₦airaland Forum

malvisguy212:
that is the points I am making, you said Moses is the FIRST among his people to believe, you just say his mother believe in Allah too, between him and his mother who is the first to believe?

I dont know how you happened to miss further explanation I gave in the same post your quoted. This is why I hate talking to you sometimes. Please, kindly refer to the same post you quoted.

AllNaijaBlogger:
, just keep quiet.


When you behave as if all non-muslims are foolish islamophobes, you just alienate yourself.

Try to see reason in what others say. Islam is not the only religion and neither is it the only way of life.

Am sorry, who are you referring to here that I didnt listen to?. Be specific. You still dont listen.

Abuamam:
Islam is based on the Qur'an and authentic hadith; not videos of God-knows-who. No charismatic daddy GOs in Islam. Qur'an and authentic hadith.

See how they think?. They dont reason

Ifeann:
Loool... Dude dude ... Wait a minute. u think posting pics of a bearded man with long hair offends me or will make me stop talking about Mohammed.. Loool. U are a clown.

And who are you?. I didnt think it will offend you. Never!. I did what i had to do. Post anything you want. Talk all you want. I really dont pay you much attention lately. Many learned men and women have done far worst than you. They are now in their graves facing proper judgement. So face the op. You have been evading criticism of christianity by the op and other places, So face them. I dont have business with you. Here is my advise for you. Satan made promise to God back then to hinder mankind away from His Path after Allah cursed for his arrogant attitude:

14 Shaitan requested: "Give me respite till the Day of Resurrection."

15 Allah said: "The respite you requested is hereby granted."

16 Shaitan declared: "Since You let me deviate, now I will lie in ambush for mankind on Your Right
Way.

17 I Will come upon them from the front, from the rear, from the right, and from the left, and You will not find most of them to be grateful."

18 Allah said: "Get out from here, you despicable outcast; I will certainly fill hell with you and all of them who follow you."

[size=15pt]So follow Satan and post all you want. It doesn't bother me a bit.[/size]

malvisguy212:
if Moses was the first believer among his people, what about his mother? Is she a sinner, bible say "by FAITH she hide Moses from Pharaoh" what faith is she practising?

[s]Even the Arab christians of nijran keep on questioning muhammed revelation because his message was different from the rest prophet.[/s]

Mashallah!!! Good question. Good observation. Qur'an also suggests Musa (Moses)'s mother was a believer, a muslim. Here we read that she was inspired by Allah with instructions on the account of her baby Moses:

"And We revealed to Musa's mother saying: Give him suck. When you fear for him, cast him into the river and do not fear nor grieve, surely We will restore him to you and make him one of the apostles." (28: 7)

The same direction is expressed in other Verses:

"Call to mind the occasion when We revealed to your mother: Put him into the chest and cast it down into the river, then the river shall throw him on the shore; then shall take him up to one who is an enemy to Me and enemy to him and I cast down upon you love From Me and that you may be brought up before My eyes." (20:38-39)

Even though we know from Islamic perceptive that every child is born muslim, his prophet-hood did not commence (officially) as muslim leader of Israelites until after he grown up. The only possible answer I can think of is he was adult at the time Qur'an makes the statement that he was the first muslim among his people(the unbelievers). Quran doesnt reference his mother during his commission. So he was the first muslim amongst his people (he rescued from pharaoh)

limamintruth

[size=3pt]This is however contradicted by both the Quran and various Islamic traditions which refer to the presence of true believers both before and during Muhammad’s alleged "call" to prophethood.

The Quran mentions that Adam, Noah, the Patriarchs, the twelve tribes of Israel, Moses, Jesus etc., were all believers and many of them even messengers who lived a long time before Muhammad:
(One of such verses that states this are as seen below)

Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said: "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said: "I know what ye know not."… And behold, We said to the angels: "Bow down to Adam" and they bowed down. Not so Iblis: he refused and was haughty: He was of those who reject Faith. We said: "O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden; and eat of the bountiful things therein as (where and when) ye will; but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression."… When learnt Adam from his Lord words of inspiration, and his Lord Turned towards him; for He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful.
Surah 2:30, 34-35, 37[/size]

So why the inconsistencies then? And which verse should we then believe as the right answer to the question on who the first muslim really is?

Reference above^^^^ The first Muslim on earth was Adam (peace be upon him)

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."

This is why Qur'an is unique. It's commited to memory by millions of muslims worldwide.

(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."

Good enough. Honestly, you have no real argument against me. If you had original Aramaic bible which Jesus(peace be upon him) spoke would have helped you. That's why you dont have it written on the side like we do to our Qur'an. Some english versions have Arabic Qur'an on the side for cross references. You cant do that. That's why I just have to dismiss your case here. Sorry buddy.

[s]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).[/s]

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. cool

Oh really? Check this out too. On the account of Jesus, you christians believe his 'death' on the cross is a source of your salvation. At the same time, your bible said curse is the one that is hanged. Now here are contradictions:

Galatians 3:13 Good News Translation (GNT)

But by becoming a curse for us Christ has redeemed us from the curse that the Law brings; for the scripture says, “Anyone who is hanged on a tree is under God's curse.”

^this verse is saying Jesus was cursed according to your Bible. Now here is the opposite....

1 Corinthians 12:3Good News Translation (GNT)

I want you to know that no one who is led by God's Spirit can say “A curse on Jesus!” and no one can confess “Jesus is Lord,” without being guided by the Holy Spirit.
Oya, starting fooling me again

Now on sin, there is nothing in the bible to suggest Jesus wanted to die for your sins. According to Christians, "blood of Jesus" was necessary for their salvation. This is contrary to Jesus's teachings. Why can't God just forgive without shedding human blood. This is what Jesus said...he thought people how to pray for forgiveness.

Matthew 6:13-14Good News Translation (GNT)
Do not bring us to hard testing, but keep us safe from the Evil One.’ “If you forgive others the wrongs they have done to you, your Father in heaven will also forgive you."

Matthew 6:12New Life Version (NLV)
Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.

Another proof is in the Bible that you dont need blood to be shed to have salvation. Proof of this can be found where someone asked Jesus what he can do to have eternal life. The passage is located in:

Luke 10:25-27Good News Translation (GNT)

A teacher of the Law came up and tried to trap Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to receive eternal life?”

Jesus answered him, “What do the Scriptures say? How do you interpret them?”

The man answered, [size=14pt]“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind’; and ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’”[/size]

Then, the man said: “You are right,”

Jesus replied; [size=15pt]“do this and you will live.”[/size] Luke 10:28-29

Very simple. What do you need "blood of Jesus" for? Then, this mumbo jumbo came up from nowhere:

Matthew 26:28Good News Translation (GNT)
“this is my blood, which seals God's covenant, my blood poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

Hebrews 9:22Good News Translation (GNT)
Indeed, according to the Law almost everything is purified by blood, and sins are forgiven only if blood is poured out.

This is crazy^ no doubt is the reason christian nations invading countries and spilling blood all over the world. The above contradict.

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 grin ]; 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).

This is crazy interpretation that doesnt relate at all. First all, there isnt anything like parable. You simply suggest here that the verse speaks in parables. But your Bible says there is nothing like parable in it. 2 Peter 1:20New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
[size=14pt]Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation[/size]

In the foortnotes of this verse in the same Bible it reads:

Often cited, along with 2 Tm 3:16, on the “inspiration” of scripture or against private interpretation, these verses in context are directed against the false teachers of 2 Pt 2 and clever tales (2 Pt 1:16 -2 pt 1:20). The prophetic word in scripture comes admittedly through human beings (2 Pt 1:21), but moved by the holy Spirit, not from their own interpretation, and is a matter of what the author and Spirit intended, not the personal interpretation of false teachers. Instead of under the influence of God, some manuscripts read “holy ones of God.”

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? undecided Hope you can now understand my position that there's absolutely nothing contradictory here. tongue 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.

Now compare your unfounded interpretation with others that i researched on this subject.

A possible reconstruction would be this: Judas hanged himself on a tree on the edge of a precipice that overlooked the valley of Hinnom. After he hung there for some time, the limb of the tree snapped or the rope gave way and Judas fell down the ledge, mangling his body in the process. The fall could have been before or after death as either would fit this explanation. This possibility is entirely natural when the terrain of the valley ofHinnom is examined.

http://www.josh.org/resources/study-research/answers-to-skeptics-questions/are-the-two-accounts-of-the-death-of-judas-contradictory/ This is contrary to your interpretation that "bursting open" means confessing his sin.

This article here contradicts yours: https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/how-did-judas-die-hanging-or-falling-down

Cc: allnaijablogger ,this is where you need to come for normal intelligent and scholarly debate. Not bashing unnecessarily like others. We all can learn here. There is no fight on this thread. Thanks

[size=1pt]Ubenedictus[/size]

limamintruth:
"CONTRADICTIONS IN THE QURAN:" The supposed 'perfect' Qur'an consist of several contradictions and inconsistencies that most muslims wont want to admit

Nonsense!!!

A typical example lies thus:

Who Was the First Muslim according to the Qur'an?Muhammad [quran6:14, 163], Moses [7:143], some Egyptians [26:51], or Abraham [2:127-133, 3:67] or Adam, the first man who also received inspiration from Allah [2:37]?

What else is new?. Evangelists! I hail thee

You people point to two references from the Quran, 6:14 and 6:161-163, and claim these references show Muhammad as the first Muslim and then turn your attention to another verse of the Quran (7;143) concerning Moses being the first of the believers. Just to further your agenda you may also highlight other Quranic references indicating there were Muslims before Muhammed (pbuh) and Moses namely the first man Adam (Sura 2:30, 34-35, 37) and Abraham as well as other Prophets (Sura 4:163, S. 6:84) as believers. However you and other critics mainly use the Quranic verse about Moses (7:143) and try to put it along side the two concerning Muhammed (6:14 and 6:163) and you then allege contradiction/error.

Here Is The Refutation

Quite simply, the Quran does not claim Muhammed nor Moses to be the first ever Muslim. The critic imposes a faulty understanding on the Quranic verses and alleges a contradiction when there is no contradiction/error.

Despite this it is still thorough and beneficial to offer explanations in order to clear any confusion as well as help highlight the errors of the critics in the hope they realise their mistakes and abjure themselves and eventually become amongst the guided ones, Insha’Allah

Now lt's keep it simple. I feel it is logical to begin this simple refutation with analyzing the reference concerning Moses and then build upon this in a methodical fashion so that you and fellow christian readers can follow with ease. Did the Quran claim Moses to be the first ever believer?

7:143 sees Moses saying he is the first of the believers. However, we do see that this is true as he (Moses) was the first believer amongst his own people. Here is the link http://quran.com/7/143

Moses does not say he is the first believer ‘ever’. He merely claims he is the first of the believers and knowing the context one understands he is not claiming to be the first ever believer from humankind but the first amongst his people to believe, this is apparent as it is a relative term to the “believers” and situational-context tells us that the believers at the time of Moses were essentially the Children of Israel and thus we realise that Moses is referring to himself as the first to believe amongst the Children of Israel.

Critic like yourself fail to mention this and try to present this verse as meaning Moses is the first ever to believe amongst humanity, this is unfair and misleading on the part of the critic especially considering the word “ever” is not in the verse. There is further clarification of the Arabic phrase of the Quran ascribed to Moses (“awwalu almumineena”= “first of the believers”) as there is another reference in the Quran (26:51) where this term comes up and thus explaining the meaning of Moses’ statement of being the “first of the believers (“awwalu almumineena”).

So basic principle of Tafsir (explaining the Quran) is used by explaining a verse of the Quran (the verse concerning Moses, 7:143) by using another part of the Quran (26:51). So what do we learn about the statement of Moses in 7:143 by looking at Q26:51?. http://quran.com/26/51

26:51. “Verily! We really hope that our Lord will forgive us our sins, as we are the first of the believers [in Mûsa (Moses) and in the Monotheism which he has brought from Allâh].”

I dont need to go into the context of the verse, that may be too inundated.

According to several passages in the Quran, MUHAMMED was the first Muslim:
Say: Shall I choose for a protecting friend other than Allah, the Originator of the heavens and the earth, Who feedeth and is never fed?Say: I am ordered to be the first to surrender [aslama] (unto Him). And be not thou (O Muhammad) of the idolaters. Surah 6:14 Pickthall
Say, verily my Lord hath directed me into a right way, a true religion, the sect of Abraham the orthodox; and he was no idolater. Say, verily my prayers, and my worship, and my life, and my death are dedicated unto God, the Lord of all creatures: He hath no companion.This have I been commanded:I am the first Moslem(Wa 'Ana 'Awwalu Al-Muslimin). Surah 6:161-163 Sale
He hath no associate. This am I commanded,and I am the first of the Muslims. Surah 6:163 Rodwell
Say (O Muhammad): Lo! I am commanded to worship Allah, making religion pure for Him (only).And I am commanded to be the first of those who are muslims(surrender unto Him). Surah 39:11-12 Pickthall

It is not up for debate whether Muhammad (pbuh) was the first Muslim or not. Quite simply he was the first Muslim in the sense that Muhammad was the first Muslim (i.e. who has submitted to God) amongst his own people (the Quraish) at that particular phase in history. This is completely correct. Hence there is no contradiction as Adam was the first Muslim ever while Muhammad was the first Muslim amongst his own people.

There are two Quranic references (6:14 and 6:162-163) the critics bring up, so it is appropriate to analyse the two references. The first of the Quranic references the critics cite (6:14) shows that Allah instructs Muhammed to “say” (Qul): “Verily, I am commanded to be the first of those who submit themselves to Allâh (as Muslims).”:

[b]Qur'an 6:14. Say (O Muhammad SAW): “Shall I take as a Walî (helper, protector, etc.) any other than Allâh, the Creator of the heavens and the earth? And it is He Who feeds but is not fed.” Say: “Verily, I am commanded to be the first of those who submit themselves to Allâh (as Muslims).” And be not you (O Muhammad SAW) of the Mushrikûn [polytheists, pagans, idolaters and disbelievers in the Oneness of Allâh].[/b]http://quran.com/6/14

Also note the same applies to the second Quranic reference (6:162-163) in that it also begins with Qul (say) and Mohammed is instructed to say: “… I am the first of the Muslims”: Here is the link http://quran.com/6/162-163

There isnt any contradictions. It's very simple. I could have simply said Adam was the first muslim ever on earth. Abraham made Islam permanent. Moses was also the first muslim in his time. Jesus was the first muslim in his time. And Muhammad perfected islam and became the first muslim among his people until end of time. Simple isn't without lengthy post. May Allah's blessings and peace be upon them all. Amin

limamintruth:
Notable Islamic scholars have in the past, affirmed the omission/loss/absense of various qur'anic verses(that existed prior to the the time of Caliph Uthman as was revealed to the Prophet) in the subsequent Uthman's standard codex Qur'an presently in use.

An example of such scholar is 'As-Suyuti' (died 1505), who was one of the most famous and revered of the commentators of the Qur'an, & quotes Ibn ‘Umar al Khattab as saying:
"Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Quran, for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Quran has been lost, thus let him say, ‘I have acquired of it what is available’" (As-Suyuti,Itqan, part 3, page 72). cheesy

You despirate so bad to just copy/paste whatever you want. Anyways, this is typical anti-islamic missionary deceit. Some Anti-Islam missionaries have use the references of a highly reverted commenter of Islam As-Suyuti to claim that Quran is incomplete. This claim like any other claim is totally baseless and absurd. Here is what is quoted

It follows that anything that comes only from Kitab al-Masahif must be held in suspension until corroborated by an independent, reliable source or declared authentic by one of the competent authorities, or adduced by them.

It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from Ibn Umar who said: "Let none of you say 'I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an'. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an has disappeared? Rather let him say 'I have acquired what has survived.'" (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524).

This reference to the Itqan is untraceable as no edition of it is in less than two volumes to my knowledge.

The above refers to a famous saying of Ibn `Umar, once again deceptively/ignorantly mistranslated so as to mislead readers to think it means other than its actual meaning.
The words used by Ibn `Umar for the terms given as "acquired," "disappeared," and "what has survived" above were -- I am quoting from memory -- respectively "ahattu" (I have encompassed), "faatahu" (escapes him), and "ma tayassara minhu" (whatever amount of it has been facilitated).

The actual meaning of Ibn `Umar's words is:

"Let no one say: I have encompassed the whole of the Qur'an [its meanings]. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an escapes him? Rather, let him say: I have encompassed whatever amount of it has been facilitated [for me to know]."

Ibn Umar was famous for his strictness in refraining from interpreting the Qur'an, even criticizing Ibn `Abbas's interpretive zeal in the beginning, then accepting its authority. He was not referring to the collection of the Qur'an! But only to the ethics of the exegete, in the same line as Ibn `Abbas's saying narrated by al-Tabari and cited by al-Suyuti and al-Zarkashi: "There are ambiguous verses in the Qur'an which no one knows besides Allah. Whoever claims that he knows them, is a liar."

So, Quran is complete, perfect, error free and this is proven in every way. Now, you can say all you want about Qur'an been partly lost. I only asked for one thing, bring physical evidence not articles.

Again, A’isha the favorite wife of the Prophet, says, also according to a tradition recounted by As-Suynti,
"During the time of the Prophet, the chapter of the Parties used to be two hundred verses when read. When ‘Uthman edited the copies of the Quran, only the current (verses) were recorded" (73).

Let me seal this this off by rephrasing missionaries dilema thus:

Question :There were many versions of the Qur’an all of which were burnt by Usman (r.a.) except for one. Therefore is it not true that the present Qur’an is the one compiled by Usman (r.a.) and not the original revelation of God?

Answer: One of the most common myths about the Qur’an, is that Usman (r.a.), the third Caliph of Islam authenticated and compiled one Qur’an, from a large set of mutually contradicting copies. The Qur’an, revered as the Word of Allah (swt) by Muslims the world over, is the same Qur’an as the one revealed to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). It was authenticated and written under his personal supervision. We will examine the roots of the myth which says that Usman (r.a.) had the Qur’an authenticated.

Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) himself supervised and authenticated the written texts of the Qur’an

Whenever the Prophet received a revelation, he would first memorize it himself and later declare the revelation and instruct his Companions (R.A. – Radhi Allahu Taala Anhu) – May Allah be pleased with him who would also memorize it. The Prophet would immediately ask the scribes to write down the revelation he had received, and he would reconfirm and recheck it himself. Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was an Ummi who could not read and write. Therefore, after receiving each revelation, he would repeat it to his Companions. They would write down the revelation, and he would recheck by asking them to read what they had written. If there was any mistake, the Prophet would immediately point it out and have it corrected and rechecked. Similarly he would even recheck and authenticate the portions of the Qur’an memorized by the Companions. In this way, the complete Qur’an was written down under the personal supervision of the prophet (pbuh).

Order and sequence of Qur’an divinely inspired

The complete Qur’an was revealed over a period of 23 years portion by portion, as and when it was required. The Qur’an was not compiled by the Prophet in the chronological order of revelation. The order and sequence of the Qur’an too was Divinely inspired and was instructed to the Prophet by Allah (swt) through archangel Jibraeel. Whenever a revelation was conveyed to his companions, the Prophet would also mention in which surah (chapter) and after which ayat (verse) this new revelation should fit. Every Ramadhaan all the portions of the Qur’an that had been revealed, including the order of the verses, were revised and reconfirmed by the Prophet with archangel Jibraeel. During the last Ramadhaan, before the demise of the Prophet, the Qur’an was rechecked and reconfirmed twice. It is therefore clearly evident that the Qur’an was compiled and authenticated by the Prophet himself during his lifetime, both in the written form as well as in the memory of several of his Companions.

Qur’an copied on one common material

The complete Qur’an, along with the correct sequence of the verses, was present during the time of the Prophet (pbuh). The verses however, were written on separate pieces, scrapes of leather, thin flat stones, leaflets, palm branches, shoulder blades, etc. After the demise of the prophet, Abu Bakr (r.a.), the first caliph of Islam ordered that the Qur’an be copied from the various different materials on to a common material and place, which was in the shape of sheets. These were tied with strings so that nothing of the compilation was lost.


Usman (r.a.) made copies of the Qur’an from the original manuscript

Many Companions of the Prophet used to write down the revelation of the Qur’an on their own whenever they heard it from the lips of the Prophet. However what they wrote was not personally verified by the Prophet and thus could contain mistakes. All the verses revealed to the Prophet may not have been heard personally by all the Companions. There were high possibilities of different portions of the Qur’an being missed by different Companions. This gave rise to disputes among Muslims regarding the different contents of the Qur’an during the period of the third Caliph Usman (r.a.). Usman (r.a.) borrowed the original manuscript of the Qur’an, which was authorized by the beloved Prophet (pbuh), from Hafsha (may Allah be pleased with her), the Prophet’s wife. Usman (r.a.) ordered four Companions who were among the scribes who wrote the Qur’an when the Prophet dictated it, led by Zaid bin Thabit (r.a.) to rewrite the script in several perfect copies. These were sent by Usman (r.a.) to the main centers of Muslims.


Diacritical marks were added for non-Arabs

The original manuscript of the Qur’an does not have the signs indicating the vowels in Arabic script. These vowels are known as tashkil, zabar, zair, paish in Urdu and as fatah, damma and qasra in Arabic. The Arabs did not require the vowel signs and diacritical marks for correct pronunciation of the Qur’an since it was their mother tongue. For Muslims of non-Arab origin, however, it was difficult to recite the Qur’an correctly without the vowels. These marks were introduced into the Quranic script during the time of the fifth ‘Umayyad’ Caliph, Malik-ar-Marwan (66-86 Hijri/685-705 C.E.) and during the governorship of Al-Hajaj in Iraq. Some people argue that the present copy of the Qur’an that we have along with the vowels and the diacritical marks is not the same original Qur’an that was present at the Prophet’s time. But they fail to realize that the word ‘Qur’an’ means a recitation. Therefore, the preservation of the recitation of the Qur’an is important, irrespective of whether the script is different or whether it contains vowels. If the pronunciation and the Arabic is the same, naturally, the meaning remains the same too.

Allah Himself has promised to guard the Qur’an Allah has promised in the Qur’an : "We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly Guard.it.(from.corruption).".[Al-Qur’an 15:9] So if you have another Qur'an different from the one version we have in Arabic, bring it forward and let's contest.

missphumby:


so. u live in pluto?

so. u live in pluto?

Lol, that's where communicate from....Lol

[quote author=joseph1832 post=31673251]Mr man I know not who this Ifean is neither do I know you had any debate or confrontation with her.

Hummm, I find it hard to believe you don't know her despite her horrendous posts on NL?. You even commented. Sometimes I see you viewed her threads. I am appalled you plead ignorance in her case. Well, I will take your word for it for now.

I saw your anti comments on Jesus Christ being nailed to the cross with allnaijablogger because I follow him.

Okay let me clarify this please. We Muslims believe in prophet Isa(Jesus - Allah's blessings and peace be upon him). If we fail to accept Jesus(p), we cease to be muslims. You understand that please? Here is a simple proof from Qur'an that we must believe in all prophets and messangers of God (Qur'an 3:84)

Say, "We have believed in Allah and in what was revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Descendants, and in what was given to Moses and Jesus and to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [submitting] to Him."

This verse^ sums it up. Why do you think I don't believe in Jesus(p)?. You want to get me in trouble before Allah?. Any muslim who doesnt believe in Jesus(peace be upon him) is NOT a Muslim. It's that simple brother. Now concerning my post that appears to rridicule 'Jesus'. Honestly you need to read Qur'an and compare who truly respect Jesus. Christians claim Jesus(p) is God and at the same time, they said he was nailed on the cross. This is very demeaning. It relegates status of this mighty messanger of Allah. Qur'an denies Isa(Jesus) was crucified. Read the verse below

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise; —Qur'an, sura 4 (An-Nisa) ayat 157-158

So Quran denies Christians allegation. Even Bible said Jesus was not crucified. I can go into that later. Since Qur'an denies he was nailed on the cross do you think for a second I was referring to him in my post?. We muslims dont draw pictures of any prophets. We have more respect for them than that. It is Christians that ridicule God's prophets. It's Christians that blaspheme.

Now this Ifean character is someone I don't know neither have I seen any such comment made by her. You could have referred me to her posts instead or accusing me any how.

This is her profile https://www.nairaland.com/ifeann/topics check it out and compare it to mine. See who is sticking his or her nose in other's religion. And her cohorts who support her all the way including her silent follower, allnaijablogger. None of them condemned or criticized her. Her profile is filled with anti-islam posts.

To your last comment "what I consider insults is to call my brain to order". Please you do not want to go down that road with me. I don't speak in favor of any religion, especially Christianity and Islam.

Well, when you go through her threads and posts including her gangs then you should know why I feel unpleasant sometimes. I posted the picture about christian "jesus" to mock them and to get them to reason because they mock our prophet, said all sorts of nonsense about him without knowledge. Again, I am surprised you dont know her and i am so much displeased to hear that bcus i saw you read her posts. Anyway, I apologized if you feel uncomfortable about my post earlier. But now, you know her. You can't plead ignorant anymore. So if she keeps ranting, dont blame us if we do her the same favor

Thank you.

You are welcome

^ I am waiting for Mr. spyder880 if he has client using "aluminum parapet"

missphumby:
[.

Haba sister, you didnt want us to see your pix? You deleted everything

joseph1832:
Empiree first you call me an amateur, then a hypocrite and also a stupid non moslem!.

If its insults you want I have it plenty. But I will never condescend to your level of displaying violent tendencies on social media. If you're like this on social media, I wonder how you'll be in real life.


I will still say this: ".you waste your time picking holes in another mans religion and forget the chasm in yours". There is an old saying, "charity begins at home".

Empty! Why didn't you say the @ bold to ifean? Look at our profiles and contrast....who exactly is picking holes and insulting our prophet? Did any of you condemned her? The answer is capital NO. You people enjoyed her bashing of Islam but cry foul when we reciprocate.

Now if you have no reasonable counterclaims against my analysis, kindly admonish your friends ifea and co who misquote Qur'an for miserable gain. And what you considered insult is to call your brain to order. And "charity begins at home", tell that to your fellow Christians.

Abuamam:
You should not believe everything you read on the internet, especially when bigotted people post it. Try to verify the authenticity of every 'evidence' you are given;

No, she's not interested. She shared same mindset with Pamela Geller and co. She knows exactly what she's doing. Like allnaijablogger rightly said when he pled to me to stop posting violent Bible verses and I referenced this lady. He said "ifeann has a mission". That's why none of them cautioned her.

14. QUR’AN IS A BOOK FROM ALLAH
These evidences are sufficient to conclude that the Qur’an was not copied from the Bible, but that the Qur’an is the Furqaan - ‘the Criteria’ to judge right from wrong and it should be used to decipher which portion of the Bible may be considered as the Word of God. The Qur’an itself testifies in Surah Sajda chapter 32 verse 1 to 3 Alif Laam Meem. (This is) the revelation of the Book in which there is no doubt – from the Lord of the Worlds. Or do they say, ‘He has forged it’? Nay, it is the Truth from thy Lord, that thou mayest admonish a people to whom no warner has come before thee: in order that they may receive guidance." [Al-Qur’an 32:1-3]

Question: It is mentioned in the Qur’an that Mary was the sister of Aaron (pbuh). Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who wrote the Qur’an did not know the difference between Miriam the sister of Aaron (pbuh) and Mary the Mother of Jesus (pbuh), the time span between both of them was about a thousand years.

Answer
1. IN THE SEMITIC LANGUAGES SISTER ALSO MEANS DESCENDANT
The Qur’an mentions in Surah Maryam, Chapter 19 verses 27-28
"At length she brought the (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms).
They said: ‘O Mary! Truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!
O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman
unchaste!’"[Al-Qur’an 19:27-28]

Christian missionaries say that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) did not know the difference between Mary the mother of Jesus (pbuh) and Miriam the sister of Aaron (pbuh). The time span between both was more than a thousand years. In the Arabic construction of the sentence, sister is also considered as a descendant. Thus, when the people said to Mary, Ukhta Haroon i.e. ‘sister of Aaron’ it actually means descendant of Aaron (pbuh)

To be continued....

Jaypea98:
Cc:Malvisguy212
CcTola9ja
Cc:Omokab
Thatz how t has always been their scholars denounce Christianity yet they are quick to quote the bible at any given chance just to justify their claims Example:
They Agree that Jesus "isah" never sinned. They say that judas was subbed to die in his place on the cross....
On the cross Jesus said "Eli Eli Lama Sabak Tani" Islamic scholars claimed it was "Allah Allah Lama Sabak Tani"(Arabic) Wierd wasnt it ? Even with their denials and the fact that jesus never spoke arabic
By the way the (ARABIC VERSION) of the Holy Bible was released long before mohammed and his islam surfaced on this earth and wait......... not even a single time was the term ALLAH ever memtioned through out

Excuse me?. Was this meant for me?. This seems to be off topic. You may want to read some answers here https://www.nairaland.com/2189813/beware-christians-evangelism-use-deceptions

[quote author=joseph1832 post=31633957]Indeed I see all you really know how to do is yap and yap!. I wanted us to debate the Qu'ran verses I supplied above and you're busy saying one is an amateur.

Yes, you are

You waste time picking holes in another mans religion why yours is full of chasm!.

Hypocrite! did you ever for once condemned ifean for sticking her nose on Islam?

I still ponder and wonder why the Ayatollah Komeini declared Faqwa on the head of Salman Rushdie when he released The Satanic Verses. This account to your violent nature whenever your prophet is mocked!.

Go and ask him. Empire is not Komeni. Maybe you should ask the same why us authority threatened to try E. Snowden if they lay their hands on him or if he happens to return to the us.

And please when you reply this post kindly tell me who is greater: Mohammad of Allah! And if Allah is greater just why then do you keep mute when He is mocked but go in a frenzy of drunken rage when Mohammad is mocked!?.

Silly typical non-muslim st-upidity

Now, i wont even waste much time on historical context of each verses you posted. The first one is

Qu'ran 2:191-193.
Here is the link to the text http://quran.com/2/191-193 Question is why did you quote it out of context?. Why did you leave out Quran 2:190?. <- this verse already answered who they should fight and why. Here is the link http://quran.com/2/190 . Why didn't you quote the full context....this is travesty.

Qu-ran 2: 216.
Here is the link http://quran.com/2/216 Same question goes, why didnt you quote subsequent verse that explains the former i:e Qur'an 2:217?. Here is the link http://quran.com/2/217 . Now you may not comprehend how they link. Here is a brief explanation on it.

The above passage (Qur'an 2:216) lays out that it’s binding on every Muslim to fight. But the fighting that is mentioned in the verse is not against innocents, but against those who oppress innocent men, women and children. As the next verse shows,


2:217 They ask you concerning the sacred month about fighting in it. Say: Fighting in it is a grave matter, and hindering (men) from God’s way and denying Him, and (hindering men from) the Sacred Mosque and turning its people out of it, are still graver with God, and persecution is graver than slaughter; and they will not cease fighting with you until they turn you back from your religion, if they can; and whoever of you turns back from his religion, then he dies while an unbeliever– these it is whose works shall go for nothing in this world and the hereafter…


Qu'ran 2:244. Here is the link http://quran.com/2/244 This is another cherry-picking verse. That's why i called you amateur. This one is even plain and clear. Again why didnt you quote the verses before and after to get the picture?. Critics point this verse out to people who have no knowledge about Islam saying, “Look – read, Muslims are to wage war unconditionally against all unbelievers”. As usual, critics cherry picking verses out of the Quran, leaving its context out. In reality, the text says opposite of what they portray of the passage. Let’s read previous verse and the verses coming after. Quran 2:243 – 2:246

2:243 Have you not considered those who left their homes in many thousands, fearing death? God said to them, “Die”; then He restored them to life. And God is full of bounty to the people, but most of the people do not show gratitude.

2:244 And fight in the cause of God and know that God is Hearing and Knowing.

2:245 Who is it that would loan God a goodly loan so He may multiply it for him many times over? And it is God who withholds and grants abundance, and to Him you will be returned.

2:246 Have you not considered the assembly of the Children of Israel after [the time of] Moses when they said to a prophet of theirs, “Send to us a king, and we will fight in the way of God”? He said, “Would you perhaps refrain from fighting if fighting was prescribed for you?” They said, “And why should we not fight in the cause of God when we have been driven out from our homes and from our children?” But when fighting was prescribed for them, they turned away, except for a few of them. And God is Knowing of the wrongdoers.

Verse 2:244 that you quoted is telling us not to transgress limits and that Allah “hears and knows all”. Also, fight in God’s cause, means to fight oppression, as shown in verse 2:246, “And why should we not fight in the cause of Allah when we have been driven out from our homes and from our children?” In that context, verse 2:244 encourages Muslims to fight oppression, persecution. The passage does not endorse killing of innocents

Qu'ran 3: 51
So what's wrong with this one?. Here is the link http://quran.com/3/51
This is talking about Jesus(peace be upon him)...that he commanded Children of Israel to worship Allah.


Qu'ran 4: 74-76 Here is the link http://quran.com/4/74
This is another travesty on your part. That's what critics do best. Deceptive critics of Islam like yourself and the like quote first part of Q 4:74 and beginning of Q 4:76-77, and show people who have no knowledge about Islam, that Muslims are encouraged in the Quran to wage violence against unbelievers. However, when we read the passage in its context, it exposes Islamophobe lies. Now let’s read the passage in textual context,

4:74 So let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. And he who fights in the cause of Allah and is killed or achieves victory – We will bestow upon him a great reward.

4:75 And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of God and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, “Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?”

4:76 Those who believe fight in the cause of God, and those who disbelieve fight in the cause of Taghut. So fight against the allies of Satan. Indeed, the plot of Satan has ever been weak.

4:77 Have you not seen those who were told, “Restrain your hands [from fighting] and establish prayer and give zakah”? But then when fighting was ordained for them, at once a party of them feared men as they fear God or with [even] greater fear. They said, “Our Lord, why have You decreed upon us fighting? If only You had postponed [it for] us for a short time.” Say, The enjoyment of this world is little, and the Hereafter is better for he who fears God. And injustice will not be done to you, [even] as much as a thread [inside a date seed].” Here is the context http://quran.com/4/74-80


Qu'ran 4:89. Here is the link http://quran.com/4/89 Again, why did you skip and 'jumped' to 4:95? Chai, you are so despirate
The above verse is used and manipulated by critics to show that Muslims are allowed to wage war against disbelievers. However, reading the verse that proceeds after, verse 4:90, states the following,

4:90 Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them. http://quran.com/4/89-90

See how easy that was? It is evident reading the verse in its contextual context that the passage does not encourage indiscriminate violence against disbelievers, just because of their faith. Verse 4:90 tells Muslims that if the disbelievers moved away and ceased hostilities against the Muslims, that they, the disbelievers be left alone. Now given the verse you quoted off context,let me give you example. In 2010 or 2011, Prez Ubama was addressing congress on combating terrorists. During his long-winded strategic speech against terrorists, he said and I quote "we will find them wherever they are. We will find them and kill them". Now quote that out of context and see how you portray Ubama Sounds familiar?


Qu'ran 4:95 Here is the link http://quran.com/4/95-96
The above Quranic verse urges (sanctions) Muslims to ‘fight in the cause of God’. Fighting in the cause of God, does not mean killing of civilians. Muslims are told in the passage to fight oppression, practiced against them or against others (i.e., non-Muslims). The objective of J-ih/ad (‘Fighting in the cause of God’)in this context is to protect religious freedom for all. The following Quranic passage proves what the meaning for ‘fight in the cause of God’ means,

"And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of God and [for] the oppressed among men, women, and children who say, “Our Lord, take us out of this city of oppressive people and appoint for us from Yourself a protector and appoint for us from Yourself a helper?” – Quran 4:75

Now take a look at this. In the 60s World Champion Muhammad Ali was stripped of his championship because he declined to enlist in the army during Vietnam war. He cited islam as excuse that Islam does not permit him to fight unjust war. Question is why imposed military service on him?. He lost his title because of that.

I tried as much not to lengthen this post that's why i didnt post detailed commentaries. This would allow me to delve into hadith and tafsir (explanation) like Ibn Khatir and others including contemporary scholars. At your request, I shall provide detailed commentaries.

I don't care if you scream "taqqiyah". That's your headache. So those verses you quoted did not order Muslims to kill innocent people. If any individuals manipulate them, that's there cup of garri. I was laughing hysterically while typing b'cause you non-muslims dont understand a lot especially when i got to the last part. You people are always funny. That's how I feel about your girlfriend, ifean and i would just ignore her sometime bcuz she has no idea what she's doing. I pictured you in my head and began to laugh like this baby

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jD1W0yOpno

Now, compare those verses with this Gospel

Kill Men, Women, and Children

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

Imagine if Qur'an said this....alas! Muslims would be in freaking trouble. Yet you people just overlooked like it's nothing. Hypocrisy smells like camphor. Goodluck

omokab:
I know all the christain in this forum will run away for this topic.They only know how to attack others religion without minding their own.There was a thread like this that one of them talk about marrying a slave in islam,he really talk bad about it but I gave him a very nice reply which make him not to make any comment on it again.I know bible talk more on Killing,force marriage than any other religion,but they will be hidden it. Their pastor will never say anything on it by sunday church service.If you bring out topic like this what they will tell u is that,it is only written in old testament. And I used to tell them why they could not remove old testament from Bible.

They are a waste of time. They need to be snubbed sometimes. They will try to justify or bring silly explanation to clear their guilt from those violence verses in the Bible. But if muslims tried to explain likewise, they dubbed us "taqqiya". It's strategy which is not new to me by the way.

Good observation.^

[quote author=Readonee35L post=31650142]I am Sure about the engine being the same

Oh really, i will definitely lookout. You so sure.

I don't sell car parts
It was only a suggestion

No problem

You are still not making any sense. It's waste of time posting link to convince me there are Arabic versions of Quran. That's just theory. Do yourself a favor by presenting two "different Arabic Quran" if you have them. Very simple. If you can not, them shut up forever.

When we say different Bible versions, they are quiet obvious as we can easily see them on the shelves. But you only present links (article written by someone) saying whatever about Quran. That proves nothing. Present another Quran if any. Nothing more. Quran is recited and memorized in one Arabic language and version. Dialects may vary from regions to another. There are 114 chapters of the Quran. And thats one vesion.

What I need you to prove to me is bring a Quran that has less than 114 chapters, missing verses and let's start from there. But if you can't, then it means you have no idea what you saying all the time. But Bibles have missing chapters, verses etc.

As for contradictions in your bible versions, you can twist all you want. Thats whaat churches do to the poor church goers. And no, I wasnt sniffing around to find faults. I usually keep them to myself. Deceive yourself all you want.

limamintruth:
Just like Caliph Uthman & the subsequent seven Readers distorted the Quran right?




Lol, lemme indulge you cos I can see this has become a mantra of some sort for you.

The R.S.V preface amongst some others, have indeed critiqued K.J.V as being defective primarily due to the change (since 1611) in English usage. Many forms of word expressions have become archaic/obsolete and no longer understood by the common reader. Thereby posing a great problem, as some of the English words in constant use by K.J.V now convey a different meaning from that which they had in 1611.
Some few examples of such archaic expressions in the King James Version are the use of: "wottest" for '"know"; "let" for "restrain" ( II Thess. 2); "conversation" for "conduct"; "take no thought" for "be not anxious" ( Matt. 6); etc. The K.J.V has transcended to such an extent in time wherein 17th century English becomes unintelligible, and a new translation is not only permissible, but even demanded. This was a vital concern of the Reformation & the subsequent revisions.





Now you are really beginning to sound confused mister
Or else, how would you claim to have a problem with the word 'version' and not have a problem with 'translation'? It sounds dumb to me really.

In case you dont know, the word "Version" is simply "A particular form of something differing in certain respects(e.g lang., punctuations, expression style e.t.c) from an earlier form or other forms of the same type of thing". Thus, 'version' & 'translation' are two similar words that can be used interchangeably as clearly shown in the Thesaurus dict. below:

"translation [ trans- ley -sh uh n, tranz- ]
Main Entry: translation
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: rewording; interpretation
Synonyms: adaptation, construction, crib*, decoding, elucidation, explanation, gloss, key, metaphrase, paraphrase, reading, rendering, rendition, rephrasing, restatement, simplification, transcription, transliteration, VERSION"

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/translation

So you see, these are synonymous words that are identical; hence, you cant claim to be in love with one and detaste the other.



.

Lol, you are just being unnecessarily adamant @empiree. Everything you pasted above is totally offpoint pls

This is what a renown Islamic website states on the issue in question:

"There are various versions of the Arabic Quran that are still in print. They differ in many aspects although they convey the same meaning. God has provided us with the tool to verify the correct version and confirm His preservation of the Quran. The Mathematical miracle of the Quran has proved that the Hafs transmission maintained the built-in mathematical structure of the Quran."

http://submission.org/verify_are_all_Arabic_versions_of_Quran_the_same.html


Many other famous scholars hav also referred to the Hafs, Warsh, e.t.c as Quranic versions too. So i wonder why you are being adamant against the truth.





Dont tell me you are this desperate in your faultfinding quest?

How on earth does "O.T scriptures" become synonymous to "old covenant"
This are totally two different things; the first refers to the entire books that make up the Old testament, while the latter refers to the 'covenant that existed between God and His people in the time of the ancient Prophets.

So while the Old Testament scriptures have & will always remain unchanged, the Old covenant needed to be renewed with the coming of Christ Jesus. If you wish, i can make out time from my tight schedule to acquaint you more on this issue.

...................
Also, the two verses you quoted in Isaiah are very clear and precise.

The first verse you cited there highlights the titles of christ Jesus,
while
The second unequivocally states His name. i.e Immanuel

Again if you want, i dont mind giving you an illustration using you as example.
A name is different from a title e.g your name may be Obafemi, while your title is 'His Excellency'. Understand?




Sorry i'm not yoruba (neither do i understand or speak the lang.)

And i cant spot any blaspemy in the Malachi verse you quoted pls.
So if you dont mind, kindly highlight and bring out the blasphemy that you allege lies therein. Peace!

9jaforlife:
Ifeann aka parisbookaddict aka male aka female, the ones that accept Allah as their God, Muhammad as their Messanger, and the Quran as their guidance. They live their lives according to instructions of the Quran and follow the Prophet's examples. Simple as that!

I ignored this thread b'cause this is another tactic employed by these folks. "Divide and conquer". It doesnt work when it comes to empire

[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.

joseph1832:
Qu'ran 2:191-193. Qu-ran 2: 216. Qu'ran 2:244. Qu'ran 3: 51. Qu'ran 3:151. Qu'ran 4: 74. Qu'ran 4:76. Qu'ran 4:89. Qu'ran 4:95.

. You're amateur for sure. Are you ready to accept "tafsir" (explanation) of each verse or you ready to mock?.

Anyways, whether you want to mock or not, fact is each verse of the Qur'an is historically connected. Believe that. Islam is natural and it makes sense when it's explained to you.

A Muslim can not just come up with bogus tafsir for personal gains.This addresses your allegation (copy/paste). My explanation will be in-line with 'established' truth behind each verse. And of-course some verses are to be interpreted "with time" because Qur'an revolves eternally.

Now, depending on your answer will determine whether i will answer each verse. But let me quickly ask you this, when you pick up Nigerian constitution, you will definitely see similar things like "combat enemies", "kill enemies", "fight enemies" etc. You may want to ask why they have violence passages in the constitution. Same thing applies here as well including all nations. So it's up to you if you want explanation with evidences by scholars. What do you say?

[quote author=sultaan post=31624266]Any GM car with the same engine will fit.

Sure about this?. I will love to know more, please.

How did you get the mechanic to break it? if it is broken

What did you mean by this?

author=Readonee35L post=31624512]

It uses the same Engine with my chevrolet venture 2003 model

Sure about this?. I have to reconfirm this first

...

Goto ladipo market

Thanks for this. I wasn't thinking of this place at all. If you are acquainted with stuff like this, how much you think brand new engine will cost?

AllNaijaBlogger:
You think that I have your time?

Mr. copy and paste.

You know how to start but you have no idea how to end it.
#yeyeman.

I am still coming after you on crucifixion nonsense after I'm done with the other guy.

joseph1832:
I see, so you're telling me your religion never said its adherents should marry 9 year olds as long as they've started menstruating?.

I didn't quote any religious text because I know you'll just browse the net and paste whatever you see.

I believe you can debate devoid of religious text supplied by people thus using logic and reason?.

All you have to do is provide a proof from Quran where it says to marry a yr old girl. Dont even think for a second you talkng to a fool. This argument of yours is straw.

If you can't post religious text, i:e evidence, then, you are a waste of my time.

If the subject of the debate is base on religion, then religious text can not be left out. It's a guide. We dont practice Islam base on desire. Yes, there are some things that flexible, can blend because of 'time', region etc (yet) it's gotta be within guidance of shariah+shura(consultation)+figh(jurisprudence).

So what is it that you want to debate?

There is a need for muslims across the country to support 'ACADIP' dawah and other organisations involve in similar struggle. The brothers are doing fantastic. May Allah bless them. Amin