@babs787,

babs787:

You peope never knew that whatever you say bounces back at you.

It's just the other way round: whatever allegations and accusations Muslims have acridly made against the Christian faith have been applied in examining Islam. The bitter truth is that you Muslims do not like being served your own diet, and the way your authorities go about quelling apologetic debates is by issuing fatwa, blowing up innocent people, or declaring jihad.

babs787:

1. In the Holy Quran ,we have abrogated verses and we have the reason for saying so. The abrogated verses are still there in the Quran. Now are you telling that there are no abrogated verses in the Bible despite the fact that Jesus said that he didnt come to annul.

Be honest, or simply claim that you don't really know the facade in Islam, the Qur'an and the Hadith.

The satanic verse has been editted to cover up the paganistic polytheism in Islam. Muhammad confirmed that he was made to forget certain verses of the Qur'an, and chose instead to adopt the renderings of those from whom he heard them.

Aisha also confirmed that certain verses which are not in the Qur'an today were formerly written on a sheet of paper, which was eaten by a goat.

Besides, I've dealt more on this issue by showing that most of the BOOKS Muhammad's 'Allah' revealed are nowhere to be found in the Qur'an, nor have Muslims up until today provided us with any such document.

babs787:

2. What Gospel are you referring to, Mathew, MARK, lUKE, John, Acts, James etc.

What "Gospel" was Muhammad claiming that 'Allah' sent down, which NOBODY has seen?

babs787:

Sister, I have had enough, am backing out because I have learnt that you have never answered the question(s) posed at you, rather you resort to lifting from chowdry, silas etc. I want to be committed to Islamic threads, learning about my faiths etc and leave you to your disbelief but if you need my attention, I will be eager to assist.

I'm sure you'd be rushing back instead of backing off - with more denials, no worries. We have also observed that you never answer questions offered you; and most of what you post are dressed up plagiarized material you found on other websites - I've said it before, and continue to say it, until you can afford to think for yourself. No problem in you devoting more time to Islamic threads; hope you'll be blessed soon to see that Jesus Christ is the Saviour - holy and without sin.

Me sef, I go soon waka for a long while - man must make a living; plus, summer dey come!

If you really have a heart to be honest, reasonable, and to learn, we are more than willing to assist. Enjoy.

@davidylan

[color=#990000[b]]you are a disgusting hypocrite.[/b] Keep hoping from thread to thread. If this is really about the completeness of the bible i wonder why you ran away from threads that clearly prove the incompleteness of the quran. [/color]

Is that your biblical definition of hypocrite. A christian even called me anti-christ, maybe you have been reading all those from the holy bible that that would be th xteristics of the anti-christ . It has been established that your bible is incomplete. Let me have your proof of the missing verses in the Quran.



@stimulus



It's just the other way round: whatever allegations and accusations Muslims have acridly made against the Christian faith have been applied in examining Islam. The bitter truth is that you Muslims do not like being served your own diet, and the way your authorities go about quelling apologetic debates is by issuing fatwa, blowing up innocent people, or declaring jihad.

Please serve me my diet real hot. Still on the incompleteness of the bible, it has been established from christian source that its incomplete, so let me have missing verses from the Quran. You are just fighting a lost battle, its very glaring that your bible is incomplete. So admit the fact brother and lets move on  



Be honest, or simply claim that you don't really know the facade in Islam, the Qur'an and the Hadith.

Okay I dont know, please teach me.


The satanic verse has been editted to cover up the paganistic polytheism in Islam. Muhammad confirmed that he was made to forget certain verses of the Qur'an, and chose instead to adopt the renderings of those from whom he heard them.

Oh no, why must the verse be edited  . Cab you give me the editted verses please?


Aisha also confirmed that certain verses which are not in the Qur'an today were formerly written on a sheet of paper, which was eaten by a goat.

Meaning? Brother, why is it hard for you to admit the glaring truth. I have shown you missing verses in your bible, missing books and even the saying of the authors of RSV. Now, let me have missing verses, lost chapters etc from my book too.


Besides, I've dealt more on this issue by showing that most of the BOOKS Muhammad's 'Allah' revealed are nowhere to be found in the Qur'an, nor have Muslims up until today provided us with any such document.

Let me have them please and we will see if they are in the HOLY BIBLE.



What "Gospel" was Muhammad claiming that 'Allah' sent down, which NOBODY has seen?

The Gospel sent and given to Jesus  and not that of Luke in which he wrote it to Theophilus. or letters of Pual to the gentiles  



I'm sure you'd be rushing back instead of backing off - with more denials, no worries. We have also observed that you never answer questions offered you; and most of what you post are dressed up plagiarized material you found on other websites - I've said it before, and continue to say it, until you can afford to think for yourself. No problem in you devoting more time to Islamic threads; hope you'll be blessed soon to see that Jesus Christ is the Saviour - holy and without sin.

What questions have I avoided, hope you have not forgotten my questions in other thread? Brother, funny how you people run from issues when you have nothing to say. Has any muslim challenged you to lifting from thread when it was glaring that you, your sister and some others have been lifting from thread and dressing them up . Go to Christian sites, bring anything on Islam and Insha Allah, it will be debunked. You are free to continue going there, they have been deceiving you and I pray that may it not be too long in realising the truth.Did you say Jesus was without sin/ What is baptism for brother


Me sef, I go soon waka for a long while - man must make a living; plus, summer dey come!

Hope you are trying to run away?  


If you really have a heart to be honest, reasonable, and to learn, we are more than willing to assist. Enjoy.


Confess jare, your bible is incomplete, so no argument, the truth has been established. When you are ready for me, we move on with regards to other issues.

Having confessed to the fact that your holy book is incomplete, I now pray for you:
If the son of man can make you free, you are free indeed. Go now and sin no more. Old things have passed away, you have become new creature. Can somebody shout Halelluiah?  
Peace

babs,I'm happy you are happy for proving the Bible incomplete.
I'm still waiting for the authentic texts that allah graciously preserved.

allah is a trickster, he has the injil, psalms and torah well hidden under a rock waiting to produce it to our shame.

chei
David you no go kill me.

babyosisi:

babs,I'm happy you are happy for proving the Bible incomplete.
I'm still waiting for the authentic texts that allah graciously preserved.

Lol. You neva hear?? He claimed they are LOST!!

The ones that are still in existence are a trouble to him (nevermind the fact that Muhammad used them); but the ones that 'Allah' sent down and revealed are conveniently termed "LOST!" So much for intelligence!

osanobua!.
How could the jinns be so careless?
common injils and Torah,they could not handle,what else are they good for?

LoveKing:

are you bini?

no love king,I spent sometime in Benin city

babyosisi:

osanobua!.

babyosisi:

no love king,I spent sometime in Benin city

I schooled in Uniben, too!

Would that not have been "Osalobua"?

Osanobua , is the name for God almighty in Edo language, it is often abbrevated as Osa, which is commonly integrated into modern Edo names, like esosa, which means God,s goodness or gift, eghosa ,God,s time, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osanobua

LoveKing:

are you bini?

Tamuno eh!!

Well, I had always thought I heard the Bini students refer to the Supreme God as Osalobua. Here are a few interesting findings I picked up on the net:

From: A Two Page History of Benin

'Generally Edo people believe in the supreme God who is Osalobua (Osanoghodua) who they put first in everything. They also serve or remember their ancestors. In recent history there have been many deities introduced into the City from adjoining tribes like the Yoruba and Christianity by the missionaries.'

From: All About Oscar

'While a supreme god (called Olorun Olodumare in Yoruba, Chukwu in Igbo, Osalobua in Edo, and Abasi Ibom in Ibibio) is central to many of the traditional religions, the deity is worshipped through a number of intermediaries or lesser gods.'

A bini friend noted that the "n" in the tradition appellation (as in 'Osa[b]n[/b]obua') is a grave mistake by many today; because it does not speak of the supreme God, but rather of lesser deities who are regarded as "creators", depending on who is using the term. For all that, my friend may be mistaken (and I have no way of checking out this interpretation, since I'm not bini). However, if there's any substance in his persuasion, here's another finding I clipped from the net:

From: Edo Anthropology

'Every village or each quarter had seasonal celebrations all of which were subordinate to the supreme deity called OSA or OSA[b]L[/b]OBUA - the creator of the world.
. . .
Two types of OSA were known (good and evil) - OSA[b]N[/b]OWA (God of the house) and OSA[b]N[/b]OHA (God of the bush). Osanowa created Man while Osanoha created animals as well as a house of sickness in which all diseases were kept.'

Not a big deal, but I just wondered about the difference.

Ok,let's just end it at Osa since we don't know if the God almighty is nobua or lobua,lol

I thought this thread is about the completion of the bible (i'm not referring to catholic bible). Why do we so easily transform it to an argument with the koran. Sometimes i get tired of this religious wahala. Well it has always been there and it would never go away.

But can we please POLITELY answer questions raised about the bible no matter how deragatory they may seem. Fighting with Babs787 and plunging your self into the accuracy of the koran is way off context. Save that for another thread. DEAL WITH THE COMPLETION OF OUR BIBLE.

somze:

I thought this thread is about the completion of the bible (i'm not referring to catholic bible). Why do we so easily transform it to an argument with the koran. Sometimes i get tired of this religious wahala. Well it has always been there and it would never go away.

It's quite simple: you go through the posts on this thread and see who was first to categorically mention that Qur'an was right for stating that the Torah was LOST or CORRUPTED!

somze:

But can we please POLITELY answer questions raised about the bible no matter how deragatory they may seem. Fighting with Babs787 and plunging your self into the accuracy of the koran is way off context. Save that for another thread. DEAL WITH THE COMPLETION OF OUR BIBLE.

Answers have been offered in as polite a manner as can be. We're all grown-ups dealing with issues; and we can discern what babs787 is up to with his games. It is not answers he's seeking; and if you doubt this, just wait: it's only a matter of time before you see it.

Cheers.

babyosisi:

Ok,let's just end it at Osa since we don't know if the God almighty is nobua or lobua,lol

@stimulus
I understand, thanks.

Anyway, I believe the bible is complete. Referring to other books do not contradict this - i can refer to another book when doing my project but it does not mean that my project is not complete. To understand its completeness and which bible (protestant or catholic) is complete we need to do some study of how books were accepted into the bible - which is another thread altogether. But for the records, the catholic bible adds books to only the old testament - if i can remember it correctly- overlooking the fact that even jews (both ancient and modern hebrews) do not insert those books in their bible. Check up on the septuagant - hope that is the spelling.

Some books are missing in KJV an NIV which are found in the Catholic Bible. The Catholic Bible has more than 66 books.

ishmael:

Some books are missing in KJV an NIV which are found in the Catholic Bible. The Catholic Bible has more than 66 books.

The books in the Catholic Bible which you do not find in the KJV, NIV and several other versions are known as the apocrypha, and are not part of the canon of Scripture. Evangelical Christians and Jews have never recognized them to be part of the canonical sacred Scripture.

pilgrim.1:

The books in the Catholic Bible which you do not find in the KJV, NIV and several other versions are known as the apocrypha, and are not part of the canon of Scripture. Evangelical Christians and Jews have never recognized them to be part of the canonical sacred Scripture.

So where did the apocrypha come from?? and why was it rejected?? Why didn't they reject the books of 1&2 Kings and 1&2 Chronicles or 1&2 Peter?? Is it not God alone that has the right to add or remove from his sriptures?? Does man have any right to remove or add books to the Bible?? Why is it that it is the protestants or non-catholics that rejected those book and not Catholics demselves?? Or are you saying that the Catholics added those books to the Bible by themselves??

ishmael:

So where did the apocrypha come from?? and why was it rejected?? Why didn't they reject the books of 1&2 Kings and 1&2 Chronicles or 1&2 Peter?? Is it not God alone that has the right to add or remove from his sriptures?? Does man have any right to remove or add books to the Bible?? Why is it that it is the protestants or non-catholics that rejected those book and not Catholics demselves?? Or are you saying that the Catholics added those books to the Bible by themselves??

@ishmael,

Before you post any argument that makes any sense at all, what do you know for a certainty as the Bible?

@stimulus

Answers have been offered in as polite a manner as can be. We're all grown-ups dealing with issues; and we can discern what babs787 is up to with his games. It is not answers he's seeking; and if you doubt this, just wait: it's only a matter of time before you see it.

You are perfectly correct. Answers have been provided.

If you are saying the bible is complete and without going to the number of books in the protestants and catholics bible, without making reference to Encyclopedia Britannica about the removal of some books, apocryphal books etc
, tell me why these verses are not in some bibles apart from KJV.


a.Mathew 17 v 21 (b) mark 11 v 26 (c) acts 8 v 37 (d) Mathew 17 v 21 (e) Mathew 21 v 44 (f) Mathew 23 v 14 etc


Thanks

What a question: Is the Bible complete?

The answer is clear: It is a complete fabrication from begginning to end

@babs787

If you are saying the bible is complete and without going to the number of books in the protestants and catholics bible, without making reference to Encyclopedia Britannica about the removal of some books, apocryphal books etc
, tell me why these verses are not in some bibles apart from KJV.

a.Mathew 17 v 21 (b) mark 11 v 26 (c) acts 8 v 37 (d) Mathew 17 v 21 (e) Mathew 21 v 44 (f) Mathew 23 v 14 etc

Do you even read the lettered subscript references of bibles ( they are mostly on all the page)? All i did was bring out my bible (which by the way has four versions in it) and i found the answers to your question. I'm guessing you just picked those up from a site without further research.

a)because the verse is omitted in many of the ancient manuscript.

b) Many ancient manuscripts add verse 26, ALL include this in matthew 6:15

c) Many ancient manuscripts omit verse 37 wholly or in part.

d) YOU REPEATED QUESTION A.

e) Some manuscript do not have vs 44

f) Some manuscript skip some add.


One thing with putting the bible up is that a whole lot of different reliable manuscripts are used. If something is omitted, depending on the number of the manuscripts were omissions exist these decisions are taken, i think.

One thing you notice is that whether present or not, the message is not corrupted and fundamentals in christianity are not affected.

Please look up on papyrus (ancient manuscripts)look up on it)

pilgrim.1:

@ishmael,

Before you post any argument that makes any sense at all, what do you know for a certainty as the Bible?

The Bible is the word of God inspired unto men (Prophets and Apostles) by the Holy spirit. But why reject or remove some inspirations?? It does n't make it complete at all!!

@ishmael,

The Apocrypha were not regarded as inspired Scriptures all through the histories of the Jews unto who were committed the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2). So, the argument that they were inspired Scripture does not arise at all.

pilgrim.1:

@ishmael,

The Apocrypha were not regarded as inspired Scriptures all through the histories of the Jews unto who were committed the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2). So, the argument that they were inspired Scripture does not arise at all.

If they were not inspired scriptures so how did the apocrypha itself get into the Bible in the first place?? and why were catholics who were regarded as the earliest or first set of christians using it??

ishmael:

If they were not inspired scriptures so how did the apocrypha itself get into the Bible in the first place?? and why were catholics who were regarded as the earliest or first set of christians using it??

I really don't think you're searching for reasonable answers, and it seems to me that you're unnecessarily bothered with issues against Christianity. Nonetheless, if you have a good grasp of Church history, it would not be difficult for you to have realized that the Catholic church adopted the Apocrypha and included them as part of their canon; and not for any reason as that they were formerly regarded as inspired Scriptures by Jews or Christians prior to the emergence of Catholicism.

Secondly, you're making a grave mistake for promoting the false assumption that the Catholics were the first set of Christians. Apostolic Christianity did not begin as Catholicism; and anyone telling you that the emergence of the Papacy dates back to Peter is rewriting Biblical history - for no such thing can be intelligently sustained.

If you have an understanding of what Scripture is, and you have read all 14 books of the Apocrypha, it would not take a Harvard education for you to see the difference. Catholic traditions aside, and before you even begin to argue this issue, what do you understand as divinely inspired Scripture? I know this is a repeat question; but even though you answered that "The Bible is the word of God inspired unto men (Prophets and Apostles) by the Holy spirit"; for all of that, you don't seem to have carefully read the apocrypha for yourself to see the substance of your answer; and you're only recycling arguments picked up from others.

Please settle down and see the difference for yourself so that when next you come back, we can both discuss on a participatory and interactive level, rather than puffing up issues from a blank position.

Regards.

@pilgrim


Thanks for the post. I want you to know that the missing verses are more than those listed below hence my putting etc at the end of question f. But at the same time, the few listed and your response to them will be attended to one after the other. I will also be giving you some links to the canons of the bible and why some christians are accepting Islam with regards to the missing books, verses, chapters etc of the bible. I want to take your time to read and when you are through, you may get back at me if you so wish but the truth is that I will not move ahead with this thread because truth has been made known. I am not here to preach to you but whoever sees and accept the truth, does so for his own soul and whoever rejects the truth, does so at his/her own peril.





Do you even read the lettered subscript references of bibles ( they are mostly on all the page)? All i did was bring out my bible (which by the way has four versions in it) and i found the answers to your question. I'm guessing you just picked those up from a site without further research.

Of course I do, and thats the more reason I posed the verses at you. Going through the lettered subscript reference, one will read that some verses have been expunged from the original manuscript. Lets read on


a.Mathew 17 v 21
a)because the verse is omitted in many of the ancient manuscript.

If the verse is omitted in many ancient manuscript as being put,then where did King James Version get its own verse



(b) mark 11 v 26
b) Many ancient manuscripts add verse 26, ALL include this in matthew 6:15

If many ancient manuscripts add verse 26, where are they not included in the bible of nowadays?


(c) acts 8 v 37
c) Many ancient manuscripts omit verse 37 wholly or in part.


If ancients manuscripts omitted verse 37, where did King James Version get its own verse and was it included since ancient manuscripts do not have it?



d) YOU REPEATED QUESTION A.

Oh, am sorry for that.


(e) Mathew 21 v 44
e) Some manuscript do not have vs 44

If some manuscripts do not have the verse, where did KJV  get its own from?



(f) Mathew 23 v 14 etc
f) Some manuscript skip some add.

Why did some manuscripts skip some? Why did KJV  has the verse while others do not?



One thing with putting the bible up is that a whole lot of different reliable manuscripts are used. If something is omitted, depending on the number of the manuscripts were omissions exist these decisions are taken, i think.


If that is the case, do we say KJV  is the most reliable out of them all because most churches use the KJV. Besides, it contains most of the missing verses.



One thing you notice is that whether present or not, the message is not corrupted and fundamentals in christianity are not affected.

It may not have affected christianity but why must a book of God contain missing verses? The message is corrupted:

There existed many different Bibles during the time of the Roman Emperor, Constantine, which were widely believed in by different Christian sects in the year 312.  In other words, during the first 3 centuries of "Christianity" (300 years), many different canons with 100s of books/gospels combined existed!  That is a lot of canons, a lot of books/gospels, and a lot of time (300 years) of different Christian religions existed.   Also, Constantine's own "unified canon or bible" got lost and only small portions of it were found!  So what we have today from "Bible(s)" are not even Constantine's books.

Please go to this link to read more about the whole Bible and analysis of the Canonical and Apocryphal New Testament

Scriptureshttp://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/contents.htm


Also read about the New Testament canons through the ages
http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/canons.htm

There are lots of canons, each written according to the church thus:

Anglican Church: The canon of the Anglican falls between the Catholic Church and many Protestant denominations by accepting only the Jewish canon and the New Testament as authoritative, but also by accepting segments of the apocryphal writings in the lectionary and liturgy. At one time all copies of the King James Version of 1611 included the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments.


Armenian Church: The noteworthy features of the Armenian version of the Bible was the inclusion of certain books that elsewhere was regarded as apocryphal. The Old Testament included the History of Joseph and Asenath and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the New Testament included the Epistle of Corinthians to Paul and a Third Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians.

Coptic Church: Athanasius issued his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle not only in the Greek but also in Coptic, in a slightly different form - though the list of the twenty seven books of the New Testament is the same in both languages. How far, however the list remained authoritative for the Copts is problematical. The Coptic (Bohairic) translation of the collection knowns as the Eighty-Five Apostlic Canons concludes with a different sequence of the books of the New Testament and is enlarged by the addition of two others: the four Gospels; the Acts of the Apostles; the fourteen Epistles of Paul (not mentioned individually); two Epistles of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; the Apocalypse of John; the two Epistles of Clement.


Ethiopic (Abyssinian) Church: This Church has the largest Bible of all, and and distinguishes different canons, the "narrower" and the "broader" according to the extent of the New Testament. The Ethiopic Old Testament comprises the books of the Hebrew Bible as well as all of the deuterocanonical books listed above, along with Jubilees, I Enoch, and Joseph ben Gorion's (Josippon's) medieval history of the Jews and other nations. The New Testament in what is referred to as the "broader" canon is made up of thirty-five books, joining to the usual twenty-seven books eight additional texts, namely four sections of church order from a compilation called Sinodos, two sections from the Ethiopic Book of the Covenant, Ethiopic Clement, and Ethiopic Didascalia. When the "narrower" New Testament canon is followed, it is made up of only the familiar twenty-seven books, but then the Old Testament books are divided differently so that they make up 54 books instead of 46. In both the narrower and broader canon, the total number of books comes to 81.


Greek Orthodox Church: The Bible of the Greek Orthodox church comprises all of the books accepted by the Roman Catholic church, plus I Esdras, the Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151, and 3 Maccabees. The Slavonic canon adds 2 Esdras, but designates I and 2 Esdras as 2 and 3 Esdras. Other Eastern churches have 4 Maccabees as well.

Protestant Church: Historically, Protestant churches have recognized the Hebrew canon as their Old Testament, although differently ordered, and with some books divided so that the total number of books is thirty-nine. These books, as arranged in the traditional English Bible, fall into three types of literature: seventeen historical books (Genesis to Esther), five poetical books (Job to Song of Solomon), and seventeen prophetical books. With the addition of another twenty-seven books (the four Gospels, Acts, twenty-one letters, and the book of Revelation), called the New Testament, the Christian scriptures are complete.


Roman Catholic Church: The Protestant canon took shape by rejecting a number of books and parts of books that had for centuries been part of the Old Testament in the Greek Septuagint and in the Latin Vulgate, and had gained wide acceptance within the Roman Catholic church. In response to the Protestant Reformation, at the Council of Trent (1546) the Catholic church accepted, as deuterocanonical, Tobit, Judith, the Greek additions to Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, three Greek additions to Daniel (the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon), and I and 2 Maccabees. These books, together with those in the Jewish canon and the New Testament, constitute the total of seventy three books accepted by the Roman Catholic church.


Syriac Church: Syriac Churches used the Diatesseron, the four-in-one Gospel, introduced by Tatian, and was read in the Syriac Churches for quite some time before it was replaced by Peshitta. Peshitta has again a different number of Books in the New Testament. This represents for the New Testament an accomodation of the canon of the Syrians with that of the Greeks. Third Corinthians was rejected, and, in addition to the fourteen Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews, following Philemon), three longer Catholic Epistles (James, 1 Peter, and 1 John) were included. The four shorter Catholic Epistles (2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Jude) and the Apocalypse are absent from the Peshitta Syriac version, and thus the Syriac canon of the New Testament contained but twenty-two writings. For a large part of the Syrian Church this constituted the closing of the canon, for after the Council of Ephesus (431 CE) the East Syrians separated themselves as Nestorians from the Great Church.

Going through the above, one wonders which is following the original manuscript. The above tells that the original has been lost or corrupted.


Go through this link for the new testament canons through the ages
http://www.why-christians-convert-to-islam.com/EXHIBITAv2.htm


While doing that, please go to the link below for the complete list of new testament papyril

http://www.why-christians-convert-to-islam.com/ExhibitE.htm



Please look up on papyrus (ancient manuscripts)look up on it)

I have given you enough explanations up and some links for proof, check on them and get back at me if you so wish.


Peace and stay blessed.