₦airaland Forum

JimRohn:
Your entire reply rests on a foundation of shallow linguistic pedantry, selective hadith quoting, and a gross misreading of Islamic history, text transmission, and scholarly consensus. Let’s dissect your arguments clearly and expose the fatal flaws beneath your conclusions.

1. The Meaning of "Collected" (جُمِعَ)

You continue to obsess over the English word “collected” while completely ignoring Arabic semantics and context. In Sahih al-Bukhari 3810, the Arabic term جُمِعَ (jumiʿa) simply denotes memorization and recitation, as affirmed by virtually all major mufassirūn and muḥaddithūn — not the production of a finalized, official muṣḥaf (codex). This hadith does not claim that a fully bound, officially compiled, and universally verified Qur'an existed in book form during the Prophet’s ﷺ life. The companions memorized the Qur’an and wrote it on various materials under the Prophet’s supervision — but a state-issued muṣḥaf was not completed until after his death due to the ongoing nature of revelation.

Your forced interpretation is a textbook case of anachronism — importing modern concepts of “book publishing” into a 7th-century Arabian oral culture. You either do not understand the difference between ḥifẓ (memorization) and tadwīn (formal codification) or you are deliberately conflating them to create a false contradiction.

2. Did the Prophet ﷺ Oversee a Complete Rearrangement?

Yes, the Prophet ﷺ oversaw the order of verses and chapters, and he instructed scribes where to place revealed ayat — but he did not bind the Qur’an into one official volume. Why?

Because revelation was not complete until shortly before his death (Qur’an 5:3). Binding a complete Qur’an before the end of revelation would have been logically impossible. He could not finalize something that was still being revealed. That task — once revelation was complete — fell to Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه) and then Uthman (رضي الله عنه), who standardized the dialectal readings (Qirāʾāt).

3. On Your Misuse of Bukhari 3810

This hadith simply states that four companions had memorized the Qur’an during the Prophet’s ﷺ life. It does not say they had written, verified, and compiled an official codex. You’re reading more into the hadith than the text allows. Again, the scholars of hadith — not Christian polemicists — determine how these texts are to be understood.

And your inconsistency is glaring: you quote Bukhari 3810 to prove that these four companions had “collected” the Qur’an, then shift to another narration to claim Ibn Mas‘ud was among them, when he isn't even mentioned in that hadith. You’re cherry-picking narrations and collapsing different reports to fit your predetermined conclusion. This is not serious scholarship, it’s agenda-driven distortion.

4. Why Zayd ibn Thabit and Not the Others?

Your entire argument collapses once we apply basic facts:

Zayd ibn Thabit was the Prophet’s personal scribe of revelation. He was young, literate, precise, and known for accuracy.

He was also present during the Prophet’s ﷺ final years, unlike Ibn Mas‘ud who was often on assignment outside Medina.

Abu Bakr’s committee did not exclude the others — the methodology required two written sources and confirmation by memory, not personal preference. Any companion could contribute, as long as the evidence was verified.

You also conveniently ignore the fact that the entire Muslim community, including Ibn Mas‘ud and Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, later accepted Uthman’s standardized mushaf. If your conspiracy theory were true, why didn’t the Sahabah rebel or preserve a separate Qur'an? Simple: because the compilation was accurate and unanimously accepted.

5. Bark, Leaves, and Memories?

Again, you distort context. The Qur’an was preserved in writing, on available materials of the time: leather, bones, parchment. What you mock as "bark and leaves" were standard writing materials then — not signs of primitive error but evidence of rigorous preservation amid limited resources. And most importantly, the primary mode of preservation was oral, with thousands of memorizers ensuring redundancy and verification.

You act as though written records are the only reliable source, despite your own religion relying on oral traditions passed for decades before being written — many of which contain massive contradictions across manuscripts (see the Codex Sinaiticus vs. Vaticanus vs. Alexandrinus). So before you criticize the Islamic tradition, clean up the textual chaos in your own backyard.

6. Your Final “Dilemma” Is a False Dichotomy

> “If the Prophet compiled the Qur’an, where is it? If not, who completed it?”

The Prophet ﷺ did not bind the Qur’an into a single mushaf, because revelation was ongoing. After his death, the companions compiled it using a methodologically sound, verifiable, and peer-reviewed process, drawing from memorization, written fragments, and living witnesses.

There’s no dilemma — only your lack of understanding and forced misrepresentation.

Final Verdict

You’ve exposed not the flaws of the Qur’an’s compilation, but your own ignorance of Islamic scholarship, disregard for historical context, and selective dishonesty in quoting hadiths out of place.

Your claims:

Misdefine Arabic terms.

Ignore historical chronology.

Contradict the consensus of Islamic scholarship.

Rely on Christian-style suspicion and Western skepticism applied retroactively to early Muslim history.

Instead of making sarcastic jabs and mocking what you do not understand, try reading Islamic history through the lens of actual scholars, not polemical websites.

You can bring your “next claim” — just be warned: if it’s built on the same shoddy logic, selective hadith abuse, and historical anachronism, it’ll be dismantled just as easily.

Ready when you are.

FXtrader2025:
You are not trying to Establish any point you dont know what to say, Hypocrisy and double Standards is your Bread and Butter.

Can you tell me any Israel Leader Prio to 1948
Infact can you even point to anywhere on this Earth that bears the name Israel Prio to 1948?
Lets start from there

JimRohn:
Your entire reply is built on linguistic games, misrepresentation of Islamic history, and the assumption that disagreement equals contradiction. I will answer your questions directly and dismantle the faulty logic behind them.

1. On the Definition of “Collected” (جُمِعَ)

a. What historical evidence do you have for your definition?
The Arabic term jamaʿa has multiple contextual meanings: memorization, gathering scattered parts, and bringing together in recitation and writing. The hadith in Bukhari (3810) uses the term in reference to individuals who had memorized the Qur’an, not produced a physical, finalized book. This is confirmed by Imam al-Nawawi, Ibn Hajar, and other classical scholars. You’re retrofitting modern Western assumptions about “books” onto 7th-century Arabia.

JimRohn:
b. Do you deny that memorizers could verify a written copy word-for-word?
No — I affirm it. That’s precisely what happened under Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه): memorizers verified what was written. Your error is assuming that the existence of memorizers means a complete, finalized codex existed in the Prophet’s ﷺ life. It didn’t — because revelation was ongoing until his death.

JimRohn:
2. The Argument About Rearrangement and Compilation

a. Why didn’t Abu Bakr reference a prior codex?
Because no official, finalized, bound codex existed during the Prophet’s ﷺ life. The Prophet oversaw writing and arrangement of verses — not a full, cover-to-cover codex. Abu Bakr’s compilation was the first to centralize scattered parchments and confirm them with multiple ḥuffāẓ after the Prophet’s passing. There was nothing “lost” — the effort was to preserve in one place what was already memorized and partially written.

JimRohn:
b. Why weren’t the Four Ansar mentioned in Abu Bakr’s compilation?
False premise. Zayd ibn Thabit was one of the four you just listed — and he was the lead compiler under Abu Bakr. Your question defeats itself. The other companions were not excluded; rather, the method of compilation relied on both memorization and written sources with verification — not arbitrary inclusion of names for show.

JimRohn:
c. Why recollect if the original collectors were alive?
Because a standardized, official codex had never been assembled. The Prophet’s ﷺ companions preserved the Qur’an in hearts and scattered materials. Abu Bakr ordered its formal compilation after the Prophet’s ﷺ death and major losses at Yamama. This was a necessary preservation step, not an act of “recovery” from loss.

JimRohn:
3. Your Original Questions

a. Was the Qur’an perfectly preserved if the Prophet’s codex was lost?
Strawman. There was no single finalized codex to be lost. Preservation occurred through memorization, scattered writing, and Prophetic supervision of order and recitation — all confirmed in the posthumous compilation. Therefore, nothing was lost.

JimRohn:
b. What happened to the “collected Qur’an” in the Prophet’s life?
You’re inventing something that didn’t exist. The Prophet ﷺ supervised verses, ordering, and recitation — not the binding of a final book. That was never his mission. Final compilation was unnecessary during ongoing revelation.

JimRohn:
c. Do you accept the Qur’an collected by the Prophet was lost?
False assumption again. There was no officially bound, state-sanctioned codex from the Prophet — only partial writings and total memorization. So there was no “book” to lose. Your entire argument crumbles because it’s based on an invented object.

JimRohn:
Final Word

You’ve built your argument on:
Linguistic manipulation of the word jamaʿa,
False assumptions about a "missing book" that never existed,
And complete ignorance of Islamic preservation methodology.
When you're ready to present your "second claim," make sure it doesn't rely on twisting Arabic, injecting fabricated histories, or projecting modern book publishing standards onto 7th-century Arabia.
I await your next claim — but bring evidence, not speculation.

FXtrader2025:
You are a Narcissist for Supporting Ukraine
Dont shift the Goalpost
If Ukraine is a Sovereign Nation and is free to Join NATO and do whatever it likes
Then Iran is a Sovereign Nation that can decide for itself whether to go Nuclear or not
Israel is an Apartheid State that promotes Jewish Supremacy.

Ukraine Can do whatever it likes right then why not Iran?

hamzeiy:
See question.....some pple just mumu sha.

FXtrader2025:
Is a an occupying Force
And the War didn’t start on Oct7 it started in 1948 when there was a Nakba,

Israel Displaced and Massacred the Palestinians from their Homes and moved them into an Open Air Prison in Gaza,

The same as the West Bank, Setller Mobs under the Protection of IOF set Fires to Palestinian Homes and Farms, The War started in 1948 not Oct 7.

The Palestinians Demands Freedom and Dignity they Demand their own Country according to the 1967 borders.

Israel cannot Demand anything as an Occupying Force.

Secondly You are a Narcissist because Ukraine Refused to stick to the Misnk Agreement with Russia
What is your Advice Since Ukraine is hell bent on Joining NATO and hosting its Military Machine right next to Russia’s door?
Yes Ukraine is a sovereign Nation and Russia has no Right to dictate right
Then why is Israel Dictating to Iran what to do?
If Nato is Good for Ukraine then Nuclear Weapons is a sovereign right of the Iranians isnt it?
If you check very well the Joke is on You

FXtrader2025:
Well you are also a narcissist and for supporting Israel killing Unarmed civilians and Bombing Hospitals on a Land smaller than Lagos state

JimRohn:
Your argument rests on a deliberate misrepresentation of Islamic sources, a misunderstanding of what “collection” meant in the historical context, and a false equivalence between oral preservation and the idea of a single “book” existing during the Prophet’s ﷺ lifetime. I will dismantle your claims point by point and challenge you to stop spreading misinformation cloaked in pseudo-scholarship.

1. Misuse of Hadith and Basic Terminological Confusion

You quote Sahih al-Bukhari 3810 and make the laughable leap to say: “The Qur’an was collected as a book in the Prophet’s lifetime and then mysteriously disappeared.”

Let me clarify what every educated Muslim and serious academic knows:

The term “collected” (جمَعَ) in this context refers to memorization and partial writing, not necessarily the compilation of an official single codex (muṣḥaf) like that of Abu Bakr or Uthman.

When Anas says the Qur’an was “collected by four,” it means they memorized it and wrote various parts, not that there was an official, unified physical book kept under lock and key and then “lost.”

If your entire argument hinges on twisting the Arabic term "jamʿa" to mean a bound book existed and then vanished, then you are engaging in pure linguistic dishonesty. Stop feigning textual expertise when you're clearly misrepresenting primary sources.

2. The Qur’an Was Never “Lost” — Stop Fabricating Lies

You ask:

> “If the original Qur’an collected in the Prophet’s time was lost, can we say the Qur’an was perfectly preserved?”

This is a false premise. There was no singular “book” officially compiled by the Prophet ﷺ himself as a final physical codex. Why? Because the revelation was ongoing until his death. How can you finalize a book when new verses were still being revealed?

What did exist during his life was:

Hundreds of ḥuffāẓ (memorizers) who knew the entire Qur’an by heart.

Written fragments under his supervision on parchment, bones, leaves, leather, and more — with scribes like Zayd ibn Thabit writing as he dictated.

Clear instruction from the Prophet ﷺ on the arrangement of verses and surahs.

So no, nothing was “lost.” The compilation under Abu Bakr was the first time the Qur’an was formally assembled into one codex, precisely because the Prophet had just passed away, and the need for a standardized volume became urgent. Uthman’s role was standardization, not recovery.

You are pushing a fabricated narrative that no reputable Islamic scholar or academic historian of early Islam accepts.

3. The Strawman You Construct Is Built on Ignorance

You imply:

> “Because a single book wasn’t carried forward from the Prophet’s time, the Qur’an is lost.”

That is a laughable standard. By that logic:

Can you produce a single book written and bound by Jesus himself?

Can you point to any New Testament manuscript written in Jesus’ time?

Can you prove that Jesus even instructed the writing of a scripture?

You can’t — because your religion is based on oral stories written decades after Jesus by anonymous authors. Meanwhile, the Qur’an is:

Mass-memorized from day one.

Written under prophetic supervision.

Codified within two years of the Prophet’s death.

Transmitted through thousands of parallel oral and manuscript chains with no break.

That’s preservation. Your texts don’t even meet that standard remotely.

4. Stop Spreading Falsehood

You’ve made three glaring errors:

1. Twisting the word “collected” to mean an official final book existed in the Prophet’s life — it didn’t.

2. Ignoring the fact that the entire Qur’an was memorized by hundreds during his lifetime and never lost.

3. Failing to show a single shred of credible evidence that any Qur’anic content was lost.

So here’s my counterchallenge:

Bring me a verifiable historical manuscript or documented oral tradition showing a Qur’anic verse or chapter that existed in the Prophet’s time but is missing today.

Demonstrate, from authentic Islamic sources, that the “book” supposedly compiled in the Prophet’s time was an official codex that was “lost.”

Until then, stop parroting missionary polemics and pretending they are evidence. You are not engaging in sincere inquiry — you are pushing falsehoods rooted in ignorance or willful distortion.

Final Thought:

Islamic scholarship is not threatened by scrutiny — but we do demand intellectual honesty and accurate use of sources. If your arguments require misquoting hadiths, twisting words, and hiding behind strawmen, then perhaps it's time to reflect on the weakness of your position.

I’m ready to continue this discussion — but on truth, not polemical fantasy.

a. If the Original Quran collected during the lifetime of Mohammed was LOST, can we say that the Quran was perfectly preserved?
Answer:
If the original quran collected during the lifetime of the prophet was lost, then there would be a problem to claim preservation BUT the Quran o Prophet Mohammed was NEVER lost because.......

b. Can you tell us what happened to this Quran collected in the Lifetime of Prophet Mohammed?
Answer:
The Quran of prophet Mohammed was with Aisha, evidence stated that it was under the bed of the prophet when he died.

c. Do you accept that this original Quran collected by Mohammed was lost?
Answer:
No, I do not accept that he original Quran collected by Mohammed is lost.

Your claim is that
1. The Qur’an as we have it today is textually identical in its wording to the Qur’an recited and taught by Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, letter for letter, word for word — preserved through mass memorization (ṭawātur) and manuscript transmission without alteration in core text since the time of revelation.”

2. This preservation is unique among religious texts — not only through manuscripts, but through a living oral tradition that has continued unbroken to this day, with millions of memorizers (ḥuffāẓ) around the world.

Collection of the Qur'an is about preserving a standardized, written compilation in one volume

JimRohn:
Thank you for your questions. I welcome the opportunity to clarify the Islamic position on the Qur’an’s preservation. I will respond to your three questions in order, and then we can proceed to a substantive and respectful discussion based on evidence — not presumption or assumptions of denial.

1. What does it mean that “the Qur’an was collected” during the time of Abu Bakr and Uthman?

This question reflects a common misunderstanding, so I’m glad to clarify.

The Qur’an was fully revealed to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ over 23 years, and it was:

Memorized by hundreds of companions verbatim (they are known as ḥuffāẓ),

Written down during his lifetime on various materials (parchment, bones, leather, etc.).

The “collection” under Abu Bakr (rA) after the Prophet’s death was not about recovering a lost book — it was about preserving a standardized, written compilation in one volume, due to the deaths of many memorizers in battle.

Under Uthman (rA), the Qur’an was standardized in script, to prevent dialectal disputes among newly converted regions. Again, this was not to reconstruct a lost text — but to unify pronunciation and script in line with the Prophet’s own recitation (Qurayshi dialect), which was the primary recitation he taught.

Thus, collection did not mean invention, nor did it involve editing, adding, or guessing. It was a preservation process, not a creative or reformative one. Multiple memorizers verified the compilation word-for-word.

JimRohn:
2. How would I phrase my claim about the preservation of the Qur’an?

Here is the precise claim I stand by:

> “The Qur’an as we have it today is textually identical in its wording to the Qur’an recited and taught by Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, letter for letter, word for word — preserved through mass memorization (ṭawātur) and manuscript transmission without alteration in core text since the time of revelation.”

This preservation is unique among religious texts — not only through manuscripts, but through a living oral tradition that has continued unbroken to this day, with millions of memorizers (ḥuffāẓ) around the world.

I am open to discussing manuscript history, dialectal readings (qirāʾāt), and any reasonable academic challenges — but the mainstream Islamic claim is as stated above.

JimRohn:
3. What if you present convincing evidence that the Qur’an is not perfectly preserved?

If you can present genuinely convincing, verifiable evidence — not assumptions or isolated polemical claims — that the Qur’an we have today differs in content (not script or dialect) from what was revealed to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, then it would certainly require serious reflection.

However, centuries of hostile scrutiny — from Orientalists, missionaries, and revisionist academics — have failed to demonstrate that any such corruption has occurred in the core Qur’anic text. The Qur’an’s preservation is a matter of historical record and continuous recitation, not just manuscript comparison.

I ask only that your evidence meet the standards of:

Academic credibility,

Authentic sources,

Relevance to the actual Islamic claim (not a strawman),

Distinction between orthographic differences and textual corruption.

JimRohn:
Final Thought:
While we differ in theology, I trust we can engage in this discussion with intellectual honesty. If the Qur’an’s preservation is falsifiable in theory, it is only fair that the Bible’s preservation be held to the same standards — in both text and transmission.

I look forward to reviewing your evidence and engaging further.

advanceDNA:
See...this topic u opened is central to their religion. because they don't really have no gospel that drives their conviction...so it is like what makes think that their religion or Quran is authenticity ...
And that's because the Quran is designed with the premise of the bible and Torah in mind deliberately aimed at claiming superiority and distinction

Their Quran conveniently tackles the Christian faith citing that their Allah does not have a child.....this is done with the known premise of biblical accounts of Jesus as the son of God...

Also, with the premise of the bible and Torah's multiple authors, it conveniently claims authenticity and preservation by claiming an angel gave it as a whole to an illiterate to write as opposed to the bible or Torah with many authors...

This is why an average Mvslim's first aim is to discredit the Christian faith because it is what fuels their faith that their religion is the authentic one.... Without it, they have no religion..... Don't waste ur time

JimRohn:
To the one who dodges clear contradictions with philosophical gymnastics,

You can twist words, invent analogies, and create imaginary metaphysical categories all you like — but you will not escape the fatal blow that reality deals to your theology:

JimRohn:
Your emotional outburst and ad hominem tantrum only confirm what’s been clear from the start: when reason fails, you resort to insult. You’ve abandoned rational argument and now accuse me of "willful ignorance" while dodging every logical challenge I’ve placed before you.

JimRohn:
Let me respond in kind—without theatrics, just truth.
1. You Still Don’t Understand What a Contradiction Is
You shouted:
> “A soul can be immortal AND a body can be mortal.”
And I already agreed—because they are two different components of one being. There’s no contradiction in Moses having a mortal body and an immortal soul—because those are distinct parts.

JimRohn:
Now compare that to your doctrine:
You claim Jesus is one person—not two.
And this one person is:
Fully God (eternal, omniscient, untemptable)
Fully man (mortal, ignorant, tempted)

That’s not two components with different roles. That’s one subject with contradictory attributes. And unlike body and soul, divinity and humanity are metaphysically exclusive.

JimRohn:
You still haven’t answered:
> When Jesus hungered, did God hunger?
> When Jesus said, “I don’t know the Hour,” did God not know?
> When Jesus died, did God die?
You dodge. You spin. You name-call. But you don’t answer—because the only options are:
1. The divine lost divine attributes (so no longer God)
2. The human was just an illusion (so no real incarnation)
3. You affirm contradictions (so logic is dead)

JimRohn:
Your emotional outburst and ad hominem tantrum only confirm what’s been clear from the start: when reason fails, you resort to insult. You’ve abandoned rational argument and now accuse me of "willful ignorance" while dodging every logical challenge I’ve placed before you.

JimRohn:
Let me respond in kind—without theatrics, just truth.
1. You Still Don’t Understand What a Contradiction Is
You shouted:
> “A soul can be immortal AND a body can be mortal.”
And I already agreed—because they are two different components of one being. There’s no contradiction in Moses having a mortal body and an immortal soul—because those are distinct parts.

JimRohn:
Now compare that to your doctrine:
You claim Jesus is one person—not two.
And this one person is:
Fully God (eternal, omniscient, untemptable)
Fully man (mortal, ignorant, tempted)

That’s not two components with different roles. That’s one subject with contradictory attributes. And unlike body and soul, divinity and humanity are metaphysically exclusive.

JimRohn:
You still haven’t answered:
> When Jesus hungered, did God hunger?
> When Jesus said, “I don’t know the Hour,” did God not know?
> When Jesus died, did God die?
You dodge. You spin. You name-call. But you don’t answer—because the only options are:
1. The divine lost divine attributes (so no longer God)
2. The human was just an illusion (so no real incarnation)
3. You affirm contradictions (so logic is dead)

Bigsam99:
Ukraine should collect their 6,000 bodies of fallen soldiers from Russia and pay proper compensation to their families instead of doing one eye spider Web that will not save their 5 blasts in Russia hands. I heard Russia has now started attacking Sumy and Dnipro making it 6. Whilst Ukraine is busy grabbing headlines with spider attacks, Russia is silently winning the real war.

Is it true that Russia has 40,000 more bodies of Ukrainian soldiers?

WriterrNg:
So you mean Russia has only 500k troops left and is still occupying those territories?

Because Russia total number of active duty troops is 1.5 million.

Dvdpity:
Stupidity is so glaring. But it will clear soonest. You don't know anything about war of attrition nor strategies.

Kingsnairaland:
You can say this because you don't know military tactics

Mother Russia is attacking with devastating weapons watch the video only two person can be at the hitting point then Russia brings like ten or more military vehicles that is filled with missiles then line them up and blow up a city they will be doing this till the city is brought to the ground

Russia is not attacking with bodies so you don't know how they fight unless you only believe cnn
Or lie to yourself


After the city Is destroyed then few go in and plant flag then if any Ukraine come back there then it 50 50 fight you can guess who wins

The problem nato don't fight like this and they don't have that amount of weapons to waste on blowing living and non living things up

So continue to lie to yourself while we know Russian tactics

WriterrNg:
Russia has 1 million casualties but is occupying Ukraine. Ukraine has only 600,000 casualties, so what happened to the Ukrainian soldiers defending those occupied lands?

Since the war began, who has mobilized more than 5 times? Who keeps complaining about shortage of troops?

Is there any trick in the book Zelensky hasn't tried to get NATO troops to come in and fight for him? Would he do that if Ukraine had only 600,000 casualties.

Why has Ukraine's population dropped from 40 million to 15 million while Russia still remains 144 million, since Ukraine has less casualties than Russia?

Like i keep saying, only retards support Ukraine. It's like a requirement.

JimRohn:
Your entire reply is a parade of arrogance, willful ignorance, and circular reasoning cloaked in mock sincerity. Let’s strip it down piece by piece and expose the intellectual bankruptcy of your claims.

🔹 1. “You are disrespecting Allah by interpreting His words”

This is perhaps the most laughable part of your entire rant. You pretend to be so concerned about the “honor of Allah” while denying the Qur’an and His final Prophet (ﷺ). Your sudden piety is hypocrisy in its purest form.

If you think quoting a verse means no contextual or linguistic understanding is needed, then your entire religion is a house of cards. Are you suggesting that every verse—no matter the audience, timeframe, or usage—is to be read like a fortune cookie? That’s not reverence. That’s biblical literalism gone mad.

The Qur’an does not confirm the corrupted Bible, it confirms what originally came from Allah—not what you have today, filled with human insertions, contradictions, and missing authors (your own scholars say this, not us). Quoting verses like 7:157 and 2:89 in isolation and pretending they affirm the modern Bible is either delusion or dishonesty—likely both.

JimRohn:
🔹 2. You ask: “What are the names of the two Books of Allah in 7:157?”

JimRohn:
🔹 3. “If the Qur’an confirms what they have, does it confirm corruption?”

Absolutely not. Your error lies in your failure to grasp the difference between “tasdiq” (confirmation) and “tafsil” (full validation).

🔸 Tasdiq means confirmation of truths that are still present—not blind acceptance of everything between your man-made covers.

Even Christian scholars like Raymond Brown admit the textual corruption of your scriptures. So your demand that Islam accept the entirety of a corrupted text or reject all of it is a false dichotomy—a logical fallacy unworthy of a serious discussion.

JimRohn:
🔹 4. “When were the scriptures distorted? I want dates!”

You're asking “when” something occurred that your own scholars can’t precisely date. Are you denying that biblical textual corruption exists unless we can timestamp every edit? By that logic, if I don’t know the exact day Judas betrayed Jesus, then it never happened.

Let me educate you:

The ending of Mark (16:9–20) is a later forgery. Christian scholars agree.

The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) is a Trinitarian fabrication.

The Book of Hebrews is anonymous and contradicts Levitical Law.

The Council of Nicaea (325 CE) established divinity doctrines never preached by Jesus.

This is documented history—not Muslim conspiracy.

So don’t play dumb. The corruption is cumulative. Like spoiled milk, it decays over time.

JimRohn:
🔹 5. “The Qur’an was written by hand too!”

This is an attempt at false equivalency.

Yes, the Qur’an was written by hands—but under direct supervision, memorization, and transmission from the Prophet ﷺ and his Companions. The Qur’an is mutawatir—mass transmitted, verified by thousands, recited word-for-word across the globe for 14 centuries. No council voted it into existence. No Roman emperor dictated its canon. No one inserted verses centuries later.

JimRohn:
Now contrast that with:

Gospel of Mark: Anonymous

Gospel of Matthew: Anonymous

Gospel of Luke: “It seemed good to me also…” – Luke 1:3 (your author admits he’s writing his own version)

So don’t compare divinely preserved oral and written revelation with your patchwork quilt of Greco-Roman hearsay.

JimRohn:
🔹 6. “The Prophet confirms the Scripture they had!”

Yes—he confirms what was originally from Allah, not your Greek-influenced, Pauline-tinged gospel according to anonymous scribes.

Even your own book says the Jews corrupted the scripture:

> Jeremiah 8:8 – “How can you say, ‘We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord,’ when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?”

You quote verses from the Qur’an with zero comprehension. You pretend every reference to “Torah” or “Injeel” means endorsement of the exact books sitting on your shelf—as if Allah didn’t warn about corruption, tampering, and hiding the truth.

JimRohn:
🔹 7. You accuse Muslims of lying to defend the Qur’an?
Projection at its finest. The lies are yours:

You lie about what “confirm” means.
You lie about the Qur’an affirming your entire book.

You lie about the Qur’an being like the Bible.

You lie about early Church councils being irrelevant to scriptural distortion.

Islam doesn’t need to lie. The Qur’an exposes you. You’re just upset it doesn’t bend to your manipulated scriptures and man-made dogmas.

🔚 Final Words:

You demand “clear words” from Allah, yet when He says “Woe to those who write the book with their hands,” you play dumb.

You treat the Qur’an like it should validate your man-altered texts—but Allah doesn't submit to Rome or the pen of Paul.

> You want confirmation for your corruption? That’s like asking a judge to endorse a forged contract.

Until you can prove:

that your Gospels were written by eye-witnesses (you can’t),

that your canon was divinely preserved (it wasn’t),

and that your scripture was not edited by councils (it was),

you are in no position to lecture Muslims on “truth” or “clarity.”

May Allah guide those who seek truth, and expose those who hide it.

JimRohn:
Your reply is yet another display of mockery dressed up as theology, memes replacing meaning, and sarcasm substituting scholarship. So let me respond without the emojis and playground taunts—with Quranic clarity and unapologetic truth.

🔹 1. You Mock the Word “Tasdīq” — and Expose Your Own Ignorance


Yes, “tasdīq” lexically means "confirmation, attestation, ratification." But Qur’anic usage is contextual, not wooden literalism.

> Qur'an 5:48: “And We have revealed to you the Book in truth, confirming (muṣaddiqan) what was before it and **as a criterion (muhayminan) over it...”

So the tafsir (explanation) of scholars like Ibn Kathir and Al-Tabari is crystal clear:

> The Qur’an confirms the original truth that came before—not the corrupt versions Jews and Christians altered.

This destroys your claim that tasdīq = blind ratification.
You’re either unable to understand context, or unwilling. Either way, you’re wrong.

JimRohn:
🔹 2. You Confuse the “Furqan” with the Whole Bible — That’s Desperation

You appeal to the word “Furqan” being applied to Moses and Aaron’s scripture. So what?

> Yes — the Torah was Furqan before it was corrupted.
Yes — the Qur’an is Furqan and remains uncorrupted.

The designation of “Furqan” doesn’t mean every scripture today is still Furqan.
By your logic, since a torch was once lit, it must still be burning. Nonsense.

Here’s what you ignored:

Qur’an 2:75 – “Do you (Muslims) still expect them to believe you while a group of them used to hear the Word of Allah and then knowingly distort it after understanding it?”

Qur’an 2:79 – “Woe to those who write the book with their own hands and say ‘This is from Allah.’”

If the earlier scriptures are still protected and unaltered, explain why Allah accuses people of writing fake scripture.

You can’t.

You just pick random words (“Reminder,” “Furqan”) and use them without context like buzzwords in a meme war.

JimRohn:
🔹 3. “Did Allah Fail to Protect His Books?”

No—Allah protected the original revelations when they were revealed. But He never promised to preserve all scriptures forever—until the Qur’an.

Let’s quote the verse you twisted:

> Qur’an 15:9 – “Indeed, We have revealed the Reminder (al-dhikr), and We will certainly preserve it.”

This verse is explicitly about the Qur’an, not the Bible or Torah. All classical tafsir agree.

So your question—“Did Allah fail to protect His books?”—is like asking:

> “If you had an older version of software that was corrupted, and now you release the final secure version with protection, did you fail before?”

No—the earlier versions were provisional, meant for a time and people, and corrupted by those people.
Only the final version—the Qur’an—was promised eternal protection.

You conflate different revelations, time periods, and audiences—because that’s the only way to cling to your failing argument.

JimRohn:
🔹 4. “Ask the People of the Reminder (Qur’an 21:7)”

Another classic Christian misquote.

The verse says:

> “So ask the people of the Reminder (Ahl al-Dhikr) if you do not know.”

This doesn’t mean affirm everything they say. It means to ask those who were informed previously if you are ignorant—about what came before, not as a confirmation of current corrupt texts.

Moreover, the “Reminder” in their possession was what remained of God’s message, not the corrupted volumes Christians today parade around.

Even then, Qur’an 2:101 says:

> “A party of those who were given the Scripture threw the Book of Allah behind their backs…”

So stop cherry-picking verses. The Qur’an doesn’t trust all of them. It exposes many of them for corruption.

JimRohn:
🔚 Final Blow: Your Whole Foundation Is Built on a Fallacy

You keep screaming:

> “See! It says Torah and Gospel! So your Qur’an affirms our Bible!”

No. That’s like saying:

> “You said ‘Jesus’! That must mean you accept everything we say about him!”

Not at all.

The Qur’an refers to:

The original Torah (Tawrat) revealed to Moses,

The original Gospel (Injeel) given to Jesus,

Not your current canon chosen by Roman councils and tampered by scribes over centuries.

So let me be crystal clear:

🔸 The Qur’an confirms the revelation sent to Moses and Jesus.
🔸 It does not confirm the current Bible which contains:

Dozens of forged letters (like 2 Peter),

Anonymous Gospels contradicting each other,

Roman Trinitarian theology invented long after Christ.

Your entire argument collapses under scrutiny. All you’re left with are cheap jokes, dictionary screenshots, and out-of-context verses.

If your religion were so strong, you wouldn’t need mockery and manipulation to defend it.
But Islam stands unshaken, because the Qur’an exposes corruption and preserves truth.

> May Allah humiliate falsehood and elevate the truth, even if the disbelievers hate it.

JimRohn:
Your reply once again displays more sarcasm than substance, more emotion than exegesis, and more memes than theology. Let’s clean up the intellectual mess you’ve left behind.
🔹 1. "Abraham, Moses, Jesus Were Muslims – But Where Did They Say the Holy Spirit is an Angel?"

You’re confusing yourself with your own flawed logic.

Islam teaches that every prophet submitted to God (Allah)—this is the definition of a Muslim. It doesn't mean they all spoke Arabic or used later terminologies.

Now you ask:

> "Where did Abraham or Jesus say the Holy Spirit is an angel?"
Here’s the rebuttal:
Where did ANY prophet say the Holy Spirit is God?

> Did Abraham say: “Worship the Holy Spirit”?
Did Moses say: “The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity”?

No prophet ever did. So by your own criteria, your belief is crushed.

The Qur’an is the final clarification, and it states explicitly:
.....

JimRohn:
🔹 2. The “Torment of the Grave” Hadith – Your Strawman Burns Again

Let’s break it down since you clearly didn’t read your own citation.

You quote:

> "Two old Jewish women said the dead are tormented… The Prophet ﷺ said: They spoke the truth."

And then you mockingly say:

> "See? He copied it from them!"

What a lazy and self-defeating argument.

First, the Prophet ﷺ corrected his own assumption after revelation confirmed the reality. That’s called honesty—not blind copying.

Second, if a Jewish woman says 2+2=4, and the Prophet agrees—does that mean he copied her? No. Truth remains truth regardless of who states it

JimRohn:
🔹 3. Mocking the Prophet’s Fear of the Grave Torment – But Jesus Cried and Sweated Blood?

You mock the Prophet ﷺ for fearing the torment of the grave.

Yet your Bible says:

Be consistent. If fear invalidates prophethood or truth, your theology collapses on itself.

JimRohn:
🔹 4. Makr (Divine Planning) – Your Hypocrisy is Blinding

You said:
> "Here's the dictionary definition of makr—so it means deceit."

Stop playing the dictionary game when it suits you. Here’s the full truth:

🔸 Makr in Arabic means strategic planning, often in response to enemy schemes. It can be used positively or negatively based on the context.

In the Qur’an:

> “They planned, and Allah planned. And Allah is the best of planners.” (3:54)

That’s actual deception, not strategy. So again: double standard exposed.

JimRohn:
🔹 5. “Can Someone Change the Words of Allah?” – You Misunderstood the Qur’an, Again

You asked:
> “If the Torah and Injeel are Allah’s words, can they be changed?”

Answer:



Even your own Bible agrees:

> Jeremiah 8:8 – “The lying pen of the scribes has falsified it.”

So if you trust the Bible, start by believing it when it admits the text has been tampered.

JimRohn:
🔹 6. You Butchered the Analogy
You claimed:

> “Judaism confirms the New Testament but then rejects it… just like Islam.”

Wrong. That’s historical and theological nonsense.

Judaism does NOT confirm the New Testament. They reject Jesus as Messiah, period.

Islam, however, affirms:

Jesus was born miraculously

He was a prophet

He brought the Injeel

He will return

But rejects fabricated divinity, crucifixion myths, and Pauline distortions.

Kingsnairaland:
Without Russia we all would have been bowing probably like our forefathers did to UK USA evil nato government

That why I always praise God each day I am alive to be born in a time where no one can oppress me

I have a pure stubborn spirit that is filled with the Holy Spirit
I bow to no one but God

Kingsnairaland:
1M
Continue to lie to yourself while Russia is moving forward

JimRohn:
🔥 4. You’ve Resorted to Mockery Because You’ve Run Out of Reason

You call me a "denialist", accuse me of being “uneducated,” and liken Muslims to “Satanists.” This is pure emotional deflection. It is a clear admission that you cannot answer the contradiction posed in your own doctrine, so you resort to petulant sarcasm and pseudo-theological insults.

But fine — let’s return the favor, with substance.

JimRohn:
⚔️ 5. You Attack Islam with Fallacies, Lies, and Fabricated Theology

Let’s demolish your points, one by one:

❌ “Allah is not omnipresent”

Correct — in Islamic theology, Allah is not inside creation. That’s not a weakness. That’s transcendence.

Unlike your god, who allegedly entered the womb of a woman, came out of her private parts, and was crucified by his own creation — our God is not bound by space, time, or flesh. He knows all things, hears all things, and is near without being physically “inside” creation.

That’s called divine perfection, not limitation.

JimRohn:
❌ “Allah is not omniscient”

Your claims here are misinterpretations and distortions.

The sun “setting in a muddy spring” is the perceptual description in the story of Dhul Qarnayn — not a scientific claim.

The “tara’ib” issue is a misreading of Arabic grammar — and has been refuted by scholars for centuries.

Hail from the sky and stars as missiles? These are metaphors describing cosmic phenomena, not physics textbooks.

You think you’re making theological critiques, but you're just regurgitating orientalist misunderstandings that have been refuted in every serious tafsir.

Meanwhile, your own God didn’t know the fig season (Mark 11:13), claimed mustard seeds are the smallest seeds (which is false), and allegedly created light before the sun. Take the plank out of your own eye.

JimRohn:
❌ “Allah is not omnipotent”
This is ironic. According to Christianity:
God died on a cross, cried on the cross, and begged to be saved.
God cannot forgive without blood.
God was powerless to send down a scripture without making Himself a human.
That’s impotence — not power.

Meanwhile, Allah says:
“When He wills a thing, He says to it, ‘Be!’ and it is.” (Qur'an 36:82)

No need to incarnate. No need to suffer. No need to die.

JimRohn:
🚮 6. Your Attacks on Prophet Muhammad ﷺ Are Blasphemous and Ignorant
Let’s clarify:

Zayd’s divorce was initiated by him, and the marriage to Zaynab was by divine command to abolish pre-Islamic taboos — not justify sin.

JimRohn:
Temporary marriage (mut'ah) was permissible for a time, then abrogated — that’s called gradual legislation, not “halal prostitution.”

As for “paradise with orgies” — that’s your vulgar mind talking. The pleasures of Jannah are beyond your comprehension. The Prophet ﷺ said:
“No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no heart has imagined what Allah has prepared…”

JimRohn:
You ridicule what you don’t understand.
✅ Islamic Tawḥīd vs. Christian Contradiction

Let’s compare:

Islamic Monotheism:

One God.

Absolute oneness.

No contradictions.

No death of God.

No divine ignorance.

No humiliation of the Creator by His own creation.

Christian Trinitarianism:

Three “persons” but one essence (which no one can define).

God dies.

God weeps.

God gets tempted.

God doesn’t know the Hour.

God is hungry and whipped by Roman soldiers.

Then you say this is “the truth.”

You’ve taken Greek metaphysics, baptized it in confusion, and called it revelation.

🧠 Final Challenge: Can You Defend Christology with Logic?

> How can Jesus be fully God and fully man without violating the law of non-contradiction?

You’ve dodged this question repeatedly.

No amount of rhetorical noise will help you until you answer it. So I challenge you again:

Is Jesus omniscient or not?

Is he mortal or not?

Is he subject to temptation or not?

Pick a side — because claiming “both at once” is not theology. It’s intellectual suicide.

Return to the truth of pure monotheism.

One indivisible God.

Eternal.

All-Knowing.

All-Powerful.

Above His creation.

Free of contradiction.

This is Tawḥīd. This is Islam. This is reason aligned with revelation.

Now, unless you have a logical, coherent, and respectful answer to the contradiction within Christology — spare us the mockery and emotional theatrics.

Because theology is not a circus, and truth is not served by noise.

JimRohn:
Your response is not only logically incoherent but laced with juvenile mockery and theological ignorance masquerading as cleverness. You confuse verbosity for reasoning, sarcasm for scholarship, and polemics for precision. Let’s strip away the noise and face your theological and philosophical failures point by point.

📌 1. You Still Don’t Understand the Argument — and Repetition Isn’t a Refutation

You have once again repeated your flawed analogy between the soul/body duality and the divine/human duality — despite it being thoroughly dismantled. You falsely assume that two complementary components (soul and body) in a created being can serve as an analogy for a logical contradiction in God’s essential attributes.

Let me spell this out for you one more time — slowly:

A soul can be immortal.

A body can be mortal.

These are not contradictions because they belong to different parts of the same human.

But what you claim about Jesus is that one single, unified person (not two beings) is:

Fully omniscient and ignorant at the same time

Fully immortal and mortal at the same time

Fully untemptable and tempted at the same time

This is not metaphysical complexity. It is a logical contradiction.

You claim the “Word became flesh.” Fine. Now answer: Did the divine Word lose divine attributes when it became flesh or not? If yes, then it was no longer fully God. If no, then it possessed contradictory attributes at once — which violates the law of non-contradiction.

You’re not answering the critique. You’re dodging it with false analogies and circular logic.

JimRohn:
🔄 2. Your "Name Game" Questions Are Linguistic Red Herrings

You ask:

> What is the name of the soul of Moses in paradise?

> What is the name of the body of Moses in the grave?

The answer is obvious and already given: Moses. It’s one person with two components, each with different properties. But again, no contradiction arises unless you claim his body is both dead and alive in the same respect, which no Muslim does.

The same applies to the Qur'an:

The eternal Qur’an is the uncreated speech of Allah (Kalām Allāh).

The physical mushaf is a temporal medium that contains that speech in a created form.

Different manifestations, not contradictions. You’re confusing ontology (what something is in essence) with modality (how something appears or is transmitted). That’s your failure — not ours.

JimRohn:
🚫 3. Your Quantum Analogy Still Doesn’t Work

Wave-particle duality does not teach that something is fully a wave and fully a particle at the same time in the same respect. It describes how subatomic entities display different properties depending on how they are observed.

That’s not a contradiction. That’s conditional behavior — which respects logic. Your Christology, however, violates the law of identity and non-contradiction.

You’re trying to justify metaphysical nonsense with scientific uncertainty. That’s intellectual laziness.

sonmvayina:
Israel/Jacob is God's servant.
When the kings of the earth realized that Israel has been innocent all along, that is what they would say. Who has believed what we (the kings of the earth) have heard(Israel is innocent) and to whom was the right hand revealed

4 Indeed, he bore our illnesses, and our pains-he carried them, yet we accounted him as plagued, smitten by God and oppressed.
5 But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed.



It is the kings of the earth that is talking....they thought that God was punishing Israel through them.

JimRohn:
🔹 3. Jibrīl (Gabriel) as the Holy Spirit – You Ignored the Qur’anic Evidence

You ignored direct Qur’anic evidence equating Rūḥ al-Qudus with Jibrīl:

Qur’an 2:97: “Say, whoever is an enemy to Gabriel—for he is the one who brings it (the Qur’an) down...”

Qur’an 16:102: “Say, the Holy Spirit has brought it down from your Lord…”

Same task, same revelation, same role = same identity.

Your childish mockery (“So Allah doesn’t understand Arabic?”) shows desperation, not argumentation. You quote Genesis 1:2 about “the Spirit of God,” but fail to prove it is a distinct divine person. Where does Genesis say, “The Spirit is co-equal and co-eternal with God and deserves worship”? Answer: Nowhere.

Your theology is retroactively injected into the text, just like your forced Trinitarian readings into ambiguous verses.

4. Your Challenge: “Show One Prophet Who Called the Holy Spirit an Angel”

Here’s your logical trap: you assume that if no prophet called the Holy Spirit an angel explicitly, it cannot be true.

Where did Moses, Jesus, or David explicitly say: “The Holy Spirit is God”?

> Give a verse where any prophet says: “Worship the Holy Spirit.”

You won't find it. That’s why your standard fails you.

Islam is not bound to Jewish or Christian post-biblical definitions. Gabriel is called the Spirit in Christian apocryphal texts too. Moreover, if the Qur’an clearly names the Holy Spirit as Gabriel, your appeal to what Jewish rabbis or early Christians thought is irrelevant to Islam.

JimRohn:
🔹 5. You Mock “Harmless Religious Practices”
You continue to beat a strawman.

No Muslim said the Prophet ﷺ copied theological beliefs from the People of the Book. Sahih al-Bukhari 5917 refers to harmless customs, like hairstyles—not divine doctrines. Your attempt to conflate imitation of neutral customs with doctrinal borrowing is logically laughable.

Also, mocking traditions like “Torment of the Grave” ignores the fact that this is found in authentic hadith, not fabricated legends. If you want to debate hadith authenticity, come with proper isnād analysis, not rhetorical jabs.

JimRohn:
🔹 6. The “Best of Deceivers” Canard

You dishonestly twist Qur’an 3:54 (makr) as “deceit.”

> Makr in Arabic = strategic planning in response to the enemy’s schemes.

God foils plots of plotters. If you call that “deception,” then your Bible should be condemned too:

Ezekiel 14:9: “If a prophet is deceived, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.”

2 Thessalonians 2:11: “God sends them a powerful delusion…”

Your double standard is exposed. You mock makr in Islam but ignore deceit attributed to God in your Bible.

🔹 7. “Qur’an Says No One Can Change Allah’s Words” – Another Misuse

When the Qur’an says:

> “None can change His words” (6:115, 10:64),

It refers to His decrees and promises, not the integrity of past scriptures preserved in human hands.

Even your Bible says:

> “The scribes have lied” (Jeremiah 8:,
“How can you say, ‘We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,’ when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?”

So do you reject Jeremiah too?

🔹 8. Your Final Fallacy: “If the Bible Contradicts the Qur’an, the Qur’an Must Be False”

That is absurd logic.

By that same logic:

Judaism proves Christianity false—since Jews reject your Trinitarian doctrines.

Hindus could claim your rejection of reincarnation proves your religion false.

Contradiction does not mean falsity—unless you first prove the authority of your source. Islam does not grant the Bible that authority in its current form.

You must first demonstrate:

That your current Bible is unaltered

That Jesus taught the Trinity

That the Holy Spirit is a divine person co-equal with God

You’ve proven none of these—just repeated slogans and mockery.

✅ Final Response:

Your replies are full of:

Fallacious arguments (appeal to consensus, strawmen, red herrings)

Mockery and sarcasm in place of serious theology

Scriptural misreadings and forced Christian dogma

Islam does not need reinterpretation—you need intellectual consistency. The Qur’an remains internally coherent, linguistically unmatched, and theologically unshaken by shallow polemics.

If you wish to continue, I suggest you elevate your discourse. Otherwise:

> “To you your religion, and to me mine.” (Qur’an 109:6)

May the truth prevail.

JimRohn:
Your latest reply once again abandons calm, logical reasoning for sarcasm, misquotations, and intellectually dishonest polemics. Let me dismantle your claims step by step, using your own Bible, Islamic scripture, and consistent logic—not emotional outbursts.


🔹 2. The Fallacy About Confirming the Scriptures = Approving All Their Content

You commit a category error by assuming that the Qur’an “confirming” the scriptures means affirming all of their current content. This is false.

“Tasdiq” (تَصْدِيق) in Qur’anic Arabic means to affirm the truth that remains and expose deviations. Qur’an 5:48 says:

> “And We have revealed to you the Book in truth, confirming what came before it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it...”

If the Qur’an is a criterion, it judges, not blindly affirms.

Your assumption is like saying:

> “If a teacher confirms a student’s original essay had value, he must affirm every later edit and forgery made to it.”

This is simply illogical.

JimRohn:
Your latest reply once again abandons calm, logical reasoning for sarcasm, misquotations, and intellectually dishonest polemics. Let me dismantle your claims step by step, using your own Bible, Islamic scripture, and consistent logic—not emotional outbursts.

🔹 1. Misuse of Verses About the Bible Being “With Them”

You quote verses such as Qur’an 7:157 and 2:41–101 to claim that Islam affirms the current Torah and Gospel as they exist today.

This is a shallow misreading.

When the Qur’an refers to what is “with them,” it is referring to:

The original revelations that existed among them

Remnants of truth still preserved amidst corruption

> Qur’an 2:79 explicitly says:
“So woe to those who write the Scripture with their own hands, then say, ‘This is from Allah.’”

It is not a contradiction to say the Qur’an confirms the original Torah and Gospel and simultaneously rejects the current corrupt versions. Your Bible includes anonymous authors, editorial insertions, contradictory accounts, and centuries of redaction—all documented by Christian scholarship itself (see Bart Ehrman, “Misquoting Jesus”).

So your question, “When were the scriptures distorted?” is like asking when milk became sour—it spoils over time.

Historical clues:

The Council of Nicaea (325 CE): major doctrinal decisions on the divinity of Jesus.

The Synod of Laodicea (4th century): canon formation, many books excluded.

Gospel authors are anonymous; earliest complete manuscripts are centuries after Jesus.

Ask your own scholars about textual corruption (e.g., interpolated endings in Mark, the Johannine Comma, etc.). Your demand for a “date stamp” on distortion is a red herring.


May the truth prevail.

Dvdpity:
Zelenesky is very very heartless...this is someone some idiots here are supporting.