Empiree:
HELSINKI (AP) — Finland's state radio channel YLE is broadcasting readings of the entire Quran in Finnish to improve knowledge of Muslim culture in the Nordic country.

The 60 half-hour readings are accompanied by comments from the translator of the Islamic holy book and Imam Anas Hajjar of Finland's Islamic Society.

The chairman of the organization, Mohammad Hussein Omar, on Sunday described the readings as a good way to help people understand the religion and Muslim customs better.

There are an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 Muslims in Finland, which has an overall population of 5.5 million. The country has only one building constructed as a mosque, in the early 1940s. Other Muslim prayer rooms or mosques are former schools, cinemas or municipal halls.

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

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

author=limamintruth post=31505103: You still have said nothing mister. Why are you shying away from quoting the Bible verse(s) allegedely missing in the translation as mentioned by you

I have given you one example so far but you didnt say anything. Look for Good News Bible used by Catholics and Protestants. Catholic has 77 books, Protestant has 66 books. Both can not be right. Thats your first assignment. I know you are naive of your own bible

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

Deal with first assignment first^^

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

Yes, Quran is revealed in Arabic. Therefore translation in other languages are for the benefits of non Arabic speaking Muslims and non-Muslims.

"So We have revealed an Arabic Quran to you,..." (Qur'an 42:7)

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

You dont get it do you?. I dont have problem with translations into different languages. Thats not my point. My point is contradictions, distortions, inconsistencies, omission, additions etc. Get it?

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

Qur'an is One in Arabic. Uthman(RA) did not speak english

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

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

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

And what's stopping you from typing the chapter and verse you gleaned these from?. I would imagine it's Sura Imran. But why dont you type it out?

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

You dont get it at all. You still make no point.

- basic or fundamental (of established meaning)

- clear revelations

- some of its verses are decisive. )

I knew it was sura Imran(7)
هُوَ الَّذِي أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُّحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ ۖ.
Quran is revealed two ways. The first way are the verses that are plain and clear. They only need tafsir(explanation). They(those verses) are umm al kitab(they are the fundamental and basic with established meaning. That's, they dont need tawil (interpretation). So you are unable to point contradiction here. The three(3) interpretations) you cited are translators' "choice of words, phrase" etc. They mean the same thing. They are not contradictions.

Now, let's take a look at dictionary:

basic or fundamental {forming a necessary base or core; of central importance.
"the protection of fundamental human rights"
synonyms: basic, underlying, core, foundational, rudimentary, elemental, elementary, basal, root;
https://www.google.com/search?q=fundamental&oq=fundamental&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8}



clear revelations: This is clear enough. The former explains this. Key word here is
"clear"
{Definition:easy to perceive, understand, or interpret.
"the voice on the telephone was clear and strong"
synonyms: understandable, comprehensible, intelligible, plain, uncomplicated, explicit, lucid, coherent, simple, straightforward, unambiguous, clear-cut, crystal clear; formal perspicuous
https://www.google.com/search?q=clear&oq=clear&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i59&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=clear+definition}



some of its verses are decisive: Key word here is decisive. Here is dico definition.

{settling an issue; producing a definite result.
"the Supreme Court voided the statute by a decisive 7–2 vote"
synonyms: deciding, conclusive, determining; key, pivotal, critical, crucial, significant, influential, major, chief, principal, prim. https://www.google.com/search?q=decisive&oq=decisive&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8}.

Let me explain a little further what the verse is saying. Say for instance Imam wants to pass judgement on a thief, the punishment recorded in the Quran is "plain and clear"(i:e fundamental, decisive, basic, root etc). Imam doesnt need to look for controversial meaning to try to pass judgement.
If you go further in the same verse it says some verses are not entirely clear. Those verses need "tawil". Tawil can only be done by extremely knowledgeable scholars. Those are the verses that are allegorical. They can not be used as standard. We use plain verses to set rules and regulations

limamintruth,

Christians like to quote this verse to seduce ignorant people. 1 John5:7 King James Version (KJV)

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

^ This verse has been expunged from other versions:

English Standard Version (ESV),

GOD’S WORD Translation (GW),

Common English Bible (CEB),

Good News Translation (GNT),

New International Version (NIV),

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and many others.

Why did they remove it?. The answer is Revised Standard Version says there is noting like such phrase from original Greek manuscripts. Yet Christians believe it. Question is why this discrepancy.

I have more evidences against you. Answer these two questions first before i move forward. And please dont come back here to tell me the missing books and verses are in other versions. You will not see this silly distortion in the Quran.

Empiree:
Okay, that means Jesus has no idea of over 40 different bibles that you now have, that have much discrepancies within them. Okay, good you have answered the question. It means Jesus didn't preach Christianity. He has no idea what it is.

What's this one saying? How many times do I have to repeat that Jesus Christ is christianity's message before you get.
Whether the religion is named christian or Jesusian, it doesn't matter. What matters is what it entails which is Jesus Christ. Infact, christianity is exhibiting Christ-like nature. Cest f'ni.
Yes, there are various version of the bible that differ in some of their translation but what's important is they're roughly similar and they all copied from the same manuscript. Understood?

Empiree:
...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's some more texts for reference:

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

Empiree:
...

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


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

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

Empiree:
Man, don't get it twisted. Qur'an is Arabic, one version. Translation are not Qur'an.

...Quran is one in Arabic.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


A COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO ARABIC QUR'AN. VERSIONS


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

I gave you ... 3:81

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

We gave you ... 3:80

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


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

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

And many a prophet fought(qatala) 3:146

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

limamintruth:

He said(qaala): "My Lord knows ..."
The examples of the differences given earlier show that the differences are far more than dialect, accent or pronunciation. The differences change the subject of the sentence, whether the verb is active or passive or whether it is singular or plural. These differences do affect the meaning. Comprende'?[/size]

I wont waste my time over this. You haven't said anything. You know why?. I am glad you delved original Arabic transcripts but you are basically talking about linguistic analysis which doesn't in any way has anything to do with contradiction or distortion. Thanks to copy/paste job . You even stoop so low by posting website you got help from. You probably didn't read what you posted either and the one who gave you 'like' has no idea what you posted. I am aware of them.

I am just going to respond to the points you raised,

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

and

qatala (3:146)

"qutila" in sura Imran 144 is l verb "to slain", "to kill" derived from "qatala" is lll verb "fought". You will need to consult Arabic dictionary futher on this if you really wish to learn. It's true that Arabs have different accents. Like Algerian or UAE for instance, they could pronounce 'ka' as 'ga' but this doesn't change original 'KA' in arabic. I have witnessed this several times. All that is nothing.

You have not brought any contradiction from Quran. You see how i diligently I brought contradictions from your Bible you did not respond to that.

Now here is another challenge for you. This is another contradiction in the Bible. Read 1 Samuel 13:1 in King James Version
"Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,"

New International Version (NIV)
Samuel Rebukes Saul
"Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty two years."

In some other versions, the age of Saul is erased or the year he reigned is expunged and they put question mark (?).

So you failed to answer the first 2 contradictions. Let's see if you can figure this out. I got more. I haven't even talked about blasphemy against God and His prophets yet.

Empiree:
Thanks to copy/paste job . You even stoop so low by posting website you got help from. You probably didn't read what you posted either and the one who gave you 'like' has no idea what you posted. I am aware of them

He probably didn't.

limamintruth:

The Holy Bible consist of the gospel which is the word of God in written form.

Including the contradictions and inconsistencies?
Just who are those that wrote it? starting from the OT

And Jesus Christ is the Word of God made flesh (in human form).

Which means without Jesus God is dumb? Or that when jesus (word of god) was on earth, how come god was still able to conversate with people?

So are you asking if Jesus Christ read of Himself or what exactly?

Is the bible about the life of jesus or the gospel as inted in Mark 1:14-15 The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel’" ?

And please list the 40 writers of the bible, starting from the OT.

Rilwayne001:


He probably didn't.

Yes, he didnt. He just read the headline and it fitted his 'myopism'.

Rilwayne001:


Including the contradictions and inconsistencies?
Just who are those that wrote it? starting from the OT

Which means without Jesus God is dumb? Or that when jesus (word of god) was on earth, how come god was still able to conversate with people?

Is the bible about the life of jesus or the gospel as inted in Mark 1:14-15 The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel’" ?

And please list the 40 writers of the bible, starting from the OT.

The gospel simply means good news.
The good news about God’s work culminating in Jesus Christ’s
death on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins, including his resurrection from the grave which proved that he was victorious and conquered death.
The coming into the world of Jesus Christ is God's ULTIMATE revelation to mankind.

plainbibletruth:

The gospel simply means good news.
The good news about God’s work culminating in Jesus Christ’s
death on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins, including his resurrection from the grave which proved that he was victorious and conquered death.
The coming into the world of Jesus Christ is God's ULTIMATE revelation to mankind.

Pls, no offense intended but what you said up there makes no sense. You brothers need lots of studies in theology. I can use your bible to refute what you said.

By the way, which Gospel of all over 40 different versions did Jesus preached?

Empiree:
Pls, no offense intended but what you said up there makes no sense. You brothers need lots of studies in theology. I can use your bible to refute what you said.

By the way, which Gospel of all over 40 different versions did Jesus preached?

The gospel means “good news”.
This “good news” was recorded by different authors.
So the ‘message’ they present as well as their recorded writings can be termed ‘the gospel’.
The gospel therefore is as much a message (and the embodiment of that message) as well as the recorded message.
The key issue is that the CENTRAL MESSAGE of these recordings all agree.
In other words, it is not that the message – the “good news” – is presented in many recorded forms that should be of greater concern but that their CORE COMMUNICATION agree on a unifying theme.
That is the beauty of the “good news”.

plainbibletruth:


The gospel means “good news”.
This “good news” was recorded by different authors.
So the ‘message’ they present as well as their recorded writings can be termed ‘the gospel’.
The gospel therefore is as much a message (and the embodiment of that message) as well as the recorded message.
The key issue is that the CENTRAL MESSAGE of these recordings all agree.
In other words, it is not that the message – the “good news” – is presented in many recorded forms that should be of greater concern but that their CORE COMMUNICATION agree on a unifying theme.
That is the beauty of the “good news”.

So what is that "core communication" different authors "agreed" upon, please?

Empiree:
So what is that "core communication" different authors "agreed" upon, please?

Lol. I see you guys are still trying to reason with them. How is the impossible task going?

Abuamam:


Lol. I see you guys are still trying to reason with them. How is the impossible task going?

who inspired muhammed to wrote this nonsense;

Surah 4:157: And their saying:
Surely we have killed the MESSIAH,
Isa son of Marium, the messenger
of Allah; and they did not kill him
nor did they crucify him, but it
appeared to them so (like Isa) and
most surely those who differ therein
are only in a doubt about it; they
have no knowledge respecting it, but
only follow a conjecture, and they
killed him not for sure. (Shakir)

The people that are "saying" here is the Jews, why will the Jews killed the messiah whom they are waiting for?and they are boasting about it!!! Uptil today the Jews are waiting for the messiah,it make no sense for them to killed him, muhammed is confused here, he did not knew what he was writing.

The reason the Jews killed Jesus is because He did not deny being called God and He claimed to be the MESSIAH this gives the Jew reason to killed him. It must be remembered that the Jewish religious leaders even objected when Pilate wrote a title saying, “King of the Jews.” (John 19:19-22). It is, therefore, illogical for the Jews to boastfully say that “we have killed the Messiah” when they did not accept Jesus as the Messiah in the first place.

malvisguy212:
who inspired muhammed to wrote this nonsense;

The infinitive form of a verb is always written in its present form. It should be "to WRITE".

Abuamam:


Lol. I see you guys are still trying to reason with them. How is the impossible task going?

lol, they are pain in the neck

Abuamam:


The infinitive form of a verb is always written in its present form. It should be "to WRITE".

do the Jews believe that Jesus is the messiah?

malvisguy212:
do the Jews believe that Jesus is the messiah?

No. Their statement was made mockingly. The jews actually called him the "messiah" and "apostle of Allah" as a snide reference to his own claims, boasting of how they killed him an accursed death (by hanging). In a way to them, it disproves his claims to being the messiah.

Abuamam:


No. Their statement was made mockingly. The jews actually called him the "messiah" and "apostle of Allah" as a snide reference to his own claims, boasting of how they killed him an accursed death (by hanging). In a way to them, it disproves his claims to being the messiah.

you mean,Allah made mockery of the Jews?if you read this account in its entirety from Surah 4:153 to Surah 4:162, you will notice it is Allah who is talking and the statement do not sound like mockery because when someone boast, it does not mean mockery, it was a fact.

malvisguy212:
you mean,Allah made mockery of the Jews?if you read this account in its entirety from Surah 4:153 to Surah 4:162, you will notice it is Allah who is talking and the statement do not sound like mockery because when someone boast, it does not mean mockery, it was a fact.

Now how do I explain this verrry simply so even you can understand...

Ok.

The verse in question is a reported speech; in Arabic, the object need not be mentioned everytime; the beauty lies in switching from one figure of speech to another without the disfiguring banal repetition of object/subject. This is why translators of the Qur'an into the inadequate English language, have to keep putting (he said), (they said) into brackets. In Arabic, who said what is perfectly clear from the context.

As for the mockery, I will give you this example:

Mr A said "God is hiding from the rain"

I am reporting what mr A actually said; but it is not my speech. If I give you the context of that statement, you would obviously understand its meaning.
It happened when we noticed a popular man in Ibadan who claims to be god on earth, sheltering himself from the rain. Mr A happened to be a friend of mine who did not believe in the self acclaimed god on earth.
I think you will agree with me that mr A was mocking the god-claimant. No one would interprete the statement to mean that mr A believed that the man was really god. Nor would anyone say I erred because I reported the sarcastic statement made by mr A, even though to a foreigner who does not understand the nuances of the English language, and/or who is always looking for faults in my statements, it might seem that mr A really believed that "god" was hiding from the rain; or that I was lying about mr A.

Now make the necessary substitutions.

I hope you now understand? Because I am done. Good day.

PS. Any interested muslim can refer to the tafsir of ibn Katheer for an understanding of how they were mocking the prophet Isa (as) in this verse... anNisaa' 4:157.

^The one you trying to lecture up there is a robot. He will be twisting and repeating himself. Rilwayne001 knows how to deal with him.

Empiree:
^The one you trying to lecture up there is a robot. He will be twisting and repeating himself. Rilwayne001 knows how to deal with him.

Now now bro Empiree. Let us be charitable.

Abuamam:


Now now bro Empiree. Let us be charitable.

I understand. I will give him benefits of doubt.

Rilwayne001:


Which means without Jesus God is dumb? Or that when jesus (word of god) was on earth, how come god was still able to conversate with people?

Dont tell me you are this naive about the greatness of God's awesome power?

Or are you doubting God's unlimited ability to turn His message into human form or what? Remember, God is not a man that is bound by impossibilities. My post to you was precise & clear that "Jesus is the word of God in human form".

Prior to the coming of Christ Jesus to earth, God usually conveyed His word/message to His people through Prophets. Jesus Christ is the word/message of God to mankind made flesh.

This does not in anyway mean that after the Almighty God sent His word/message to earth, he automatically lost his ability to speak. It is ridiculous to even think so.
Remember what God sent was His word/message, not His speaking ability or vocal cords. You even made me laff sef with your very ridiculous thought


As for your second question about the gospel, know that the word "gospel" here simply means "The good news of salvation brought by Christ Jesus". And this includes the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

So with this simple definition, you should be able to deduce what the gospel as being mentioned severally in the Holy Bible means.


These are my answers to the only two relevant questions you raised in your post. Shalom.

Abuamam:


Now how do I explain this verrry simply so even you can understand...

Ok.

The verse in question is a reported speech; in Arabic, the object need not be mentioned everytime; the beauty lies in switching from one figure of speech to another without the disfiguring banal repetition of object/subject. This is why translators of the Qur'an into the inadequate English language, have to keep putting (he said), (they said) into brackets. In Arabic, who said what is perfectly clear from the context.

As for the mockery, I will give you this example:

Mr A said "God is hiding from the rain"

I am reporting what mr A actually said; but it is not my speech. If I give you the context of that statement, you would obviously understand its meaning.
It happened when we noticed a popular man in Ibadan who claims to be god on earth, sheltering himself from the rain. Mr A happened to be a friend of mine who did not believe in the self acclaimed god on earth.
I think you will agree with me that mr A was mocking the god-claimant. No one would interprete the statement to mean that mr A believed that the man was really god. Nor would anyone say I erred because I reported the sarcastic statement made by mr A, even though to a foreigner who does not understand the nuances of the English language, and/or who is always looking for faults in my statements, it might seem that mr A really believed that "god" was hiding from the rain; or that I was lying about mr A.

Now make the necessary substitutions.

I hope you now understand? Because I am done. Good day.

PS. Any interested muslim can refer to the tafsir of ibn Katheer for an understanding of how they were mocking the prophet Isa (as) in this verse... anNisaa' 4:157.

the verse I quoted (muhammed thought the Jew recognised Jesus as the messiah) is similar to this one
;

(Surah 19:27, 28):
"Carrying the child, (Jesus), she (Mary)
came to her people, who said to her:
"Mary, this is indeed a strange thing!
Sister of Aaron, your father was never a
LovePeddler-monger, nor was your mother a
harlot."" [The Koran, Dawood's
translation, pages 215, 216].

This verse states that after Mary gave
birth to Christ, her townsfolk reproached
her. They thought she was not married,
and assumed that she committed sexual
sin because she gave birth. In their
reproach, they called her, "Sister of
Aaron".
This mistake was discerned by the Arabic
Christians of Najran. There is a record of
them exposing Muhammad's mistake
about Mary. It's found in authentic
Islamic writings, known as the Hadith, or
Traditions. The quote is from the
collection of Traditions compiled by an
Islamic scholar known as "Imam Muslim".
Imam Muslim's collection of Hadith,
known as "Sahih Muslim", is considered
to be the 3rd most important set of books
in Islam, following the Quran, and Hadith
collection of Bukhari. "Sahih" means,
more or less, "authentic", i.e., they are
regarded as authentic by Islamic
scholarship.


In Sahih Muslim, the Hadith related by
Mughirah ibn Shu'bah, #5326, says:

"When I came to Najran, they (the
Christians of Najran) asked me: You read
"Sister of Harun", (i.e. Mary), in the
Qur'an, WHERESA MOSES WAS BORN WELL BEFORE JESUS . When I came back to
Allah's Messenger I asked him about
that, and he said: "The (people of the old
age) used to give names (to their
persons) after the names of Apostle and
pious persons who had gone before
them."" [Sahih Muslim, translated by
Abdul Siddiqi].

This hadith exposed muhammed illiteracy,the people of the old age never adress saint's like this"sister" or "brother" the christians in najran recognised his mistake the truth is that non of the pious saint's are adress by "sister"or "brother" they are ONLY adress as "SON" and" DAUGHTER" or "FATHER" Abraham is referred to as "father" by the Jews in John 8:38. But never are these people called, "brothers or sisters" after any of the previous saints.

Further, they (the christians in najran) did not recognize the technique or model in which this idiom was used. Had they known the custom that Muhammad said existed, of people
calling other people "brother" or "sister"
of ancient pious people, like possibly,
"sister of Moses", "brother of David",
"sister of Abraham", "brother of Isaac",
they would have understood what the
Quran was saying and raised no
objection. But both the idiom, and the
model in which it is used, were foreign to them.

This passage is an example of muhammed saying the Jews accepts Jesus as there messiah. There are sooo many error in the quran.

Empiree:
...

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

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


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

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

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

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

Empiree:
...

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

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


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

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

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

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

Empiree:


I wont waste my time over this. You haven't said anything. You know why?.

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

Empiree:

I am glad you delved original Arabic transcripts but you are basically talking about linguistic analysis which doesn't in any way has anything to do with contradiction or distortion. Thanks to copy/paste job . You even stoop so low by posting website you got help from. You probably didn't read what you posted either and the one who gave you 'like' has no idea what you posted. I am aware of them.

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

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

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


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

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





[Do take this as my parting gift though ]:

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

limamintruth:

[size=4pt]

I honestly thought you have something important to say here. First of, you are still on the same nonsense. You are dealing with linguistic analysis not contradiction. Let's keep it simple. If you think Arabic Quran is distorted, kindly quote from two different Quran and let's see. You are not making any sense.

And I didnt say Bible was mere translation. I said DIFFERENT VERSIONS and I gave you clear examples with names of these versions. You telling someone say this or that doesnt help you. Just bring forward Quran and quote them.

You are very dishonest by not quoting versions of the Bible with respect to 1 samuel13:1

King James Version clearly said Saul reigned for two years over Israel,

New International Version clearly said he reigned over Israel forty two years

Looks like you didnt read it. I would have believed your explanation if your anaylsis is confined within one version. And you tried to be smart by not quoting versions up there. You ran away now. Good job. It's very simple. If Mr. A goes to church with KJV and Mr. B has NIV and Pastor also has KJV and he says 'open 1 samuel 13:1'. Definitely Mr. B would have problem. Thats the contradiction in different version. In other versions, 1 Samuel 31:1 is completely removed.

Let me give you another clear contradiction on the account of Judas' death

Matthew 27:1-5King James Version (KJV)

1When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:

2 And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor.

3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.

5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.


Acts 1:16-18King James Version (KJV)

16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

Question is did Judas hanged himself as reported by Mathew OR he fell from mountain and torn into pieces as reported in Acts of apostle?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Empiree:
...i didnt say Bible was mere translation, i said 'Different Versions'....

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

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

Empiree:
....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[quote author=limamintruth post=31627912]For the very last time, my simple response to your barrage of irritating questions on the omitted/included Bible verses ish is thus:

Irritating?...wooow. It's okay. But please I hate to make people uncomfortable especially if they are not my target on NL. Do pls refrain from replying if it's absolutely not necessary. Thanks

Most of the books of the Bible were originally written in Hebrewaic language. Thus, the first Bible was in Hebrewaic language i.e to say the Hebrewaic Bible existed first.

Okay, I have no problem with this. But You do understand that Jesus(Allah's blessings be upon him) did not speak Hebrew?. He spoke Aramaic.

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

You seem to be confessing indirectly here that possibility of distortion was high Again, let me remind you that sometimes i don't necessarily have problem with "translations" but VERSIONS.

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

Okay, sir. I understand many Christians hold KJV esteem. But King James is faulted. If you read preface of RSV, it criticizes KJV for inconsistencies. I have read KJV. It's getting worse everyday. Do you even realize that there are new King James, too? They are called New King James Version(NKJV), Authorized (King James) Version and King James Bible. The names are just confusing. This is Revised Standard Version(RSV) preface:

[size=4pt]The Revised Standard Version of the Bible is an authorized revision of the
American Standard Version, published in 1901, which was a revision of the
King James Version, published in 1611.

The first English version of the Scriptures made by direct translation from
the original Hebrew and Greek, and the first to be printed, was the work of
William Tyndale. He met bitter opposition. He was accused of willfully per-
verting the meaning of the Scriptures, and his New Testaments were ordered
to be burned as "untrue translations." He was finally betrayed into the hands
of his enemies, and in October 1536 ? was publicly executed and burned at the
stake.

Yet Tyndale's work became the foundation of subsequent English versions,
notably those of Coverdale, 1535; Thomas Matthew (probably a pseudonym
for John Rogers), 1537; the Great Bible, 1539; the Geneva Bible, 1560; and the
Bishops' Bible, 1568. In 1582 a translation of the New Testament, made from
the Latin Vulgate by Roman Catholic scholars, was published at Rheims.

The translators who made the King James Version took into account all of
these preceding versions; and comparison shows that it owes something to each
of them. It kept felicitous phrases and apt expressions, from whatever source,
which had stood the test of public usage. It owed most, especially in the New
Testament, to Tyndale.

The King James Version had to compete with the Geneva Bible in popular
use; but in the end it prevailed, and for more than two and a half centuries no
other authorized translation of the Bible into English was made. The King
James Version became the "Authorized Version" of the English-speaking
peoples.[/size]
The King James Version has with good reason been termed "the noblest
monument of English prose." Its revisers in 1881 expressed admiration for "its
simplicity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of expression . . . the music of
its cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm." It entered, as no other book has,
into the making of the personal character and the public institutions of the
English-speaking peoples. We owe to it an incalculable debt.

Yet the King James Version has GRAVE DEFECTS. By the middle of the nine-
teenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many
manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was
based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision

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

Just admit Bible contradicts itself. All these talks dont help you.

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

Sounds like you have confidence that no contradictions in the Bible after clear evidences I presented. Since you are bold enough to say this, let's bring another clear evidence that Bible contradicts itself. Take a look.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, these are not versions. I posted this on another thread for someone on other thread. Let me post it. Sorry, it's long but deal with it. You talking about these right?. Hafs, Warsh, Qalun, Al-Bazzi, al-Duri, Qunbul, al-Qari, al - Suri, Hisham...etc

It has become a standard method of deception by Christian missionaries like Jochen Katz to superficially project issues that have been exhaustively addressed by both Muslims and Orientialsts, as we will see soon, inshallah. These missionaries are well aware of the difference between a transmission and a text (to be discussed in detail below). Yet, they intentionally replace one with the other in order to give the false impression to lay readers that the Qur'an exists in different texts. Thus, in order to address the questions of Hafs and Warsh, we will first offer a short introduction to the key concepts involved herein and then proceed to the heart of the matter, inshallah.

Revelation Of The Qur'an In Seven Ahrûf

It is a well-known fact that there are seven different ahrûf in which the Qur'an was revealed. In the Islamic tradition, this basis can be traced back to a number of hadîths concerning the revelation of the Qur'an in seven ahrûf (singular harf). Some of the examples of these hadîths are as follows:

From Abû Hurairah:

The Messenger of God(P) said: "The Qur'an was sent down in seven ahruf. Disputation concerning the Qur'an is unbelief" - he said this three times - "and you should put into practice what you know of it, and leave what you do not know of it to someone who does."

From Abû Hurairah:

The Messenger of God(P) said: "An All-knowing, Wise, Forgiving, Merciful sent down the Qur'an in seven ahruf."

From Abdullâh Ibn Mascud:

The Messenger of God(P) said: "The Qur'an was sent down in seven ahruf. Each of these ahruf has an outward aspect (zahr) and an inward aspect (batn); each of the ahruf has a border, and each border has a lookout."

The meaning of this hadîth is explained as:

As for the Prophet's(P) words concerning the Qur'an, each of the ahruf has a border, it means that each of the seven aspects has a border which God has marked off and which no one may overstep. And as for his words Each of the ahruf has an outward aspect (zahr) and an inward aspect (batn), its outward aspect is the ostensive meaning of the recitation, and its inward aspect is its interpretation, which is concealed. And by his words each border ...... has a lookout he means that for each of the borders which God marked off in the Qur'an - of the lawful and unlawful, and its other legal injunctions - there is a measure of God's reward and punishment which surveys it in the Hereafter, and inspects it ...... at the Resurrection ......


And in another hadîth Abdullâh Ibn Mascud said:

The Messenger of God(P) said: "The first Book came down from one gate according to one harf, but the Qur'an came down from seven gates according to seven ahruf: prohibiting and commanding, lawful and unlawful, clear and ambiguous, and parables. So, allow what it makes lawful, proscribe what it makes unlawful, do what it commands you to do, forbid what it prohibits, be warned by its parables, act on its clear passages, trust in its ambiguous passages." And they said: "We believe in it; it is all from our Lord."


And Abû Qilaba narrated:

It has reached me that the Prophet(P) said: "The Qur'an was sent down according to seven ahruf: command and prohibition, encouragement of good and discouragement of evil, dialectic, narrative, and parable."

These above hadîths serve as evidence that the Qur'an was revealed in seven ahruf. The defination of the term ahruf has been the subject of much scholarly discussion and is included in the general works of the Qur'an. The forms matched the dialects of following seven tribes: Quraysh, Hudhayl, Thaqîf, Hawâzin, Kinânah, Tamîm and Yemen. The revelation of the Qur'an in seven different ahruf made its recitation and memorization much easier for the various tribes. At the same time the Qur'an challenged them to produce a surah like it in their own dialect so that they would not complain about the incomprehensibility.

The verses of the Qur'an dealing with the challenge are given below (Hilali and Muhsin Khan's Translation):

Say: "If the mankind and the jinns were together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they helped one another." [Qur'an 17:88]

And if you (Arab pagans, Jews, and Christians) are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down (i.e. the Qur'an) to Our slave (Muhammad Peace be upon him ), then produce a surah (chapter) of the like thereof and call your witnesses (supporters and helpers) besides Allah, if you are truthful. [Qur'an 2:23]

And this Qur'an is not such as could ever be produced by other than Allah (Lord of the heavens and the earth), but it is a confirmation of (the revelation) which was before it [i.e. the Taurat (Torah), and the Injeel (Gospel), etc.], and a full explanation of the Book (i.e. laws and orders, etc, decreed for mankind) - wherein there is no doubt from the the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns,and all that exists).

Or do they say: "He (Muhammad(P)) has forged it?" Say: "Bring then a surah (chapter) like unto it, and call upon whomsoever you can, besides Allah, if you are truthful!" [Qur'an 10:37-38]

Or they say, "He (Prophet Muhammad(P)) forged it (the Qur'an)." Say: "Bring you then ten forged surah (chapters) like unto it, and call whomsoever you can, other than Allah (to your help), if you speak the truth!" [Qur'an 11:13]

Or do they say: "He (Muhammad(P)) has forged it (this Qur'an)?" Nay! They believe not! Let them then produce a recital like unto it (the Qur'an) if they are truthful. [Qur'an 52:33-34]

For example, the phrase 'alayhim (on them) was read by some 'alayhumoo and the word siraat (path, bridge) was read as ziraat and mu'min (believer) as moomin.

Difference Between Ahrûf & Qirâ'ât

It is important to realize the difference between ahruf and Qirâ'ât. Before going into that it is interesting to know why the seven ahruf were brought down to one during Uthmân's(R) time.

The Qur'an continued to be read according to the seven ahruf until midway through Caliph 'Uthman's rule when some confusion arose in the outlying provinces concerning the Qur'an's recitation. Some Arab tribes had began to boast about the superiority of their ahruf and a rivalry began to develop. At the same time, some new Muslims also began mixing the various forms of recitation out of ignorance. Caliph 'Uthman decided to make official copies of the Qur'an according to the dialect of the Quraysh and send them along with the Qur'anic reciters to the major centres of Islam. This decision was approved by Sahaabah and all unofficial copies of the Qur'an were destroyed. Following the distribution of the official copies, all the other ahruf were dropped and the Qur'an began to be read in only one harf. Thus, the Qur'an which is available through out the world today is written and recited only according to the harf of Quraysh.

Now a few words on Qirâ'ât:

A Qirâ'ât is for the most part a method of pronunciation used in the recitations of the Qur'an. These methods are different from the seven forms or modes (ahruf) in which the Qur'an was revealed. The seven modes were reduced to one, that of the Quraysh, during the era of Caliph 'Uthman, and all of the methods of recitation are based on this mode. The various methods have all been traced back to the Prophet(P) through a number of Sahaabah who were most noted for their Qur'anic recitations. That is, these Sahaabah recited the Qur'an to the Prophet(P) or in his presence and received his approval. Among them were the following: Ubayy Ibn K'ab, 'Alee Ibn Abi Taalib, Zayd Ibn Thaabit, 'Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, Abu ad-Dardaa and Abu Musaa al-Ash'aree. Many of the other Sahaabah learned from these masters. For example, Ibn 'Abbaas, the master commentator of the Qur'an among the Sahaabah, learned from both Ubayy and Zayd.

I will stop here now. Is there anything in this writing to suggest there versions of Quran?. The answer is No. But if you think there versions of Quran in Arabic, kindly bring it forward. But if you can't find or bring it forward, then shut up....FOREVER.

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

You have nothing there to talk about. You only dealt with linguistics

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

Lol, check this out then. Hebrews 8:7 Good News Translation (GNT)

"If there had been nothing wrong with the first covenant, there would have been no need for a second one."

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

Lol, including this blasphemy against God Almighty?

Malachi 2:3Good News Translation (GNT)

I will punish your children and [size=13pt]rub your faces in the dung[/size] of the animals you sacrifice—and you will be taken out to the dung heap. Do you know how blasphemous this is?. Let's read that in Yoruba. It says like this "Ma ba erugbin yin je, ma si fi igbe(shit) yi yin loju". And you attribute this to God?

I will stop here now. Maybe, i will look into the rest later. But I am sure you have nothing significant there.

Empiree:
So what is that "core communication" different authors "agreed" upon, please?

The core message can be summarized as follows:
Man is inherently a sinner as a result of the decision of our first parents, Adam & Eve to choose against God in the Garden of Eden.
God in love extended grace to man by taking steps to resolve the sin problem.
Jesus Christ became the ultimate sacrifice and solution for the sin problem.
Anyone who believes in him is saved and has eternal life.