fuckerholic:
Muslims always having headache in christianity issues.
If it has,what do you wanna do about it ?
If it has not,are you gonna repent and believe in it ?
Mind your religion..! Underdogs !

meixili:
Salamalikum shalom peace
Is there any proof the Bible hasn't had additions , deletions , altering , or corruption?
Please stay on topic no derailing.
Thank you kindly

Freelanswer:
It's obvious you're seeking controversy. You asked 'IS THERE ANY PROOF THE BIBLE HASN'T BEEN CORRUPTED?' Why not 'IS THERE ANY PROOF THE BIBLE IS GENUINE?' (I mean your bias and prejudice showed in your negative use of words already; your stance shows you won't even listen). Why not state your reason for even thinking the bible may have been corrupted - if knowledge and not controversy is what you are seeking - to enable someone who cares know how to help you? And now - remember I'm a Nigerian - IS THERE ANY PROOF THE QR'AN HASN'T BEEN CORRUPTED? You can't be right if you say I've derailed because both are scriptures. Either supply your reason for thinking the bible may have been corrupted and I will respond, or give me proofs that the Qr'an hasn't been corrupted. Why? The Arabic in your signature shows you're Muslim. So, what could make you this late night to suddenly stop minding your own scriptures and instead to start minding those of others? I'm waiting.

fuckerholic:
Muslims always having headache in christianity issues.
If it has,what do you wanna do about it ?
If it has not,are you gonna repent and believe in it ?
Mind your religion..! Underdogs !

meixili:


Riveting tale.

Are you able to answer my question though?

meixili:
Salamalikum shalom peace

Is there any proof the Bible hasn't had additions , deletions , altering , or corruption?



Please stay on topic no derailing.


Thank you kindly

Medicis:
Question 1:
If the Bible was corrupted, was this before or after Muhammad? Question 2:If before, why does God tell Muhammad to refer to a corrupted Scripture for guidance, and why does he say of the Torah and Gospel ‘wherein is guidance and light’ rather than ‘wherein there used to be before they were corrupted’? Note: Current Scripture translations are all based upon manuscripts that predate Muhammad?

meixili:


My brother greetings of peace.

I asked a question. If you cannot or are unable to answer I'd never hold it against you.

Peace

Medicis:
I Stop deceiving urself with ur greetings of peace. The Bible is not corrupt, pleeeeeaase answer my questions? I'm waiting....

meixili:


Peace.
My brother your corrupting my thread. Perhaps you can make your own

Medicis:
Answer my question?? Please now......

meixili:


My brother, please if you cannot answer my question or unable too, I would never hold it against you.

Might I suggest creating your own thread, instead of hijacking mine.

meixili:
Salamalikum shalom peace

Is there any proof the Bible hasn't had additions , deletions , altering , or corruption?



Please stay on topic no derailing.


Thank you kindly

meixili:
Salamalikum shalom peace

Is there any proof the Bible hasn't had additions , deletions , altering , or corruption?



Please stay on topic no derailing.


Thank you kindly

meixili:
Salamalikum shalom peace

Is there any proof the Bible hasn't had additions , deletions , altering , or corruption?



Please stay on topic no derailing.


Thank you kindly

meixili:

Peace.
My brother your corrupting my thread. Perhaps you can make your own

promise10:
You ask for the genuinty of Bible, but here is the genuinty of bible over quran.

BIBLE VS QUARAN

Some believe the Bible has been corrupted over time. It isn't true and here is how we know it isn't.

The last books of the New Testament were written by about 100 A.D. by the apostle John who was still alive at that time.

We have over 5300 partial or complete manuscripts of the New Testament penned prior to fourth century A.D.

Though not assembled into what we now know as the New Testament until 300 A.D., those canonical writings of Jesus' apostles were being read all over the known world.


Though it is disputed by some Messianic Jews, the New Testament manuscripts were originally written in Koine` Greek and then copied by early Christians into every language known to the world.


Our major manuscripts are in Greek, yes, but we also have important early manuscripts in
Latin, Syriac, Aramaic, Hebrew, and several other lesser-known languages.


We have one small piece of the Gospel of John, found on the Egyptian island of Elephantine, that is early enough to be a piece of the original.

It is impossible to support any kind of later corrupting when we have those 5300 early manuscripts that prove otherwise. In fact, because of this breadth of early manuscript support, textual scholars have concluded -- that for all practical
purposes -- we have the original documents
themselves.

For a claim of tampering to be seriously considered, one would have to show that scribes from Syria, Babylonia, Galatia, Asia, India, Rome, Egypt, Greece, Carthage, Tarshish and Macedonia -- to name a few -- all made the same mistake, at the same time, for the same doctrinal purpose. An utterly ridiculous idea.


We have similar textual support for the authenticity of the Old Testament. Until a few years ago, the earliest documents we had for the Old Testament were later copies of a 70 B.C. Septuigent in Greek and a Massoretic Text in Hebrew that could be positively dated to the ninth century A.D..


However, with manuscript discoveries at Qumran made in the late 1940's (the Isaiah scroll, the book of Daniel, the book of Jubilees, the Temple scrolls, etc. etc.), some of which could be dated to the third
century B.C.. Internal evidence within one Daniel scroll dates it at 350 B.C. As a result, we can now
state with some certainty that there has been no tampering with the canonical Old Testament
manuscripts between 300 B.C. and 900 A.D..


Despite the span of over a thousand years, the canonical manuscripts are virtually identical !!!!
To suggest there was tampering to the Old Testament documents prior to 300 B.C. shows a
misunderstanding of Israelite scribal methodology and of their reverence for the Scriptures.


First of all, biblical scrolls were written on the inside only to prevent any smudging or smearing that might lead to a misreading of the text. When being copied -- besides many parallel readings -- the copy was compared with the original in every way humanly possible.


The words in each column were counted and then the letters. The first, last, and middle letter and word in each column had to be identical to the original. If the number of words or the number of
letters of the copy differed from the original, the copy was destroyed. Then they counted the words and letters in the whole document.


They divided the document into quarters and into eighths. The first, last and middle letter in each section had to be the same. The number of words
and the number of letters in each section had to be the same. The middle word and the middle letter
in each section had to be the same, and they had to be the same for the whole document.


If not, the copy was destroyed. Not corrected, but
destroyed!

Since there is absolutely no textual or historic evidence that the Old Testament was ever corrupted, any claim of editing must have been
made by those religious authorities who didn't like what the Old Testament taught. There are some who claim late-dating for Old Testament prophets, but that claim is unfounded, as well. The books of Moses, originally penned in the 15th century B.C. contain Egyptian words and idioms that fell out of usage a few centuries later. When the Hebrews entered Canaan, Canaanite words appeared in
Scripture, when in contact with the Assyrians, Assyrian words appeared in Scripture.



During the Babylonian captivity, when Daniel and Ezekiel were written, Babylonian words and
Babylonian idioms appeared in Scripture. So rest assured, these canonical books were contemporary books, written when the prophets claimed they were, and they remain unchanged to this day.


Ellis Skolfield
http://www.ellisskolfield.com


Please visit Ellis Skolfield's site for
much more, particularly in regard to
Islam in bible prophecy.


The following is not a part of the
above paper.


THE QURAN AND ABROGATION

Let's take a look at the textual integrity of the Quran, by comparison, as bequeathed to us by
the Quran and Hadith themselves.

Though the Quran has a short 23 year history, it is so self-contradictory that a whopping 71, out of only 114 suras, require
abrogation.

In stark contrast the bible spans a period from Moses in about 1446 BC, to the book of Revelation,
written around the end of the first century. Over that period mankind developed from desert dwelling nomads, to advanced nations that could follow religious law, as well as secular laws of kings and emperors.


It is important to note that parts of the Old Testament are purely historical record, that in no way imply God's tacit approval, of what was recorded of those events.

These portions simply chronicle events that took place. In spite of it's near 1600 year history, and the large volume of prophets, and legions of witnesses,
God's Word requires no abrogation.


It should be apparent that the Quran’s voluminous abrogation, required for a record of recitations of an illiterate, that were collected over the brief span of just 23 years, demonstrates not divine revelation, but the changing whims of it's author.


A good example is the convenient "revelation" that
allowed Muhammad to take his stepson's wife (Sura 33:37).

The Al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh - the abrogator and the abrogated - is the Arabic language book that details what is abrogated by what.

Good video at this address:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=6Kox5XNuyb8


According to Muhammad: Quran 2:106 None of Our
revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or
similar : Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?


Not abrogated..... just........ substituted....... for something better!

Later suras abrogate those that occur earlier.

Suras like:
8:12 I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them


Comprise the "better" "substitute" for the verses waaaay back in sura 2:
2:256 Let there be no compulsion in religion:...


It would seem Muhammad knew what a mess it was:
Surah 16:101 When We substitute one revelation for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals
(in stages), they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.


It also seems Muhammad suspected he would be viewed as a fraud.


Please visit IslamReview.com for more on abrogation.
Another video on abrogation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=Ye5pPXrBl7g


A video detailing some specific verses: http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=JtUhb_9rp9A
More on "Naskh" http://
www.youtube.com/watch?
v=Mvbkzewoyao


For much more on the textual history of the Quran please read "Islam Reviewed" by former Muslim
M. Ali, published by Fish House Ministries, and available in PDF at EllisSkolfield.com, or in HTML at
BeholdTheBeast.com

It wasn't until after 632 that a standardized text began to be compiled from inscriptions on palm
leaves, stones, and memories of reciters that survived the battle of Aqraba.


Once compiled, the Quran was subsequently collected up, and all but a preferred version burned,
on two separate occasions. Once under Abu Bakr and again under Khalif Uthman.


Islam is the inevitable result of a tangled web of deception. Please visit TheReligionOfPeace.com.

The Quran could never be made "better", whether through abrogation or otherwise. In fact it is a terminally repetitive, and self- contradicting record, of recitations of an illiterate 7th century false
prophet, that is THE EXACT OPPOSITE of the revelation of God through Jesus Christ.


Perhaps the most violent thing Jesus did was overturn the tables of the moneychangers. The polar opposite of the way Muhammad is revealed through the Quran and the Hadith.


Muhammad rejected ALL of the New Testament disciples and apostles, that walked and talked with Jesus, and he rejected the WHOLE SUBJECT of the New Testament, which is the new covenant that we
are given through Jesus Christ. 2Corinthians 13:1 This [is] the third [time] I am coming to you. In the
mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be
established.


No surprise that Muhammad was alone.


Islam is the only anti-another- religion religion.

Islam is antichrist.
1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the
Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son,
the same hath not the Father: [(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also].


The full text of the First Epistle of John, from the same version the famous Islamic sophist Ahmed
Deedat used (KJV), is available at IslamAndTheTruth.com.


Why not read it for yourself and see if you agree with Deedat about it "confirming Muhammad"?


Hope this gives you a good answer.

AlMuflihah:
.....
@ meixili... Assalam alayka bro, it's not befitting for someone who believes in Allah and the last day to refer to someone who desecrate Allah and his signs as brother, worse still wish him peace. I know you a Muslim with sincerity at heart, but it's very prohibited in Islam. barakallahu fika

AlMuflihah:
.....
@ meixili... Assalam alayka bro, it's not befitting for someone who believes in Allah and the last day to refer to someone who desecrate Allah and his signs as brother, worse still wish him peace. I know you a Muslim with sincerity at heart, but it's very prohibited in Islam. barakallahu fika

nasiayam:


-1 hate preaching , propagating shirk

nasiayam:


-1 hate preaching , propagating shirk

fuckerholic:
Muslims always having headache in christianity issues.
If it has,what do you wanna do about it ?
If it has not,are you gonna repent and believe in it ?
Mind your religion..! Underdogs !

fuckerholic:

Will you be able to mind your religion thereafter ?

meixili:
Salamalikum shalom peace

Is there any proof the Bible hasn't had additions , deletions , altering , or corruption?



Please stay on topic no derailing.


Thank you kindly

AlMuflihah:
.....
@ meixili... Assalam alayka bro, it's not befitting for someone who believes in Allah and the last day to refer to someone who desecrate Allah and his signs as brother, worse still wish him peace. I know you a Muslim with sincerity at heart, but it's very prohibited in Islam. barakallahu fika