₦airaland Forum

mubarakopeyemi:
I am not agreeing with u Mr.
I think you're having grammatical problem.
I only just have to leave you alone since you're not objective.

folafola:
IF THERE ARE ANY OF SUCH CONTRADICTIONS IN YOUR NOBLE QURAN THEN IT SPEAK VOLUME THAT IT WAS NOTHING BUT A CONJECUTRE PERIOD

mubarakopeyemi:
Which brings us to the conclusion that the Bible is the worst conjecture ever and you can not defend it, what you rather did was to go against the Quran.

All the things you posted about the Quran are not contradictions, you just don't know how to comprehend the noble book.

And I don't need to start explaining how it all goes simply because you're not objective in your arguments. so why should I bother.
Thanks for agreeing that the Bible is scam.

Salam.

folafola:
worse conjecture indeed but your quran testified about it and thanks again for showing your quran is in error

mubarakopeyemi:
What the Quran Testified was the Injeel (Gospel) of Iesa (Jesus)
Iesa is indeed a prophet of Islam
not your bible of today which is not other like figures. Addition and Subtraction.

But wait, talk talk no dey tire you

folafola:
READ WHAT YOUR NNOBLE QURAN SAID ABOUT THE BOOK

(Fatir) 35:31, Early Meccan.

"That which we have revealed to you of the Book is the truth, attesting to (the truth of) that which IS between his (its) hands (the Torah and Gospel)..."

Jonah (Yunus) 10:37, Late Meccan.

"This Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than God; but it is a verification of that (the Torah and Gospel) which IS between his (its) hands, and the explanation of the book, wherein there IS no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds."

Joseph (Yusuf) 12:111, Late Meccan.

"...It (the Qur'an) is not a fabricated story, but a verification of that (the Torah and Gospel) which IS between his (its) hands, a detailed explanation, a guide and a mercy to the people who believe."

The Cattle (Al-An`am) 6:154-157, Late Meccan.

"Then We gave Moses the Book complete as to whatever is excellent, and explaining all things in detail, and a guide and a mercy, that they might believe in the meeting with their Lord. And this (the Qur'an) is a Book which We have revealed, blessed: so follow it and be righteous, that you may receive mercy: lest you should say, `The Book was sent down to two peoples before us, and for our part, we remained unacquainted with all that they learned by assiduous study;' or lest you should say: `If the Book (Torah and Gospel) had only been sent down to us, we should have followed its guidance better than they.'"

The Believer (Al-Mu'min) 40:69-70, Late Meccan.

"Do you (Muhammad) not see those who dispute concerning the signs of God? How are they turned away? Those who REJECT the Book, and that (book) with which We sent our apostles, they shall know when the collars shall be around their necks, and the chains, they shall be dragged along."


WHO IS LYING HERE? from the above quotes from quran quran was nothing but a confirmation of the book where did you see prophet? just proof it

mubarakopeyemi:
What the Quran Testified was the Injeel (Gospel) of Iesa (Jesus)
Iesa is indeed a prophet of Islam
not your bible of today which is not other like figures. Addition and Subtraction.
But wait, talk talk no dey tire you

mubarakopeyemi:
This once again has shown how unobjective you are. Lol
thanks for bringing me more facts attesting to what I said ealier.



Be objective first, then we can sort things.
I never disputed that the Quran didn't testify the Gospel of Jesus and the Book of Moses

Look at what I said better and stop complicating issues.
Calm down guy. Be objective naa

folafola:
muslims were so trainned to shy away from fact initially you said i lied but now you said indeed quran testified about injeel and torah then we need to ask which torah and which injeel? the one you claimed it was corrupted or which one?

mubarakopeyemi:
What the Quran Testified was the Injeel (Gospel) of Iesa (Jesus)
Iesa is indeed a prophet of Islam
not your bible of today which is not other like figures. Addition and Subtraction.
But wait, talk talk no dey tire you

mubarakopeyemi:
Delusion is affecting your brain oo

show me in the forum when I denied that the Quran didn't testify the Injeel (Gospel)

I only said the Quran didn't testify your bible which is no other like a figure. Addition and Subtraction.

WHAT THE QURAN TESTIFIED IS THE (INJEEL) GOSPEL and TORAH
Not your bible of today that has been tampered it

Are you blind or you didn't see it when I said it.
Or that you Just argue blindly and unobjectively

folafola:
if your quoran testified about the injeel then why do you people clsimed the injeel is corrupt? ot maybe you are asying the bible we have now is not the injeel okay show us the injeel quran testied about that is is the truth.

mubarakopeyemi:
Allah Almighty Commanded all Muslims in the Glorious Quran:

"Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: For thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance. (The Noble Quran, 16:125)"

So now I can talk to you well now that you're allowing an objective discussion

Firstly, the Bible is a scripture and many Muslims erroneously consider the Qur'an to be a scripture. In the Qur'an, Allah describes the Qur'an as "Al-Kitab", meaning "the Book", which is the right name for it. The Bible is called a scripture and if asked about the authorship, Christians tell you that there were forty-some persons, rarely a prophet or a messenger among them, who wrote the Bible under divine inspiration. The concept of divine inspiration is an assumption without verification. Whereas, the Qur'an was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad Sall-Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam (henceforth denoted as S) who dictated to his scribes, the most honorable companions. In the sense of authorship the Bible is a scripture whereas the Qur'an is not a scripture but a revealed book.

The Qur'an talks about the TAURAT, ZUBOOR and INJEEL which were the books revealed by Allah to the Prophets Musa, Dawood and 'Isa 'alaihumus-salaam, respectively, which are not the same books as the Bible. Due to the similarity of some contents of TAURAT, ZUBOOR and INJEEL, some people equate them with the Torah and Psalms of David and the Gospels respectively, which is an error. This has given an excuse to the Christian missionaries to present the Bible in the native languages of the Muslim countries as the TAURAT, ZUBOOR and INJEEL of the QUR'AN and confuse and confound naive Muslims. The revealed Taurat, Zuboor and Injeel were revealed books which are extinct, whereas, the Bible may contain some parts of Taurat, Zuboor and Injeel in modern-day language translation in corrupt form. A translation of a revealed book cannot be the word of God because in the process of translation the word of God is transformed into the word of man. In the language of revelation (Arabic or Aramaic or Hebrew) only one manuscript or codex could be the word of God, whereas, there can be an infinite number of translations by man. It is, therefore, agreed by Muslim scholars that any translation of the Qur'an is not the word of God and does not qualify to be called the Qur'an. Non-Arabic speaking people should be able to benefit from translations but no one should depend upon a single translation because no translation is free of errors. A translation represents the understanding or lack of it by the translator himself. If any one desires to become a scholar of the Qur'an there is no choice but to learn the Arabic language of the Qur'an and gain expertise in it.

One of the major sources of corruption of the Bible is translation and translations of translations. With regards to the Gospels of the Christians, there is no record of even writing down any document when Jesus received revelations. It is believed by the Christians that the first records of the teachings of Jesus (A) and his life were made decades after his disappearance and it was in the Greek language. The earliest manuscript available is from the fourth century after Jesus. In the case of the Old Testament, it was written in Hebrew and its dialects, but was destroyed at least twice by the enemies of Judaism in ancient times without leaving a single copy and was rewritten from memory, one of the sources of corruption. The Qur'an was recorded in writing as well as in the memory of many people in the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad (S) and was compiled in book form according to his directions by his companions shortly after his death. It is, therefore, suggested that Muslims should not apply the term "scripture" to the Qur'an. "Al-Kitab", when used in the Qur'an, should be translated simply as "the Book".

the Bible is not and was never of the origins of the Words of Allah Almighty. The Torah was sent to Moses, peace be upon him, and the Injeel (Gospel, Glad Tidings, Good News) was sent to Jesus, peace be upon him, and not to the disciples, nor to deceivers who never even met Jesus in person such as Paul.

The reason why the "gospels" of the bible are named as such today is because they were named after the original Revelations that Jesus had. So in other words, the real Gospel is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Everything else is a fabrication on the mouths of Jesus and his disciples. There is no such thing, in Islam, called "gospel of Matthew", "gospel of John", etc... Now whether or not there is actually a gospel out there with the name "The Gospel of Jesus", in the scriptures outside the bible, that is something I don't know, and certainly, even if it does, we still couldn't be sure that it too didn't get corrupt. The original teachings are simply lost from this earth. Only the Glorious Quran is the original Word of Allah Almighty. Nothing else stands. All of the other books contain corruptions and lies in them. That is why Allah Almighty Said:

"We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly Guard it (from corruption). (The Noble Quran, 15:9)"

"It is upon Us to collect and compile it (i.e., the Quran) and to promulgate it: (The Noble Quran, 75:17)"

Allah Almighty also Said in the Glorious Quran:

"Know they not Allah Knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal? And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: 'This is from Allah,' To traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby. (The Noble Quran, 2:77-79)"

Please visit the following articles for ample more details:

Islam declares that the Bible is corrupt and full of falsehood.

Just who were the authors of the Bible? This article proves that the Bible's books and gospels were:
Written by mysterious men.
Written by an unknown number of men.
Written in unknown places.
Written in unknown dates.
Contain "fables", "fair tales", "fictions", and the original manuscripts had been lost forever.

aletheia:
KJV. . .preferred. Used to read the NIV until I read the preface and realized the subtlety of it's translators in watering down the true meaning of certain key bible verses.

@Jesoul: The Message is a terrible (in more sense than one) translation.

aletheia:
It is no surprise that the NIV is what it is. . .it's source is the Vatican via the corrupted catholic Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.

aletheia:
Another cut-and-paste job. Firstly to dispel your insinuation that one is a KJV-only proponent. I am not. Secondly, you are only reiterating what I wrote using albeit a different form of words and from your anti-KJV bias.

For clarity, I reiterate, the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, while your preferred translations are based on the Westcort-Hott text which is a compilation of Roman Catholic texts (what irony for frosbel the crusading anti-RCC). Or don't you understand what Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus imply?

And your last sentence is untrue: the sources of the Textus Receptus are as old, if not older than the sources used by the NIV and NASB.

Now we come to the acid tests which we will apply to your preferred translations:
A. The omission of Acts 8:37
New International Version - omits Acts 8:37
New Living Translation - omits Acts 8:37
English Standard Version - omits Acts 8:37
New American Standard Bible - sort of omits Acts 8:37
International Standard Version - omits Acts 8:37
GOD'S WORD Translation - omits Acts 8:37
American Standard Version - keeps Acts 8:37

Acts 8:36-38
And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

Of course we see just how bereft the verses are when verse 37 is taken out. The message is lost!

B. The omission of the words "through His blood" in Col 1:14.
New International Version - in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
New Living Translation - who purchased our freedom and forgave our sins.
English Standard Version - in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
New American Standard Bible - in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
International Standard Version - through whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
GOD'S WORD Translation - His Son paid the price to free us, which means that our sins are forgiven.
American Standard Version - in whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins:

Col 1:14
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

That we are redeemed through his blood is central to the bible's message from Genesis to Revelation (but of course views such as yours demand that his blood was not necessary for atonement, so I won't be surprised if in time you open threads saying so).

Any version of the Bible which omits Acts 8:37, or "through His blood," in Col. 1:14, evidently has for its foundation a corrupted manuscript. This corruption can be traced to Origen in 200 A.D. He is supposed to have corrected numerous portions of the sacred manuscripts. However evidence to the contrary shows that he changed them to agree with his own human philosophy of mystical and allegorical ideas. Thus certain so-called original MSS. are corrupt and it is evidently from this source the translations you are fond of have come. Origen taught the "LOGOS" is "KTISMA," meaning the Lord Jesus Christ is a created being (evidently you and he are in concord on this). Thus, he could easily omit Acts 8:37 and other texts which testify to Christ's deity. . .and it is therefore not surprising that you gravitate to translations that affirm your own views rather than translations that remain faithful to the original Greek MSS.

Here is the history of your Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. . .your supposed earliest MSS.
1. 331 A.D. Constantine ordered that an "ecumenical Bible" be written that would be acceptable to every stripe of Christian that was under his jurisdiction. A man by the name of Eusebius was assigned to direct this undertaking. Eusebius was a follower of Origen who rejected the deity of Christ.

2. 1481 A.D. The Vatican manuscript was discovered in the Vatican Library. This is a corrupted manuscript which repeatedly casts aside the deity of Christ. It reflects the Arianism of Origen and is thought by some to be one of the surviving manuscripts done be Eusebius at the command of Constantine. The date of its writing coincides with the "ecumenical Bible" of Constantine.

3. 1844 A.D. The Sinaitic manuscript was discovered at Mt. Sinai in the monastery of Saint Catherine. It agrees closely with the Vatican manuscript and minimises the deity of Christ and is Arian in nature. It is safe to suggest that these two manuscripts were two of the fifty that were written for Constantine.

aletheia:
^^^I visited the link above but unfortunately, the author circles around the matter without quite addressing it, making emotional arguments as to why the NIV is an okay translation. He talks about words being missing but ignores the question of what words are missing from the NIV. . .and that is important. Remember: "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."?

I used to use the NIV until I was dismayed to read this in its preface: "Because for most readers today the phrase "the Lord of hosts" and "God of hosts" have little meaning, this version renders them "the Lord Almighty" and "God Almighty." These renderings convey the sense of the Hebrew, namely, "he who is sovereign over all the 'hosts' (powers) in heaven and on earth, especially over the 'hosts' (armies) of Israel." For readers unacquainted with Hebrew this does not make clear the distinction between Sabaoth ("hosts" or "Almighty" and Shaddai (which can also be translated "Almighty", but the latter occurs infrequently and is always footnoted. When Adonai and YHWH Sabaoth occur together, they are rendered "the Lord, the Lord Almighty."

This set me to wondering: If the translators treated the substituted the Name of the Lord in this way; were there other substitutions they were silent about? This led me to search more about the NIV.

In fact the preface of the NIV answers that question; sad that I used it for so may years without having read it.  Here are some red flag phrases from its preface.

. . .the meaning of the writers of the Bible demands frequent modifications in sentence structures and constant regard for the contextual meaning of words.

. . .Sometimes vowel letters and vowel signs did not, in the judgment of the translators, represent the correct vowels for the original consonantal text. Accordingly some words were read with a different set of vowels. These instances are usually not indicated by footnotes.

Here some reasons why we should be cautious in using the NIV:

1. Whereas the King James Bible mentions the "Godhead" three times, the NIV has completely removed the word.
2. You won't find the word "propitiation" in the NIV either. In fact, all of the following words have been removed from the Bible by the NIV translators: regeneration, mercyseat, Calvary, remission, Jehovah, immutable, omnipotent, Comforter, Holy Ghost, Messiah, quickened, infallible. One of the most blasphemous omissions in the NIV is in John 3:16 where Jesus is no longer proclaimed as the "only BEGOTTEN Son of God."

This last omission is the door through which the WoF crowd like Joagbaje drive their doctrine of Jesus being just another born-again man through.

The NIV translators removed 64,576 words as compared to the King James Bible! Words are very important! God put “every Word” there for a reason, i.e., so we could live by them! As, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”

3. Modern Bibles are corrupt and; therefore, produce corrupt teachings (another example is the Message translation). Just the fact that the NIV translators completely removed the critically important Word, “GODHEAD” from Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9 is reason enough to put it aside!

4. The word "sodomite" is completely gone, as is the words: fornication, trucebreakers, winebibbers, carnal, slothful, unthankful, effeminate, backbiting, vanity, lasciviousness, whoredom, devils, Lucifer, damnation, brimstone, and the bottomless pit.

Consider this very telling omission of the NIV. Compare these two translations:

Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.(NIV)

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.(KJV)

Do you notice how great a change in meaning is effected by the NIV's translation? The Deity of Jesus  is denied! God is changed to a mere he. And yet in the original Greek manuscript the word there is "God." What possible technical reason pertaining to translation did the NIV translators have to substitute "he" fpr God?

There are many more reasons but these are just a few. I pray that as you search you will uncover the rest of the reasons as to why the NIV is an appalling translation that often leads to error.

P.S. Please Google "Dr. Marten Woudstra"

safarigirl:
Even the King James Version people say is the original, is incomplete. If you have access to the Biblical documents which the Vatican has, KJV will look doctored to you as well.

The Bible was translated by a man, so of course he'll put what he wants you to see. Was KJV not written by a man? He probably omitted stuff as well

MEILYN:
I have been debating with an unreasonable person all this while. You never quoted a verse but you believe you are right and the Bible is wrong. I never argue with your likes. We are talking about Bible happenings and you are here saying nonsense. Mohammed couldn't have been a prophet because he is not from Israel. As far as the Bible is concerned, the Israelites were the only ones blessed with the gift of prophecy. I am talking about the Bible here and not what you think. Was it not the Israelites that taught you this Bible you have today? Think again son. The only prophet who wasn't an Israelite was mohammed. I wonder how your brain can cope with that....

Nuella222:
!maraH okoB