Why do muslims use the bible if they don't 'believe' in it?

[A-Way-Of-Life]

I agree IbnAbdulHakim, There is no need to use the bible. The bible has a lot of mistakes this is why we have the quran. I think it is best calling people to islam using the Quran and the life of the prophet (SAS) The bible has a lot of false things in it.


I do have some questions about the bible.

First question: Is it true that nowhere in the bible
does Jesus (PBUH) say he "is God" or the "son of god"?

Second question: when Jesus (PBUH) says "father" in the bible, what does this mean? I really doubt he used "father" to adress God. Was it something the gospel writers added in?

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

This is not brother IbnAbdulHakim but his cousin Md Mashud posting on his account

What it is, is that when Muslims (well atleast the practice I've seen) used the bible to, as you say, prophesise the Prophet Mohammad :saw:, they do not read what you have written in English. The misguidance that you believe is just due to mistranslation, or just blatent fabrication. Alot of things which were ORIGINALLY written are contradictory of what is being read and perceived by the Christians today.

People have greatly studied languages - the original language that the Bible was even given out. Tell me somthing, because I find this funny, is that Christians say Jesus. If Jesus was here alive today, and you lot screamed "SAVE US JESUS" - He would look towards you and think "Who are they talking to?". His name was not Jesus, Jesus cannot be formed in the language at the time of Prophet Isa. It is fact no one in the past called him Jesus, yet today all Christians call him Jesus? This is just one of the million fabrications/mistranslations that is given out to the bible.

This is no minor issue. If your name is Thomas, and people started calling you Khomas, you'll be like "No, thats not my name" - and you would be correct as they have no right to call you somthing that you are not. This is not about language problems, in which some languages may find difficult to abbreviate stuff. But in the English language, it is perfectly call Prophet Isa as he was called before, yet its a forced change.... Disgusting really. This applies to many names. People actually read how Islam perceives names and think this is the "Islamic" version of the name. NO, this is not the case, we say it as their name really WAS and thats how it should be. We say Ibrahim as he was called, not Abraham, we say Musa not Moses, we say Yahya not John. You just change stuff to make everything latinised for what reason?

If you can't even say the names correctly, how much of the Bible do you think you can really give the original context? Pretty much very little...

So when a Muslim as said prophesies, he does not take the words as you read it - He will explain the mistranslation/fabrication to that sentence - because if you was to read the original context of those sentences (which we do not call corrupt - the actual corruption is after huge translation and mixed views) you would agree that yes the Prophet is prophesised.

I hope that makes it clearer why people say Bible is corrupt - Its just people use the original bible context to explain what Christianity follows to - Not the book you read it as today. We only really use it most of the time to show how wrong it is due to its many mistakes in its current form.

 

[believer]

This is not brother IbnAbdulHakim but his cousin Md Mashud posting on his account

What it is, is that when Muslims (well atleast the practice I've seen) used the bible to, as you say, prophesise the Prophet Mohammad :saw:, they do not read what you have written in English. The misguidance that you believe is just due to mistranslation, or just blatent fabrication. Alot of things which were ORIGINALLY written are contradictory of what is being read and perceived by the Christians today.

People have greatly studied languages - the original language that the Bible was even given out. Tell me somthing, because I find this funny, is that Christians say Jesus. If Jesus was here alive today, and you lot screamed "SAVE US JESUS" - He would look towards you and think "Who are they talking to?". His name was not Jesus, Jesus cannot be formed in the language at the time of Prophet Isa. It is fact no one in the past called him Jesus, yet today all Christians call him Jesus? This is just one of the million fabrications/mistranslations that is given out to the bible.

This is no minor issue. If your name is Thomas, and people started calling you Khomas, you'll be like "No, thats not my name" - and you would be correct as they have no right to call you somthing that you are not. This is not about language problems, in which some languages may find difficult to abbreviate stuff. But in the English language, it is perfectly call Prophet Isa as he was called before, yet its a forced change.... Disgusting really. This applies to many names. People actually read how Islam perceives names and think this is the "Islamic" version of the name. NO, this is not the case, we say it as their name really WAS and thats how it should be. We say Ibrahim as he was called, not Abraham, we say Musa not Moses, we say Yahya not John. You just change stuff to make everything latinised for what reason?

If you can't even say the names correctly, how much of the Bible do you think you can really give the original context? Pretty much very little...

So when a Muslim as said prophesies, he does not take the words as you read it - He will explain the mistranslation/fabrication to that sentence - because if you was to read the original context of those sentences (which we do not call corrupt - the actual corruption is after huge translation and mixed views) you would agree that yes the Prophet is prophesised.

I hope that makes it clearer why people say Bible is corrupt - Its just people use the original bible context to explain what Christianity follows to - Not the book you read it as today. We only really use it most of the time to show how wrong it is due to its many mistakes in its current form.

Salaamu alaikum bro!

I could'nt have said it better! I just learned something very important from what you just stated. May Allah bless you and guide you further in your dawa.

It would be nice if you can make further elaborations... specially on the reason why the Bible need to be LATINIZED.

That will definitely show more light.

 

[Woodrow]

Salaamu alaikum bro!

I could'nt have said it better! I just learned something very important from what you just stated. May Allah bless you and guide you further in your dawa.

It would be nice if you can make further elaborations... specially on the reason why the Bible need to be LATINIZED.

That will definitely show more light.

I can not resist the opportunity to express my opinion here. One of my interests is Linguistics. Language is much more complex than the simple exchange of words, it is the formation of ideas and connotations. We not only speak our thoughts, language also shapes our thoughts.

The Romans in their conquests Latinized all the conquered. The language was one of the first things they attempted to enforce. Possibly without even understanding it, they had conquered the minds of their captives when they changed the daily speech to Latin. The people no longer thought as their original heritage, they now thought as Romans.

This goes back a long ways, even going to pre-Christianity the Romans changed the Ancient Greek mythology into Latin. The Greek God's became Roman God's and the Greek Mythology was swallowed up to become Roman religious beliefs.

So it was with Christianity. As the Romans changed the Language of the Early Christians to Latin, the Bible was no longer the beliefs of a Jewish denomination, but became a Roman belief. the need to change the Christian beliefs into Latin removed the seat of Christianity from the Mideast to Rome. Because of this, todays Christianity has more resemblance to Roman Beliefs than to the original Christian beliefs. It was necessary to Latinize the names of the people, upon doing so, even while knowing the people of the Bible were of Mideastern heritage, the connotation is that of Roman and European. this became very visually apparent in the Medieval Art. This paved the way for the justification of the Crusades. It was now a Latin religion that was perceived as being held hostage and corrupted by the "different" people that resided in the Mideast.

The thought connotation became "How could these people that did not look like or speak like the people of the Bible, possibly be of the same god?"

For the Western Christian it is necessary for the names of the people in the Bible be Latinized, anything different would look like a different person. The name Isa(as) or Yeshua(as) invokes a totally different thought picture than the name Jesus(as). This was one of the biggest steps for the final transition of separating Christianity from it's origins and removing it completely from the Injil that Isa(as) taught.

After the Bible became translated into English,virtually none of the Mideastern concepts remained. today the Bible can only be accurately traced back to the Latin and Classical Greek, yet even then the Translations carry a Latinized flair. The bible of today is not a book of the Aramaic or Hebrew speaking people of the Mideast during the time of Isa(as), it is a translation of Roman thought with some Greek influence.

So, yes the Bible NEEDS to be Latinized, otherwise it will be found to be a Greco/Roman invention and not the word of God(swt)

 

[Keltoi]

I can not resist the opportunity to express my opinion here. One of my interests is Linguistics. Language is much more complex than the simple exchange of words, it is the formation of ideas and connotations. We not only speak our thoughts, language also shapes our thoughts.

The Romans in their conquests Latinized all the conquered. The language was one of the first things they attempted to enforce. Possibly without even understanding it, they had conquered the minds of their captives when they changed the daily speech to Latin. The people no longer thought as their original heritage, they now thought as Romans.

This goes back a long ways, even going to pre-Christianity the Romans changed the Ancient Greek mythology into Latin. The Greek God's became Roman God's and the Greek Mythology was swallowed up to become Roman religious beliefs.

So it was with Christianity. As the Romans changed the Language of the Early Christians to Latin, the Bible was no longer the beliefs of a Jewish denomination, but became a Roman belief. the need to change the Christian beliefs into Latin removed the seat of Christianity from the Mideast to Rome. Because of this, todays Christianity has more resemblance to Roman Beliefs than to the original Christian beliefs. It was necessary to Latinize the names of the people, upon doing so, even while knowing the people of the Bible were of Mideastern heritage, the connotation is that of Roman and European. this became very visually apparent in the Medieval Art. This paved the way for the justification of the Crusades. It was now a Latin religion that was perceived as being held hostage and corrupted by the "different" people that resided in the Mideast.

The thought connotation became "How could these people that did not look like or speak like the people of the Bible, possibly be of the same god?"

For the Western Christian it is necessary for the names of the people in the Bible be Latinized, anything different would look like a different person. The name Isa(as) or Yeshua(as) invokes a totally different thought picture than the name Jesus(as). This was one of the biggest steps for the final transition of separating Christianity from it's origins and removing it completely from the Injil that Isa(as) taught.

After the Bible became translated into English,virtually none of the Mideastern concepts remained. today the Bible can only be accurately traced back to the Latin and Classical Greek, yet even then the Translations carry a Latinized flair. The bible of today is not a book of the Aramaic or Hebrew speaking people of the Mideast during the time of Isa(as), it is a translation of Roman thought with some Greek influence.

So, yes the Bible NEEDS to be Latinized, otherwise it will be found to be a Greco/Roman invention and not the word of God(swt)

Just some thoughts on this. I'm not quite following your logic about the "Latinization" of the Bible. Rome didn't seek out Christianity, Christianity came to them. That was the mission of the disciples and the early Christian Church. That is what never made sense to me about the whole "Paul distorted Christianity" conspiracy. The early manuscripts of the Christian faith were written in Greek, as that was the language of commerce during this period of time, and also because of the people the message was intended to reach, i.e. the Gentiles. Many of the new converts and clerics of the church were not Hebrew or Aramaic speakers. The OT and the NT were constantly being translated to reach people of different languages. Examples being the Syriac and Coptic translations.

Contrary to the belief of many, Greek was the primary language of the Roman Empire for quite some time. It was the Hellenistic language spread by the conquests of Alexander the Great. While Latin was growing in use as the power of the Roman Empire increased, Greek, more specifically Koine Greek, was the dominant language in use by the geographic area we are referring to, especially in the case of writing.

The point is that the language of NT translations mean absolutely nothing as far as "proving" some distortion of the original Christian teachings.

 

[believer]

What happened to the Hebrew bible?

 

[Keltoi]

What happened to the Hebrew bible?

Around 300 BC the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek because most Jews did not speak Hebrew any longer. It was called the Septuagint. Copies of the original Hebrew Bible have been lost or destroyed, although some exist in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

[believer]

Around 300 BC the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek because most Jews did not speak Hebrew any longer. It was called the Septuagint. Copies of the original Hebrew Bible have been lost or destroyed, although some exist in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Hi Keltoi,

I appreciate your response... but, how did that happen? ... I mean, how did the Jews came about to not speaking Hebrew anymore that time? why the sudden change? why did they speak Greek all of a sudden at that point in history? Any information who destroyed the original Hebrew Bible or who have kept it? thank you for shedding some light... and for continuing to shed light in this issue.

 

[NoName55]

What happened to the Hebrew bible?

Best to wait for a Jewish member or ask in Jewish thread (if you want an answer closerer to the truth)

Jewish Bible and the OT are 2 very different Books, The OT may have started out as the Bible but Chinese whispers have transformed it to quite something else

 

[Keltoi]

Hi Keltoi,

I appreciate your response... but, how did that happen? ... I mean, how did the Jews came about to not speaking Hebrew anymore that time? why the sudden change? why did they speak Greek all of a sudden at that point in history? Any information who destroyed the original Hebrew Bible or who have kept it? thank you for shedding some light... and for continuing to shed light in this issue.

Contrary to what No Name stated, the "truth" on this matter is one based on historical record. One doesn't have to be Jewish to reply.

It is widely accepted that the language of the "marketplace" during the Second Temple Period in Israel was Aramaic. However, those living in more Hellenistic towns also spoke Greek as a second language. Granted, Aramaic and Hebrew are closely related...sort of like Spanish and Italian. That doesn't mean all Jews stopped speaking Hebrew altogether, it was still widely used in Jewish scholarship and religious practice, and probably to a certain extent in the family. The Septuagint was created primarily for those Jews who were living outside of Judea, and some inside Judea, who did not speak Hebrew.

As for what happened to the original Hebrew Bible, I don't think anyone really knows the answer to that question. However, there is very little doubt that the copies made from the original are exact. Unless I'm mistaken, Jewish scribes were known to memorize the exact number of words and letters the Bible contained.

 

[islamic]

Muslims believe that the Bible contain some words of God, some words of prophets, some words of historians ..and some other words.
We muslims, DON'T USE THE BIBLE in our daily life, we have the Final and Last testament, the Holy Quran.
Now, many christians are telling us: "the Bible is book from God, my Bible says this, my Bible says that ..., we have the proof, we have the truth.. ".
Now, we muslims say: "Let us see that truth, let us examine that proof, because we can not believe something without seeing is it really true or is it false".
that's why, WE MUSLIMS are using the Bible, because you are telling us that is a Book from God. So, we proof you again and again that IT IS NOT a Book from God, it has been changed time after time, and we are comparing our Quran and The Bible, to tell you HOW a reall book from God looks like (the Quran), and how a reall Book NOT FROM GOD looks like (the Bible).
We have the Quran to believe in, and according to the Quran, we judge what is FALSE in the Bible, and what LITTLE is left as a word of God in the Bible.

 

[dwa2day]

Re: Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) Prophecised in other Scriptures.

......................
So why is it that Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him)'s message would be totally different to the rest of the Prophets messages? Isn't that a contradiction that your Lord is One. And isn't it common sense that 3 doesn't equal 1? God doesn't make religion hard for us to grasp, especially matters of creed and faith. Especially things which depend wholely on salvation.

Regards.

Hi Qatada
I fail to see how the prophets of the Old Testament differ to Jesus Teachings as stated above. Especially note that there are 353 of their prophecies regarding Jesus that were fulfilled by Jesus. http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies.html
Please can you offer biblical support for this so that I can more full evaluate you statement. Please make note which translation of the bible used as well as the verse you are comparing too.
Thanking you in advance.

Regards
Doug

 

[dwa2day]

I can not resist the opportunity to express my opinion here. One of my interests is Linguistics. .............................

So, yes the Bible NEEDS to be Latinized, otherwise it will be found to be a Greco/Roman invention and not the word of God(swt)

Clearly you have no idea as to how the Bible is translated. And I doubt the Quran would stand up to the same standard of textual criticism you apply to the Bible.

 

[dwa2day]

......................
Now, we muslims say: "Let us see that truth, let us examine that proof, because we can not believe something without seeing is it really true or is it false".

May I send you a bible for you to read?

 

[dwa2day]

.....................................As for what happened to the original Hebrew Bible, I don't think anyone really knows the answer to that question. However, there is very little doubt that the copies made from the original are exact. Unless I'm mistaken, Jewish scribes were known to memorize the exact number of words and letters the Bible contained.

May I add to your post the following:-
Let’s explore some rule the Hebrew scribes followed to when coping text.
1. They could only use clean animal skins, both to write on, and even to bind manuscripts.
2. Each column of writing could have no less than forty-eight, and no more than sixty lines.
3. The ink must be black, and of a special recipe.
4. They must verbalize each word aloud while they were writing.
5. They must wipe the pen and wash their entire bodies before writing the word “Jehovah,” every time they wrote it.
6. The letters, words, and paragraphs had to be counted, and the document became invalid if two letters touched each other.
7. The middle paragraph, word and letter must correspond to those of the original document.
8. There must be a review within thirty days, and if as many as three pages required corrections, the entire manuscript had to be redone.
9. As no document containing God’s Word could be destroyed, they were stored, or buried, in a genizah – a Hebrew term meaning “hiding place.” These were usually kept in a synagogue or sometimes in a Jewish cemetery.

Yes ok rules are in place and dose not account for human error. So by comparing the Dead Sea Scrolls (100BC to 100AD) with the with Masoretic Text and Greek Septuagint we will have an indication of the type and extent of the errors. I quote Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div. “the Qumran texts have provided compelling evidence that buttresses our faith in the integrity of the manuscripts on which our translations are based. It is now up to Bible believers to allow these texts to direct our attention to divine concerns and become the people God intends us to be.”


Regards
Doug

 

[dwa2day]

This is not brother IbnAbdulHakim but his cousin Md Mashud posting on his account

What it is, is that when Muslims (well atleast the practice I've seen) used the bible to, as you say, prophesise the Prophet Mohammad :saw:, they do not read what you have written in English. The misguidance that you believe is just due to mistranslation, or just blatent fabrication. Alot of things which were ORIGINALLY written are contradictory of what is being read and perceived by the Christians today.

People have greatly studied languages - the original language that the Bible was even given out. Tell me somthing, because I find this funny, is that Christians say Jesus. If Jesus was here alive today, and you lot screamed "SAVE US JESUS" - He would look towards you and think "Who are they talking to?". His name was not Jesus, Jesus cannot be formed in the language at the time of Prophet Isa. It is fact no one in the past called him Jesus, yet today all Christians call him Jesus? This is just one of the million fabrications/mistranslations that is given out to the bible.

This is no minor issue. If your name is Thomas, and people started calling you Khomas, you'll be like "No, thats not my name" - and you would be correct as they have no right to call you somthing that you are not. This is not about language problems, in which some languages may find difficult to abbreviate stuff. But in the English language, it is perfectly call Prophet Isa as he was called before, yet its a forced change.... Disgusting really. This applies to many names. People actually read how Islam perceives names and think this is the "Islamic" version of the name. NO, this is not the case, we say it as their name really WAS and thats how it should be. We say Ibrahim as he was called, not Abraham, we say Musa not Moses, we say Yahya not John. You just change stuff to make everything latinised for what reason?

If you can't even say the names correctly, how much of the Bible do you think you can really give the original context? Pretty much very little...

So when a Muslim as said prophesies, he does not take the words as you read it - He will explain the mistranslation/fabrication to that sentence - because if you was to read the original context of those sentences (which we do not call corrupt - the actual corruption is after huge translation and mixed views) you would agree that yes the Prophet is prophesised.

I hope that makes it clearer why people say Bible is corrupt - Its just people use the original bible context to explain what Christianity follows to - Not the book you read it as today. We only really use it most of the time to show how wrong it is due to its many mistakes in its current form.

Hi Md Mashud

What I think you should first understand is the purpose of the modern day translation of the Bible. To do this one needs to understand the reformation and the bible of the Bible of the middle ages. At this time the majority of people did not read or write and the priest and popes of the time were not ethical in preaching the truth to the people. Faith dwindled under the trinary of the Catholic Church. People like Calvin, Wycliffe and Luther began see this and as learned men could read the Latin and saw the error of Catholic leader. This lead to the translation of the Bible into languages for common people around 1500 -1900. In the same manner a Greek or Latin copy of the bible will do no good to anyone in Iceland other than a door stop. Why because Gods intention is to have all of creation know his precepts so we all go to heaven not just you and me.

Yes we are human and errors do occur in translation as pointed out in your post. Yes keeping the original name would have been a good solution. Yet I serious doubt this would have changed the Muslims view of the Bible as it would not solve the conflict in the crucifixion debate for example.

However the reformation and modern translations should not be seen as corrupt. For example most Christian today do not accept the KJV as a good translation it is filled with errors and why do we know this because human error can now be reduced with the aid of modern technology. Yet in 1611 at least the true underlining message of salvation could be read and was no longer hidden from the masses

Yes when I am serious about a topic I too do not rely on the copy I have. Correct exegeses comes from the original transcripts and asking questions such what was the target audience, what were there traditions and how would they have understood the passage in discussion. As you have clear point what is the root of the word been read.

Saying “Jesus save me” would be ignored by God, Allah or the Messiah whatever name you chose is putting your personal restriction onto a God who create the universe. Personal I have used the name of Jesus directly in the face of conflict and seen people delivered of demonic forces, a man stopped dead in his tract before assaulting someone to name a few. But that off topic.

Personally I think the true problem is our cultural background, living is westernised world free choice is the name of the game, I do not believe Muslims have this same freedom when it comes to Islam. If it were so Christians would be allowed to preach at Meca.

Regards
Doug

 

[Kiro]

Christians use the Qu'ran to debunk Muslims

Also, I don't think all of the Bible is corrupt, just bits of pieces that are either lost or changed.

For example, the prophesied one should be in all versions of the bible and should be up to the scholars of Christianity on what is right and keeping some verses in tact.

 

[dwa2day]

I agree IbnAbdulHakim, There is no need to use the bible. The bible has a lot of mistakes this is why we have the quran. I think it is best calling people to islam using the Quran and the life of the prophet (SAS) The bible has a lot of false things in it.

I do have some questions about the bible.

First question: Is it true that nowhere in the bible
does Jesus (PBUH) say he "is God" or the "son of god"?

Second question: when Jesus (PBUH) says "father" in the bible, what does this mean? I really doubt he used "father" to adress God. Was it something the gospel writers added in?

Hi A-Way-Of-Life
With reference to your opening statement I will be more than happy to answer mistakes you noted are in the bible. Please can you be specific with reference.

You raise two very good questions. To fully comprehend this you would have to also understand the trinity, this in itself is not easy for most Christians. So I will avoid this for now in my explanation / answer to your questions.

“Is it true that nowhere in the bible does Jesus (PBUH) say he "is God" or the "son of god"?

The Bible never records Jesus saying the precise words, “I am God.” That does not mean, however, that He did not proclaim that He is God. Take for example Jesus’ words in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” We need only to look at the Jews’ reaction to His statement to know He was claiming to be God. They tried to stone Him for this very reason: “You, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). The Jews understood exactly what Jesus was claiming—deity. When Jesus declared, “I and the Father are one,” He was saying that He and the Father are of one nature and essence. John 8:58 is another example. Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth … before Abraham was born, I am!” Jews who heard this statement responded by taking up stones to kill Him for blasphemy, as the Mosaic Law commanded (Leviticus 24:16).
John reiterates the concept of Jesus’ deity: “The Word [Jesus] was God” and “the Word became flesh” (John 1:1, 14). These verses clearly indicate that Jesus is God in the flesh. Acts 20:28 tells us, “Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.” Who bought the church with His own blood? Jesus Christ. And this same verse declares that God purchased His church with His own blood. Therefore, Jesus is God!

Regarding the Son of God.
Mark says it at the outset of his gospel (1:1).
The angel told Mary her child would be the Son of God (Luke 1:35).
John the Baptist said the same thing (John 1:34).
Nathanael said it (John 1:49).
Martha believed it (John 11:27).
The centurion said so (Matthew 27:54).
Jesus claimed that He said so (John 10:36).
Jesus clearly implies it in John 11:4.
The demons called Jesus the Son of God (Matthew 8:29; Luke 4:41; Mark 3:11).
The charge against Jesus was that He claimed to be the Son of God (Matthew 27:43; John 19:7), a claim He never denied, and virtually admitted (Luke 22:70).
The Gospel of John was written to convince the reader that Jesus was the Son of God (John 20:31).
Why, you might ask, does Jesus not say so plainly. I think the answer is found in Matthew 16:15-17:
15 He said to them, “And who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven!” (Matthew 16:15-17).

Jesus did not want Peter and His disciples to believe He was the Son of God just because He said so. He wanted God to bring them to this conclusion, based upon the overwhelming evidence of Scripture and our Lord’s life and teaching.


When Jesus (PBUH) says "father" in the bible, what does this mean? I really doubt he used "father" to adress God. Was it something the gospel writers added in?

The term Father in Heaven is used by Jesus some 181 times in the gospels. About once in every 140 words spoken by Jesus. Jesus was speaking about His Father. His central message and purpose was to restore us to a relationship with our Daddy in Heaven.

I fully understand from a Muslim view this is not the manner to relate to our Creator. However consider the family unit here. Father Mother and Son. The father is the king of the household, the mother the support and the child. It is through the direction and respect commanded from the father that instructs the child. He still calls you daddy and you heart melts like butter. Thus in time the formation of a solid father son relationship. Thus the reason God, in the form of Jesus broke through the bounds of time to interact with us so we could see that his law were as important as a direct relationship in love with Him.

Regards
Doug

 

[Futuwwa]

Thread necromancy! What is dead may never die!

 

[dwa2day]

Christians use the Qu'ran to debunk Muslims

Also, I don't think all of the Bible is corrupt, just bits of pieces that are either lost or changed.

For example, the prophesied one should be in all versions of the bible and should be up to the scholars of Christianity on what is right and keeping some verses in tact.

Please can you offer references for your statement "the prophesied one should be in all versions of the bible" show what is excluded in what bible.

Regards
Doug