Rilwayne001:


I'm not searching any internet, you should tell me by yourself. afterall I dont refer you to the internet whenever you asked qustion from me.

I ask a question which you cannot answer and now you want me to answer yours.

Skeptics often claim that the Bible has
been changed. However, it is important
to define the terms that apply to the
source of our English Bible.

Autographs: The original texts were
written either by the author's own hand
or by a scribe under their personal
supervision.
Manuscripts: Until Gutenberg first
printed the Latin Bible in 1456, all
Bibles were hand copied onto papyrus,
parchment, and paper.
Translations: When the Bible is
translated into a different language it is
usually translated from the original
Hebrew and Greek. However some
translations in the past were derived
from an earlier translation. For
example the first English translation by
John Wycliffe in 1380 was prepared
from the Latin Vulgate.
OLD TESTAMENT
The Bible comes from two main sources -
Old and New Testaments - written in
different languages. The Old Testament
was written primarily in Hebrew, with
some books written in Aramaic. The
following are brief snap shots of the
beginning and ending of the Old
Testament and the reasons for the first
two translations of the Old Testament
from Hebrew into Aramaic and Greek
1875 B.C. Abraham was called by God
to the land of Canaan.
1450 B.C. The exodus of the Children of
Israel from Egypt.

AUTOGRAPHS
There are no known autographs of any
books of the Old Testament. Below is a
list of the languages in which the Old
Testament books were written.
1450-1400 B.C. The traditional date for
Moses' writing of Genesis-Deuteronomy
written in Hebrew.
586 B.C. Jerusalem was destroyed by
the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar.
The Jews were taken into captivity to
Babylon. They remained in Babylon
under the Medo-Persian Empire and
there began to speak Aramaic.
555-545 B.C. The Book of Daniel
Chapters. 2:4 to 7:28 were written in
Aramaic.
425 B.C. Malachi, the last book of the
Old Testament, was written in Hebrew.
400 B.C. Ezra Chapters. 4:8 to 6:18; and
7:12-26 were written in Aramaic.
Manuscripts
The following is a list of the oldest
Hebrew manuscripts of the Old
Testament that are still in existence.
The Dead Sea Scrolls: date from 200
B.C. - 70 A.D. and contain the entire
book of Isaiah and portions of every
other Old Testament book but Esther.
Geniza Fragments: portions the Old
Testament in Hebrew and Aramaic,
discovered in 1947 in an old synagogue
in Cairo, Egypt, which date from about
400 A.D.
Ben Asher Manuscripts: five or six
generations of this family made copies
of the Old Testament using the
Masoretic Hebrew text, from 700-950
A.D. The. following are examples of the
Hebrew Masoretic text-type.
Aleppo Codex: contains the
complete Old Testament and is
dated around 950 A.D.
Unfortunately over one quarter of
this Codex was destroyed in anti-
Jewish riots in 1947.
Codex Leningradensis: The
complete Old Testament in Hebrew
copied by the last member of the
Ben Asher family in A.D. 1008.

TRANSLATION
The Old Testament was translated very
early into Aramaic and Greek.
400 B.C. The Old Testament began to
be translated into Aramaic. This
translation is called the Aramaic
Targums. This translation helped the
Jewish people, who began to speak
Aramaic from the time of their captivity
in Babylon, to understand the Old
Testament in the language that they
commonly spoke. In the first century
Palestine of Jesus' day, Aramaic was
still the commonly spoken language.
For example maranatha: "Our Lord has
come," 1 Corinthians 16:22 is an
example of an Aramaic word that is
used in the New Testament.
250 B.C. The Old Testament was
translated into Greek. This translation
is known as the Septuagint. It is
sometimes designated "LXX" (which is
Roman numeral for "70" because it
was believed that 70 to 72 translators
worked to translate the Hebrew Old
Testament in Greek. The Septuagint
was often used by New Testament
writers when they quoted from the Old
Testament. The LXX was translation of
the Old Testament that was used by the
early Church.
1. The following is a list of the oldest
Greek LXX translations of the Old
Testament that are still in existence.
Chester Beatty Papyri: Contains
nine Old Testament Books in the
Greek Septuagint and dates between
100-400 A.D.
Codex Vaticanus and Codex
Sinaiticus each contain almost the
entire Old Testament of the Greek
Septuagint and they both date
around 350 A.D.
The New Testament
Autographs
45- 95 A.D. The New Testament was
written in Greek. The Pauline Epistles,
the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Luke,
and the book of Acts are all dated from
45-63 A.D. The Gospel of John and the
Revelation may have been written as late
as 95 A.D.
Manuscripts
There are over 5,600 early Greek
Manuscripts of the New Testament that
are still in existence. The oldest
manuscripts were written on papyrus
and the later manuscripts were written
on leather called parchment.
125 A.D. The New Testament
manuscript which dates most closely to
the original autograph was copied
around 125 A.D, within 35 years of the
original. It is designated " p 52" and
contains a small portion of John 18.
(The " p" stands for papyrus.)
200 A.D. Bodmer p 66 a papyrus
manuscript which contains a large part
of the Gospel of John.
200 A.D. Chester Beatty Biblical
papyrus p 46 contains the Pauline
Epistles and Hebrews.
225 A.D. Bodmer Papyrus p 75
contains the Gospels of Luke and John.
250-300 A.D. Chester Beatty Biblical
papyrus p 45 contains portions of the
four Gospels and Acts.
350 A.D. Codex Sinaiticus contains the
entire New Testament and almost the
entire Old Testament in Greek. It was
discovered by a German scholar
Tisendorf in 1856 at an Orthodox
monastery at Mt. Sinai.
350 A.D. Codex Vaticanus: {B} is an
almost complete New Testament. It was
cataloged as being in the Vatican
Library since 1475.
Translations
Early translations of the New Testament
can give important insight into the
underlying Greek manuscripts from
which they were translated.
180 A.D. Early translations of the New
Testament from Greek into Latin,
Syriac, and Coptic versions began about
180 A.D.
195 A.D. The name of the first
translation of the Old and New
Testaments into Latin was termed Old
Latin, both Testaments having been
translated from the Greek. Parts of the
Old Latin were found in quotes by the
church father Tertullian, who lived
around 160-220 A.D. in north Africa
and wrote treatises on theology.
300 A.D. The Old Syriac was a
translation of the New Testament from
the Greek into Syriac.
300 A.D. The Coptic Versions: Coptic
was spoken in four dialects in Egypt.
The Bible was translated into each of
these four dialects.
380 A.D. The Latin Vulgate was
translated by St. Jerome. He translated
into Latin the Old Testament from the
Hebrew and the New Testament from
Greek. The Latin Vulgate became the
Bible of the Western Church until the
Protestant Reformation in the 1500's. It
continues to be the authoritative
translation of the Roman Catholic
Church to this day. The Protestant
Reformation saw an increase in
translations of the Bible into the
common languages of the people.
Other early translations of the Bible
were in Armenian, Georgian, and
Ethiopic, Slavic, and Gothic.
1380 A.D. The first English translation
of the Bible was by John Wycliffe. He
translated the Bible into English from
the Latin Vulgate. This was a translation
from a translation and not a translation
from the original Hebrew and Greek.
Wycliffe was forced to translate from
the Latin Vulgate because he did not
know Hebrew or Greek.
To be Continue

The Integrity of the Manuscript
Evidence
As with any ancient book transmitted
through a number of handwritten
manuscripts, the question naturally
arises as to how confident can we be that
we have anything resembling the
autograph. Let us now look at what
evidences we have for the integrity of the
New Testament manuscripts. Let us look
at the number of manuscripts and how
close they date to the autographs of the
Bible as compared with other ancient
writings of similar age.
A. Tacitus, the Roman historian, wrote
his Annals of Imperial Rome in
about A.D. 116. Only one
manuscript of his work remains. It
was copied about 850 A.D.
B. Josephus, a Jewish historian, wrote
The Jewish War shortly after 70 A.D.
There are nine manuscripts in Greek
which date from 1000-1200 A.D. and
one Latin translation from around
400 A.D.
C. Homer's Iliad was written around
800 B.C. It was as important to
ancient Greeks as the Bible was to
the Hebrews. There are over 650
manuscripts remaining but they
date from 200 to 300 A.D. which is
over a thousand years after the
Iliad was written .
D. The Old Testament autographs were
written 1450 - 400 B. C.
1. The Dead Sea Scrolls date
between 200 B.C. to 70 A. D
and date within 300 years
from when the last book of the
Old Testament was written.
2. Two almost complete Greek
LXX translations of the Old
Testament date about 350 A.
D.
3. The oldest complete Hebrew
Old Testament dates about
950 A. D.
4. Genesis-Deuteronomy were
written over 1200 years before
the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Codex Vaticanus is an almost
complete Greek translation of
the Old Testament dating
around 350 A.D. The Aleppo
Codex is the oldest complete
Old Testament manuscript in
Hebrew and was copied
around 950 A.D. The Dead Sea
Scrolls date from within
200-300 years from the last
book of the Old Testament.
However since the five books
of Moses were written about
1450- 1400 B.C. the Dead Sea
Scrolls still come almost 1200
years after the first books of
the Old Testament were
written.
E. The New Testament autographs
were written between 45-95 A. D.
1. There are 5,664 Greek
manuscripts some dating as
early as 125 A. D. and an
complete New Testament that
dates from 350 A. D.
2. 8,000 to 10,000 Latin Vulgate
manuscripts.
3. 8,000 manuscripts in Ethiopic,
Coptic, Slavic, Syriac, and
Armenian.
4. In addition, the complete New
Testament could be
reproduced from the quotes
that were made from it by the
early church fathers in their
letters and sermons.
Authorship and dating of the New
Testament books
Skeptics and liberal Christian scholars
both seek to date the New Testament
books as late first century or early second
century writings. They contend that these
books were not written by eyewitnesses
but rather by second or third hand
sources. This allowed for the
development of what they view as myths
concerning Jesus. For example, they
would deny that Jesus actually foretold
the destruction of Jerusalem. Rather they
would contend that later Christian
writers "put these words into his mouth."
A. Many of the New Testament books
claim to be written by eyewitnesses.
1. The Gospel of John claims to
be written by the disciple of
the Lord. Recent archeological
research has confirmed both
the existence of the Pool of
Bethesda and that it had five
porticoes as described in John
5:2. This correct reference to
an incidental detail lends
credibility to the claim that the
Gospel of John was written by
John who as an eyewitness
knew Jerusalem before it was
destroyed in 70 A. D.
2. Paul signed his epistles with
his own hand. He was writing
to churches who knew him.
These churches were able to
authenticate that these
epistles had come from his
hands (Galatians 6:11).
Clement an associate of Paul's
wrote to the Corinthian Church
in 97 A. D. urging them to
heed the epistle that Paul had
sent them.
B. The following facts strongly suggest
that both the Gospel of Luke and the
Book of Acts were written prior to 65
A.D. This lends credibility to the
author's (Luke) claim to be an
eyewitness to Paul's missionary
journeys. This would date Mark prior
to 65 A.D. and the Pauline epistles
between 49-63 A.D.
1. Acts records the beginning
history of the church with
persecutions and martyrdoms
being mentioned repeatedly.
Three men; Peter, Paul, and
James the brother of Jesus all
play leading roles throughout
the book. They were all
martyred by 67 A.D., but their
martyrdoms are not recorded
in Acts.
2. The church in Jerusalem
played a central role in the
Book of Acts, but the
destruction of the city in 70
A.D. was not mentioned. The
Jewish historian Josephus
cited the siege and destruction
of Jerusalem as befalling the
Jews because of their unjust
killing of James the brother of
Jesus.
3. The Book of Acts ends with
Paul in Rome under house
arrest in 62 A.D. In 64 A.D.,
Nero blamed and persecuted
the Christians for the fire that
burned down the city of Rome.
Paul himself was martyred by
65 A.D. in Rome. Again,
neither the terrible
persecution of the Christians
in Rome nor Paul's martyrdom
are mentioned.
Conclusion: These books, Luke-
Acts, were written while Luke
was an eyewitness to many of
the events, and had
opportunity to research
portions that he was not an
eyewitness to.

The church fathers bear witness to
even earlier New Testament
manuscripts
The earliest manuscripts we have of
major portions of the New Testament are
p 45, p 46, p66, and p 75, and they date
from 175-250 A. D. The early church
fathers (97-180 A.D.) bear witness to even
earlier New Testament manuscripts by
quoting from all but one of the New
Testament books. They are also in the
position to authenticate those books,
written by the apostles or their close
associates, from later books such as the
gospel of Thomas that claimed to have
been written by the apostles, but were
not.
A. Clement (30-100 A.D.) wrote an
epistle to the Corinthian Church
around 97 A.D. He reminded them
to heed the epistle that Paul had
written to them years before. Recall
that Clement had labored with
Paul (Philippians 4:3). He quoted
from the following New Testament
books: Luke, Acts, Romans, 1
Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, 1 and
2 Peter, Hebrews, and James.
B. The apostolic fathers Ignatius
(30-107 A.D.), Polycarp (65-155 A.D.),
and Papias (70-155 A.D.) cite verses
from every New Testament book
except 2 and 3 John. They thereby
authenticated nearly the entire New
Testament. Both Ignatius and
Polycarp were disciples of the
apostle John .
C. Justin Martyr, (110-165 A.D.), cited
verses from the following 13 books
of the New Testament: Matthew,
Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1
Corinthians, Galatians, 2
Thessalonians, Hebrews, 1 and 2
Peter, and Revelation.
D. Irenaeus, (120-202 A.D.), wrote a five
volume work Against Heresies in
which,
1. He quoted from every book of
the New Testament but 3 John.
2. He quoted from the New
Testament books over 1,200
times.
How was the New Testament canon
determined?
The Early church had three criteria for
determining what books were to be
included or excluded from the Canon of
the New Testament.
1. First, the books must have apostolic
authority-- that is, they must have
been written either by the apostles
themselves, who were eyewitnesses
to what they wrote about, or by
associates of the apostles.
2. Second, there was the criterion of
conformity to what was called the
"rule of faith." In other words, was
the document congruent with the
basic Christian tradition that the
church recognized as normative.
3. Third, there was the criterion of
whether a document had enjoyed
continuous acceptance and usage
by the church at large.
4. The gospel of Thomas is not
included in the Canon of the New
Testament for the following reasons.
a. The gospel of Thomas fails the
test of Apostolic authority.
None of the early church
fathers from Clement to
Irenaeus ever quoted from the
gospel of Thomas. This
indicates that they either did
not know of it or that they
rejected it as spurious. In
either case, the early church
fathers fail to support the
gospel of Thomas' claim to
have been written by the
apostle. It was believed to by
written around 140 A.D. There
is no evidence to support its
purported claim to be written
by the Apostle Thomas
himself.
b. The gospel of Thomas fails to
conform to the rule of faith.
It purports to contain 114
" secret sayings" of Jesus. Some
of these are very similar to the
sayings of Jesus recorded in
the Four Gospels. For example
the gospel of Thomas quotes
Jesus as saying, "A city built on
a high hill cannot be hidden."
This reads the same as
Matthew's Gospel except that
high is added. But Thomas
claims that Jesus said, "Split
wood; I am there. Lift up a
stone, and you will find me
there." That concept is
pantheistic. Thomas ends with
the following saying that
denies women salvation
unless they are some how
changed into being a man.
"Let Mary go away from us,
because women are not
worthy of life." Jesus is quoted
as saying, "Lo, I shall lead her
in order to make her male, so
that she too may become a
living spirit, resembling you
males . For every woman who
makes herself male will enter
into the kingdom of heaven."
c. The gospel of Thomas fails the
test of continuous usage and
acceptance. The lack of
manuscript evidence plus the
failure of the early church
fathers to quote from it or
recognize it shows that it was
not used or accepted in the
early Church. Only two
manuscripts are known of this
"gospel." Until 1945 only a
single fifth-century copy
translation in Coptic had been
found. Then in 1945 a Greek
manuscript of the Gospel of
Thomas was found at Nag
Hammadi in Egypt. This
compares very poorly to the
thousands of manuscripts that
authenticate the Four
Gospels.
Textual Criticism: What Is It And Why
It Is Necessary

Important terms:
Textual criticism is the method used to
examine the vast number of manuscripts
to determine the probably composition
of the original autographs.
"Lower" Textual Criticism: the
practice of studying the manuscripts of
the Bible with the goal of reproducing
the original text of the Bible from this
vast wealth of manuscripts. This is a
necessary task because there exists
minor variations among the biblical
manuscripts. So, unless one manuscript
is arbitrarily chosen as a standard by
which to judge all others, then one
must employ textual criticism to
compare all manuscripts to derive the
reading which would most closely
reflect the autographs.
"Higher" criticism: "The Jesus
Seminar" is a group of liberal Christian
higher critics who vote on which of the
sayings of Christ they believe to have
actually been spoken by Him. This is an
example of "higher" criticism. It is
highly subjective and is colored by the
view points of various "higher" critics.
Textual Variants: Since all Greek
manuscripts of the New Testament
prior to Erasmus' first printed Greek
New Testament were copied by hand
scribal errors or variants could have
crept into the texts.. When these Greek
New Testament manuscripts are
compared with each other we find
evidence of scribal errors and places
where the different manuscripts differ
with one another.
Textual variants and the integrity of
the New Testament text
Many scholars have spent a
lifetime of study of the textual
variants. The following is the
conclusion of the importance of
these variants as they relate to
the integrity of the New
Testament text.
A. There are over 200,000 variants in
the New Testament alone. How do
these variants effect our confidence
that the New Testament has been
faithfully handed down to us?
B. These 200,000 variants are not as
large as they seem. Remember that
every misspelled word or an
omission of a single word in any of
the 5,600 manuscript would count as
a variant.
C. Johann Bengel 1687-1752 was very
disturbed by the 30,000 variants
that had recently been noted in
Mill's edition of the Greek
Testament. After extended study he
came to the conclusion that the
variant readings were fewer in
number than might have been
expected and that they did not
shake any article of Christian
doctrine.
D. Westcott and Hort, in the 1870's,
state that the New Testament text
remains over 98.3 percent pure no
matter whether one uses the Textus
Receptus or their own Greek text
which was largely based on Codex
Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.
E. James White, on p. 40 of his book
The King James Only Controversy
states: "The reality is that the
amount of variation between the
two most extremely different
manuscripts of the New Testament
would not fundamentally altar the
message of the Scriptures! I make
this statement (1) fully aware of the
wide range of textual variants in the
New Testament, and (2) painfully
aware of the strong attacks upon
those who have made similar
statements in the past."
F. Scholars Norman Geisler and
William Nix conclude, "The New
Testament, then, has not only
survived in more manuscripts that
any other book from antiquity, but it
has survived in a purer form than
any other great book-a form that is
99.5 percent pure."
G. When textual critics look at all 5,600
Greek New Testament manuscripts
they find that they can group these
manuscripts into text-types or
families with other similar
manuscripts. There are four text-
types.1. The Alexandrian text-type,
found in most papyri and in
Codex Sinaiticus and Codex
Vaticanus all of which date
prior to 350 A.D.
2. The Western text-type, found
both in Greek manuscripts and
in translations into other
languages, especially Latin.
3. The Byzantine text-type,
found in the vast majority of
later Greek manuscripts. Over
90 percent of all 5,600 Greek
New Testament manuscripts
are of the Byzantine text-type.
The Byzantine text-type is
"fuller" or "longer" than other
text-types, and this is taken as
evidence of a later origin. The
reason that we have so many
manuscripts of the Byzantine
text-type is because the
Byzantine Empire remained
Greek speaking and Orthodox
Christian until Islamic Turks
overran its capital,
Constantinople, in 1453.
Constantinople is now called
Istanbul and is Turkey's largest
city, although no longer its
capital.
4. The Caesaarean text-type,
disputed by some, found in p
45 and a few other
manuscripts.

Why does the KJV differ from the NIV?
The reason the King James version differ
from the NASV and the NIV in a number
of readings is because it is translated
from a different text-type than they are.
A. The King James Version was
translated from Erasmus' printed
Greek New Testament which made
use of only five Greek manuscripts
the oldest of which dated to the
1,100 A.D. These manuscripts were
examples of the Byzantine text-
type.
B. The NASV and the NIV make use of
the United Bible Societies 4th
Edition 1968 of the New Testament.
This edition of the Greek New
Testament relies more heavily on
the Alexandrian text-type while
making use of all 5,664 Greek
manuscripts. The reasons that the
NASV and NIV find the Alexandrian
text-type more reliable are the
following:
1. This text-type uses
manuscripts date from
175-350 A.D. which includes
most of the papyri, Codex
Sinaiticus and Codex
Vaticanus.
2. The church fathers from
97-350 A.D. used this text-type
when they quoted the New
Testament.
3. The early translations of the
New Testament used the
Alexandrian text-type.
Examples that show why the KJV
differs from the NIV and NASV in
certain verses
In the following examples the
King James Version differs from
the NIV, and NASV. because it
bases it's translation on the
Byzantine text-type and the
NIV and NASV base theirs on
the Alexandrian text-type.
A. KJV 1 John 5:7-8 "For there are three
that bear record in heaven, the
Father, the Word, and Holy Ghost:
and these three are one. And there
are three that bear witness in
earth, the spirit, and the water, and
the blood; and these three agree in
one."
NIV 1 John 5:7 "For there are three
that testify: v. 8 the Spirit, the water
and the blood: and the three are in
agreement."
1. When Erasmus first printed
the Greek New Testament in
1514 it did not contain the
words "in heaven, the Father,
the Word, and Holy Ghost:
and these three are one. And
there are three that bear
witness in earth ," because
they were not found in any of
the Greek manuscripts that
Erasmus looked at.
2. These words were not quoted
by any of the Greek church
fathers. They most certainly
would have been used by the
church fathers in their 3rd and
4th century letters if found in
the Greek manuscripts
available to them.
3. These words are not found in
any ancient versions of the
New Testament. These include
Syriac, Coptic, Armenian,
Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic, nor
in the Old Latin in its early
form.
4. These words begin to appear
in marginal notes in the Latin
New Testament beginning in
the fifth century. From the
sixth century onward these
words are found more and
more frequently.
5. Erasmus finally agreed to put
these words into new editions
of his Greek New Testament if
his critic's could find one
Greek manuscript that
contained these words. It
appears that his critics
manufactured manuscripts to
include these words.
6. These additional words are
found in only eight
manuscripts as a variant
reading written in the margin.
Seven of these manuscripts
date from the sixteenth
century and one is a tenth
century manuscript.
7. Erasmus' New Testament
became the basis for the
Greek New Testament, "Textus
Receptus", which the King
James translators used as the
basis for their translation of
the New Testament into
English.
B. Mark 16 verses 9-20 are found in the
King James Version. However, both
the NASV and the NIV note that
these verses are not found in the
earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of
Mark (see The Authenticity of Mark
16:9-20).
1. Neither Codex Sinaiticus nor
Codex Vaticanus have Mark
16:9-20.
2. Mark 16:9-20 is also absent
from some Old Latin, Syriac,
Armenian, and Georgian
manuscripts.
3. Clement of Alexandria and
Origen show no knowledge of
the existence of these verses.
4. 4. The earliest church father to
note the longer ending of Mark
16:9-20 was Irenaeus, around
180 A. D.
C. Luke 2:14 reads:
KJV: "Glory to God in the highest and
on earth peace, good will toward
men."
NIV: "Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace to men on
whom his favor rests."
The Greek text from which these two
versions are translated differ by only
one letter. The NIV is translated
from manuscripts that have an "s"
on the end of the Greek word for
good will. This reading is supported
by the oldest Alexandrine text-types

The copy and paste is to long.I just have to do it.the points is this: when one read all what I paste you will discovered that the bible that was used EVEN before the muhammed was born is still the one of today.When Islam began in the 6th century, 600 years after Jesus Christ, the Bible was accepted as true.
So, you might ask, has the Bible changed
since the 6th century? No. All you have to do is compare today's Bible with a Bible written long ago.
We can find complete Bibles, all the way
back to 300 A.D., hundreds of years
before the Quran. You can find one in
the London Museum, in the Vatican, and many other places. If you compare
today's Bible with the Bibles of 300 A.D.,
the Bible we have today is the same as
then.satan is manipulating the word of God and we can see it here, the op is the evidence. May God guide us all in Jesus name. Amen.

I am signing off here.

malvisguy212:
The copy and paste is to long.I just have to do it.the points is this: when one read all what I paste you will discovered that the bible that was used EVEN before the muhammed was born is still the one of today.When Islam began in the 6th century, 600 years after Jesus Christ, the Bible was accepted as true.
So, you might ask, has the Bible changed
since the 6th century? No. All you have to do is compare today's Bible with a Bible written long ago.
We can find complete Bibles, all the way
back to 300 A.D., hundreds of years
before the Quran. You can find one in
the London Museum, in the Vatican, and many other places. If you compare
today's Bible with the Bibles of 300 A.D.,
the Bible we have today is the same as
then.satan is manipulating the word of God and we can see it here, the op is the evidence. May God guide us all in Jesus name. Amen.

I am signing off here.

Excellent post.. maybe this should be a topic so as to educate these muslims who claim the bible is corrupted and yet fail to show us the uncorrupted one

Malvisguy212

The question I asked is so simple that it doesnt require all these long baseless copy and paste of yours.

Now List the men that wrote the bible through inspiration please and tell us the book they wrote starting from the old testament..

As simple as that^^.

Rilwayne001:
Malvisguy212

The question I asked is so simple that it doesnt require all these long baseless copy and paste of yours.

Now List the men that wrote the bible through inspiration please and tell us the book they wrote starting from the old testament..

As simple as that^^.

I ask you a question first which you cannot answer and now you want me to answer you? You want me to list there name? Seriously?

The Bible was written under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit by over 40
different authors from all walks of life:
shepherds, farmers, tent-makers,
physicians, fishermen, priests,
philosophers and kings. Despite these
differences in occupation and the span
of years it took to write it, the Bible is an
extremely cohesive and unified book.

In the book of job a spirit appeared to job called Himself God, and he ask job series of question.amoung the question is this one;

Job 38:16 Hast thou entered into the
SPRING OF THE SEA? or hast thou WALK
in the search of the DEPTH?

We didn’t “walk in search of the depth [of the sea]“, I.E., the deepest part of the ocean, until 1875 when we discovered the deepest point on Earth, the Challenger Deep in the Marianas Trench (although we weren’t sure it was the deepest point until much later). We
didn’t fully survey it until 1951. We didn’t actually “walk” in it until 1960!

But how does this prove the bible is the word of God? Simply the fact that in most ancient cultures, the ocean HAD no bottom! The Greek word abyss, used for the deep ocean, literally means “bottomless”! And 3500 years ago, only God could have known with such certainty that the ocean did in fact have a “depth”!!
Furthermore, in the same verse, a
completely separate proof exists; for to
the ancient mind, the idea of a “SPRING” in the midst of the sea was unthinkable and illogical. Why would there be water pouring INTO the sea from underground – the sea is where water came from! And mankind for all his technological achievements didn’t discover underwater springs until 1949 – A.D.! Almost four millennium after Job was written! And even then, it wasn’t confirmed until 1960, and it wasn’t until 1979 that human beings first saw deep-sea springs with their own eyes! No one but God could possibly have known they existed four thousand years ago!

Only muhammed see the angel ,who are his witnesses? Before Jesus was born, john the baptist bear witnesses of Jesus. The same was not in the case of muhammed.if you read all the articles I pasted, there are historical context in it and it's supported with many biblical verse, but all your claimed was the one made by Islamic scholar ,they manipulate the true word of God.that is the trick of satan.

Ifeann:


Excellent post.. maybe this should be a topic so as to educate these muslims who claim the bible is corrupted and yet fail to show us the uncorrupted one

Dont run away yet.....mister

[size=5pt]malvisguy212:
The copy and paste is to long.I just have to do it.the points is this: when one read all what I paste you will discovered that the bible that was used EVEN before the muhammed was born is still the one of today.When Islam began in the 6th century, 600 years after Jesus Christ, the Bible was accepted as true.
So, you might ask, has the Bible changed
since the 6th century? No. All you have to do is compare today's Bible with a Bible written long ago.
We can find complete Bibles, all the way
back to 300 A.D., hundreds of years
before the Quran. You can find one in
the London Museum, in the Vatican, and many other places. If you compare
today's Bible with the Bibles of 300 A.D.,
the Bible we have today is the same as
then.satan is manipulating the word of God and we can see it here, the op is the evidence. May God guide us all in Jesus name. Amen. I am signing off here.[/size]

Say you have a desire to read the Bible for the first time. So you go to your local bookstore or check online for a free version. But rather than simply find a copy of the Bible, you’re faced with hundreds of choices. You feel overwhelmed. Who knew there were so many versions of the Bible?

You find study Bibles, archaeological Bibles, devotional Bibles, women’s Bibles, patriotic Bibles, teen Bibles, and even skater Bibles. Skater Bibles?! you think. You finally find the “plain” Bibles and prepare to pick one out.

Then you realize that there are dozens and dozens of different translations of the Bible, often known by their abbreviations: King James Version (KJV); New International Version (NIV); English Standard Version (ESV); New Revised Standard Version (NRSV); New Living Translation (NLT)—the list goes on and on.

How do you choose a Bible? What’s the difference between all these translations? Why are there so many? Now, dont tell me the difference is just translations. No, that's incorrect. Let me give you example of what Quran is talking about. It says you have distorted your Bible (in the form of ommision, addition, etc). Now let's take a look at CASE STUDY (see below)

Good News Bible

The Bible is divided into two(2):

*used by Catholics
*used by protestants

Now, Catholic Bible (Good News) has 73 chapters BUT Protestant Bible (Good News) has 66 chapters

So it means there are 7 chapters missing from Protestants' Good News Bible

Catholics say their Book is original and that any omission from their Book is false and they have evidence in their Book of Revelation.

Protestants also said their Book is original and nothing is missing. They have evidence in their own as well. Revelation 22:18-19 against one another. So I ask all Christians, if I have Protestant's Good News Bible, I go to any church and pastor says "open John 3:16". I am sure everyone or almost everyone will be able to do so.

Now, if pastor goes further and he says "open the book of Baruch chapter 1:1". There is going to be problem because Pastor is using Catholic Good News Bible. But you as church goer will never find the book of Baruch chapter 1:1 in Protestant's Good News Bible.

So this is my research. I dont need to do this research to believe what Quran says about that:

So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. 2:79

But those who wronged changed [those words] to a statement other than that which had been said to them, so We sent down upon those who wronged a punishment from the sky because they were defiantly disobeying.2:59

But do they not know that Allah knows what they conceal and what they declare?2:77


And hadith:

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)

There are bunch of Bibles. They are way too much. So if you deny this allegation above, then, I urge you to do research instead labeling muslims "taqqiyah", "ignorance". That doesn't help you at all. I have piles of Bibles...some even with ridiculous names.

So with confusion in the case study I gave above, I confidently ask you which Bible Jesus actually preached?. I am coming to King James itself as it contradicts other vis-a-vis. So malvisguy212, you dont need epistle to answer simple question. You dont need copy paste to give simple answer.

Qur'an contains 114 chapters and any Muslim can use it anywhere, anytime, any-day. A Nigerian Muslim can confidently use his/her Quran in America. American can confidently use his/her Bible in China and so on. It's all the same. So by definition of "Change" Quran refers to, let's take a look at dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/change: Change means to become different


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/change. Definition
: to become different

: to make (someone or something) different

: to become something else

So is Qur'an right or wrong?. Stop being pig-headed, soften your heart and do away with bigotry

Ifeann:


Excellent post.. maybe this should be a topic so as to educate these muslims who claim the bible is corrupted and yet fail to show us the uncorrupted one

Good evening my sister,your idea is good.hope you are doing alright.

Rilwayne001:
Malvisguy212

The question I asked is so simple that it doesnt require all these long baseless copy and paste of yours.

Now List the men that wrote the bible through inspiration please and tell us the book they wrote starting from the old testament..

As simple as that^^.

Malvisguy pointed out that , "

The Bible was written under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit by over 40
different authors from all walks of life:
shepherds, farmers, tent-makers,
physicians, fishermen, priests,
philosophers and kings. Despite these
differences in occupation and the span
of years it took to write it, the Bible is an
extremely cohesive and unified book."



In contrast
The quran is recited by one author Mohammed aka the fraud ...and yet it is filled with scientific fallacies , false prophesies, historical errors, contradictions and abrogation. . Infact this should be the subject of my next topic...

[quote author=Ifeann post=31305965]


Malvisguy pointed out that , "

The Bible was written under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit by over 40
different authors from all walks of life:
shepherds, farmers, tent-makers,
physicians, fishermen, priests,
philosophers and kings. Despite these
differences in occupation and the span
of years it took to write it, the Bible is an
extremely cohesive and unified book."

My post above destroyed this argument. Do your research well

In contrast
The quran is recited by one author Mohammed aka the fraud ...and yet it is filled with scientific fallacies , false prophesies, historical errors, contradictions and abrogation. . Infact this should be the subject of my next topic...

Good. I will love to see those "contradictions" and "abrogation". Bring them on. I know you will run to anti-Islam "answeringislamdotcom" etc for help.

Empiree:


Dont run away yet.....mister

Say you have a desire to read the Bible for the first time. So you go to your local bookstore or check online for a free version. But rather than simply find a copy of the Bible, you’re faced with hundreds of choices. You feel overwhelmed. Who knew there were so many versions of the Bible?

You find study Bibles, archaeological Bibles, devotional Bibles, women’s Bibles, patriotic Bibles, teen Bibles, and even skater Bibles. Skater Bibles?! you think. You finally find the “plain” Bibles and prepare to pick one out.

Then you realize that there are dozens and dozens of different translations of the Bible, often known by their abbreviations: King James Version (KJV); New International Version (NIV); English Standard Version (ESV); New Revised Standard Version (NRSV); New Living Translation (NLT)—the list goes on and on.

How do you choose a Bible? What’s the difference between all these translations?

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..

[quote author=Ifeann post=31306350]

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..

No no no no. Dont give me that. I gave you clear example. Dont twist. I am not going to repeat myself. All Quran translations only differ in "choice of words" That's translation. I have no problem with that concerning Bible but that's not what the distortion here is about.

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

Good. Did you read my post. Since you suggested "Good News Version" of the Bible, kindly compare and contrast Catholic Good News and Protestant Good New Bibles

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. .

Now you are talking. You cofirmed what Quran said. Noted.

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

Point #2 noted. We dont have separate Quran for kids. You confirmed Quran again.

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..

I dont have problem with "choice of words" in translations. Thats understood. What Quran talks about is corruptions, distortions i:e in form of omission and or additions. Now you are defeated. You just confirmed 2 points from Quran. Some verses and chapters are expunged from different Bibles. That's what we talking about NOT translations. That's the case study i gave above. Read again

Ifeann:

The Bible was written under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit by over 40
different authors from all walks of life:
shepherds, farmers, tent-makers,
physicians, fishermen, priests,
philosophers and kings. ..

The simple question i asked him is to list out these 40 authors including tje book they wrote. Is that too hard to provide?

Nice one empiree.

[quote author=Empiree post=31306955][/quote]

U are always quick to say u win arguments and the other is defeated. .lol..ur childishness is amusing. .


Anyway I want to remind u that the quran says only one god deserve worship.. yes one God deserves worship but it is YHWH...God the Father, son and his holy pirit... not mohammeds god of the quran which contradicts himself and the teachings of the bible


So u see.. on the surface I agree but in principle ur quran is wrong..

Yes people have tried to deliberately mistranslated the bible I made that clear eg the JH. .but they will always fail..the Qur'an has also tried to decieve christains in a similar way and has failed for centuries. .

Yes there are good kiddie versions of the bible that uses pictures and language that makes it easy for kids to understand the bible message. Unlike the quran u Muslims force ur kids to recite in 7th century classical arabic which few muslims understand on any level..


And finally..yes I recommend reading the Bible in Catholic and protestant versions ie good news and KJV. .

And finally notice christains don't kill each other for these disagreements in translations or doctrine unlike u Muslims who butcher each other for trivialities.
Peace.

Ifeann post=31307548]

U are always quick to say u win arguments and the other is defeated. .lol..ur childishness is amusing. .

Yea, yea, just like you are quick to rain curses on our prophet and call muslim liars. Deal with it

Anyway I want to remind u that the quran says only one god deserve worship.. yes one God deserves worship but it is YHWH...God the Father, son and his holy pirit... not mohammeds god of the quran which contradicts himself and the teachings of the bible

Irrelevant. Hey, dont get me started on this trinity nonsense. Even your fellow christians like CAPTIVATOR, pastorkun dont believe in such doctrine. Here is what he said:

PastorKun:
You are a real dunce, where have you ever seen me support the trinity doctrine

So u see.. on the surface I agree

You now agree FOR THE FIRST TIME WITH QUR'AN. Allahu Akbar!. We getting there baby..dont worry. Only a matter of time

but in principle ur quran is wrong..

still irrelevant

Yes people have tried to deliberately mistranslated the bible I made that clear eg the JH. .but they will always fail..the Qur'an has also tried to decieve christains in a similar way and has failed for centuries. .

Listen, it's not only JW. Can't you read my post up there (my case study). You said you will always recommend KJV and GNV. And I put Good News Version to test in my case study but it failed. No, we do not deceive christians when it comes to da'wah. We must speak the truth to pass across message of Islam

Yes there are good kiddie versions of the bible that uses pictures and language that makes it easy for kids to understand the bible message. Unlike the quran u Muslims force ur kids to recite in 7th century classical arabic which few muslims understand on any level..

You are dwindling now. You are getting worse by minutes. Children Bible is not just about kiddie version. It's another version etc. If Muslim children are 'forced' to read 7 century classical Quran proves that we have 1 original Qur'an. Question is was Kiddie Bible written in the time of Jesus?. Is Jesus aware of it?.
When it comes to addressing kids islamically, the least imams or preachers can do is make their lectures "fun" to kids. NOT by publishing or writing another Quran to fit their sense of humor. You still losing madam.

And finally..yes I recommend reading the Bible in Catholic and protestant versions ie good news and KJV. .

Good. I like your bold reassertion. Problem is Good News of both christian sects contradict each other exactly as Quran says. Catholic Bible is 73 chapters. Protestant Bible is 66 chapters. Quran says Christians have distorted their book in form of omission or addition. Now, in the Book of revelation 22:18-19, both assert that:
"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

So which one of the Books Jesus approved of? Is Protestant Good News the accurate one or they expunged other 7 chapters? OR Is Catholic Good News added 7 chapters?

[s]And finally notice christains don't kill each other for these disagreements in translations or doctrine unlike u Muslims who butcher each other for trivialities.[/s] Peace

Crap!

Salaam

[size=2pt]true2god, allnaijablogger, pastorkun, Akin1212 come see exposure[/size]

Rilwayne001:
Nice one empire.

Yea, brother. They need to be academically silenced.

Empiree:
Yea, yea, just like you are quick to rain curses on our prophet and call muslim liars. Deal with it


Irrelevant. Hey, dont get me started on this trinity nonsense. Even your fellow christians like CAPTIVATOR, pastorkun dont believe in such doctrine. Here is what he said:


You now agree FOR THE FIRST TIME WITH QUR'AN. Allahu Akbar!. We getting there baby..dont worry. Only a matter of time

still irrelevant

Listen, it's not only JW. Can't you read my post up there (my case study). You said you will always recommend KJV and GNV. And I put Good News Version to test in my case study but it failed. No, we do not deceive christians when it comes to da'wah. We must speak the truth to pass across message of Islam

You are dwindling now. You are getting worse by minutes. Children Bible is not just about kiddie version. It's another version etc. If Muslim children are 'forced' to read 7 century classical Quran proves that we have 1 original Qur'an. Question is was Kiddie Bible written in the time of Jesus?. Is Jesus aware of it?.
When it comes to addressing kids islamically, the least imams or preachers can do is make their lectures "fun" to kids. NOT by publishing or writing another Quran to fit their sense of humor. You still losing madam.


Good. I like your bold reassertion. Problem is Good News of both christian sects contradict each other exactly as Quran says. Catholic Bible is 73 chapters. Protestant Bible is 66 chapters. Quran says Christians have distorted their book in form of omission or addition. Now, in the Book of revelation 22:18-19, both assert that:
"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

So which one of the Books Jesus approved of? Is Protestant Good News the accurate one or they expunged other 7 chapters? OR Is Catholic Good News added 7 chapters?

Crap!

Salaam

[size=2pt]true2god, allnaijablogger, pastorkun, come see exposure[/size]

I am not going to waste time correcting u again but I want to draw ur attention to the difference in numbers

Catholic 73 and Sola scriptural adherents 66..this difference is found in the old testament books and not the new testament. . Both Catholic and protestant agree on the books of the new testament which is 27.. we christains are under the new convent as I often remind u Muslims. .Christ's Gospel isfound in the NT...

Again u pointed out that pastorkun and co doesn't believe in the trinity..I have already commented on this..being a christain means accepting Christ ..be baptised and fellow Christ's teachings. Love thy neighbor, etc. .every other thing is peripheral. .
Have I every told u that shi'a or ahmediyya do this and that and u sunnis should see that as a reason to renounce ur believe/sunni doctrine. Hope u see the analogy... it's bad logic ..

If u say my statement agrees with ur quran then I won't be wasting more time with u..U clearly took the comment out of context... I clearly said ur quran is WRONG IN THE WORDSHIP OF MUHAMMAD'S MOON GOD...

Ifeann:


[s]I am not going to waste time correcting u again but I want to draw ur attention to the difference in numbers

Catholic 73 and Sola scriptural adherents 66..this difference is found in the old testament books and not the new testament. . Both Catholic and protestant agree on the books of the new testament which is 27.. we christains are under the new convent as I often remind u Muslims. .Christ's Gospel isfound in the NT...

Again u pointed out that pastorkun and co doesn't believe in the trinity..I have already commented on this..being a christain means accepting Christ ..be baptised and fellow Christ's teachings. Love thy neighbor, etc. .every other thing is peripheral. .
Have I every told u that shi'a or ahmediyya do this and that and u sunnis should see that as a reason to renounce ur believe/sunni doctrine. Hope u see the analogy... it's bad logic ..

If u say my statement agrees with ur quran then I won't be wasting more time with u..U clearly took the comment out of context... I clearly said ur quran is WRONG IN THE WORDSHIP OF MUHAMMAD'S MOON GOD...[/s]

You dont make any sense. You are not correcting anything. Your "holy books" are different

Whomsoever Allah guides, no one can misguide. Whomsoever is led astray by His Grace, No one can guide such. Our duty is to present teachings of Islam. We have presented you with evidences to fault your so called holy books. This is just one of them. Many more are there. If I have time and if i want to, i can come up with them. Besides, I haven't even talked about blasphemies against God Almighty yet in your Bibles.

Empiree:
You dont make any sense. You are not correcting anything. Your "holy books" are different

Whomsoever Allah guides, no one can misguide. Whomsoever is led astray by His Grace, No one can guide such. Our duty is to present Islam teachings. We have presented you with evidences to fault your so called holy books. This is just one. Many more are there. If I have time and if i want i can come up with them. Besides, I haven't even talked about blasphemies against God Almighty yet in your Bibles.

Create the topics.. we shall discuss ur issues and misunderstandings..

Empiree. Rilwayn say the men that wrote the hadith are not eyewitness, so it not a reliable evidence that the bible is corrupted.

The 66 book and the rest you paste are nothing but division in doctrine .did you read my post on the book of job? What about the manuscript of the quran?
There are over 5,600 early Greek
Manuscripts of the New Testament that
are still in existence.

Printing greatly aided the
transmission of the biblical texts.
1456 A.D. Gutenberg produced the first
printed Bible in Latin. Printing
revolutionized the way books were
made. From now on books could be
published in great numbers and at a
lower cost.
1514 A.D. The Greek New Testament
was printed for the first time by
Erasmus. He based his Greek New
Testament from only five Greek
manuscripts, the oldest of which dated
only as far back as the twelfth century.
With minor revisions, Erasmus' Greek
New Testament came to be known as
the Textus Receptus or the "received
texts."
1522 A. D. Polyglot Bible was
published. The Old Testament was in
Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin and
the New Testament in Latin and Greek.
Erasmus used the Polyglot to revise
later editions of his New Testament.
Tyndale made use of the Polyglot in his
translation on the Old Testament into
English which he did not complete
because he was martyred in 1534.
1611 A.D. The King James Version into
English from the original Hebrew and
Greek. The King James translators of
the New Testament used the Textus
Receptus as the basis for their
translations.
1968 A.D. The United Bible Societies
4th Edition of the Greek New
Testament . This Greek New Testament
made use of the oldest Greek
manuscripts which date from 175 A.D.
This was the Greek New Testament text
from which the NASV and the NIV were
translated.
1971 A.D. The New American Standard
Version (NASV) was published. It makes
use of the wealth of much older
Hebrew and Greek manuscripts now
available that weren't available at the
time of the translation of the KJV. Its
wording and sentence structure closely
follow the Greek in more of a word for
word style.
1983 A.D. The New International
Version (NIV) was published. It also
made use of the oldest manuscript
evidence. It is more of a "thought-for-
thought" translation and reads more
easily than the NASV.
As an example of the contrast
between word-for-word and
thought-for-thought translations,
notice below the translation of the
Greek word "hagios-holy"
NASV Hebrews 9:25. "...the high
priest enters the holy place year by
year with blood not his own."
NIV Hebrews 9:25. "...the high priest
enters the Most Holy Place every
year with blood that is not his own."
The NIV supplies "understood"
information about the Day of
Atonement, namely that the high
priest's duties took place in the
compartment of the temple known
specifically as the Most Holy Place.
Note that the NASV simply says "holy
place" reflecting the more literal
translation of "hagios."

Ifeann:


Create the topics.. we shall discuss ur issues and misunderstandings..

Since you've been viewing my profile for weeks, did you see me create thread(s) on comparative religion?. No, i don't fancy all that.

malvisguy212:
Empire. Rilwayn say the men that wrote the hadith are not eyewitness, so it not a reliable evidence that the bible is corrupted.

[size=3pt]The 66 book and the rest you paste are nothing but division in doctrine .did you read my post on the book of job? What about the manuscript of the quran?
There are over 5,600 early Greek
Manuscripts of the New Testament that
are still in existence.

Printing greatly aided the
transmission of the biblical texts.
1456 A.D. Gutenberg produced the first
printed Bible in Latin. Printing
revolutionized the way books were
made. From now on books could be
published in great numbers and at a
lower cost.
1514 A.D. The Greek New Testament
was printed for the first time by
Erasmus. He based his Greek New
Testament from only five Greek
manuscripts, the oldest of which dated
only as far back as the twelfth century.
With minor revisions, Erasmus' Greek
New Testament came to be known as
the Textus Receptus or the "received
texts."
1522 A. D. Polyglot Bible was
published. The Old Testament was in
Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin and
the New Testament in Latin and Greek.
Erasmus used the Polyglot to revise
later editions of his New Testament.
Tyndale made use of the Polyglot in his
translation on the Old Testament into
English which he did not complete
because he was martyred in 1534.
1611 A.D. The King James Version into
English from the original Hebrew and
Greek. The King James translators of
the New Testament used the Textus
Receptus as the basis for their
translations.
1968 A.D. The United Bible Societies
4th Edition of the Greek New
Testament . This Greek New Testament
made use of the oldest Greek
manuscripts which date from 175 A.D.
This was the Greek New Testament text
from which the NASV and the NIV were
translated.
1971 A.D. The New American Standard
Version (NASV) was published. It makes
use of the wealth of much older
Hebrew and Greek manuscripts now
available that weren't available at the
time of the translation of the KJV. Its
wording and sentence structure closely
follow the Greek in more of a word for
word style.
1983 A.D. The New International
Version (NIV) was published. It also
made use of the oldest manuscript
evidence. It is more of a "thought-for-
thought" translation and reads more
easily than the NASV.
As an example of the contrast
between word-for-word and
thought-for-thought translations,
notice below the translation of the
Greek word "hagios-holy"
NASV Hebrews 9:25. "...the high
priest enters the holy place year by
year with blood not his own."
NIV Hebrews 9:25. "...the high priest
enters the Most Holy Place every
year with blood that is not his own."
The NIV supplies "understood"
information about the Day of
Atonement, namely that the high
priest's duties took place in the
compartment of the temple known
specifically as the Most Holy Place.
Note that the NASV simply says "holy
place" reflecting the more literal
translation of "hagios.[/size]"

To be sincere with you, i think it's time to start ignoring you cuz you don't make sense. All your Bibles combined can't stand Hadith either.

Empiree. Rilwayn say the men that wrote the hadith are not eyewitness, so it not a reliable evidence that the bible is corrupted.

The 66 book and the rest you paste are nothing but division in doctrine .did you read my post on the book of job? What about the manuscript of the quran?
There are over 5,600 early Greek
Manuscripts of the New Testament that
are still in existence. There is not a single quranic manuscript yet you guys will claimed the bible which exist a thousands original manuscripts is 'corrupt"

Printing greatly aided the
transmission of the biblical texts.
1456 A.D. Gutenberg produced the first
printed Bible in Latin. Printing
revolutionized the way books were
made. From now on books could be
published in great numbers and at a
lower cost.
1514 A.D. The Greek New Testament
was printed for the first time by
Erasmus. He based his Greek New
Testament from only five Greek
manuscripts, the oldest of which dated
only as far back as the twelfth century.
With minor revisions, Erasmus' Greek
New Testament came to be known as
the Textus Receptus or the "received
texts."
1522 A. D. Polyglot Bible was
published. The Old Testament was in
Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin and
the New Testament in Latin and Greek.
Erasmus used the Polyglot to revise
later editions of his New Testament.
Tyndale made use of the Polyglot in his
translation on the Old Testament into
English which he did not complete
because he was martyred in 1534.
1611 A.D. The King James Version into
English from the original Hebrew and
Greek. The King James translators of
the New Testament used the Textus
Receptus as the basis for their
translations.
1968 A.D. The United Bible Societies
4th Edition of the Greek New
Testament . This Greek New Testament
made use of the oldest Greek
manuscripts which date from 175 A.D.
This was the Greek New Testament text
from which the NASV and the NIV were
translated.
1971 A.D. The New American Standard
Version (NASV) was published. It makes
use of the wealth of much older
Hebrew and Greek manuscripts now
available that weren't available at the
time of the translation of the KJV. Its
wording and sentence structure closely
follow the Greek in more of a word for
word style.
1983 A.D. The New International
Version (NIV) was published. It also
made use of the oldest manuscript
evidence. It is more of a "thought-for-
thought" translation and reads more
easily than the NASV.
As an example of the contrast
between word-for-word and
thought-for-thought translations,
notice below the translation of the
Greek word "hagios-holy"
NASV Hebrews 9:25. "...the high
priest enters the holy place year by
year with blood not his own."
NIV Hebrews 9:25. "...the high priest
enters the Most Holy Place every
year with blood that is not his own."
The NIV supplies "understood"
information about the Day of
Atonement, namely that the high
priest's duties took place in the
compartment of the temple known
specifically as the Most Holy Place.
Note that the NASV simply says "holy
place" reflecting the more literal
translation of "hagios."

Empiree:
To be sincere with you, i think it's time to start ignoring you cuz you don't make sense. All your Bibles combined can't stand Hadith either.

provide verse from the quran that say the bible is corrupted instead you quote the hadith.

Ephesians 4:29-32
(Eph 4:29-32 NASB) Let no unwholesome
word proceed from your mouth, but only
such a word as is good for edification
according to the need of the moment,
that it may give grace to those who hear.
And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God,
by whom you were sealed for the day of
redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath
and anger and clamor and slander be
put away from you, along with all malice.
And be kind to one another, tender-
hearted, forgiving each other, just as God
in Christ also has forgiven you.

Did you catch that?THE WORD OF GOD IS SEALED IN OUR HEART You can actually "grieve the Holy Spirit of God." What, exactly, is Paul, while being led by the Holy Spirit of God, talking about?
First of all, look at what the Holy spirit of
God has done for us. He has "sealed" us
"for the day of redemption."

Empiree:


Dont run away yet.....mister

Say you have a desire to read the Bible for the first time. So you go to your local bookstore or check online for a free version. But rather than simply find a copy of the Bible, you’re faced with hundreds of choices. You feel overwhelmed. Who knew there were so many versions of the Bible?

You find study Bibles, archaeological Bibles, devotional Bibles, women’s Bibles, patriotic Bibles, teen Bibles, and even skater Bibles. Skater Bibles?! you think. You finally find the “plain” Bibles and prepare to pick one out.

Then you realize that there are dozens and dozens of different translations of the Bible, often known by their abbreviations: King James Version (KJV); New International Version (NIV); English Standard Version (ESV); New Revised Standard Version (NRSV); New Living Translation (NLT)—the list goes on and on.

How do you choose a Bible? What’s the difference between all these translations? Why are there so many? Now, dont tell me the difference is just translations. No, that's incorrect. Let me give you example of what Quran is talking about. It says you have distorted your Bible (in the form of ommision, addition, etc). Now let's take a look at CASE STUDY (see below)

Good News Bible

The Bible is divided into two(2):

*used by Catholics
*used by protestants

Now, Catholic Bible (Good News) has 73 chapters BUT Protestant Bible (Good News) has 66 chapters

So it means there are 7 chapters missing from Protestants' Good News Bible

Catholics say their Book is original and that any omission from their Book is false and they have evidence in their Book of Revelation.

Protestants also said their Book is original and nothing is missing. They have evidence in their own as well. Revelation 22:18-19 against one another. So I ask all Christians, if I have Protestant's Good News Bible, I go to any church and pastor says "open John 3:16". I am sure everyone or almost everyone will be able to do so.

Now, if pastor goes further and he says "open the book of Baruch chapter 1:1". There is going to be problem because Pastor is using Catholic Good News Bible. But you as church goer will never find the book of Baruch chapter 1:1 in Protestant's Good News Bible.

So this is my research. I dont need to do this research to believe what Quran says about that:

So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. 2:79

But those who wronged changed [those words] to a statement other than that which had been said to them, so We sent down upon those who wronged a punishment from the sky because they were defiantly disobeying.2:59

But do they not know that Allah knows what they conceal and what they declare?2:77


And hadith:

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)

There are bunch of Bibles. They are way too much. So if you deny this allegation above, then, I urge you to do research instead labeling muslims "taqqiyah", "ignorance". That doesn't help you at all. I have piles of Bibles...some even with ridiculous names.

So with confusion in the case study I gave above, I confidently ask you which Bible Jesus actually preached?. I am coming to King James itself as it contradicts other vis-a-vis. So malvisguy212, you dont need epistle to answer simple question. You dont need copy paste to give simple answer.

Qur'an contains 114 chapters and any Muslim can use it anywhere, anytime, any-day. A Nigerian Muslim can confidently use his/her Quran in America. American can confidently use his/her Bible in China and so on. It's all the same. So by definition of "Change" Quran refers to, let's take a look at dictionary.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/change: Change means to become different


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/change. Definition
: to become different

: to make (someone or something) different

: to become something else

So is Qur'an right or wrong?. Stop being pig-headed, soften your heart and do away with bigotry

This is clear enough even for a primary school pupil. I don't know why the likes of Ifeann aka parisbookaddict like to protest what is so obvious!! Delusion is a terrible thing!

Ifeann:

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

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.

[size=15pt]Acts 3:13[/size]

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.

malvisguy212:
provide verse from the quran that say the bible is corrupted instead you quote the hadith.

Which one of the Bibles?.

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.

[size=15pt]Acts 3:13[/size]

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 I am happy that u now think for yourself..I tot u will run and copy and paste nonsense from Islamic sites...this is a good point..I won't bother to cross check ur translations hoping u won't use al taqiyyah. .


However u fail to note that Christ came to serve. U Muslims don't understand Christ's incredible humility. .

Not that the king james version doesnt use the word serve but clearly acknowledges the sonship of Christ


However the other translations updated to our current use of English acknowledges that serve is the most appropriate word and yet they clearly acknowledge the sonship of Christ. .

Mathew 20:28

King James Bible
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

International Standard Version
That's the way it is with the Son of Man. He did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many people."


New International Version
just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

New Living Translation
For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve others and to give his life as a ransom for many."



Here are parallel verses from Mark10: 45


King James Bible
For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life--a ransom for many."

International Standard Version
because even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many people."


So understand we christains understand that as the son of man he came to serve and he experienced what we experience and conquered.

He is also referred to as son of God in dozens of verses..here are 3 examples..

1 John 5:20 - And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, [even] in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Luke 1:35 - And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.