When will they find any of these things in Nigeria, especially my home town


Dominique always remember that I love you

Gospelpreacher1:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16300240/bible-archaeologists-mount-sinai-god-moses-commandments/amp/

The surest proof for the skeptics or atheists of the veracity of the scriptures is finding themselves in the lake of fire �

IbileIfe:


Look at yourself in the mirror and there is all the evidence of God you need.

Most there be a God?
Why do u people need a creator so badly.

So far so good there's no evidence of God like he was describe in the bible.

Prayers don't even work, yet u people are just forcing god down our throat.

Saying existence is evidence for god is not enough. Because then that god would need a creator n the creator would need a creator n so on.

farem:

The surest proof for the skeptics or atheists of the veracity of the scriptures is finding themselves in the lake of fire �

You just made god sound like a tyrant if he actually exist.

jesusjnr2020:
Such a historic and strategic discovery!

It evokes a lot of powerful and mind-blowing memories.

Mount Sinai also known as the mountain of God, is synonymous with power, glory and the full manifestation of the presence of God.

It's on the same mountain it was said that Moses spoke with God face to face, and after he had seen the glory of God, his face shone, that it scared the hell out of the children of Israel. They had to put a veil over his face before he could speak with them. Exodus 34:28-33

Also, it's the mountain of transfiguration, where same Moses and Elijah appeared before Jesus, and Jesus was said to have transfigured, and His face shone as the sun. Matthew 17:2-3

It's on this mountain God gave His people of the old covenant, Israel, through Moses, the Laws of the old covenant for them to observe. However it was also on the same mountain God gave His people of the new covenant, the church, through Jesus, the Laws of the new covenant to also observe.

"This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear he Him." Matthew 17:5

And it was said that the church obeyed what God commanded them to do. John 17:6

So mount Sinai not just bears huge significance for the people of Israel, but also for the church, because it was in keeping the commandment that God gave to the church upon this mount, that church became as solid as a rock, hence the gates of hell couldn't prevail against them. Matthew 7:24-25, Matthew 16:18.

Moreover, the obedience of the commandment the church received on this mount, made the church not to require any rod or mantle as Moses and Elijah did, to be able to do great works as dividing the red sea or the river Jordan, because both the Rod and the Mantle represented the Word of God which is Jesus. Hence after they had kept His Word in obedience to God's commandment, the Spirit of God which was upon the rod of Moses and mantle of Elijah came directly upon every single one of them on the day of Pentecost. John 14:12-17, Acts 2:1-4

So the church became an army of Moses and Elijahs, hence it was no coincidence that Moses and Elijah, who represented the Law (and the Prophets) of the old covenant, were also present on mount Sinai the same time the church received the Law of the new covenant from God.

God bless.

This is biblically wrong. The mount of transfiguration can't be same with mount Sinai because mount Sinai is not situated in Israel while the mount of transfiguration is.

The Rod and the mantle also represent the Holy Spirit, the comforter as found in Psalms 23.

Bluntguy:

By inspiration of the Holy Ghost. That is the big difference.

How do u know that?

The same men who wrote it told u.

Have some sense na.

chiedu7:
This shows the bible is REAL, unlike the most peaceful religion on earth that lacks any archeological evidence


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOWFPTzK7D4

you better keep quiet, even Moses and Jesus are not Christians!

Orlarmeday:


Islam does not need the any archeological evidence from the West before we believe and follow it. Compelling evidences are in the Quran for those who are on the right path. Why don't you concentrate on your own religion and try to look for the original Bible instead of the one that the West gave you?

Compelling evidence like Mohammed riding a donkey to heaven?

Come on, religion is religion. It is what it is. Opium of the masses. U must be stewpid to follow one religion or the other.

Lol where they there?

Ekugbeh:
No one is disproving what you just said. The fact is that, our God is bigger, greater than them all and the only living one

Ur God is bullshit and doesn't exist.

chiedu7:
This shows the bible is REAL, unlike the most peaceful religion on earth that lacks any archeological evidence


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOWFPTzK7D4

But the just discovered Mount Sania where Moses met God is in Saudi Arabia. Is Saudi Arabia a community in your village? Isn't it obvious you are suffering from psychiatric disorders?

DID I MISS ANYTHING IN THE WRITE-UP?

THESE "FINDINGS" IF TRUE, ONLY PROVES THE TRUTH OF JUDAISM.

WHY ARE CHRISTIANS JUBILATING?

THE FUNNIEST PART IS HOW THEY STILL FOUND A WAY TO INSULT ISLAM AND HURT THEMSELVES, RUINING THEIR "JOY" BY THEIR HANDS.

NA WAH OH.

Bacteriologist:
The Spiderman comics also features New York and London. That does not make Spiderman a real figure.

The Harry Potter book as well contains some real life locations but we all agree it is fiction.


Your book may contain actual locations and objects, but that does not necessarily mean the stories and claims about the locations and objects are true.


The Bible is a book that has been edited, translated, re-edited and re-translated so many f*ckin times. Many of the biblical books were written decades after the events they talk about happened. Some books centuries after. As the evidence shows, no single eyewitness wrote the bible. It is a book filled with myths, contradictions and other sorts of superstitious nonsense. Discovering some mountain out of the blue changes nothing.

You should just stick to the bacteria you know about

Ibkhaleel01:
[s]Christianity is dead and burried! A false man made cult!


THE NAME:

(a) The name 'Christianity'- Is it really a valid name? If so, where is it recorded? In other words, where is its identity certificate?

(b) Who has given the name? Or, who is the certifying authority?

The name 'Christian' was used for the first time in Antioch, as we read in the Bible: Acts (11:25-26):

�Then departed Barnabas to seek Saul: and when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And It came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.�

Who had given this name? Neither God nor Jesus.

We can mention the following points concerning the name 'Christianity':

1. The name does not bear the authority from God or from Jesus.

2. It was given by Jews and Pagans in Antioch (a city in the then Roman Empire), i.e., by foes rather than by friends.

3. The name was given after Jesus had left this world.

4. The name was used derogatorily, as determined by historians.

One may contend, What is there in a name? The name does not matter. This may not be a valid argument, but still for the sake of argument, let us then proceed to look for its meaning.[/s]

Meaningless trash from a deranged terrorist

chiedu7:
This shows the bible is REAL, unlike the most peaceful religion on earth that lacks any archeological evidence


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOWFPTzK7D4

Claims not evidences

Ibkhaleel01:
[s]When somebody says that the Bible is inerrant, a good reply is to ask "Which Bible?" The first task of translators of the Bible into English is to decide which verses they want to put into each of the 27 New Testament books.

There are more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts, but not one has the same collection of verses as any popular English Bible. Indeed, there is no Greek manuscript before A. D. 800 which has 27 books in its New Testament. The Codex Sinaiticus, from about A. D. 350, comes closest, but it also contains the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

How did this textual variety come about, and what significance does it have?

The King James Version was produced on the basis of relatively few late manuscripts. Since then, many early manuscripts have been found. The impression is often given that these early manuscripts help us get back to what the authors originally wrote. Instead, they reveal that we can only guess what was originally written and that what was written was changed within decades, often for purely doctrinal reasons.

Let me give just a few examples, from many which could have been chosen. Take Luke 22:43-44, "And being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down upon the ground." This is not present in the very earliest Greek manuscripts p66 and p75 from the third century. (P66 stands for papyrus number 66, p75 for papyrus number 75). Will they be dropped from future printings of the King James Version because they are not in the earliest manuscripts we have? Somehow, I doubt it.

These verses are also omitted by Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus (4th century), Codex Washingtonensis (5th century), etc., but are in Sinaiticus (4th century) and the great majority of later manuscripts. They are cited by the early church father Justin (c. A. D. 130). Whenever these verses were added or dropped, it must have been very early.

We know that these verses were quoted, not always exactly, in the second century by the early church fathers to counter the heretical view that Jesus was not a real human being and only quoted for that doctrinal purpose.

For example, Justin said, "(I)t is recorded that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying... in order that we may perceive that the Father wished His Son really to undergo such sufferings for our sakes, and may not say that He, being the Son of God, did not feel what was happening to Him and inflicted on Him" (Dialogue with Trypho, 103).

Irenaeus (c. A. D. 170) wrote, "(N)or would He have wept over Lazarus, nor have sweated great drops of blood; nor have declared, `My soul is exceeding sorrowful'; nor, when His side was pierced, would there have come forth blood and water. For all these are tokens of the flesh which had been derived from the earth, which He had recapitulated in Himself, bearing salvation to His own handiwork" (Against Heresy, 3, 22, 2).

Hippolytus (c. A. D 190) said, "Thus then, too, though demonstrated as God, He does not refuse the conditions proper to Him as man, since He hungers and toils and thirsts in weariness, and flees in fear, and prays in trouble. And He who as God has a sleepless nature, slumbers on a pillow. And He who for this end came into the world, begs off from the cup of suffering. And in an agony He sweats blood, and is strengthened by an angel..." (Against Noetus, 18).

These verses were cited only for doctrinal purposes and are missing from the earliest manuscripts of Luke's Gospel. What more proof is needed that Luke's Gospel was altered no more than decades after being written and that this was done for doctrinal reasons?

The biggest doctrinal issue in Christianity is whether Jesus is God and what the Trinity means. The earliest Christians held all kinds of views about the status of Jesus. Even as late as A. D. 200, the majority of Christians did not believe in the Trinity, as Tertullian freely conceded: "The simple, indeed, who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own `economy'" (Against Praxeas, Chapter 3).

These sorts of disputes led to many alterations of the New Testament. At the time Tertullian wrote, many Christians believed that Jesus was God the Father. Noetus based this belief on John 14:9, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father." The orthodox Christian Hippolytus had to go through contortions to show that this does not mean that Jesus was the Father. Is it any surprise that just a few years later, one of the very earliest manuscripts of John's Gospel we have was altered to read, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father also"? A very useful change for doctrinal reasons[/s].

Who is the true heir to Mohamed?
a. Alli
b. Barqaah
c. Aisha

Lies! Lies! Lies! Which God gave Moses commandment? The Islam or Buddha or Hindu God? Moses compiled the 42 admonition of Maats which he learnt from Kemet and compressed into 10. No one has seen the supreme creator . Another question why must we use the Jewish narrative to live by? The 10 commandments was for isrealtes , we are Africans not Jews. Wake up.

Naija needs deliverance

Agboriotejoye:

Who is the true heir to Mohamed?
a. Alli
b. Barqaah
c. Aisha

. Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur). - 2:7 

Those are they whose hearts, ears, and eyes Allah has sealed up, and they take no heed. - 16:108

Ibkhaleel01:
[s]Many are skeptical because they have been so brain washed for centuries. In the present time, when one listens to some of the TV Evangelists and reads the New Testament one gets completely different sides of Jesus. Those Evangelists are experts in presenting half the truth about both Jesus and Muhammad. They stress only one side in the most forceful and persuasive way. They raise the slogan "believe in Jesus." But one should have the right to ask, which Jesus?

♦ The one who said "love your enemies", Luke 6:27 or the one that said "But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them"bring them here and slaughter them in my presence", Luke 19:27.

♦ The one who said "Be merciful just as your father is merciful", Luke 6:36, or the one who said "he did not come to give peace on earth, but rather division", Luke 12:51.

♦ The one who said "honor your father and mother", Matthew 15:4, or the one who called his mother "Woman", John 2:4?

♦ The one who said "if someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him", Matthew 5:39, or the one who went to the temple and drove people out and overturned the tables, Matthew 21:12?

♦ The one who said have "peace with one another", Mark 9:50 or the one who said he "did not come to bring peace but a sword", Matthew 10:34?

♦ The one who said "forgive, and you will be forgiven", Luke 6:37, or the one who said "if your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you", Matthew 18:8?

♦ The one who said "bless them that curse you", Matthew 5:44, or the one who said "he who curses father or mother, let him be put to death", Matthew 15:4?

As a Muslim, I understand both sides, because Jesus, like Muhammad, was both merciful when mercy was required and powerful when power was required. God himself has both heavens and hellfire. Yet half the truth Evangelists never failed to present only the merciful side of Jesus and only the powerful side of Muhammad[/s].

How many people did Muhammad and Jesus killed?
Did Jesus enslave anybody or keep sex slaves like Muhammad?
How many caravan did Jesus and Muhammad ever robbed?
Did Jesus or Muhammad ever sacked any city by killing the inhabitants?
Who has blood on his hands? Jesus or Muhammad?

Agboriotejoye:

How many people did Muhammad and Jesus killed?
Did Jesus enslave anybody or keep sex slaves like Muhammad?
How many caravan did Jesus and Muhammad ever robbed?
Did Jesus or Muhammad ever sacked any city by killing the inhabitants?
Who has blood on his hands? Jesus or Muhammad?

"(Such) as dispute about the Signs of Allah, without any authority that hath reached them, grievous and odious (is such conduct) in the sight of Allah and of the Believers. Thus doth Allah, seal up every heart - of arrogant and obstinate Transgressors." - 40:35

Lionnation:
what kind of business do you wish to start msg me

Abeg make I message you too chief, I need the help too

Ibkhaleel01:
"[s](Such) as dispute about the Signs of Allah, without any authority that hath reached them, grievous and odious (is such conduct) in the sight of Allah and of the Believers. Thus doth Allah, seal up every heart - of arrogant and obstinate Transgressors."[/s] - 40:35

Plagiarism of Psalms 14:1

The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.

Awesome

Ibkhaleel01:
. [s]Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur). - 2:7 

Those are they whose hearts, ears, and eyes Allah has sealed up, and they take no heed. - 16:108[/s] 

Plagiarism of Isaiah 6:10

Make the hearts of this people calloused;

deafen their ears and close their eyes.

Otherwise they might see with their eyes,

hear with their ears,

understand with their hearts,

and turn and be healed.c”

Ijeleigbo:
Wow! What a pool of history!!! Thanks for this piece

Birds of the same feathers.........


You can copy and paste what and whatever you want and chose to believe from the internet, but facts and fictions

chiedu7:
This shows the bible is REAL, unlike the most peaceful religion on earth that lacks any archeological evidence


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOWFPTzK7D4

Quran and any Holy Books with these modern diluted bibles are not in same class..

Go and do research on how Quran relevant to scientific research and it was sent to mankind through an illiterates in thousand years ago.

Without being bias, you will judge it your self.

Agboriotejoye:


Plagiarism of Isaiah 6:10

The Bible consists of 66 small books. About 18 of them begin by saying: This is the revelation God gave to so and so… The rest make no claim as to their origin. You have for example the beginning of the book of Jonah which begins by saying: The word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Elmitaeh saying… quote and then it continues for two or three pages.

If you compare that to one of the four accounts of the life of Jesus, Luke begins by saying: “many people have written about this man, it seems fitting for me to do so too”. That is all… no claim of saying “ these words were given to me by God here they are for you it is a revelation”, there is no mention of this.

The Bible does not contain self-reference, that is, the word 'Bible' is not in the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible talk about itself. Some scriptures are sometimes pointed to in the Bible, say: Here where it talks about itself, but we have to look closely. 2nd Timothy 3:16 is the favourite which reads: “All scripture is inspired of God” and there are those who would say, here is where the Bible it talks about itself, it says it is inspired of God, all of it. But if you read the whole sentence, you read that this was a letter wrote by Paul to Timothy and the entire sentence says to Timothy: “Since you were a young man you have studied the holy scriptures, all scriptures inspired by God” and so on… When Timothy was a young man the New Testament did not exist, the only thing that stems he was talking about are scriptures – which are only a portion of the Bible - from before that time. It could not have meant the whole Bible.

There is at the end of the Bible a verse which says: “Let anyone who takes away from this book or adds to this book be cursed”. This to is sometimes pointed to me saying: Here is where it sums itself as a whole. But look again and you will see that when it says: Let no one change this book, it is talking about that last book, number 66, the Book of Revelation. It has too, because any reference will tell you that the Book of Revelation was written before certain other parts of the Bible were written. It happens today to be stacked at the end, but there are other parts that came after, so it can not be referring to the entire book.

It is an extreme position held only by some Christian groups that the Bible – in its entirety - cover to cover is the revealed word of God in every word, but they do a clever thing when they mention this, or make this claim. They will say that the Bible in its entirety is the word of God; inerrant (no mistakes) in the original writings. So if you go to the Bible and point out some mistakes that are in it you are going to be told: Those mistakes were not there in the original manuscript, they have crept in so that we see them there today. They are going on problem in that position. There is a verse in the Bible Isaiah 40:8 which in fact is so well known that some Bibles printed it on the inside front cover as an introduction and it says : “ The grass weathers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever”. Here is a claim in the Bible that the word of God will stand forever, it will not be corrupted, it won't be lost. So if today you find a mistake in the Bible you have two choices. Either that promise was false that when God said my word wont fade away, he was mistaken, or the portion which has the mistake in it was not a part of the word of God in the first place, because the promise was that it would be safeguarded, it would not be corrupted.

I have suggested many times that there are mistakes in the Bible and the accusation comes back very quickly: Show me one. Well there are hundreds. If you want to be specific I can mention few. You have for example at 2nd Samuel 10:18 a description of a war fought by David saying that he killed 7000 men and that he also killed 40000 men on horsebacks. In 1st Chronicles 19 it mentions the same episode saying that he killed 70000 men and the 40000 men were not on horsebacks, they were on foot. The point be what is the difference between the pedestrian and not is very fundamental.

Matthew 27:5 says that Judas Iscariot when he died he hung himself. Acts 1 says that no he jumped off a cliff head first. If you study Logic very soon you will come in your course to what they call an “undecidable propositions” or “meaningless sentences” or statements that can not be decided because there is no contextual false. One of the classic examples sited is something called the Effeminites paradox. This man was Cretan and he said “Cretans always lie”, now was that statement true or false? If he was a Cretan and he says that they always lie is he lying? If he is not lying then he is telling the truth then the Cretans don’t always lie ! You see it can not be true and it can not be false, the statement turns back on itself. It is like saying “What I am telling you right now is a lie” would you believe that or not? You see the statement has no true content. It can not be true and it can not be false. If it is true it is always false. If it is false it is also true.

Well in the Bible at Titus 1:12 the writer is Paul and he is talking about the Cretans. He says that one of their own men – a prophet - said “Cretans always lie” and he says that what this man says is true. It is a small mistake, but the point is that it is a human mistake, you don’t find that if you carefully examine the true content of that statement. It can not be a true statement.

Agboriotejoye:


Plagiarism of Psalms 14:1

According to the missionary, the Qur'ân plagiarises ancient Greek Literature, and as a result, it should be rejected as a divinely revealed or inspired scripture. This short paper proposes to examine the Christian charge of plagiarism, and using their own methodology apply their argument to the Bible.

Proof Demanded

To plagiarise something is to commit literary theft by appropriating and passing off the ideas or words of another as one's own. The missionary accuses the Prophet Muhammad(P)[1] of plagiarism and charges him with stealing and passing off the ideas of Galen as his own :

the Qur'an is using the enormously influential Greek physician Galen's teachings... it also plagiarises ancient Greek literature!

This is a serious charge and one would expect the missionary to have provided sufficient evidence in order to "prove beyond reasonable doubt" that Muhammad(P) is indeed the plagiariser and liar that Christian missionaries consider him to be. [2]

Yet the missionary provides no evidence, no proof whatsoever to substantiate this claim of plagiarism. The missionary cites neither the original Greek text of Galen nor the Arabic of the Qur'ân; nor does he provide a sufficiently thorough analysis of the two accounts in order to substantiate his claim. And neither does the missionary cite any hadith or eye-witnesses accounts to prove that the Prophet(P) plagiarised ancient Greek literature. Where then is the proof that Muhammad(P) plagiarised the Galenic stages of development?

We are not asking the missionary to provide evidence of Greek influence on the Qur'ân (a subject of a forth coming paper), but proof that the Prophet Muhammad(P) consciously and knowingly stole and passed off the ideas of Galen (notably Galen's second stage of foetal development) as his own. If the missionary is unable to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that Muhammad(P) plagiarised the Galenic stages of development then why make such an accusation in the first place?! If the missionary is unable to prove his case "beyond reasonable doubt" then this material should be removed and an apology printed. It is very easy for Christian missionaries to make such accusations, and it is even easier to make them while hiding behind fictitious e-mail accounts and aliases. It seems that this missionary wishes to remain anonymous so that he may continue to befriend (attempt to convert) Muslims in public, while slandering their religion and Prophet(P) in private.

The Bible Plagiarises Ancient Greek Literature

To summarise, the Christian Missionary says that:

the Qur'ân is using the enormously influential teachings of the Greek physician Galen.
the Qur'ân is plagiarising ancient Greek Literature.
and as a result, it should be rejected as a divinely revealed or inspired scripture. Furthermore, by implication, the Prophet Muhammad(P) could not be a true Prophet of God as he plagiarised ancient Greek literature by consciously and knowingly stealing the ideas of Galen and claiming them to be his own.

What if we were to apply this method of reasoning to the Bible itself? What if we were to apply the same standards against the Bible? If we were to find the Bible plagiarising ancient Greek Literature, then it too should also be rejected as a divinely revealed or inspired scripture -- according to the missionary's own testimony, according to his own standards of reasoning and evidence.

So, what does the Bible say concerning Embryology? In this section we cite embryological references to be found in Bible using the same source as used by the missionary, A History of Embryology[3] by Joseph Needham. It would seem that the missionary has deliberately failed to cite some vital pieces of information concerning Embryology in Antiquity which we aim to supply here.

Embryology in Antiquity

During the period when the biological school of Alexandria was at its height, that city became an important Jewish centre. Two centuries later it was to produce Philo, but now the Alexandrian Jews were writing that part of the modern Bible known as the Wisdom Literature. In books such as the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Proverbs, etc. the typical Hellenic exclusion of the action of gods in natural phenomena is clearly to be seen. There are two passages of embryological importance. Firstly, in the Book of Job (10:10), Job is made to say,

"Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast fashioned me as clay; and wilt thou bring me into the dust again! Hast thou not poured me out as milk, and curdled me like cheese? Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews."

This comparison of embryogeny with the making of cheese is interesting in view of the fact that precisely the same comparison occurs in Aristotle's book On the Generation of Animals, as we have already seen.[4]

We now discover that:

the Bible is using the enormously influential teachings of the Greek philosopher Aristotle
the Bible is plagiarising ancient Greek Literature
and as a result, the Bible should be rejected as a divinely revealed or inspired scripture -- according to the missionary's own testimony, according to his own standards of reasoning and evidence!

Another embryological reference occurs in the Wisdom of Solomon which also copies (plagiarises) an Aristotelian theory:

Still more extraordinary, the only other embryological reference in the Wisdom Literature, which occurs in the Wisdom of Solomon (vii. 2), also copies an Aristotelian theory, namely, that the embryo is formed from (menstrual) blood. There the speaker says,

"In the womb of a mother was I moulded into flesh in the time of ten months, being compacted with blood of the seed of man and the pleasure that accompanieth sleep."

Needham concludes that both references in the Bible can be traced back to Aristotle and even Hippocrates:

Perhaps it is no coincidence that both these citations can be referred back to Aristotle, and in the second case even to Hippocrates; perhaps the Alexandrian Jews of the third century B.C. were studying Aristotle as attentively as Philo Judaeus studied Plato a couple of hundred years later.[5]

Conclusions

The Christian missionary is now left with several difficulties. The missionary needs to explain to the Muslim:

Why the Bible uses the enormously influential teachings of the Greek philosopher Aristotle?
Why the Bible plagiarises ancient Greek Literature?
Why other non-Christian scriptures (e.g. the Qur'ân) would be rejected as a divinely revealed or inspired scripture if they used (or were influenced by) the writings of ancient Greek scientists - but the Bible would not?
Why other non-Christian scriptures (e.g. the Qur'ân) would be charged with plagiarism if they used (or were influenced by) the writings of ancient Greek scientists - but the Bible would not?
Why the Prophet Muhammad(P) is charged with plagiarism but the authors of Job and the Wisdom of Solomon are not?[6]
Why Christian missionaries continue to charge the Prophet Muhammad(P) with plagiarism of the Galenic stages of development even though they have failed to prove their case?

And more controversially,

Why do these missionaries reject the Wisdom of Solomon as a divinely inspired scripture when majority of the world's Christians accept it as the word of God?
Concerning the Wisdom of Solomon the Encyclopaedia Britannica informs us that it is:

... an example of the "wisdom" genre of religious literature, which commends a life of introspection and reflection on human existence, especially from an ethical perspective. It is an apocryphal work (noncanonical for Jews and Protestants) but is included in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) and was accepted into the Roman canon.[7]

Thus the Wisdom of Solomon is accepted as a divinely inspired book by Roman Catholics and is included in Roman Catholic Bibles.

The Roman Catholics in the world outnumber all other Christians combined.[8]

The Protestants however, have rejected the book and only include it as part

Ibkhaleel01:
lol are you not even ashame of your trash?


I really pity you guys... dumbfounded polytheist trinitarian pagans....

Christianity is a dead religion ! Confined in some shit history books...

Christianity is dying out already

The whole xtianity is a joke

Been a Christian is nothing more than advertising that you are a loser!

A religion of gay pope, gay Jesus gay pastors, satanic churches etc

Christians prefer to read the epistles of Paul, the Evangelists who preach the falsehood of Christianity quote Paul and not Jesus


Any sensible person that reads the bible from cover to cover with open mind will dumb chrstianity and lookbfor another religion bor turn to an atheist..

The United States used to be a Christian nation, today it is the HQ of atheism in the world today and even those who still claim to be Christians are those who see nothing wrong in abortion, homosexuality, fornication and adultery among other forbidden practices.

They became what they are when the Christians started belittling the teachings of their religion, watering it down and making it so that everyone is a Christian "just believe in Jesus and you'll go to heaven". This worked for a generation, but didn't for subsequent generations.

We can see it starting to play out here in Nigeria. Chrstianity is the peak of inmorality, deceit, fraud and insults of other faiths

"Somebody ought to tell the truth about the Bible. The preachers dare not, because they would be driven from their pulpits. Professors in colleges dare not, because they would lose their salaries. Politicians dare not. They would be defeated. Editors dare not. They would lose subscribers. Merchants dare not, because they might lose customers. Men of fashion dare not, fearing that they would lose caste. Even clerks dare not, because they might be discharged. And so I thought I would do it myself . . . "

Still going to the internet and posting pictures from websites. You really are a funny Muslim aswear. Like I said earlier focus on your religion first and solve the problems you have within it, deflecting and hounding chirstianity for whatever flaw you perceive is laughable.

Sorry to burst your bubble mister I don't identify as Christain , was born into it but left a while ago. My post was to point out your ignorance and falsehoods on the bible passages you quoted.

For all you accuse the religious adherents of chirstianity of, you are 5 times guilty of the same. Your religion is no better.
Your all in the same boat so feeling Superior to them is foolery on your part.

Nigeria..... USA yada yada yada! Quit the sermons bro......your rants are becoming erratic from religion to politics..stay one place.
Chirstians are the problem of the world just like you moslems, don't exempt yourself! Your religion is no better!

Agboriotejoye:

How many people did Muhammad and Jesus killed?
Did Jesus enslave anybody or keep sex slaves like Muhammad?
How many caravan did Jesus and Muhammad ever robbed?
Did Jesus or Muhammad ever sacked any city by killing the inhabitants?
Who has blood on his hands? Jesus or Muhammad?

Don't bother yourself, he won't answer the question. You should know moslems on the internet by now, they deflect, project and cast aspersions first before giving direct answers.

Watch he will go off topics instead answering the simple question!

Oyinbos just say anything.