really is? shocked grin cheesy
Goodnight notwitstanding! wink
Goodnight notwitstanding!