Waraqa was a Christian. Now it seems fascinating that it was actually Waraqa who told Muhammad that it was Angel Gabriel. Muhammad never said it was Angel Gabriel of Jibril who visited him. Muhammad was evenly troubled. So it was actually a Christian who didn't even know how God sent his angels to Man to give them his revelation. That alone is a disgrace to the Muslim word and a disgrace to Muhammad.

This same Angel Gabriel who told Mary she will be having the Son of God and he will die for the sins of the world, came later to Muhammad to tell Muhammad that Jesus Christ is not the son of God and he never died. Think my friend! Don't blindly this Satanic Religion Islam. Think!. If you can't read then don't come here defending. I manage to read your Copy and paste post because i knew that no matter what you copy and paste you will still be wrong and you will fail to prove any point. You decide if it copy and paste. You Still are yet to prove anything write. You just keep rambling back and fort with no clear Justification. I already told you Mathew, John were eye witness. Luke and Mark were friends of the eye Witness. So that make it credible not like your source. I will say this again..

Now i will finally destroy Islam and proof to you that the Bible is true using your Quran which i doubt you read.
Your Quran clearly state that the true Christianity prevailed which is the Christianity we have now. I don't think you know this.
Surah 3:55 - Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee SUPERIOR to those who reject faith, TO THE DAY OF RESURRECTION: Then shall ye all return unto Me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute."
Surah 61:44 - O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: as said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the Disciples, "We are Allah's helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed against their enemies, AND THEY BECAME THE ONES THAT PREVAILED.

So, According to these passages, Allah gave Christ’s followers the power to prevail over the disbelievers, and made them superior till the day of resurrection. Yet the ones that prevailed were the Apostles such as Paul, as well as his followers. This means that if the Quran is correct, then Paul’s message is the truth since it has become dominant and has prevailed over all other opposing messages. And if that is wrong meaning the Quran is wrong and Islam is False. You see! Where do you stand?

Therefore, Muslims are in a dilemma that they cannot easily resolve. Namely, to accept the Quran is to accept "Pauline" Christianity. Yet to accept "Pauline" Christianity is to reject the Quran, since the Quran contradicts the core teaching of Paul as has been preserved in the pages of the Holy Bible and amongst true Christians historically.

haekymbahd:
Khadija and waraqa what religion were there from. Also are you telling no Jew or christians right from the time of Muhammad ever converted to islam stop deluding yourself

it seems you don't know me yet, nice education I couldn't read any the copy and paste were too much.

Now let me start asking you questions..
From your post above are you saying Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were eye witness ?

innotutorial:
If . I already told you Mathew, John were eye witness. Luke and Mark were friends of the eye Witness.

Prove it please were Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John disciples of Jesus while on earth. Did they witness crucifiction, did they see Jesus ascending to heaven?

Were they present when Mary gave birth to Jesus?

Was any of their name mentioned in the Gospel which they wrote?


The quality time you should have spent studying the history of your religion you spent studying another man's religion what a shame.

If you can't get this how will you get my next question

Antichristian

Matthew 28:16 -20 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. Mathew and John were pat of the 12 Apostles. The reason it is 11 here was because Judas Iscariot the betrayer had committed suicide .

Mark 16:15-0 He said to them, 15 “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues' 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it. Remember they were part of his apostles.

Jesus was born in Bethlehem. The three wise men brought their gifts to Jesus. During the birth of Jesus the King of the Jews wanted to kill him because he has heard that Jesus is going to be new king of the Jews. So God told Mary and Joseph to move to Nazareth.
Now When Jesus started his ministry at the age of 30, he then started selecting Apostles who will after him preach the gospels to the world. This is how we have the 12 Apostles of Jesus. So you saying if they meet Jesus when he was born shows your lack of understanding. They were chosen by Jesus when he started his ministry. Just the same way God can decide to choose anyone to preach and spread his word.

The book of Matthew was author by Matthew himself, same with mark, Luke and John.

I hope i was able to educate you and also enlighten you brother/Sister? Be blessed and i pray God open your eyes to come to the true knowledge of the truth which can be found in Christ Jesus only not Muhammad nor Allah they are false.

I am sure you are not even aware that allah was the name of the Nabatean god, allah was the name of on the many gods the pagan mecans in the Kaaba worshiped before Muhammad came. This same customs Muhammad got from pagans. After he allegedly destroyed all the idols inside the Kaaba. He then took their practice and belief so that the pagan mecans who rejected him as a prophet will accept him easily. Even the pagan prayers which they pray facing Mecca was adopted by Muhammad which is now practice in Islam today. My friend, i love you that is why i am telling you this. Muhammad deceived you all. You need to do an in-depth study about this. Please you need to look at these with an open mind. Thank you. God bless you.

haekymbahd:
Prove it please were Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John disciples of Jesus while on earth. Did they witness crucifiction, did they see Jesus ascending to heaven?

Were they present when Mary gave birth to Jesus?

Was any of their name mentioned in the Gospel which they wrote?

innotutorial:
Matthew 28:16 -20 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. Mathew and John were pat of the 12 Apostles. The reason it is 11 here was because Judas Iscariot the betrayer had committed suicide .

Bro you know nothing about your religion why not become Muslim since you are studing Islamic scripture more.

For your information

The four canonical gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—were all composed within the Roman Empire between 70 and 110 C.E (± five to ten years) as biographies of Jesus of Nazareth. Written a generation after the death of Jesus (ca. 30 C.E), none of the four gospel writers were eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus.

To he gospel writers were anonymous no one truly knew about them.

innotutorial:

Mark 16:15-0 He said to them, 15 “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues' 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it. Remember they were part of his apostles.

it amazes me that you don't know that this verse you quoted was a corrupted verse.


Although the vast majority of later Greek manuscripts contain Mark 16:9-20, the Gospel of Mark ends at verse 8 in two of the oldest and most respected manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. As the oldest manuscripts are known to be the most accurate because there were fewer generations of copies from the original autographs (i.e., they are much closer in time to the originals), and the oldest manuscripts do not contain vv. 9-20, we can conclude that these verses were added later by scribes. The King James Version of the Bible, as well as the New King James, contains vv. 9-20 because the King James used medieval manuscripts as the basis of its translation. Since 1611, however, older and more accurate manuscripts have been discovered and they affirm that vv. 9-20 were not in the original Gospel of Mark.

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

Furthermore, the vocabulary is not consistent with Mark’s Gospel. These last verses don’t read like Mark’s. There are eighteen words here that are never used anywhere by Mark, and the structure is very different from the familiar structure of his writing. The title “Lord Jesus,” used in verse 19, is never used anywhere else by Mark. Also, the reference to signs in vv. 17-18 doesn’t appear in any of the four Gospels. In no account, post-resurrection of Jesus, is there any discussion of signs like picking up serpents, speaking with tongues, casting out demons, drinking poison, or laying hands on the sick. So, both internally and externally, this is foreign to Mark.

While the added ending offers no new information, nor does it contradict previously revealed events and/or doctrine, both the external and internal evidence make it quite certain that Mark did not write it.

innotutorial:
Bro I doubt you read your hadiths. Al Bukhari
clearly state in 6: 509-510 that a large portion of the Quran was lost because of the Huffaz who died at the battle of Yamama.

A large portion of the Qur'an (memorized by Quran memorisers) were lost. But not all of them died!

According to Asiha in Sunan Ibn Majah 1944 it clearly state that the verse of stoning and breastfeeding and adult 10 times was eaten by sheep.

Read you source bro before you start something you know nothing about. The Quran has clearly change. Read bro. It is in your hadith.

The hadith of Sunan Ibn Majah 1944 where a sheep ate verses of the Qur'an is weak and can't be used in Islamic judgement!

Hahaha. It amaze me to see how ignorant and gullible you Muslims have become. I already destroyed your source. You couldn't even answer my Questions. You keep going off point.
Let me educate you more! I can see how Gullible you have become.
The charge is sometimes made that the church picked and chose between a large number of gospels to arrive at the four that exist in the New Testament. However the evidence is that the church consistently used these four and never any others. The natural conclusion is that these arose inside the orthodox church (founded by the apostles, and hence containing their writings), while unorthodox sects wrote their gospels to bolster their beliefs.
By the middle of the second century, the usage of the four gospels was unanimous in the church. This is evidenced in the writings of Tatian, Irenaeus, and possibly Justin Martyr. There is no evidence of the church having widespread use of any other gospel.
The Christian New Testament (NT) was gradually determined by the church over several centuries. It was not set by a single council or person (unlike the Qur'an). The gradual unanimity that the church achieved is indicative of God's hand in guiding the process.

What is striking is the way that, although the church was slipping into certain non-Biblical practices during the second, third and fourth centuries, there is a complete absence of these in the NT. Such as:
- the veneration of Mary;
- the use of images or icons;
- over-emphasis on baptism and the Lord's Supper (communion);
- salvation by works;
- a rigid, almost authoritarian, church structure;
This is very strong evidence that the church did not corrupt the Bible!

The question arises: what did the church do during its first 3 centuries, if it didn't have a definitive scripture? The answer is that Christians' faith is in a person (Jesus Christ) not in a book. We are saved by our faith in Jesus and what he did, not by obedience to a set of laws. Indeed, we can see the church using the apostles' writings as Scripture from a very early stage: We have thousand of early church fathers Quotations from the New testament the like of Polycarp, Irenaeus and many more. We have more than 28,000 quotations and from these we can even reproduce the entire new testament.
Similarly, the 13 letters of Paul were gathered into a collection probably late in the second century. "Its impact upon the church in the late 1st and early 2nd century is plain from the doctrine, language and literary form of the literature of the period." Again, these 13 letters were never in dispute. (The only exception is that the second-century heretic Marcion omitted 3 of them, probably because they directly condemned some of his teachings.)

Of the remaining NT documents, Acts, 1 Peter and 1 John were never in serious dispute. This leaves 20 of the 27 (the vast bulk of the NT, from which nearly every Christian doctrine can be deduced) as being universally accepted from as early as we can determine.

But we can find the very early church being even closer than that to the final NT canon. Irenaeus (130-200) is familiar with 24 of the 27 NT books: all except Hebrews, 2 Peter and 3 John.

So you have been schooled and educated. It is so funny how you never answered my Questions but you keep trying to answer back by pointing to the bible which i have already destroyed you with that. I will once again repost this part for you and i need answers. You all need to start thinking with your brain! Instead of following your Imam or scholars like a sheep who knows nothing about Muhammad and the Quran. Now answer my Questions in the post below, if you can't then sorry you are ignorant and has been blinded by the god of this world Satan. Then i am sorry, because the delusion on you all is so strong, It might lead you all to destruction for trampling on the message of Christ. No matter how i put entire truth into ear, you will never hear nor listen because Satan who wrote your Quran has blinded the mind and eyes of you all. May God deliver you all from these bondge.

Your Quran clearly state that the true Christianity prevailed which is the Christianity we have now. I don't think you know this.
Surah 3:55 - Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee SUPERIOR to those who reject faith, TO THE DAY OF RESURRECTION: Then shall ye all return unto Me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute."
Surah 61:44 - O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: as said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the Disciples, "We are Allah's helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed against their enemies, AND THEY BECAME THE ONES THAT PREVAILED.

So, According to these passages, Allah gave Christ’s followers the power to prevail over the disbelievers, and made them superior till the day of resurrection. Yet the ones that prevailed were the Apostles such as Paul, as well as his followers. This means that if the Quran is correct, then Paul’s message is the truth since it has become dominant and has prevailed over all other opposing messages. And if that is wrong meaning the Quran is wrong and Islam is False. You see! Where do you stand?

Therefore, Muslims are in a dilemma that they cannot easily resolve. Namely, to accept the Quran is to accept "Pauline" Christianity. Yet to accept "Pauline" Christianity is to reject the Quran, since the Quran contradicts the core teaching of Paul as has been preserved in the pages of the Holy Bible and amongst true Christians historically. Read your Quran my friend an stop this gullible argument. It is all here for you to se. I already pin you down to a fact and you still gullible for not seeing. Now there is no excuse you will give to the true God on the last day that no one ever introduce you to the truth! You willingly reject the truth and when you stand with Jesus Christ on the last day, then you will have no excuse because i destroyed your religion which is from Satan in front of your eyes and present you the gospel of Christ which is life but you still reject it. Shalom! You are waste of my time. I need to open the eyes of others who are ready to listen! I already converted some Muslims and these people are now save. I will continue to win more souls for Jesus through. May God have mercy on your soul. Shalom! I am leaving you in the darkness you choose to be in. This is the end of this conversation. You are a waste of my time. Bye Bye. See you in the last days.

haekymbahd:
Bro you know nothing about your religion why not become Muslim since you are studing Islamic scripture more.

For your information

The four canonical gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—were all composed within the Roman Empire between 70 and 110 C.E (± five to ten years) as biographies of Jesus of Nazareth. Written a generation after the death of Jesus (ca. 30 C.E), none of the four gospel writers were eyewitnesses to the ministry of Jesus.

To he gospel writers were anonymous no one truly knew about them.


it amazes me that you don't know that this verse you quoted was a corrupted verse.


Although the vast majority of later Greek manuscripts contain Mark 16:9-20, the Gospel of Mark ends at verse 8 in two of the oldest and most respected manuscripts, the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. As the oldest manuscripts are known to be the most accurate because there were fewer generations of copies from the original autographs (i.e., they are much closer in time to the originals), and the oldest manuscripts do not contain vv. 9-20, we can conclude that these verses were added later by scribes. The King James Version of the Bible, as well as the New King James, contains vv. 9-20 because the King James used medieval manuscripts as the basis of its translation. Since 1611, however, older and more accurate manuscripts have been discovered and they affirm that vv. 9-20 were not in the original Gospel of Mark.

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

Furthermore, the vocabulary is not consistent with Mark’s Gospel. These last verses don’t read like Mark’s. There are eighteen words here that are never used anywhere by Mark, and the structure is very different from the familiar structure of his writing. The title “Lord Jesus,” used in verse 19, is never used anywhere else by Mark. Also, the reference to signs in vv. 17-18 doesn’t appear in any of the four Gospels. In no account, post-resurrection of Jesus, is there any discussion of signs like picking up serpents, speaking with tongues, casting out demons, drinking poison, or laying hands on the sick. So, both internally and externally, this is foreign to Mark.

While the added ending offers no new information, nor does it contradict previously revealed events and/or doctrine, both the external and internal evidence make it quite certain that Mark did not write it.

sagenaija:
Antichristian is specializing in dodging the issues.
You were presented with two different Korans which are currently in use. There were clear differences in them. Instead of explaining (if possible) how those differences can be reconciled here you are bringing up unrelated matter.

If we are to go by your warped logic are we to say that no matter how CONTRADICTORY Koranic versions are Moslems should go by any one they want?

So, no matter how the Koran is recited, interpreted or applied it does not matter. No wonder you guys will condemn the Islamic extremists before people publicly but may support them behind the scenes as following a line of Koranic understanding.

Why are you running away from explaining those two Koranic versions?

Have you responded to the lies you posted up there wherein you said the Qur'an was compiled decades after the death of the Prophet?

I was presented two Qur'an with two different styles. The context/theme was not changed in any way. The Qur'an was revealed in seven styles and whichever of them is recited is the revelation of Allah!

haekymbahd:
Prove it please were Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John disciples of Jesus while on earth. Did they witness crucifiction, did they see Jesus ascending to heaven?

Were they present when Mary gave birth to Jesus?

Was any of their name mentioned in the Gospel which they wrote?

The quality time you should have spent studying the history of your religion you spent studying another man's religion what a shame.

If you can't get this how will you get my next question

Antichristian

These guys sabi tell lies jawe. See all the lies they are peddling even in their own religion. So how will they get other religions right?

See sagenaija saying the Qur'an was compiled decades after the demise of the Prophet (salallahu alayhi waslam). Such clear lies o!

innotutorial:
Hahaha. It amaze me to see how ignorant and gullible you Muslims have become. I already destroyed your source. You couldn't even answer my Questions. You keep going off point.
Let me educate you more! I can see how Gullible you have become.
The charge is sometimes made that the church picked and chose between a large number of gospels to arrive at the four that exist in the New Testament. However the evidence is that the church consistently used these four and never any others. The natural conclusion is that these arose inside the orthodox church (founded by the apostles, and hence containing their writings), while unorthodox sects wrote their gospels to bolster their beliefs.
By the middle of the second century, the usage of the four gospels was unanimous in the church. This is evidenced in the writings of Tatian, Irenaeus, and possibly Justin Martyr. There is no evidence of the church having widespread use of any other gospel.
The Christian New Testament (NT) was gradually determined by the church over several centuries. It was not set by a single council or person (unlike the Qur'an). The gradual unanimity that the church achieved is indicative of God's hand in guiding the process.

What is striking is the way that, although the church was slipping into certain non-Biblical practices during the second, third and fourth centuries, there is a complete absence of these in the NT. Such as:
- the veneration of Mary;
- the use of images or icons;
- over-emphasis on baptism and the Lord's Supper (communion);
- salvation by works;
- a rigid, almost authoritarian, church structure;
This is very strong evidence that the church did not corrupt the Bible!

The question arises: what did the church do during its first 3 centuries, if it didn't have a definitive scripture? The answer is that Christians' faith is in a person (Jesus Christ) not in a book. We are saved by our faith in Jesus and what he did, not by obedience to a set of laws. Indeed, we can see the church using the apostles' writings as Scripture from a very early stage: We have thousand of early church fathers Quotations from the New testament the like of Polycarp, Irenaeus and many more. We have more than 28,000 quotations and from these we can even reproduce the entire new testament.

1. Abeg who is/are the church or Church in bold above? We have names and particulars of the scribes of the Qur'an.
2. The Christian New Testament (NT) was gradually determined by the church over several centuries How can we ascertain if their determination was truly what Jesus approved when alive? What are the composition of the Church over the several centuries through the gradual determination of the NT?
3. Are they inspired just as sagenaija asked? Any evidence for their inspiration?

Similarly, the 13 letters of Paul were gathered into a collection probably late in the second century. "Its impact upon the church in the late 1st and early 2nd century is plain from the doctrine, language and literary form of the literature of the period." Again, these 13 letters were never in dispute. (The only exception is that the second-century heretic Marcion omitted 3 of them, probably because they directly condemned some of his teachings.)

Of the remaining NT documents, Acts, 1 Peter and 1 John were never in serious dispute. This leaves 20 of the 27 (the vast bulk of the NT, from which nearly every Christian doctrine can be deduced) as being universally accepted from as early as we can determine.

But we can find the very early church being even closer than that to the final NT canon. Irenaeus (130-200) is familiar with 24 of the 27 NT books: all except Hebrews, 2 Peter and 3 John.

Paul never met Jesus while he was alive. In fact he was an antiJesus. But he ended up writing even more than the 11 disciples combined. Why does Paul's letters have to be a scripture of the NT?

So you have been schooled and educated. It is so funny how you never answered my Questions but you keep trying to answer back by pointing to the bible which i have already destroyed you with that. I will once again repost this part for you and i need answers. You all need to start thinking with your brain! Instead of following your Imam or scholars like a sheep who knows nothing about Muhammad and the Quran. Now answer my Questions in the post below, if you can't then sorry you are ignorant and has been blinded by the god of this world Satan. Then i am sorry, because the delusion on you all is so strong, It might lead you all to destruction for trampling on the message of Christ. No matter how i put entire truth into ear, you will never hear nor listen because Satan who wrote your Quran has blinded the mind and eyes of you all. May God deliver you all from these bondge.

If you think Satan wrote the Qur'an then who wrote your Bible? Definitely not God. The Church wrote it! And we still don't know which Church it is yet!

Your Quran clearly state that the true Christianity prevailed which is the Christianity we have now. I don't think you know this.
Surah 3:55 - Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee SUPERIOR to those who reject faith, TO THE DAY OF RESURRECTION: Then shall ye all return unto Me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute."
Surah 61:44 - O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: as said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the Disciples, "We are Allah's helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed against their enemies, AND THEY BECAME THE ONES THAT PREVAILED.

So, According to these passages, Allah gave Christ’s followers the power to prevail over the disbelievers, and made them superior till the day of resurrection. Yet the ones that prevailed were the Apostles such as Paul, as well as his followers. This means that if the Quran is correct, then Paul’s message is the truth since it has become dominant and has prevailed over all other opposing messages. And if that is wrong meaning the Quran is wrong and Islam is False. You see! Where do you stand?

Abeg what are the contexts of those verses you quoted? Why not quote the verse that says the disciples of Jesus were Muslims?

Therefore, Muslims are in a dilemma that they cannot easily resolve. Namely, to accept the Quran is to accept "Pauline" Christianity. Yet to accept "Pauline" Christianity is to reject the Quran, since the Quran contradicts the core teaching of Paul as has been preserved in the pages of the Holy Bible and amongst true Christians historically. Read your Quran my friend an stop this gullible argument. It is all here for you to se. I already pin you down to a fact and you still gullible for not seeing. Now there is no excuse you will give to the true God on the last day that no one ever introduce you to the truth! You willingly reject the truth and when you stand with Jesus Christ on the last day, then you will have no excuse because i destroyed your religion which is from Satan in front of your eyes and present you the gospel of Christ which is life but you still reject it. Shalom! You are waste of my time. I need to open the eyes of others who are ready to listen! I already converted some Muslims and these people are now save. I will continue to win more souls for Jesus through. May God have mercy on your soul. Shalom! I am leaving you in the darkness you choose to be in. This is the end of this conversation. You are a waste of my time. Bye Bye. See you in the last days.

Now you agree that Jesus did not create Christianity but Paul did. Jesus did not preach Pauline Christianity while alive did he? We can't agree with someone who claim he saw light and was converted. He then went on to write 13 letters you people call scripture. Paul and the unknown "Church" are your Satan you are looking for that created Christianity!

AntiChristian:


These guys sabi tell lies jawe. See all the lies they are peddling even in their own religion. So how will they get other religions right?

See sagenaija saying the Qur'an was compiled decades after the demise of the Prophet (salallahu alayhi waslam). Such clear lies o!

You are just looking for straws to hang on to.
Is that all that I said? Let's even say that I was off the mark on one point does that mean that the other things I said were not correct?

Tell us, when did the current Koran with the diacritical marks come up? Was it from Mohamed's time?

Is it not true that Mohamed did not write down a single word of the Koran?
Is it not true that at different times the Koran was compiled and recompiled with Uthman burning other copies? An act of burning that would attract death on people today but for which no Moslem faulted Uthman.

Is it not true that there variances between the Hafs and Warsh Korans? Variances that change the meanings in many places.

So, why are you fidgeting instead of facing the truth about your religion?

sagenaija:

You are just looking for straws to hang on to.

Why say this and then agree below that you lied again?

Is that all that I said? Let's even say that I was off the mark on one point does that mean that the other things I said were not correct?

Why not respond to my reply to that comment? Everything you said where either false, half-truth or irrelevant in that it's the same as your Bible.

Tell us, when did the current Koran with the diacritical marks come up? Was it from Mohamed's time?

Was this in your last post numbered 1-5?

Is it not true that Mohamed did not write down a single word of the Koran?

True but this is irrelevant as Jesus too wrote nothing during his life time. The Qur'an was written down during the Prophet's life time unlike the Bible that was written after Jesus...

Is it not true that at different times the Koran was compiled and recompiled with Uthman burning other copies? An act of burning that would attract death on people today but for which no Moslem faulted Uthman.

This is where the lies come in again. I have debunked this before in this thread and you still brought the lies again. Uthman collected the compiled Qur'an from Hafsah, Umar's daughter. It was not compiled and recompiled. Once again stop telling lies!

Is it not true that there variances between the Hafs and Warsh Korans? Variances that change the meanings in many places.

Half-truth here. What do you mean by variances that change meanings? How does the variances that change meanings alter the context/theme?

I think you better talk about the variances between the KJV Bible and the RSV, NIV and NWT Bible. The KJV Bible needs to tell these versions to "BRING BACK OUR VERSES". The RSV Bible unceremoniously expunged 16verses from its pages whereas these verses are in the Kjv Bible. If this issue is not addressed, there may be commotion in the central church because if a KJV Bible using pastor ask a RSV using member to open to Matthew 17:21,the member would search till eternity. Some of the verses expunged from the pages of NIV, NWT, RSV includes Matthew 18:11, Mark7:16,Mark 9:44, John 5:4,acts 8:37, Romans 16:24 etc. Adapted from https://www.nairaland.com/6709605/how-build-central-church

So, why are you fidgeting instead of facing the truth about your religion?

We are truthful. But you are telling lies on us. Na you dey fidget o! No be me!

AntiChristian:
Why say this and then agree below that you lied again?

Why not respond to my reply to that comment? Everything you said where either false, half-truth or irrelevant in that it's the same as your Bible.

Was this in your last post numbered 1-5?

True but this is irrelevant as Jesus too wrote nothing during his life time. The Qur'an was written down during the Prophet's life time unlike the Bible that was written after Jesus...

This is where the lies come in again. I have debunked this before in this thread and you still brought the lies again. Uthman collected the compiled Qur'an from Hafsah, Umar's daughter. It was not compiled and recompiled. Once again stop telling lies!


Half-truth here. What do you mean by variances that change meanings? How does the variances that change meanings alter the context/theme?

I think you better talk about the variances between the KJV Bible and the RSV, NIV and NWT Bible. The KJV Bible needs to tell these versions to "BRING BACK OUR VERSES". The RSV Bible unceremoniously expunged 16verses from its pages whereas these verses are in the Kjv Bible. If this issue is not addressed, there may be commotion in the central church because if a KJV Bible using pastor ask a RSV using member to open to Matthew 17:21,the member would search till eternity. Some of the verses expunged from the pages of NIV, NWT, RSV includes Matthew 18:11, Mark7:16,Mark 9:44, John 5:4,acts 8:37, Romans 16:24 etc. Adapted from https://www.nairaland.com/6709605/how-build-central-church

We are truthful. But you are telling lies on us. Na you dey fidget o! No be me!

Our Lord Jesus Christ in one of his very many profound statements said: "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free".

But you Moslem apologists on Nairaland appear not to want to know the truth. You prefer TRIFLES.

Shouting does not win arguments. Posting 'Lie!, lie!!, lie!!!' is not what validates your claims. What validates your claims is FACT! Unfortunately your fans too like the shouts and prefer your mockery to TRUTH and FACTS.

When did Mohamed die? 632AD according to Moslem authorities. When did Uthman recompile the Koran? 650AD.
Was that less than a decade after Mohamed died? No!
Was that more than a decade after Mohamed died? Yes!
So, you can see that you are clinging to straw in your assertions.

The OP showed portions of two VERSIONS of the Koran - the Hafs and the Warsh and he pointed out DIFFERENCES between them. BUT you, Antichristian, CLEVERLY avoided the issue.

Instead of answering, which those of us familiar with you know you can't, you end up running to attack the Bible.
Is this thread about the Bible?
If the Bible were wrong (But thank God it is not!) would that somehow automatically make your Koran right?
What kind of warped thinking would make you guys believe that pointing out the supposed ills in another book makes yours a better book?

You told the OP:

Bring us the differences and let us see!

And he did by bringing up the Hafs and Warsh VERSIONS of the Koran and showed that chapters 3:79, 2:125, 2:10 had differences.
All you did was run away by simply claiming that:
The last two ahadith explained these!

One version says TEACH THE BOOK while the other says KNOW THE BOOK. And according to you the two mean the same thing! That can only come from the brains that only cram but cannot engage in any deductive reasoning. You couldn't even show us how you are able to reconcile them. Instead you guys come up with vague and even ridiculous statements like:
'There are seven ways of reciting the Koran', 'The differences are in the pronunciation of some words, like the American and British English.'

Who's talking about RECITING?
Who's talking about differences in PRONUNCIATION?

These are two WRITTEN TEXTS! WRITTEN TEXTS for goodness sake! How will reading a written word change the meaning of TEACH to be the same as KNOW? Or is it like I said that: If we are to go by your warped logic are we to say that no matter how CONTRADICTORY Koranic versions are Moslems should go by any one they want?

Btw, when were the Hafs and Warsh Korans written? During the time of Mohamed or several decades after him?
Maybe the 700s (Hafs) and 800s (Warsh) were during Mohamed's time in your logic.

Are you guys for real, Antichristian and haekymbahd?

sagenaija:
[/size]
Our Lord Jesus Christ in one of his very many profound statements said: "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free".

But you Moslem apologists on Nairaland appear not to want to know the truth. You prefer TRIFLES.

Shouting does not win arguments. Posting 'Lie!, lie!!, lie!!!' is not what validates your claims. What validates your claims is FACT! Unfortunately your fans too like the shouts and prefer your mockery to TRUTH and FACTS.

When did Mohamed die? 632AD according to Moslem authorities. When did Uthman recompile the Koran? 650AD.
Was that less than a decade after Mohamed died? No!
Was that more than a decade after Mohamed died? Yes!
So, you can see that you are clinging to straw in your assertions.

The OP showed portions of two VERSIONS of the Koran - the Hafs and the Warsh and he pointed out DIFFERENCES between them. BUT you, Antichristian, CLEVERLY avoided the issue.

Instead of answering, which those of us familiar with you know you can't, you end up running to attack the Bible.
Is this thread about the Bible?
If the Bible were wrong (But thank God it is not!) would that somehow automatically make your Koran right?
What kind of warped thinking would make you guys believe that pointing out the supposed ills in another book makes yours a better book?

You told the OP:


And he did by bringing up the Hafs and Warsh VERSIONS of the Koran and showed that chapters 3:79, 2:125, 2:10 had differences.
All you did was run away by simply claiming that:
The last two ahadith explained these!

One version says TEACH THE BOOK while the other says KNOW THE BOOK. And according to you the two mean the same thing! That can only come from the brains that only cram but cannot engage in any deductive reasoning. You couldn't even show us how you are able to reconcile them. Instead you guys come up with vague and even ridiculous statements like:
'There are seven ways of reciting the Koran', 'The differences are in the pronunciation of some words, like the American and British English.'

Who's talking about RECITING?
Who's talking about differences in PRONUNCIATION?

These are two WRITTEN TEXTS! WRITTEN TEXTS for goodness sake! How will reading a written word change the meaning of TEACH to be the same as KNOW? Or is it like I said that: If we are to go by your warped logic are we to say that no matter how CONTRADICTORY Koranic versions are Moslems should go by any one they want?

Btw, when were the Hafs and Warsh Korans written? During the time of Mohamed or several decades after him?
Maybe the 700s (Hafs) and 800s (Warsh) were during Mohamed's time in your logic.

Are you guys for real, Antichristian and haekymbahd?

The Quran was verbally revealed to prophet Muhammad in 7 dialect and memorized and written down.

The Quran you see today are just ways of reading the Quran.

Quran itself means the recitation. It is what is been recited that matters.

Hafs and warsh version are just like American and British English

on the weekend and at the weekend both are correct English one is American the other is British. English speakers will definitely know they mean the same thing. But when you translate it to another language it would mean different things.


While Youruba translators will say

Lori opin ose and ni opin ose

In essence the problem is not with the Arabic but the translators/translation

Both Hafs and warsh can be traced to the prophet and this issue had occur even during his time not after him and he gave his ruling on it.


Narrated 'Umar bin Al-Khattab:
I heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting Surat Al-Furqan during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle and I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah's Apostle had not taught me. I was about to jump over him during his prayer, but I controlled my temper, and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it and said, "Who taught you this Sura which I heard you reciting?" He replied, "Allah's Apostle taught it to me." I said, "You have told a lie, for Allah's Apostle has taught it to me in a different way from yours." So I dragged him to Allah's Apostle and said (to Allah's Apostle),

"I heard this person reciting Surat Al-Furqan in a way which you haven't taught me!" On that Allah's Apostle said, "Release him, (O 'Umar!) Recite, O Hisham!" Then he recited in the same way as I heard him reciting. Then Allah's Apostle said, "It was revealed in this way," and added, "Recite, O 'Umar!" I recited it as he had taught me. Allah's Apostle then said, "It was revealed in this way. This Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever (way) is easier for you (or read as much of it as may be easy for you)."
Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 514

sagenaija:
[size=6pt]
Btw, when were the Hafs and Warsh Korans written? During the time of Mohamed or several decades after him?
Maybe the 700s (Hafs) and 800s (Warsh) were during Mohamed's time in your logic.

how many time do I have to tell you this for a Qiraat be it Hafs or warsh to be authentic it has conform with 3 rules

For a qiraa’a to be authentic it has to meet 3 conditions

1. Must conform to Arabic grammar.
2. The qiraa’a must conform with one of the mushafs of Uthman.
3. The qiraa’a must have an authentic (saheeh) chain of narrators going back to the Prophet (PBUH).


Is hafs version linked to the prophet Muhammad did he teach to recite that way yes. The chain of narration of the Hafs can be linked to the prophet himself. The Qiraat was only name after Hafs and warsh the didn't start it they were student who learned from their teachers

Chain of Transmission of Hafs
Imam Hafs ibn Suleiman ibn al-Mughirah al-Asadi al-Kufi learned from Aasim ibn Abi al-Najud al-Kufi al-Tabi'i from Abu 'Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami from Uthman ibn Affan, Ali, Ubayy ibn Ka'b, and Zaid ibn Thabit from the prophet Muhammad.

Warsh is also an authentic version even though Hafs version Is the widely accepted.



Why was 1 John 5 verse 7 removed from the bible that is what they call corruption, fabrication, interpolation, different version e.t.c

haekymbahdx:
The Quran was verbally revealed to prophet Muhammad in 7 dialect and memorized and written down.

The Quran you see today are just ways of reading the Quran.

Quran itself means the recitation. It is what is been recited that matters.

Hafs and warsh version are just like American and British English

on the weekend and at the weekend both are correct English one is American the other is British. English speakers will definitely know they mean the same thing. But when you translate it to another language it would mean different things.

While Youruba translators will say

Lori opin ose and ni opin ose

In essence the problem is not with the Arabic but the translators/translation

Both Hafs and warsh can be traced to the prophet and this issue had occur even during his time not after him and he gave his ruling on it.

Narrated 'Umar bin Al-Khattab:
I heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting Surat Al-Furqan during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle and I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah's Apostle had not taught me. I was about to jump over him during his prayer, but I controlled my temper, and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it and said, "Who taught you this Sura which I heard you reciting?" He replied, "Allah's Apostle taught it to me." I said, "You have told a lie, for Allah's Apostle has taught it to me in a different way from yours." So I dragged him to Allah's Apostle and said (to Allah's Apostle),

"I heard this person reciting Surat Al-Furqan in a way which you haven't taught me!" On that Allah's Apostle said, "Release him, (O 'Umar!) Recite, O Hisham!" Then he recited in the same way as I heard him reciting. Then Allah's Apostle said, "It was revealed in this way," and added, "Recite, O 'Umar!" I recited it as he had taught me. Allah's Apostle then said, "It was revealed in this way. This Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever (way) is easier for you (or read as much of it as may be easy for you)."
Sahih Bukhari Volume 6, Book 61, Number 514

how many time do I have to tell you this for a Qiraat be it Hafs or warsh to be authentic it has conform with 3 rules

For a qiraa’a to be authentic it has to meet 3 conditions

1. Must conform to Arabic grammar.
2. The qiraa’a must conform with one of the mushafs of Uthman.
3. The qiraa’a must have an authentic (saheeh) chain of narrators going back to the Prophet (PBUH).


Is hafs version linked to the prophet Muhammad did he teach to recite that way yes. The chain of narration of the Hafs can be linked to the prophet himself. The Qiraat was only name after Hafs and warsh the didn't start it they were student who learned from their teachers

Chain of Transmission of Hafs
Imam Hafs ibn Suleiman ibn al-Mughirah al-Asadi al-Kufi learned from Aasim ibn Abi al-Najud al-Kufi al-Tabi'i from Abu 'Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami from Uthman ibn Affan, Ali, Ubayy ibn Ka'b, and Zaid ibn Thabit from the prophet Muhammad.

Warsh is also an authentic version even though Hafs version Is the widely accepted.

Why was 1 John 5 verse 7 removed from the bible that is what they call corruption, fabrication, interpolation, different version e.t.c

1. Are you saying that if someone reads out or recites from one version "TEACH THE BOOK" while he or another reads or recite from the other version "KNOW THE BOOK" that the meaning to them and the hearers will be the same?

Please explain how these two phrases mean the same thing. If the problem is with the translators show us how.

2. Have you ever sat down to imagine the numbers of years and number of people to get the right chain of narrators? Who was keeping the records? Where and how? Were these narrators inspired by Allah? If so does that not mean that Allah had other messengers after Mohamed? Messengers inspired to do the work of preserving the Koran?

innotutorial:
In the Quran you are right, but in the Bible you know what you talking about. I doubt you have ever read the Bible. The bible was written by men which was inspired by God. Do you know the Manuscript evidence of the bible will have today? The Latin Vulgate Manuscripts and other Manuscripts in the 2nd century. Have you seen the quotes from the early church fathers? More than 20,000 quotes form the new testaments and this was in the first century.

So don't say what you don't know. The Quran is a book written by Muhammad not God. The Quran is just mainly a fairy tale book which got most of its stories from Gnostic and Ribenic writings. I will make more videos to expose and discuss this. Do not be deceived brother/sister, the Bible is the word of God. The Quran is a counterfeit and the word of Satan.

The Qu'ran is arguably more authentic than the Bible. Do you know how much translation and edits the Bible has undergone?

sagenaija:
[/size]
1. Are you saying that if someone reads out or recites from one version "TEACH THE BOOK" while he or another reads or recite from the other version "KNOW THE BOOK" that the meaning to them and the hearers will be the same?

Please explain how these two phrases mean the same thing. If the problem is with the translators show us how.

You are still quoting the translation. Both word in Arabic can be used interchangeably and it still would not change the context of the sentence.

On the weekend and At the weekend can both be used in the same sentence and it still won't change anything English speakers will understand that because one is American while the other is British English. Simple if you translate it to another language it might not work.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt]
2. Have you ever sat down to imagine the numbers of years and number of people to get the right chain of narrators? Who was keeping the records? Where and how? Were these narrators inspired by Allah? If so does that not mean that Allah had other messengers after Mohamed? Messengers inspired to do the work of preserving the Koran?

Islam is a religion where details are kept I don't know about yours. All this still had root with the prophet. He taught it

What Allah did to preserve the Quran is

Allah SWT said:

"We will have you recite, the Qur’ān, so that you will not forget, what you recite,"
(QS. Al-A'laa 87: Verse 6)

haekymbahdx:
You are still quoting the translation. Both word in Arabic can be used interchangeably and it still would not change the context of the sentence.

On the weekend and At the weekend can both be used in the same sentence and it still won't change anything English speakers will understand that because one is American while the other is British English. Simple if you translate it to another language it might not work.

Islam is a religion where details are kept I don't know about yours. All this still had root with the prophet. He taught it

What Allah did to preserve the Quran is

Allah SWT said:

"We will have you recite, the Qur’ān, so that you will not forget, what you recite,"
(QS. Al-A'laa 87: Verse 6)

1. You're still running away from the actual words and either quoting Yoruba or making other English statements.

Are you saying that the Arabic word for 'Teach' which was used for "TEACH THE BOOK" and the Arabic word for 'Know' which the other version used in "KNOW THE BOOK" have the same meaning?

Can you please show us how?

2. You also not getting this - who verified the chains of narrators? The Koran?
Let me explain it simply; Bukhari, for example, worked on over 600,000 records out of which he eventually kept only a little over 7,000. And there are still contradictions even in those 7,000 PLUS Hadiths. This comes to just 1%. He wrote hundreds of years after Mohamed. Imagine hundreds of thousands of writers each having their own chains of narrations. That must have been a very educated population. Yet nobody from Mecca wrote. Virtually all those who wrote were from hundreds of miles away from Mecca. And these people from far away had all the necessary information on the chains of narrators linking back to Mohamed in Mecca.

Was it Mohamed who created the science of the "chains of narrators"? Was it the Koran or Allah? The chain of narrators is a very convenient excuse to want to use in justifying the unreliable.

Were all these chain of narrators INSPIRED by Allah?
You seem to be avoiding obvious questions.

sagenaija:
[/size]
1. You're still running away from the actual words and either quoting Yoruba or making other English statements.

Are you saying that the Arabic word for 'Teach' which was used for "TEACH THE BOOK" and the Arabic word for 'Know' which the other version used in "KNOW THE BOOK" have the same meaning?

Can you please show us how?

Both are permissible and it still won't change the context... They do not have exactly same meaning but can be used interchangeably. I have given you example of this already. The Quran was revealed not in one dialect don't you get

sagenaija:
[size=6pt]
2. You also not getting this - who verified the chains of narrators? The Koran?
Let me explain it simply; Bukhari, for example, worked on over 600,000 records out of whiand it ch he eventually kept only a little over 7,000. And there are still contradictions even in those 7,000 PLUS Hadiths. This comes to just 1%. He wrote hundreds of years after Mohamed. Imagine hundreds of thousands of writers each having their own chains of narrations. That must have been a very educated population. Yet nobody from Mecca wrote. Virtually all those who wrote were from hundreds of miles away from Mecca. And these people from far away had all the necessary information on the chains of narrators linking back to Mohamed in Mecca.

Was it Mohamed who created the science of the "chains of narrators"? Was it the Koran or Allah? The chain of narrators is a very convenient excuse to want to use in justifying the unreliable.

Were all these chain of narrators INSPIRED by Allah?
You seem to be avoiding obvious questions.

Do they need to be inspired to do this because I don't understand. They were Arab speakers tasked with teaching non Arab speaking nations. Because their name is linked with teaching the Qirrat does not mean they were the only ones who know or can teach it (here is an example of the situation above). If they make error or teach the wrong definitely they would have been corrected by others and I don't think there was any record of disagreement. Was it not uthman that sent readers along with copies of the Quran of which they also have students so which inspiration do you need for that. That was just fact because the Qiraat was not revealed to them but the prophet he was the first to teach it so he is the only one considered to be inspired.

Unless you want to prove they were inspired..

haekymbahdx:
Both are permissible and it still won't change the context... They do not have exactly same meaning but can be used interchangeably. I have given you example of this already. The Quran was revealed not in one dialect don't you get

Do they need to be inspired to do this because I don't understand. They were Arab speakers tasked with teaching non Arab speaking nations. Because their name is linked with teaching the Qirrat does not mean they were the only ones who know or can teach it (here is an example of the situation above). If they make error or teach the wrong definitely they would have been corrected by others and I don't think there was any record of disagreement. Was it not uthman that sent readers along with copies of the Quran of which they also have students so which inspiration do you need for that. That was just fact because the Qiraat was not revealed to them but the prophet he was the first to teach it so he is the only one considered to be inspired.

Unless you want to prove they were inspired..

1. Thanks for admitting that the two words are not the same meaning.
That means that you have two Korans giving two different messages that can be read and applied differently.

2. If Allah did not commission them the implications are far reaching. It would mean then that we cannot trust their word: they were acting on their own. That would mean also that their word may be to serve their personal or sectional interests. If there is no INSPIRATION then the authenticity of a thousand long chain of narrators or transmitters is questionable.
On the other hand, if they were INSPIRED by Allah, it means that Allah had other messengers after Mohamed, in which case he was not the last messenger of Allah.

Did people not accuse Uthman of not including some things in his Koran compilation? Did that stop him?
There were records of disagreements.

Individuals who were said to be unreliable have their Hadiths in Bukhari's Sahih hadith. Hafs, who was said to be a liar and so on, is the one whose Koran Moslems widely read today.

You guys just are fed with a lot of things to confuse you and it is NOT UNTIL you sit down and CAREFULLY look into issue that you can see your religion for what it truly is.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
1. Thanks for admitting that the two words are not the same meaning.
That means that you have two Korans giving two different messages that can be read and applied differently.

what has happened to your hears the Quran was revealed in 7 dialect simple.

On the weekend and At the weekend do they mean the same thing but can be used interchangeably and it won't change the context. They are both correct one is American and the other is British English.

They cannot give different message. If you get a different message that is as a result of your bad translation. You can compare Arabic with other language A particular word in Arabic can mean different things..

This is what the call corruption you might want to defend it o try if you can


Word “Begotten” is a corruption [an addition] (RSV 32 Christians Scholars) & Word “Son” is Corruption [fabricated from Choose] (NIV Christian Scholars) and Trinity 1 John 5:6-7 is a Corruption (RSV 32 Christians Scholars)

Lets see
John 3:16 Begotten Son in King James Version is a Corruption and Word begotten has been removed by revised standards versions 32 Christians scholars backed uo by 50 Christians denominations of highest imminent
This confirms the corruption into bible because here is a link to read RSV Bible Preface Yourself and have a look what your own scholars says about King James Version:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/rsvpreface.html

If you do not have time to visit above link then here is a brief sample of RSV scholars: they Say...........
Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth 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........

John 3:16 the word "begotton" jesus was a "begotton son" of God has been removed by Christians themselves from the bible in RSV bible. According to 32 Christians scholars of the highest eminence, backed by 50 different Christian co-operating denominations said this begotten word in john 3:16 (dictionary mean-act of low level of animal sex) is fabrication, human made addition, misinterpretation, and it is wrong and by those Christian they removed this word begotten from revised standard version of bible (RSV).

Trinity has been thrown out of bible too
The verse of the Bible, 1st Epistle of John, Chapter 5, Verse No. 7, is the closest resemblance to ‘trinity’ in the full Bible. But if you read the ‘Revised Standard Version’, which has been revised by 32 Christians scholars of the highest eminence, backed by 50 different Christian co-operating denominations – they have removed this verse from the Bible as an interpolation, as a concoction, as a fabrication. It was not removed by Muslims or non-Christian scholars – but it was removed by 32 Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by 50 different co-operative denominations as an interpolation, as a concoction, as a fabrication, because it was not there in original manuscripts.

sagenaija:

2. If Allah did not commission them the implications are far reaching. It would mean then that we cannot trust their word: they were acting on their own. That would mean also that their word may be to serve their personal or sectional interests. If there is no INSPIRATION then the authenticity of a thousand long chain of narrators or transmitters is questionable.
On the other hand, if they were INSPIRED by Allah, it means that Allah had other messengers after Mohamed, in which case he was not the last messenger of Allah.

Did people not accuse Uthman of not including some things in his Koran compilation? Did that stop him?
There were records of disagreements.

Individuals who were said to be unreliable have their Hadiths in Bukhari's Sahih hadith. Hafs, who was said to be a liar and so on, is the one whose Koran Moslems widely read today.

You guys just are fed with a lot of things to confuse you and it is NOT UNTIL you sit down and CAREFULLY look into issue that you can see your religion for what it truly is.

The Quran was revealed in Arabic how do you expect Non Arabic speaking nations learn Arabic and science of the Quran if not through Arabic speakers does that require inspiration moreover the Arab world knew the Quran if non Arab nations are reciting it wrongly they would have corrected them. There was no disagreement over content of the Uthmanic codex.


Imām al-Nawawī (d. 676 AH) writes (quoting al-Māzirī (d. 536 AH)):

As for Ibn Masʿūd then much has been narrated from him including that which is not reliably established according to the people of transmission. And that which is established which differs from what we say (i.e., recite in our muṣḥaf), then it is interpreted to mean that he wrote in his muṣḥaf some rulings and tafsīr which he believed to not be Qur’an, and he did not believe that to be impermissible as he saw it as a parchment upon which to write what he willed. While ʿUthmān and the community deemed that to be prohibited lest with the passage of time it be assumed to be Qur’an. al-Māzirī said: So the disagreement goes back to a jurisprudential matter (masʾalah fiqhīyah) and that is whether it is allowed to include commentary interspersed in the muṣḥaf. al-Nawawī, al-Minhāj sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim bin al-Ḥajjāj (Cairo: Mu’assasat Qurtubah, 1994), 6:157.

haekymbahd:
what has happened to your hears the Quran was revealed in 7 dialect simple.

On the weekend and At the weekend do they mean the same thing but can be used interchangeably and it won't change the context. They are both correct one is American and the other is British English.

They cannot give different message. If you get a different message that is as a result of your bad translation. You can compare Arabic with other language A particular word in Arabic can mean different things..

This is what the call corruption you might want to defend it o try if you can


Word “Begotten” is a corruption [an addition] (RSV 32 Christians Scholars) & Word “Son” is Corruption [fabricated from Choose] (NIV Christian Scholars) and Trinity 1 John 5:6-7 is a Corruption (RSV 32 Christians Scholars)

Lets see
John 3:16 Begotten Son in King James Version is a Corruption and Word begotten has been removed by revised standards versions 32 Christians scholars backed uo by 50 Christians denominations of highest imminent
This confirms the corruption into bible because here is a link to read RSV Bible Preface Yourself and have a look what your own scholars says about King James Version:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/rsvpreface.html

If you do not have time to visit above link then here is a brief sample of RSV scholars: they Say...........
Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth 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........

John 3:16 the word "begotton" jesus was a "begotton son" of God has been removed by Christians themselves from the bible in RSV bible. According to 32 Christians scholars of the highest eminence, backed by 50 different Christian co-operating denominations said this begotten word in john 3:16 (dictionary mean-act of low level of animal sex) is fabrication, human made addition, misinterpretation, and it is wrong and by those Christian they removed this word begotten from revised standard version of bible (RSV).

Trinity has been thrown out of bible too
The verse of the Bible, 1st Epistle of John, Chapter 5, Verse No. 7, is the closest resemblance to ‘trinity’ in the full Bible. But if you read the ‘Revised Standard Version’, which has been revised by 32 Christians scholars of the highest eminence, backed by 50 different Christian co-operating denominations – they have removed this verse from the Bible as an interpolation, as a concoction, as a fabrication. It was not removed by Muslims or non-Christian scholars – but it was removed by 32 Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by 50 different co-operative denominations as an interpolation, as a concoction, as a fabrication, because it was not there in original manuscripts.

The Quran was revealed in Arabic how do you expect Non Arabic speaking nations learn Arabic and science of the Quran if not through Arabic speakers does that require inspiration moreover the Arab world knew the Quran if non Arab nations are reciting it wrongly they would have corrected them. There was no disagreement over content of the Uthmanic codex.


Imām al-Nawawī (d. 676 AH) writes (quoting al-Māzirī (d. 536 AH)):

As for Ibn Masʿūd then much has been narrated from him including that which is not reliably established according to the people of transmission. And that which is established which differs from what we say (i.e., recite in our muṣḥaf), then it is interpreted to mean that he wrote in his muṣḥaf some rulings and tafsīr which he believed to not be Qur’an, and he did not believe that to be impermissible as he saw it as a parchment upon which to write what he willed. While ʿUthmān and the community deemed that to be prohibited lest with the passage of time it be assumed to be Qur’an. al-Māzirī said: So the disagreement goes back to a jurisprudential matter (masʾalah fiqhīyah) and that is whether it is allowed to include commentary interspersed in the muṣḥaf. al-Nawawī, al-Minhāj sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim bin al-Ḥajjāj (Cairo: Mu’assasat Qurtubah, 1994), 6:157.

1. The words 'At' and 'On' are what in grammar are called PREPOSITIONS. You may look at the meaning if you care.

The word 'TEACH' or 'KNOW' are not prepositions and can't be used in the same way.

Like it was stated in the screenshot the OP pasted: "Many people can KNOW a book, but are not capable of TEACHING it."

So, the two words convey different meanings.

There's actually no need for you to argue this. There are thousands more differences between the over 30 versions of the Koran. The screenshots the OP pasted gave only 3 from between Hafs and Warsh versions alone. You may choose to accept that these are differences or you may decide to blindly deny it.

Why would Arabic speaking translators not know what you trying hard to make us believe here and translate the words differently? Don't the translators know the 7 dialects and there words?

Why not show us the Arabic for the two words (not English or Yoruba) and show us how the Arabic grammar states that the two words are the same or can be used interchangeably?

Btw, the versions of the Bible you are bringing up are not the original Greek. In this case we are talking about the original Arabic. So, go back to my second question above.

2. There is no Uthmanic codex today! Why did Uthman burn all the other Korans? Why didn't he adopt Ali's text? Since copies of earlier Koran were burnt by Uthman what we can say is that what Islam had was what Uthman wanted to have as the Koran.


Mohamed gave the Koran BUT he did not write it.

Read the portion you quoted again. It supports my position. Those men, writing five to six hundred years after Mohamed died, knew that there were the issues of unreliability, texts that differ, etc.

Because Mohamed did not write the Koran, if those who wrote it (and the Hadiths) were INSPIRED by Allah, it means that Allah had other messengers after Mohamed, in which case he was not the last messenger of Allah.

If there is no INSPIRATION then the authenticity of a thousand long chain of narrators or transmitters is questionable.