truthmans2012:


We know muslims like their allaah hate non-muslims. It hurts real muslims to refer to islam disbelievers as brothers. allahh is not the God of all humanity, it is an idol for only muslims.

nasiayam:


-2 spreading and preaching hate , not cool. Where did you learn this. You give non militant christians a bad name

meixili:
Salamalikum shalom peace

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



Please stay on topic no derailing.


Thank you kindly

meixili:
My brother med. I love you for the sake of God, and I feel I should turn the other cheek.

When you are , inshAllah ready, you come back and answer, if not, I'll never hold it against you.

A wise man said want for your brother what you want for yourself, and I feel that way about you

As Salamalikum

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

nasiayam:


-2 spreading and preaching hate , not cool. Where did you learn this. You give non militant christians a bad name

Muafrika2:

Well, the problem with our bible is that atheists saw an opportunity to make money off it by publishing and distributing it. While we thank them for the effort, they need to keep their opinions off its contents.


The greatest problem these people have had with the bible is its description and explanation of spiritual concepts. That is where the dilution comes in. It's why I can't stand the good news bible. Kingjames is slowly heading there.

Then there are people who sit down with the bible, come up with their own understanding and replace the poetic parables with their delusions.

While atheists have done these and continue to mutilate our bible for their suspicious reasons, there still remains a message. The spiritual may miss in the extrapolations but the idea remains.

analice107:

Brother, I do not agree with you. The word of God can't lose it spirituality. You know why? The word of God is the spirit of God. It is life. Satan will do his best to mutilate it. The message can never die or be taken away.
Satan started with the Roman Emperors, then translated to the Roman Popes, Satan tried to hide the truth of the gospel by first hiding it in a language that is now dead. He tried to keep it locked up so that he can control it's message. The Catholic Church's popes wanted to be the only ones reading for the people what they wanted the people to know. Just like Islam. But he failed.
When that failed, they resulted to burning anyone who tried to interpret it into other languages for others to have an opportunity to also see the truth for themselves. He also failed.

Today he is using Islam against muslims. He now came up with the idea of the Bible being corrupt, so that the Muslims won't have any need to come to it. He will still fail.
Now the Atheists are his main tool against the Word of God. Satan is still failing. He can't go beyond the limit he is placed. If the gospel is hid, it's hid to them who a perishing.
No man can destroy the spirit of the Word of God.

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but not one dot from the word shall remain u fulfilled.
Let all men be Liars and God be true, that all power belongs to God.
Once has he spoken, twice have i heard.

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

BIBLE VS QUARAN

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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



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


Ellis Skolfield
http://www.ellisskolfield.com


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


The following is not a part of the
above paper.


THE QURAN AND ABROGATION

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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


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


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

Later suras abrogate those that occur earlier.

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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

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


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


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


No surprise that Muhammad was alone.


Islam is the only anti-another- religion religion.

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


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


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


Hope this gives you a good answer.

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

analice107:

I thought this is a discussion. Why not answer him so that this discussion will go on.
If you want proof that the Bible is incorrupt, I was hoping you would present your own proves that it indeed is corrupt.

meixili:


Cute rant.

Anyway back to the topic. Is there any proof?

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

promise10:

Please, as well, prove the fact that you recovered the part of Quran that was eaten up by goats.

AlMuflihah:
B


Ahaha...chai, dere. we're many memorizers of the qur'an during the time of d prophet...the qur'an is not a book transmitted just through writting.it was primarily transmitted through memory And Written down to make doz who cudnt memorize have access To it e.g for learning and reference before it was later compiled. Hence explaining d higher intellect of muslims (u could try changing a word from d glorious qur'an and u would see d millions of ppu dat would refute you immediately from dia memory)

AlMuflihah:
B


Ahaha...chai, dere. we're many memorizers of the qur'an during the time of d prophet...the qur'an is not a book transmitted just through writting.it was primarily transmitted through memory And Written down to make doz who cudnt memorize have access To it e.g for learning and reference before it was later compiled. Hence explaining d higher intellect of muslims (u could try changing a word from d glorious qur'an and u would see d millions of ppu dat would refute you immediately from dia memory)

true2god:
Oh, I never knew that the arabs have super memory to remember all what allahh asked angel jubril to tell mohammed to tell muslims. The arabs memorizers were so accurate that the wholely quran was pefectly accurate.

Please you can tell these lies to a primary 1 pupil whose reasoning is still low.

true2god:
Oh, I never knew that the arabs have super memory to remember all what allahh asked angel jubril to tell mohammed to tell muslims. The arabs memorizers were so accurate that the wholely quran was pefectly accurate.

Please you can tell these lies to a primary 1 pupil whose reasoning is still low.

true2god:
Oh, I never knew that the arabs have super memory to remember all what allahh asked angel jubril to tell mohammed to tell muslims. The arabs memorizers were so accurate that the wholely quran was pefectly accurate.

Please you can tell these lies to a primary 1 pupil whose reasoning is still low.

nasiayam:


Why so racist? Did you learn this racism from your christian colonial masters ?

meixili:
Salamalikum shalom peace

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



Please stay on topic no derailing.


Thank you kindly

nasiayam:
The oldest copies of the Gospel of Mark, the Sinaitic and Vatican, end at Mark 16:8. A note in the New International Version of the Bible states: "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20." Verses 9 to 20 appear to have been added later by an unknown Christian forger. The addition was quoted in the writings of Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second or third century.

Scholar8200:
Irenaeus lived around 100AD, and quoted directly from the Gospel of Mark 16 verse 20 what then? Were there any manuscripts older than the one Irenaeus quoted from? NO!

nasiayam:

the fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Jerome noted that almost all Greek manuscripts available to them lacked vv. 9–20, although they doubtless knew those other endings existed. In the second century, Justin Martyr and Tatian knew about other endings. Irenaeus, also, in A.D. 150 to 200, must have known about this long ending because he quotes verse 19 from it. So, the early church fathers knew of the added verses, but even by the fourth century, Eusebius said the Greek manuscripts did not include these endings in the originals.

The internal evidence from this passage also casts doubt on Mark as the author. For one thing, the transition between verses 8 and 9 is abrupt and awkward. The Greek word translated “now” that begins v. 9 should link it to what follows, as the use of the word “now” does in the other synoptic Gospels. However, what follows doesn’t continue the story of the women referred to in v. 8, describing instead Jesus’ appearing to Mary Magdalene. There’s no transition there, but rather an abrupt and bizarre change, lacking the continuity typical of Mark’s narrative. The author should be continuing the story of the women based on the word “now,” not jumping to the appearance to Mary Magdalene. Further, for Mark to introduce Mary Magdalene here as though for the very first time (v. 9) is odd because she had already been introduced in Mark’s narrative (Mark 15:40, 47, 16:1)

Scholar8200:
On the grounds of the highlighted, I hereby pronounce this case closed!

You should be fighting those who removed it then not those faithful to the original quoted by Irenaeus etc Besides, this is another testimony to the fact that GOD preserved His Word!

nasiayam:


WWhat else has been altered