Muslims, what do you think of Catholicism?

[غزالی]

We must obey the laws of the country we live in. If they must go to jail or be hung, then we must allow that.



Of course, Jesus (being God) will forgive our sins no matter what we do, becuase when he sacrificed Himself on the cross no sin was ever too much for Him to pardon. The same goes for any sin commited today or tomorrow.



Crucifixion, was a very common way to execute a criminal back in Rome. Jesus commited a crime by saying that He was God, so He was executed for it. It is only logical to believe that He was crucified.



Elaborate some more.



[/SIZE]

WHAT WAS THE SIGN OF JONAH ? WAS PROPHET JUSES REALY CRUCIFIED (INVESTIGATION)

page 01

page 02

page 03

page 04

page 05

 

[غزالی]

Fee Books by ahmed Deedat on the subjects

Crucifixion Or Cruci-fiction (A complete, rational & logical detail)

Was Jesus Crucified

Resurrection Or Resuscitation

 

[Zundrah]

Brother you have to prove what you are saying on the basis of those fabricated statements of bibles, many of which has been thrownout in modern king james version and revised standard version.
here i am posting from your bible, your open required to understand these.

IS JESUS GOD: WHAT BIBLE SAYS ABOUT ITS REALITY ? (SEE DETAIL)
1. Bible says that God is not Man
The Bible says:
Numbers 23:19 “God is not a man…”
Hosea 11:9 “...For I am God, and not man...”
Jesus is called a man many times in the Bible:
John 8:40 “…a man who has told you the truth…”
Acts 2:22 “Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know.”
Acts 17:31 “He will judge the world in righteousness through a man whom He has appointed”
1. Tim. 2:5 “…the man Christ Jesus.”
God is not a man, but Jesus, may the blessing and mercy of God be upon him, was a man, therefore, Jesus was not God.

2. The Bible Says that God Is Not a Son of Man
Numbers 23:19 “God is not a man...nor a son of man…”
The Bible often calls Jesus “a son of man” or “the son of man.”
Matthew 12:40 “…so will the son of man be…”
Matthew 16:27 “For the son of man is going to come…”
Matthew 28 “…until they see the son of man coming in His kingdom.”
Mark 2:10 “But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authori-ty…”
John 5:27 “…because He is the son of man.”
In the Hebrew Scriptures, the “son of man” is also used many times speak-ing of people (Job 25:6; Psalm 80:17; 144:3; Ezekiel 2:1; 2:3; 2:6; 2:8; 3:1; 3:3; 3:4; 3:10; 3:17; 3:25).
Since God would not contradict Himself by first saying He is not the son of a man, then becoming a human being who was called “the son of man”, he would not have done so. Remember God is not the author of confusion. Also, human beings, including Jesus, are called “son of man” specifically to distinguish them from God, who is not a “son of man” according to the Bible.

3. The Bible says that Jesus Denied He is God
Luke 18:19 Jesus spoke to a man who had called him “good,” asking him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.”
Matthew 19:17 and he said to him, “Why are you asking me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
Jesus did not teach people that he was God. If Jesus had been telling people that he was God, he would have complimented the man. Instead, Jesus rebuked him, denying he was good, that is, Jesus denied he was God.

4. The Bible says that God is Greater than Jesus

John 14:28 “My Father is greater than I.”
John 10:29 “My father is greater than all.”
Jesus can not be God if God is greater than him. The Christian belief that the Father and son are equal is in direct contrast to the clear words from Jesus.

5. Jesus Never Instructed His Disciples to Worship Himself or the Holy Ghost, but God and God Only

Luke 11:2 “When you pray, say Our Father which art in heaven.”
John 16:23 “In that day, you shall ask me nothing. Whatsoever you ask of the Father in my name.”
John 4:23 “The hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him.”
If Jesus was God, he would have sought worship for himself. Since he didn’t, instead he sought worship for God in the heavens, therefore, he was not God.

6. The Bible Says that Jesus Recognized, Prayed, & Worshipped the Only True God
Jesus prayed to God with the words:
John 17:3 “…that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Chr-ist whom you have sent.”
Jesus prayed to God all night:
Luke 6:12 “he continued all night in prayer to God.”
…because:
Matthew 20:28: Just as the son of man did not come to be served, but to serve.
How did Jesus pray to God?
Matthew 26:39 ‘…he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, How did Jesus pray to God?‘

WAS HE SAY "My Father…” ?
Even Paul said:
Hebrews 5:7 “During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission.”
Who was Jesus praying to when he fell on his face with loud cries and petitions? Was it himself? Was Jesus crying in tears to himself pleading to be saved from death? No man, sane or insane, prays to himself! Surely the answer must be a resounding ‘No.’ Jesus was praying to “the only true God.” Jesus was the servant of the One Who sent him. Can there be a clearer proof that Jesus was not God?
The Quran confirms that Jesus called for the worship of the Only True God:
“Truly, God is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him (alone). This is the straight path.” (Quran 3:51)

7. The Bible says that the disciples did not believe Jesus was God.

The Acts of the Apostles in the Bible details the activity of the disciples over a period of thirty years after Jesus, may God praise him, was raised to heaven. Throughout this period, they never referred to Jesus as God. For instance Peter stood up with the eleven disciples and addressed a crowd saying:
Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man ac-credited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.”
For Peter, Jesus was a servant of God (confirmed in Matthew 12:18):
Acts 3:13 “The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus.”
Acts 3:26 “God raised up his servant...”
When faced by opposition from the authorities, Peter said:
Acts 5:29-30 “We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus...”
The disciples prayed to God just as they were commanded by Jesus in Luke 11:2, and considered Jesus to be God’s servant,
Acts 4:24 “...they raised their voices together in prayer to God. ‘Sovereign Lord,’ they said, ‘you made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and eve-rything in them.’”
Acts 4:27 “...your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed.”
Acts 4:30 “…of Your holy servant Jesus.”
This is exactly what the Quran states of Jesus:
Quran 19: 30 “…I am indeed a servant of God.”

8. The Bible says that Jesus was God’s servant, chosen one, and beloved.

Matt. 12:18 “Behold, My servant, whom I have chosen, in whom My soul is well pleased.”
Since Jesus is God’s servant, Jesus can not be God.

9. The Bible says that Jesus could not Do Anything by Himself.
John 5:19 “The son can do nothing by himself; he can only do what he sees his Father doing.”
John 5:30 “I can of mine own self do nothing.”
Jesus did not consider himself equal with God; rather he denied doing anything by himself.

10. The Bible says that God performed miracles through Jesus & Jesus was limited in what he could do.

Matt. 9:8 “But when the crowds saw this, they were awestruck, and glori-fied God, who had given such authority to men.”
Acts 2:22 “a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst.”
Acts 10:38 “…he went about doing good and healing all who were op-pressed by the devil, for God was with Him.”
If Christ was God, the Bible would simply say that Jesus did the miracles himself without making reference to God. The fact that it was God supply-ing the power for the miracles shows that God is greater than Jesus.
Also, Jesus was limited in performing miracles. One time when Jesus tried to heal a blind man, the man was not healed after the first attempt, and Jesus had to try a second time (Mark 8:22-26). Once a woman was healed of her incurable bleeding. The woman came up behind him and touched his cloak, and she was immediately healed. But Jesus had no idea who touched him:
Mark 5:30 “At once Jesus realized that power had gone out from him. He turned around in the crowd and asked, ‘Who touched my clothes?’”
Mark 6:5 “He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.”
Quite obviously, someone with such limitations can not be God. The pow-er of miracles was not within Jesus.

11. The Bible says that at times of weakness angels strengthened Jesus; God, however, does not need to be strengthened.
Luke 22:43 “An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him [in the garden of Gethsemane].”
Mk. 1:13 “Then the devil left him; and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him.”
Mark 1:13 “And he was in the wilderness forty days being tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts, and the angels were ministering to him.”
Men need to be strengthened; God does not because God is All-Powerful. If Jesus had to be strengthened, he must not be God.

12. The Bible says that Jesus wanted God’s will to be done, not his own.
Luke 22:42: “not my will but Yours be done.”
John 5:30 “I do not seek my own will, but the will of Him who sent me.”
John 6:38 “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me.”
Are some members of the coequal Trinity subservient, and less than equal, to other members? Even though they have different wills (“I do not seek my own will”), do they obey without question the others’ commands (“the will of Him who sent me”)? Jesus admits to subordinating his own distinct will, yet according to the Trinitarian doctrine they should all have the same will. Should one of the triune partners have to forgo his own will in favor of the will of another member of the Trinity? Should not they all have the exact same will?

13. The Bible says Jesus regarded God’s testimony as separate from his own.

Jesus regarded himself and God as two, not “one.”
John 8:17 and 18: “I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father.”
John 14:1 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.”
If Jesus was God, He would have not have regarded God’s testimony as separate from his own.

14. Bible says that Jesus had limited knowledge, but god’s knowledge is infinite

Mark 13:32 “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the son, but only the Father.”
Since Jesus, may the blessing and mercy of God be upon him, did not know, he was not all-knowing, and therefore, he cannot be the God whose knowledge is all-encompassing.

15. Bible says that Jesus was tempted, but God cannot be tempted
Heb. 4:15 “tempted in every way—just as we are”
James 1:13 “for God cannot be tempted by evil”
Since God can not be tempted, but Jesus was, therefore, Jesus was not God.

16. Bible says that Jesus died, but God cannot die
The Bible teaches that Jesus died. God cannot die. Romans 1:23 and other verses say that God is immortal. Immortal means, “not subject to death.” This term applies only to God.
20. Bible says that Jesus lived because of God
John 6:57 “I live because of the Father.”
Jesus cannot be God because he depended on God for his own existence.

17. Bible says that Jesus was lower than angels
Hebrews 2:9 “But we do see him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus.”
God, the Creator of angels, can not be lower than His own creation, but Jesus was. Therefore, Jesus was not God.

18. Bible says that Jesus called the GOD “my God”
Matt. 27:46 “My God, My God, why have You forsaken me?”
John 20:17 “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.”
Rev. 3:12 “… the temple of my God… the name of my God… the city of my God… comes down out of heaven from my God.”
Jesus did not think of himself as God, instead Jesus’ God is the same as ours.
26. Bible says that God cannot be seen, but Jesus was
John 1:18 “no man has seen God at any time.”

[/QUOTE]

Protestant bibles are corrupt.

 

[Zundrah]

Brother you have to prove what you are saying on the basis of those fabricated statements of bibles,

My bible is the same as your Koran; it is only words and neither can be backed up with scientific evidence.

 

[Zundrah]

WHAT WAS THE SIGN OF JONAH ? WAS PROPHET JUSES REALY CRUCIFIED (INVESTIGATION)

page 01

page 02

page 03

page 04

page 05

History is history.

 

[غزالی]

Protestant bibles are corrupt.

Either your knowledge is very innocent or you want to be innocent.. have you not seen the references. if you are open minded person then why not open your bible and match what i have given instead of posting lazy arguments. what i have posted is all from your bible.

History is history.

your bible is also the part of that history..story of johna was not taken from Quran but from your bible. problem is you dont want to accept the facts.
Dont Become idealistic but realistic.

My bible is the same as your Koran;

you can search. your bible is no where match with the quran, Neither a sigle area..
i am not saying bias and irrationaly but it is reality..i am giving just one fact to realize. Quran is same as revealed in arabic more than 1400 year before. not a single verse & sentense changed..you can search. you will found the same quran in the whole word.
There is no God Original word in the bible as it is not in its original language. it is available in translations, version. i don't say bible was not from God. Actually, original bible which revealed to the prophet Juses was from God. But now it has mixed with your priest and authority people's words and self concepts . so you see the a new bible after every 5 decade, there are 24000 thousand version of bibles but no two are matched, there are contradictions, manipulations, confusion in the bible. you have said before protestant bible has these things, our bible is pure... i don't know why you are lying and saying this.. Brother don't think the people are so ignorant, innocent and foolish, there all your books and information available on the net...i have given the reference from your all main books that are accepted by catholics.

 

[Zundrah]

Either your knowledge is very innocent or you want to be innocent.. have you not seen the references. if you are open minded person then why not open your bible and match what i have given instead of posting lazy arguments. what i have posted is all from your bible.



your bible is also the part of that history..story of johna was not taken from Quran but from your bible. problem is you dont want to accept the facts.
Dont Become idealistic but realistic.



you can search. your bible is no where match with the quran, Neither a sigle area..
i am not saying bias and irrationaly but it is reality..i am giving just one fact to realize. Quran is same as revealed in arabic more than 1400 year before. not a single verse & sentense changed..you can search. you will found the same quran in the whole word.
There is no God Original word in the bible as it is not in its original language. it is available in translations, version. i don't say bible was not from God. Actually, original bible which revealed to the prophet Juses was from God. But now it has mixed with your priest and authority people's words and self concepts . so you see the a new bible after every 5 decade, there are 24000 thousand version of bibles but no two are matched, there are contradictions, manipulations, confusion in the bible. you have said before protestant bible has these things, our bible is pure... i don't know why you are lying and saying this.. Brother don't think the people are so ignorant, innocent and foolish, there all your books and information available on the net...i have given the reference from your all main books that are accepted by catholics.

God knew His scriptures would be translated. He guides His word through translation. There is nothing lost by translation.

The bible does not contradict itself. It fulfills itself.

 

[Grace Seeker]

There is no God Original word in the bible as it is not in its original language. it is available in translations, version. i don't say bible was not from God.

I suggest you do some more research. The Bible was written in the following languages: the OT was mostly written in Hebrew with a few small sections written in Babylonian Aramaic; the NT was written in Greek, though some (a minority among scholars) suggest that the Gospel of Matthew may also have been orginally written in Aramaic before being re-written in Greek. While we don't have the original documents, we do have ancient copies of the original documents in the original Hebrew and Greek languages. So, it simply isn't true that Bible is not in its original language. To learn more about how the present translations were made by consulting the text of the Bible in its original languages I encourage you to read some scholarly articles on the matter. This one is not too weighty and provides a good beginning on the subject: The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, chapter 3.

Actually, original bible which revealed to the prophet Juses was from God.

I'm assuming that's a typo and you meant "Jesus". The view you present is not fact, it is an element of Islamic faith. Outside of Islam there is no substantiation for this view. Personally, I don't think that Jesus ever produced a Bible. Indeed, the whole concept of a Bible (a collection of various texts of scriptures collated into a single book) was not even known at the time of Jesus. We also have no indiciation in the historical record that Jesus ever wrote anything.

But now it has mixed with your priest and authority people's words and self concepts.

Pure poppycock!

so you see the a new bible after every 5 decade

They come much more quickly than that. In the last 5 decades I can name a lot more than just one new Bible that's on the market. But even though they have new covers, and the publishers market them with different names, the original texts that these Bibles are translated from are still the same set of texts. They are no more productions of new Bibles than the Yusuf Ali, Shakir, Pickthal, and Moshin Khan translations of the Qur'an represent different Qur'ans.

there are 24000 thousand version of bibles

Now, do you mean versions or translations? Either way, I believe your numbers are off. 24000 thousand would be 24,000,000. I don't believe there are anything close to that number. In another thread you gave 73 as the number of versions. Please get your numbers straight. I would not be surprised to find the number of the different translations numbering in the thousands. But as for the number of different versions, well, we need to define what you mean by version first.

Brother don't think the people are so ignorant, innocent and foolish, there all your books and information available on the net...i have given the reference from your all main books that are accepted by catholics.

Hafizsaad, why should we not think that people are ignorant, innocent, and foolish? How else can one explain a person holding the view that you have put forth here?

 

[غزالی]

I suggest you do some more research. The Bible was written in the following languages: the OT was mostly written in Hebrew with a few small sections written in Babylonian Aramaic; the NT was written in Greek, though some (a minority among scholars) suggest that the Gospel of Matthew may also have been orginally written in Aramaic before being re-written in Greek. While we don't have the original documents, we do have ancient copies of the original documents in the original Hebrew and Greek languages. So, it simply isn't true that Bible is not in its original language. To learn more about how the present translations were made by consulting the text of the Bible in its original languages I encourage you to read some scholarly articles on the matter. This one is not too weighty and provides a good beginning on the subject: The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, chapter 3.

The God says in Qur'an these things:

"Then woe to those who write the book (of Allah/God) 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 Qur'an Al-Bakarah(2):79
I'm assuming that's a typo and you meant "Jesus". The view you present is not fact, it is an element of Islamic faith. Outside of Islam there is no substantiation for this view. Personally, I don't think that Jesus ever produced a Bible. Indeed, the whole concept of a Bible (a collection of various texts of scriptures collated into a single book) was not even known at the time of Jesus. We also have no indiciation in the historical record that Jesus ever wrote anything.

Pure poppycock!

They come much more quickly than that. In the last 5 decades I can name a lot more than just one new Bible that's on the market. But even though they have new covers, and the publishers market them with different names, the original texts that these Bibles are translated from are still the same set of texts. They are no more productions of new Bibles than the Yusuf Ali, Shakir, Pickthal, and Moshin Khan translations of the Qur'an represent different Qur'ans.

Brother, you still insisting on the Pure bible, Bible original words of God and giving example the Translation of Quran. The Quran has its original words in which it revealed to Prophet Muhammad . The name of translation by persons you have posted are not version but that are translation to that original world of Quran for the People who feel difficult to understand Arabic Quran.

you can see Bible is written in human language (3rd person view and word choosing). Your own great scholars have not claimed that Bible is originally God's words. They have accepted it interpreted, manipulated and contain personal viewpoints mean human words and there are still many contradiction between them.
We will note that every Gospel begins with the introduction "According to....." such as "The Gospel according to Saint Matthew," "The Gospel according to Saint Luke," "The Gospel according to Saint Mark," "The Gospel according to Saint John." The obvious conclusion for the average man on the street is that these people are known to be the authors of the books attributed to them. This, however is not the case. Why? Because not one of the vaunted four thousand copies existent carries it's author's signature. It has just been assumed that they were the authors. Recent discoveries, however, refute this belief. Even the internal evidence proves that, for instance, Matthew did not write the Gospel attributed to him:

"...And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (Jesus) saith unto HIM (Matthew), follow ME (Jesus) and HE (Matthew) arose, and followed HIM (Jesus)."
Matthew 9:9

It does not take a rocket scientist to see that neither Jesus nor Matthew wrote this verse of "Matthew." Such evidence can be found in many places throughout the New Testament. Although many people have hypothesized that it is possible that an author sometimes may write in the third person, still, in light of the rest of the evidence that we shall see throughout this book, there is simply too much evidence against this hypothesis.

it had been changed and still changing according to the need of the period of Peoples, i can give you the viewpoint of your great scholars of bible.

Christian scholar, Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, says:

"...Not so the New testament...There is condensation and editing; there is choice reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the church behind the authors. They represent experience and history..."

Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 12th Ed. Vol. 3, p. 643

Dr. Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin Von Tischendorf, one of the most adamant conservative Christian defenders of the Trinity was himself driven to admit that:

"[the New Testament had] in many passages undergone such serious modification of meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what the Apostles had actually written"

Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Dr. Frederic Kenyon, Eyre and Spottiswoode, p. 3

Throughout this book you will find countless other similar quotations from some of Christendom's leading scholars. Let us suffice with these for now.

the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952 :

All biblical "versions" of the Bible prior to the revised version of 1881 were dependent upon the "Ancient Copies" (those dating between five to six hundred years after Jesus). The revisers of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952 were the first biblical scholars to have access to the "MOST ancient copies" which date fully three to four hundred years after Christ. It is only logical for us to concur that the closer a document is to the source the more authentic it is. Let us see what is the opinion of Christendom with regard to the most revised version of the Bible (revised in 1952 and then again in 1971):


"A completely fresh translation by scholars of the highest eminence" - (Times literary supplement)

"The well loved characteristics of the authorized version combined with a new accuracy of translation" - (Life and Work)

"The most accurate and close rendering of the original" - (The Times)

The publishers themselves (Collins) mention on page 10 of their notes:

"This Bible (RSV) is the product of thirty two scholars assisted by an advisory committee representing fifty cooperating denominations"

Let us see what these thirty two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations have to say about the Authorized Version (AV), or as it is better known, the King James Version (KJV). In the preface of the RSV 1971 we find the following:

"...Yet the King James Version has GRAVE DEFECTS.."

They go on to caution us that:

"...That these defects are SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS as to call for revision"

The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "AWAKE" Magazine dated 8th September 1957 published the following headline: "50,000 Errors in the Bible" wherein they say "..there are probably 50,000 errors in the Bible...errors which have crept into the Bible text...50,000 such serious errors..." After all of this, however, they go on to say: " Let us have a look at only a very few of these errors.

In John 3:16 - AV(KJV) we read:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.."

But as seen in section 1.2.3.10, this fabrication "begotten" has now been unceremoniously excised by these most eminent of Bible revisers. However, humanity did not have to wait 2000 years for this revelation.

In 1st Epistle of John 5:7 (King James Version) we find:

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one."

As we have already seen in section 1.2.2.5, this verse is the closest approximation to what the Church calls the holy Trinity. However, as seen in that section, this cornerstone of the Christian faith has also been scrapped from the RSV by the same thirty two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, once again all according to the "most ancient manuscripts."

In the latter part of the second century, Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth says:

"As the brethren desired me to write epistles(letters), I did so, and these the apostles of the devil have filled with tares (undesirable elements), exchanging some things and adding others, for whom there is a woe reserved. It is not therefore, a matter of wonder if some have also attempted to adulterate the sacred writings of the Lord, since they have attempted the same in other works that are not to be compared with these."

St. Augustine himself, a man acknowledged and looked up to by both Protestants and Catholics alike, professed that there were secret doctrines in the Christian religion and that "there were many things true in the Christian religion which it was not convenient for the vulgar to know, and that some things were false, but convenient for the vulgar to believe in them."

There are countless examples in the Bible where verses of a questionable nature are included in the text without any disclaimer telling the reader that many scholars and translators have serious reservations as to their authenticity. The King James Version of the Bible (Also known as the "Authorized Version"), the one in the hands of the majority of Christendom today, is one of the most notorious in this regard. It gives the reader absolutely no clue as to the questionable nature of such verses. However, more recent translations of the Bible are now beginning to be a little more honest and forthcoming in this regard. For example, the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, by Oxford Press, has adopted an extremely subtle system of bracketing the most glaring examples of such questionable verses with double square brackets ([[ ]]). It is highly unlikely that the casual reader will realize the true function these brackets serve. They are there to tell the informed reader that the enclosed verses are of a highly questionable nature. Examples of this are the story of the "woman taken in adultery" in John 8:1-11, as well as Mark 16:9-20 (Jesus' resurrection and return), and Luke 23:34 (which, interestingly enough, is there to confirm the prophesy of Isaiah 53:12).....and so forth.

christian sect are not even agreed on the definition of what exactly is an "inspired" book of God. The Protestants are taught that there are 66 truly "inspired" books in the Bible, while the Catholics have been taught that there are 73 truly "inspired" books, not to mention the many other sects and their "newer" books, such as the Mormons, etc. As we shall see shortly, the very first Christians, for many generations, did not follow either the 66 books of the Protestants, nor the 73 books of the Catholics. Quite the opposite, they believed in books that were, many generations later, "recognized" to be fabrications and apocrypha by a more enlightened age than that of the apostles.

Well, where do all of these Bibles come from and why the difficulty in defining what is a truly "inspired" word of God? They come from the "ancient manuscripts" (also known as MSS). The Christian world today boasts of an excess of 24,000 "ancient manuscripts" of the Bible dating all the way back to the fourth century after Christ (But not back to Christ or the apostles themselves). In other words, we have with us gospels which date back to the century when the Trinitarians took over the Christian Church. All manuscripts from before this period have strangely perished. All Bibles in existence today are compiled from these "ancient manuscripts." Any scholar of the Bible will tell us that no two ancient manuscripts are exactly identical.

People today generally believe that there is only ONE Bible, and ONE version of any given verse of the Bible. This is far from true. All Bibles in our possession today (Such as the KJV, the NRSV, the NAB, NIV,...etc.) are the result of extensive cutting and pasting from these various manuscripts with no single one being the definitive reference. There are countless cases where a paragraph shows up in one "ancient manuscript" but is totally missing from many others. For instance, Mark 16:8-20 (twelve whole verses) is completely missing from the most ancient manuscripts available today (such as the Sinaitic Manuscript, the Vatican #1209 and the Armenian version) but shows up in more recent "ancient manuscripts." There are also many documented cases where even geographical locations are completely different from one ancient manuscript to the next. For instance, in the "Samaritan Pentateuch manuscript," Deuteronomy 27:4 speaks of "mount Gerizim," while in the "Hebrew manuscript" the exact same verse speaks of "mount Ebal." From Deuteronomy 27:12-13 we can see that these are two distinctly different locations. Similarly, Luke 4:44 in some "ancient manuscripts" mentions "Synagogues of Judea," others mention "Synagogues of Galilee." This is only a sampling, a comprehensive listing would require a book of it's own.

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/Peace

,,,. When Jesus said to the Jews "before Abraham was I am" they threw stones at Him only because "I am" was the name of God, they knew He was claiming to be God.[/SIZE]

Is Jesus God? Ahmed Deedat vs Anis Sorrosh

The Bible presents Jeremiah as being a prophet before he was conceived in his mother’s womb; “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations. (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 1:5)”


Yet no one says that his pre-human existence qualifies him for deity.



In Exodus chapter 3, God allegedly says: “I am what I am.” Long before the time of Jesus, there existed a Greek translation of the Old Testament called the Septuagint.


The key word, “I am,” in Exodus which is used by Christians to prove the deity of Jesus is translated as “HO ON.” However, when Jesus uses the word in John 8:58 the Greek of the “I am,” is EGO EIMI. If Jesus wanted to tell the Jews that he was claiming to be God he should have at least remained consistent in the use of words or the whole point is lost.

http://truereligiondebate.wordpress.com/is-jesus-god-ahmed-deedat-vs-anis-sorrosh/

 

[Grace Seeker]

Hafizsaad, have you ever heard the phrase, "just enough knowledge to be dangerous"? This is what I think is happening in your case. For instance, you refer to:

an excess of 24,000 "ancient manuscripts" of the Bible

And you have in other posts made this equal to there being 24,000 versions of the Bible. But that is pure fallacy. I used to work in a Christian bookstore. We had hundreds of Bibles on our shelves to sell. But we did not have hundreds of versions. Multiple copies of a manuscript, even of different ages, is NOT the same as mutlipe versions. When you use the term "version" do you know what you mean by it?

As you said above: "The name of translation by persons you have posted are not version but that are translation to that original world of Quran for the People who feel difficult to understand Arabic Quran." I don't disagree with that. It was in fact my point. The production of the KJV, NIV, RSV, etc. are (despite the word "version" appearing in their titles) what you mean by version. They are translations from the original languages into English for those who would not be able to understand it in biblical Greek and Hebrew.

Now, if you want to talk about textual criticism, the process by which a particular text is chosen for translation into English, then we can. But in doing so, the listing of all the different English versions becomes irrelevant.

 

[غزالی]

Hafizsaad, have you ever heard the phrase, "just enough knowledge to be dangerous"? This is what I think is happening in your case. For instance, you refer to:
And you have in other posts made this equal to there being 24,000 versions of the Bible. But that is pure fallacy. I used to work in a Christian bookstore. We had hundreds of Bibles on our shelves to sell. But we did not have hundreds of versions. Multiple copies of a manuscript, even of different ages, is NOT the same as mutlipe versions. When you use the term "version" do you know what you mean by it?

that was my written mistake only, i know the whole situation. what's about my other post on the bible. You are just selecting what match with your interest.
As you said above: "The name of translation by persons you have posted are not version but that are translation to that original world of Quran for the People who feel difficult to understand Arabic Quran." I don't disagree with that. It was in fact my point. The production of the KJV, NIV, RSV, etc. are (despite the word "version" appearing in their titles) what you mean by version. They are translations from the original languages into English for those who would not be able to understand it in biblical Greek and Hebrew.

Now, if you want to talk about textual criticism, the process by which a particular text is chosen for translation into English, then we can. But in doing so, the listing of all the different English versions becomes irrelevant.[/QUOTE]
lol. again comparing with Quran.Brother i have given a detail post on this topic that your bible is now the wordly description of human being not God (translation). your scripture are written in 3rd person language, "according to Mathew", "According to..." etc. I dont want to repeat my whole post again. Brother we have not just translation of Quran but original arabic scripture that revealed to prophet Muhammad also, not in scriptures only but also remembered in Mind. Thanks to God, not for pride just for telling you, i am also one of them who have remembered the whole Quran, i can recite the whole quran without seeing its arabic scriptures.
Brother don't take this as a debate, it's just sharing of Knowledge. Debate are no where beneficial Because debates like this are always a challenge like "I am better than you." and thats it.

 

[غزالی]

Hafizsaad, have you ever heard the phrase, "just enough knowledge to be dangerous"? This is what I think is happening in your case. For instance, you refer to:
And you have in other posts made this equal to there being 24,000 versions of the Bible. But that is pure fallacy. I used to work in a Christian bookstore. We had hundreds of Bibles on our shelves to sell. But we did not have hundreds of versions. Multiple copies of a manuscript, even of different ages, is NOT the same as mutlipe versions. When you use the term "version" do you know what you mean by it?

that was my written mistake only, i know the whole situation. what's about my other post on the bible. You are just selecting what match with your interest.

As you said above: "The name of translation by persons you have posted are not version but that are translation to that original world of Quran for the People who feel difficult to understand Arabic Quran." I don't disagree with that. It was in fact my point. The production of the KJV, NIV, RSV, etc. are (despite the word "version" appearing in their titles) what you mean by version. They are translations from the original languages into English for those who would not be able to understand it in biblical Greek and Hebrew.

Now, if you want to talk about textual criticism, the process by which a particular text is chosen for translation into English, then we can. But in doing so, the listing of all the different English versions becomes irrelevant.

lol. again you are comparing with Quran.Brother i have given a detail post on this topic that your bible is now the wordly description of human being only, not God's original revealed words completly. your scripture are written in 3rd person language, "according to Mathew", "According to..." etc. I dont want to repeat my whole post again. Brother we have not just translation of Quran but original arabic scripture that revealed to prophet Muhammad also, not in scriptures only but remembered and stored in uman Mind also. Thanks to God, not for pride just for telling you, i am also one of them who have remembered the whole Quran, i can recite the whole quran without seeing its arabic scriptures.
Brother don't take this as a debate, it's just sharing of Knowledge, i am not bias, you can check yourself what i have said.. Debate are no where beneficial Because debates like this are always a challenge like "I am better than you." .

 

[crackz]

Paul said this because some people doubted the fact that at the end of the age, there will be a ressurrection.



She adored Him. I do also. Her faith was obviously greater than that of the apostels.



Yahweh revealed His name to Moses. Jesus used the formula "I am" because that was Gods name revealed to Moses.



....there is a problem here. You are quoting from the Koran to tell me what is wrong with my faith in Christ.



I know that you believed Christ to be one of those prophets that were to convert all nations they went to.


Christians are the advancement of the Jews. The Jews knew that "I am" was the name of God. When Jesus said to the Jews "before Abraham was I am" they threw stones at Him only because "I am" was the name of God, they knew He was claiming to be God.

Read the previous verses and find out the context. It clearly says about prophecy and nothing else.

Read again:

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."


57 "You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"

58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered,"Before Abraham was born, I am"

Since the jews were throwing stones he coundn't finish the senctence. It is clear from the context [V. 56] that He was talking about prophecy of coming of Jesus which Abraham knew. Note see also means know. In Verse. 58, he further stress that issue that even in pre-abrahamic faiths I am prophesied. THis makes perfect sense.

Misinterpreting 'I am' and using it as a name of god to justify divinity of Jesus is very weak. It does not make any sense as many Jewish prophets name were actually the name of God. Learn at unveiling-christanity.com

IN addition the correct translation of V. 58 should be as follows
58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "Before Abraham was born, I have been (prophesied)". The same greek word was translated as "was, have, have been, am".

Go to answering christanity.com to read the translation. There is no evidence that Mary was stronger in faith than disciples. SHe was overjoyed because she was deeply expecting that Jesus was alive and naturaly when ones expectation is fullfilled he/she would be overjoyed. Never forget she give the news to the disciple she didn't say to them Jesus was resurrected but Jesus was alive.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Go to answering christanity.com to read the translation. There is no evidence that Mary was stronger in faith than disciples. SHe was overjoyed because she was deeply expecting that Jesus was alive and naturaly when ones expectation is fullfilled he/she would be overjoyed. Never forget she give the news to the disciple she didn't say to them Jesus was resurrected but Jesus was alive.

Which leaves us only to ask the question that was asked of Mary and the other women, one they never answered: "Why do you look for the living among the dead?" One also wonders why, when the women told the disciples about there experience at the tomb that the disciples didn't believe them? Why, if they all expected Jesus to be alive did the information that he was among the living seem like nonsense to them? I suggest it was precisely because they thought he was dead and, like all the general experiencesof people dying that they new about they expected that once dead Jesus would stay dead. That he was alive is what made the women's message sound like nonsense.

 

[tango92]

no disrespect to any christians, but you would imagine god would leave you a sign, some empirical evidence you could go back and rely on. what you have is a book, containing many errors, of whom most (i believe) of the original authors are not known, nor is there any complete original version. this means even i personally could add or subtract some verses and the book remains "sufficient" for guidance. because noone is checking which copies of he bible are "most" true.

you simply dont know who has added or subtracted or changed passages from the bible. everything im saying i learnt from prominent christian scholars. you cant first hand judge the motives of the authors nor is there any proof regarding your religion or concept of god. infact there is heavy proof otherwise.

put it this way, if you want me to believe god is perfect. then at least show to me the guidance he has given is perfect.

 

[Grace Seeker]

no disrespect to any christians.

I appreciate that you do not intend to disrespect Christians. I wonder if you would have considered it disrespectful for a person to categorize Islam as based on a book that was allegedly given to an illiterate man who claimed to have received it from an angel, but an angel and a revelation that no one else was privildeged to have heard or seen? I wonder if you would have considered it disrespectful for a person to challenge the integrity of that person who allegedly received this revelation or of the alleged revelation itself? I wondered if you would have seen it as disrespectful to argue that the revelation received by Islam must be false simply because it disagrees with a revelation that I as a Christian prefer to accept over and against any other revelation? I wonder if you would have considered it disrespectful to debate the authenticity of the present Qur'an based on Islam's only historical narrative regarding how the Qur'an was compiled over time and that it choose to burn any copies that were alleged by a select few to be in error, and thus actually set themselves up as the standard of what was and was not truth, though they were not the people to whom the alleged revelation actually came?

I wonder if one were to ask the same questions of your faith that you do of others if you would have considered it disrespectful to Islam? And I wonder if you see now that even bigger than the disrepect that comes from questioning a person's faith is to say to that person that you are allowed to question other's faith, but you take offense when anyone tries to question yours?

 

[aadil77]

Grace seeker - you say that the different versions are not versions but translations like in the case of the Quran, so what text are these translations based upon?

 

[Grace Seeker]

Grace seeker - you say that the different versions are not versions but translations like in the case of the Quran, so what text are these translations based upon?

A very good question. And the answer is, it depends.

The publishers of the various modern language translations (English, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, Arabic, etc.) have a difficult task in first selecting what they feel is the best text from which to translate. Unlike the Qur'an, we don't have a single document that we refer back to (as also unlike the Qur'an we didn't destory all copies that didn't agree with one another), but many. Some translations like the KVJ and the NKJV used the textus receptus as their text (at least for the New Testament, I don't know the sources for the OT). The textus receptus is a compiled Greek text of the NT that was arrived at by comparing various existing source documents, noting their similarities and differences and then through a process that I call educated guessing (but sounds vaguely familiar to the process that Muslims use to determine the veracity of various hadiths) making selection of that which they believe most accuratley represents the original. Others in translating other Bibles have, in differing from those who produced the textus receptus, used the same process but preferred other source documents as the text from which they have made their transaltion. Two of the standard Greek texts in use today are texts of the United Bible Societies and Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece which is I think used by the NASB. Some publishers, rather than using one of the standard texts, may prefer to produce their own text from among the source documents, but to know the specific answer to your question you'll need to read the introductory material of each translation. Similar processes are involved in selecting a text from which to translate the OT, but I wouldn't be versed in the names of any of those texts.

 

[Ramadhan]

Unlike the Qur'an, we don't have a single document that we refer back to (as also unlike the Qur'an we didn't destory all copies that didn't agree with one another),

You have accused that there were other contradicting versions of the Qur'an. Please give evidence.

but many. Some translations like the KVJ and the NKJV used the textus receptus as their text (at least for the New Testament, I don't know the sources for the OT). The textus receptus is a compiled Greek text of the NT that was arrived at by comparing various existing source documents, noting their similarities and differences and then through a process that I call educated guessing (but sounds vaguely familiar to the process that Muslims use to determine the veracity of various hadiths) making selection of that which they believe most accuratley represents the original.

Vaguely familiar is such an understatement.
The difference is, in the shahih hadiths, the sources lived with the prophet SAW and were close to him, who said what are known, their characters are examined and known, there is unbroken transmission, the characters of people who tranmitted are examined and known.
Meanwhile most sources of the NT is Paul who didnt even meet Jesus a.s., most of bible authors are unknown.

nice comparison, eh?