G
Guest
Guest
Quath
Quath
you call those contradictions
oh just wait untill my mom hears this
i'll be back
Quath
you call those contradictions
oh just wait untill my mom hears this
i'll be back
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
The Bible: Fact or Fiction?
- Thread starter Blazin Bones
- Start date
Re: Quath
I have heard every excuse imaginable to reconcile problems in holy books. Yet these people never recognize they are doing mental gymnastics to fix the contradictions. Try to think critically and for yourself.
Quath
You can reconcile any contradiction you want if you really want to. I mean any contradiction about anything. You can believe that 2+2=5 if you try hard enough. But I think you will do grave disservice to yourself when you do that. Imagine if these things were written about the Christians or Hindu. Would you accept them as contradictions?Frost-X said:
I have heard every excuse imaginable to reconcile problems in holy books. Yet these people never recognize they are doing mental gymnastics to fix the contradictions. Try to think critically and for yourself.
Quath
H
hopefearmercy
Guest
translations from translations
Hello,
Contradictions, contradictions, contradictions,...mistakes, mistakes, mistakes...they are there no matter how you look at it....this is why a TRANSLATION cannot be called the word of God...don't you understand?
mistakes happen at the hands of men....constantly...they are adding and deleting and then coming back and sayin..oh wait...let's make it like this...did you know that there are books in Rome that you all are not allowed to even look at??? why????...why are Christian theologians hiding books?....you are not allowed to enter unless you are some "ordained high whatever"...you should be posting these questions yourselves to THEM!....
mistakes are there enough to make every Christian want to find them and ask why are they there!
...I mean afterall, that is what a normal person would do would they not?...mistakes...such as accounts of numbers....or another example...like this one;Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?
(a) God did (2 Samuel 24:1)
(b) Satan did (1 Chronicles 21:1)
many are there....I can post at least 20 for you offhand...if you wish...but what I am on about...is that they are there....IF they are mistranslated from a translation of NOT AN ORIGINAL saying and recording from Jesus, how can you take this as words from God?
hopefearmercy
Hello,
Contradictions, contradictions, contradictions,...mistakes, mistakes, mistakes...they are there no matter how you look at it....this is why a TRANSLATION cannot be called the word of God...don't you understand?
mistakes happen at the hands of men....constantly...they are adding and deleting and then coming back and sayin..oh wait...let's make it like this...did you know that there are books in Rome that you all are not allowed to even look at??? why????...why are Christian theologians hiding books?....you are not allowed to enter unless you are some "ordained high whatever"...you should be posting these questions yourselves to THEM!....
mistakes are there enough to make every Christian want to find them and ask why are they there!
...I mean afterall, that is what a normal person would do would they not?...mistakes...such as accounts of numbers....or another example...like this one;Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel? (a) God did (2 Samuel 24:1)
(b) Satan did (1 Chronicles 21:1)
many are there....I can post at least 20 for you offhand...if you wish...but what I am on about...is that they are there....IF they are mistranslated from a translation of NOT AN ORIGINAL saying and recording from Jesus, how can you take this as words from God?
hopefearmercy
G
Gary
Guest
The manuscripts - the Bible
So let us compare the oldest manuscripts of the Bible with the oldest manuscripts of the Quran. You may be surprised!
http://www.geocities.com/gary_bee_za/gi ... egrity.htm
There are three great manuscripts still existing of the Bible in Greek (containing the Septuagint of the Old Testament and original Greek text of the New) dating centuries before the time of Muhammad. They are:
1. Codex Alexandrinus
This volume, written in the fifth century after Christ, contains the whole Bible except for a few leaves lost from the New Testament (Matthew 1.1 - 25.6, John 6.50 - 8.52 and 2 Corinthians 4.13 - 12.6). Nothing is contained in it that is not part of our current Bible. The manuscript is in the British Museum in London.
2. Codex Sinaiticus
This very ancient text, dating from the late fourth century, contains the whole of the New Testament and much of the Old. Preserved for centuries in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg in Russia, it was sold for one hundred thousand pounds to the British Government and is also now kept in the British Museum.
3. Codex Vaticanus
Probably the oldest surviving manuscript of the whole Bible, it was written in the fourth century and is preserved in the Vatican Library in Rome. The last part of the New Testament from Hebrews 9.14 to the end of Revelation is written in a different hand to the rest of the manuscript (the original scribe probably was not able to complete the text through death or some other cause).
These manuscripts prove conclusively that the only scriptures in the hands of the Church at least two hundred years prior to Muhammad’s time were the Old and New Testaments as we know them.
Other Early Evidences of the Integrity of the Bible
There are numerous other evidences for the integrity of the Bible dating from many centuries before Islam. In discussion with Muslims you should emphasise the following:
1. The Hebrew Massoretic Texts
Not only do Christians possess early Biblical manuscripts but Jews likewise, who hold to the Old Testament as the only scripture ever written for them, possess texts in the original Hebrew language in which the Old Testament was originally written, going back at least a thousand years. They are known as the Massoretic texts.
2. The Dead Sea Scrolls
First discovered in caves in the wilderness of Qumran around the Dead Sea in Israel, these contain numerous portions of the Old Testament in the original Hebrew dating back to the second century before Christ. No less than two copies of the Book of Isaiah were included in this collection containing predictions of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Isaiah 53.1-12), his virgin-birth (Isaiah 7.14) and his deity (Isaiah 9.6-7).
3. The Septuagint
This is the title of the first translation of the Old Testament into Greek. It was likewise transcribed in the second century before Christ, containing all the great prophecies to the coming of the Messiah, the fact that he is the Son of God (Psalm 2.7, 1 Chronicles 17.11-14), as well as details of his suffering and atoning death (Psalms 22 and 69). The early Church freely used the Septuagint.
4. The Latin Vulgate
The Roman Catholic Church translated the whole Bible into Latin in the fourth century after Christ using the Septuagint and ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. The Vulgate, like the Septuagint, dates from the fourth century after Christ and contains the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as we know them. It was established as the standard text for the Roman Church.
5. Portions of the Greek New Testament
There are numerous pages, fragments and portions of the original Greek New Testament surviving from as early as the second century after Christ. They all, taken together, form the contents of the New Testament as we know it. It is very interesting to compare this wealth of evidence with the texts which exist for the oldest of the Greek and Roman classics, many of which date not earlier than a thousand years after Christ. In fact no other ancient writings from the same era have such a mass of manuscript evidence as that for the Greek New Testament.
What is most important and must be emphasised with Muslims is that there is no alternative source of evidence suggesting that the life and teachings of Jesus Christ were substantially other than that which is recorded in the Bible. All the apocryphal writings rejected by the Church at least generally follow the same threads as those in the New Testament manuscripts. Certainly no historical evidence from the same period exists to suggest that he was really the prophet of Islam which the Qur’an makes him out to be.
In conclusion it is useful to challenge the Muslim to produce historical evidences to substantiate their argument that the Bible as we know it has been changed. What was it originally? What, precisely, was changed to make it the book it is today? Who made these changes? When were they made? Once you challenge any Muslim to identify the actual people who are supposed to have corrupted the Bible, at what time in history it took place, and precisely what textual changes were made to original manuscripts, you will find them entirely unable to do so. Such evidences quite simply do not exist. Always remember - the Muslim onslaught comes not from a scholarly examination of the evidences but from a necessary presupposition. The Bible, in their minds, must have been changed if it contradicts the Qur’an and unfortunately Muslims all too often pick up a Bible, not to read it or understand its teachings, but purely to find fault with it to justify their prejudices against it.
http://www.geocities.com/gary_bee_za/gi ... egrity.htm
So let us compare the oldest manuscripts of the Bible with the oldest manuscripts of the Quran. You may be surprised!
http://www.geocities.com/gary_bee_za/gi ... egrity.htm
There are three great manuscripts still existing of the Bible in Greek (containing the Septuagint of the Old Testament and original Greek text of the New) dating centuries before the time of Muhammad. They are:
1. Codex Alexandrinus
This volume, written in the fifth century after Christ, contains the whole Bible except for a few leaves lost from the New Testament (Matthew 1.1 - 25.6, John 6.50 - 8.52 and 2 Corinthians 4.13 - 12.6). Nothing is contained in it that is not part of our current Bible. The manuscript is in the British Museum in London.
2. Codex Sinaiticus
This very ancient text, dating from the late fourth century, contains the whole of the New Testament and much of the Old. Preserved for centuries in the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg in Russia, it was sold for one hundred thousand pounds to the British Government and is also now kept in the British Museum.
3. Codex Vaticanus
Probably the oldest surviving manuscript of the whole Bible, it was written in the fourth century and is preserved in the Vatican Library in Rome. The last part of the New Testament from Hebrews 9.14 to the end of Revelation is written in a different hand to the rest of the manuscript (the original scribe probably was not able to complete the text through death or some other cause).
These manuscripts prove conclusively that the only scriptures in the hands of the Church at least two hundred years prior to Muhammad’s time were the Old and New Testaments as we know them.
Other Early Evidences of the Integrity of the Bible
There are numerous other evidences for the integrity of the Bible dating from many centuries before Islam. In discussion with Muslims you should emphasise the following:
1. The Hebrew Massoretic Texts
Not only do Christians possess early Biblical manuscripts but Jews likewise, who hold to the Old Testament as the only scripture ever written for them, possess texts in the original Hebrew language in which the Old Testament was originally written, going back at least a thousand years. They are known as the Massoretic texts.
2. The Dead Sea Scrolls
First discovered in caves in the wilderness of Qumran around the Dead Sea in Israel, these contain numerous portions of the Old Testament in the original Hebrew dating back to the second century before Christ. No less than two copies of the Book of Isaiah were included in this collection containing predictions of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Isaiah 53.1-12), his virgin-birth (Isaiah 7.14) and his deity (Isaiah 9.6-7).
3. The Septuagint
This is the title of the first translation of the Old Testament into Greek. It was likewise transcribed in the second century before Christ, containing all the great prophecies to the coming of the Messiah, the fact that he is the Son of God (Psalm 2.7, 1 Chronicles 17.11-14), as well as details of his suffering and atoning death (Psalms 22 and 69). The early Church freely used the Septuagint.
4. The Latin Vulgate
The Roman Catholic Church translated the whole Bible into Latin in the fourth century after Christ using the Septuagint and ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. The Vulgate, like the Septuagint, dates from the fourth century after Christ and contains the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as we know them. It was established as the standard text for the Roman Church.
5. Portions of the Greek New Testament
There are numerous pages, fragments and portions of the original Greek New Testament surviving from as early as the second century after Christ. They all, taken together, form the contents of the New Testament as we know it. It is very interesting to compare this wealth of evidence with the texts which exist for the oldest of the Greek and Roman classics, many of which date not earlier than a thousand years after Christ. In fact no other ancient writings from the same era have such a mass of manuscript evidence as that for the Greek New Testament.
What is most important and must be emphasised with Muslims is that there is no alternative source of evidence suggesting that the life and teachings of Jesus Christ were substantially other than that which is recorded in the Bible. All the apocryphal writings rejected by the Church at least generally follow the same threads as those in the New Testament manuscripts. Certainly no historical evidence from the same period exists to suggest that he was really the prophet of Islam which the Qur’an makes him out to be.
In conclusion it is useful to challenge the Muslim to produce historical evidences to substantiate their argument that the Bible as we know it has been changed. What was it originally? What, precisely, was changed to make it the book it is today? Who made these changes? When were they made? Once you challenge any Muslim to identify the actual people who are supposed to have corrupted the Bible, at what time in history it took place, and precisely what textual changes were made to original manuscripts, you will find them entirely unable to do so. Such evidences quite simply do not exist. Always remember - the Muslim onslaught comes not from a scholarly examination of the evidences but from a necessary presupposition. The Bible, in their minds, must have been changed if it contradicts the Qur’an and unfortunately Muslims all too often pick up a Bible, not to read it or understand its teachings, but purely to find fault with it to justify their prejudices against it.
http://www.geocities.com/gary_bee_za/gi ... egrity.htm
G
Gary
Guest
The Early Different Qur’an Codices
http://www.geocities.com/gary_bee_za/gi ... ity.htm#12
From early childhood Muslims are taught one of the greatest of all fallacies - that the Bible has been corrupted while the Qur’an has been miraculously safeguarded from change. The truth is that the evidence for the textual authenticity of the Bible is far greater than that for the Qur’an. Considering also the fact that the Bible contains sixty-six books compiled over a period of nearly two thousand years while the Qur’an, a much newer book, derives from only one man during a short period of twenty-three years, there is every good reason to believe that it is the Bible that has a greater claim to be the preserved Word of God. Let us consider, in contrast to the evidences we have for Biblical manuscripts, what happened to the earliest codices of the Qur’an.
The Original Compilation of the Qur’an Text
During Muhammad’s lifetime the Qur’an was fully never written down or collected into a single text. In one of the most reliable records of Muhammad’s life and teachings it is stated that the Qur’an came down to him most abundantly just before his death and that this period was the time of the greatest part of its revelation (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 474). Thus there was no reason to attempt to collect it into one book, especially as more portions could be expected as long as Muhammad remained alive.
It was only after Muhammad’s death that the first attempts were made to compile written manuscripts of the whole Qur’an text. The same source states that Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s immediate successor, encouraged a well-known reciter of the Qur’an, Zaid ibn-Thabit, to collect it. This young man recorded that he had to acquire it from various sources, namely palm-leaf stalks, thin white stones and other materials upon which parts of it had been recorded as well as from the memories from those who learnt it by heart. At least one verse was found with only one person, Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 478). Taken together, these were hardly the ideal source for a perfect, inerrant compilation.
At the time this manuscript had very little significance other than being commissioned by the Caliph himself. It receded into the private custody of Hafsah, one of the widows of Muhammad (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 478). Other codices were soon put together by close companions of Muhammad and it is important to be familiar with the most well-known.
1. Abdullah ibn Mas’ud
He was one of the earliest converts to Islam and it is recorded that when Muhammad mentioned the four greatest authorities of the Qur’an from whom it should be learned, he deliberately mentioned Abdullah first (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p. 96). It is well-known that he compiled his own manuscript of the Qur’an while at Kufa where it became the official text. He is recorded as saying that no one knew the book better than he did (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 488).
2. Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa
He was the second person Muhammad mentioned in the list of four authorities. Although he was killed at the Battle of Yamama not long after Muhammad’s death, it is reported that he was the first to collect the Qur’an into a mushaf - a manuscript or written codex (As Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii ‘Ulum al-Qur’an, Vol. 1, p. 135).
3. Ubayy ibn Ka’b
Also named among the four, Muhammad is said to have been commanded by Allah to hear him recite portions of the Qur’an. He was known as the sayid al-qurra (the master reciter) and also compiled his own text of the Qur’an which became the preferred text in Syria.
Numerous other codices were transcribed at the same time. Of these the manuscripts of Ali, Ibn Abbas, Abu Musa, Anas ibn Malik and Ibn az-Zubair are well-documented.
Uthman’s Order to Destroy the Other Codices
During the reign of Uthman, the third successor (caliph) to Muhammad, word came to him that the Muslims in the various provinces were differing considerably in their reading of the Qur’an. Uthman decided to unite the people on a mushaf wahid (single text) and, after calling for Zaid’s codex which was conveniently in Medina in Hafsah’s possession where the caliph had his seat of government, he ordered Zaid with three others to transcribe his manuscript into seven exact replica copies and to send one copy to each province with the order that all the other manuscripts of the Qur’an in existence be burnt (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 479). The codices of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’b were specially singled out and both were destroyed.
Abdullah ibn Mas’ud at first strongly resisted the order. Zaid’s copy had never been standardised as an official text and it was used purely as a matter of convenience, being close at hand in Medina and not identified with any particular group of Muslims. Abdullah complained that he had directly obtained seventy surahs from Muhammad while Zaid was still a young child - why should he now forsake what he had acquired? (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p. 15). He also plainly stated that he preferred the Qur’anic recitation of Muhammad himself to that of Zaid, implying that he did not regard Zaid’s codex as completely authentic and adding that "the people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur’an" (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 444).
Although there is abundant evidence that Zaid’s codex was only one of a number of early manuscripts and had no grounds for being regarded as the best available, least of all a totally authentic copy, it became standardised by Uthman as the official text of the Qur’an and remains so to this day. Later in this chapter a comparison will be drawn of the hundreds of textual variant readings between all the early codices of the Qur’an and the few of the Bible. At this point, however, we need only consider the action of Uthman in consigning to the flames a number of handwritten manuscripts of the Qur’an compiled by some of the closest companions of Muhammad including two of the four he named as those who knew the Qur’an best and from whom it should be learned.
The Bible has only been burnt by its enemies. Uthman burnt every other manuscript of the Qur’an other than the one he conveniently had at hand. Codices that had been widely recognised as authoritative texts in the various provinces were burnt in favour of a manuscript that Hafsah had simply kept under her bed! This action contrasts most unfavourably with the evidences we have considered for the Biblical texts.
http://www.geocities.com/gary_bee_za/gi ... ity.htm#12
:o :o
http://www.geocities.com/gary_bee_za/gi ... ity.htm#12
From early childhood Muslims are taught one of the greatest of all fallacies - that the Bible has been corrupted while the Qur’an has been miraculously safeguarded from change. The truth is that the evidence for the textual authenticity of the Bible is far greater than that for the Qur’an. Considering also the fact that the Bible contains sixty-six books compiled over a period of nearly two thousand years while the Qur’an, a much newer book, derives from only one man during a short period of twenty-three years, there is every good reason to believe that it is the Bible that has a greater claim to be the preserved Word of God. Let us consider, in contrast to the evidences we have for Biblical manuscripts, what happened to the earliest codices of the Qur’an.
The Original Compilation of the Qur’an Text
During Muhammad’s lifetime the Qur’an was fully never written down or collected into a single text. In one of the most reliable records of Muhammad’s life and teachings it is stated that the Qur’an came down to him most abundantly just before his death and that this period was the time of the greatest part of its revelation (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 474). Thus there was no reason to attempt to collect it into one book, especially as more portions could be expected as long as Muhammad remained alive.
It was only after Muhammad’s death that the first attempts were made to compile written manuscripts of the whole Qur’an text. The same source states that Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s immediate successor, encouraged a well-known reciter of the Qur’an, Zaid ibn-Thabit, to collect it. This young man recorded that he had to acquire it from various sources, namely palm-leaf stalks, thin white stones and other materials upon which parts of it had been recorded as well as from the memories from those who learnt it by heart. At least one verse was found with only one person, Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 478). Taken together, these were hardly the ideal source for a perfect, inerrant compilation.
At the time this manuscript had very little significance other than being commissioned by the Caliph himself. It receded into the private custody of Hafsah, one of the widows of Muhammad (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 478). Other codices were soon put together by close companions of Muhammad and it is important to be familiar with the most well-known.
1. Abdullah ibn Mas’ud
He was one of the earliest converts to Islam and it is recorded that when Muhammad mentioned the four greatest authorities of the Qur’an from whom it should be learned, he deliberately mentioned Abdullah first (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p. 96). It is well-known that he compiled his own manuscript of the Qur’an while at Kufa where it became the official text. He is recorded as saying that no one knew the book better than he did (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 488).
2. Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa
He was the second person Muhammad mentioned in the list of four authorities. Although he was killed at the Battle of Yamama not long after Muhammad’s death, it is reported that he was the first to collect the Qur’an into a mushaf - a manuscript or written codex (As Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii ‘Ulum al-Qur’an, Vol. 1, p. 135).
3. Ubayy ibn Ka’b
Also named among the four, Muhammad is said to have been commanded by Allah to hear him recite portions of the Qur’an. He was known as the sayid al-qurra (the master reciter) and also compiled his own text of the Qur’an which became the preferred text in Syria.
Numerous other codices were transcribed at the same time. Of these the manuscripts of Ali, Ibn Abbas, Abu Musa, Anas ibn Malik and Ibn az-Zubair are well-documented.
Uthman’s Order to Destroy the Other Codices
During the reign of Uthman, the third successor (caliph) to Muhammad, word came to him that the Muslims in the various provinces were differing considerably in their reading of the Qur’an. Uthman decided to unite the people on a mushaf wahid (single text) and, after calling for Zaid’s codex which was conveniently in Medina in Hafsah’s possession where the caliph had his seat of government, he ordered Zaid with three others to transcribe his manuscript into seven exact replica copies and to send one copy to each province with the order that all the other manuscripts of the Qur’an in existence be burnt (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 479). The codices of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’b were specially singled out and both were destroyed.
Abdullah ibn Mas’ud at first strongly resisted the order. Zaid’s copy had never been standardised as an official text and it was used purely as a matter of convenience, being close at hand in Medina and not identified with any particular group of Muslims. Abdullah complained that he had directly obtained seventy surahs from Muhammad while Zaid was still a young child - why should he now forsake what he had acquired? (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p. 15). He also plainly stated that he preferred the Qur’anic recitation of Muhammad himself to that of Zaid, implying that he did not regard Zaid’s codex as completely authentic and adding that "the people have been guilty of deceit in the reading of the Qur’an" (Ibn Sa’d, Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, Vol. 2, p. 444).
Although there is abundant evidence that Zaid’s codex was only one of a number of early manuscripts and had no grounds for being regarded as the best available, least of all a totally authentic copy, it became standardised by Uthman as the official text of the Qur’an and remains so to this day. Later in this chapter a comparison will be drawn of the hundreds of textual variant readings between all the early codices of the Qur’an and the few of the Bible. At this point, however, we need only consider the action of Uthman in consigning to the flames a number of handwritten manuscripts of the Qur’an compiled by some of the closest companions of Muhammad including two of the four he named as those who knew the Qur’an best and from whom it should be learned.
The Bible has only been burnt by its enemies. Uthman burnt every other manuscript of the Qur’an other than the one he conveniently had at hand. Codices that had been widely recognised as authoritative texts in the various provinces were burnt in favour of a manuscript that Hafsah had simply kept under her bed! This action contrasts most unfavourably with the evidences we have considered for the Biblical texts.
http://www.geocities.com/gary_bee_za/gi ... ity.htm#12
:o :o
H
hopefearmercy
Guest
ok now this subject....
when you show your limited knowledge you must first make sure that people do not know more than you lol......
you are attributing falsehood to the companions of Mohammad pbuh....example that of Abdullah ibn Mas'ud....The hadith goes in english like this...
"Narrated 'Abdulla (bin Mas'ud) raa, By Allah other than Whom non has the right to be worshipped! There is no Sura revealed in ALLAH'S BOOK but I know AT WHAT PLACE IT WAS REVEALED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!; and there is no verse revealed in ALLAH'S BOOK but I know about WHOM IT WAS REVEALED!!!!!!!. And if I know there is somebody who knows ALLAH'S BOOK better than I, and he is at a place that camels can reach, I would go to him.".....BUKHARI PAGE 488 # 524....THE CORRECT VERSION.
Now, if you must know, there were companions of the Prophet pbuh that were EXTREMELY KNOWLEDGABLE AND DURING THE LIFE OF MOHAMMAD pbuh, that knew the Quran fully by heart and Prophet Mohammad pbuh made du'a(supplication) for people to be well versed in knowledge of exegesis' ...better worded...explaing the Quran without mistakes....and we know that when a prophet of God asks it is given.
to refute every single one of your claims regarding your other posts.....If I were you, IF YOU ARE AN HONEST PERSON, take it off your website, for it is not genuine. But if you are NOT AN HONEST PERSON, you will be held accountable for every bad thing you mention of Mohammad pbuh and his companions and Allah and His last message to mankind.
So please I don't want to have to prove you wrong again.
hopefearmercy
G
Gary
Guest
Abdullah ibn Mas’ud
He was one of the earliest converts to Islam and it is recorded that when Muhammad mentioned the four greatest authorities of the Qur’an from whom it should be learned, he deliberately mentioned Abdullah first (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p. 96).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is well-known that he compiled his own manuscript of the Qur’an while at Kufa where it became the official text. He is recorded as saying that no one knew the book better than he did (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 488).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He was one of the earliest converts to Islam and it is recorded that when Muhammad mentioned the four greatest authorities of the Qur’an from whom it should be learned, he deliberately mentioned Abdullah first (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, p. 96).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Proof:
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 150:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr:
I heard the Prophet saying, "Learn the recitation of Qur'an from four persons: Ibn Mas'ud, Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, Ubai and Muadh bin Jabal."
Source
Volume 5, Book 58, Number 153:
Narrated Masruq:
'Abdullah bin Masud was mentioned before Abdullah bin 'Amr who said, "That is a man I still love, as I heard the Prophet saying 'Learn the recitation of Quran from four from 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud --he started with him--Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudaifa, Mu'adh bin Jabal and Ubai bin Ka'b."
Source
It is well-known that he compiled his own manuscript of the Qur’an while at Kufa where it became the official text. He is recorded as saying that no one knew the book better than he did (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p. 488).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Proof:
Volume 6, Book 61, Number 518:
Narrated Shaqiq:
Abdullah said, "I learnt An-Naza'ir which the Prophet used to recite in pairs in each Rak'a." Then Abdullah got up and Alqama accompanied him to his house, and when Alqama came out, we asked him (about those Suras). He said, "They are twenty Suras that start from the beginning of Al-Mufassal, according to the arrangement done be Ibn Mas'ud, and end with the Suras starting with Ha Mim, e.g. Ha Mim (the Smoke). and "About what they question one another?" (78.1)
Source
Volume 6, Book 61, Number 524:
Narrated 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) : By Allah other than Whom none has the right to be worshipped! There is no Sura revealed in Allah's Book but I know at what place it was revealed; and there is no Verse revealed in Allah's Book but I know about whom it was revealed. And if I know there is somebody who knows Allah's book better than I, and he is at a place that camels can reach, I would go to him.
Source (note: this hadith is truncated at this site!)
Blazin Bones
Member
hopefearmercy said:
So Allah is not all powerful? This says that the Word of your god isn't strong enough to be translated and still be truth. However, many Muslims have converted using an english Koran. In fact, if you were raised in Florida and raised in a Baptist church as you said, you had to have used an English copy for at least the beginning of your "search". You would not have known that the "true" koran can only be read in Arabic. How can you prove that the copy you used was the truth?
H
hopefearmercy
Guest
is easy
Yes, I did refer to an English Quran, but the Arabic was right along side it...and if I had any questions, I would know to ask a scholar or learned person.
What you said about translations....what I said is YOUR OPINION OF WHAT I SAID...doesn't mean it is a correct opinion.
God has made His word last...and not to be corrupted...if you continuely translate how you please, then everyone will get a different picture...UNLESS they go to someone who knows more in Arabic and of the deen(religion).
I did not guess when I was learning...I did what a normal person would do and ASK QUESTIONS. There are different TRANSLATIONS YES...but they are not considered the words of God....you cannot take it upon yourself to think they are, even when you know they are from men.(common sense)
You MUST have the original ARABIC beside the translation.
hopefearmercy
Yes, I did refer to an English Quran, but the Arabic was right along side it...and if I had any questions, I would know to ask a scholar or learned person.
What you said about translations....what I said is YOUR OPINION OF WHAT I SAID...doesn't mean it is a correct opinion.
God has made His word last...and not to be corrupted...if you continuely translate how you please, then everyone will get a different picture...UNLESS they go to someone who knows more in Arabic and of the deen(religion).
I did not guess when I was learning...I did what a normal person would do and ASK QUESTIONS. There are different TRANSLATIONS YES...but they are not considered the words of God....you cannot take it upon yourself to think they are, even when you know they are from men.(common sense)
You MUST have the original ARABIC beside the translation.
hopefearmercy
H
hopefearmercy
Guest
again and again...what are you tryin to oh nevermind
I already told you about Abdulla ibn Mas'ud...you can believe it or not...and in Islam....if you SWEAR TO GOD....you must be correct in your swear....and during the time and now, you must be willing to back up your swear...if you vow and you lied...you must make up for the wrong to God...you swear by God alone....those who do this, know this, and it is not considered "boasting" when trying to make a point of concern or to enlighten people in order to gain knowledge or give it....simple....and your false hadith is INCORRECT....was proven that you translated how you pleased and was incorrectly done....so please stop this foolishness.
hopefearmercy
I already told you about Abdulla ibn Mas'ud...you can believe it or not...and in Islam....if you SWEAR TO GOD....you must be correct in your swear....and during the time and now, you must be willing to back up your swear...if you vow and you lied...you must make up for the wrong to God...you swear by God alone....those who do this, know this, and it is not considered "boasting" when trying to make a point of concern or to enlighten people in order to gain knowledge or give it....simple....and your false hadith is INCORRECT....was proven that you translated how you pleased and was incorrectly done....so please stop this foolishness.
hopefearmercy
Blazin Bones
Member
Re: is easy
No, hope. If your god is all powerful, his words WOULD still be the truth even when translated.
hopefearmercy said:Yes, I did refer to an English Quran, but the Arabic was right along side it...and if I had any questions, I would know to ask a scholar or learned person.
What you said about translations....what I said is YOUR OPINION OF WHAT I SAID...doesn't mean it is a correct opinion.
God has made His word last...and not to be corrupted...if you continuely translate how you please, then everyone will get a different picture...UNLESS they go to someone who knows more in Arabic and of the deen(religion).
I did not guess when I was learning...I did what a normal person would do and ASK QUESTIONS. There are different TRANSLATIONS YES...but they are not considered the words of God....you cannot take it upon yourself to think they are, even when you know they are from men.(common sense)
You MUST have the original ARABIC beside the translation.
No, hope. If your god is all powerful, his words WOULD still be the truth even when translated.
H
hopefearmercy
Guest
hmmm...
how can you attribute man's words as being Gods when you have discrepancies?...that is what is happening to the Bibles...so many...so many different beliefs...how can you say that
the word of God is His...not man's. simple. translations do not mean they are from God...means they are translations period.
for the Quran was revealed to Mohammad pbuh in Arabi...to Moses in Hebrew...the Message to Jesus (on all of them peace), Aramaic...now...translations??...did the prophet's of god peace and blessings be upon them all, sit down and translate them? were they present and watching them?
anyways...a translation from the original...the original still stands as the exact.
hopefearmercy
how can you attribute man's words as being Gods when you have discrepancies?...that is what is happening to the Bibles...so many...so many different beliefs...how can you say that
the word of God is His...not man's. simple. translations do not mean they are from God...means they are translations period.
for the Quran was revealed to Mohammad pbuh in Arabi...to Moses in Hebrew...the Message to Jesus (on all of them peace), Aramaic...now...translations??...did the prophet's of god peace and blessings be upon them all, sit down and translate them? were they present and watching them?
anyways...a translation from the original...the original still stands as the exact.
hopefearmercy
P
peace4all
Guest
That is the real problem I face.
How can you go by a book that there are 30 versions of, that have some pretty big diffrences in them?
they are obviously not the words of god. THey are gods words, taken, and repeated.
Has anyone played the game telephone?
*note* when i say things like "they are gods words" I am not implying that I believe in god, It is just easier to take the stance of a believer, in describing this.
How can you go by a book that there are 30 versions of, that have some pretty big diffrences in them?
they are obviously not the words of god. THey are gods words, taken, and repeated.
Has anyone played the game telephone?
*note* when i say things like "they are gods words" I am not implying that I believe in god, It is just easier to take the stance of a believer, in describing this.
Blazin Bones
Member
Peace, you make a good point worth being discussed. The Question can basically be summed up: How can anyone believe that each translation of the Bible is God word, when some even teach different ideologies?
Is that the correct question?
Is that the correct question?
Blazin Bones
Member
Re: hmmm...
That is a truth that can not be argued with. Unfortunately for Christians, we don't have any original copies of what is now our Bible.
As for the rest of this post, he we go.
Peace4All made reference to the Telephone game which I think is a great place to start. First off, God is the inspiration and writter of the Bible. However, as one can learn from the telephone game, once a message in the hands of a human, somethings bound to be messed up.
The Student posted one example here.
The question is if God word is infalible, how did this and other errors occur?
The answer is the telephone game. When humans recorded the this information it is quite clear someone made a typo.
So what does this mean for the Bible's strength?
Not much, and here are five reasons why.
1. It again proves that when mankind is in control we can not be perfect.
2. Since we don't have the original copies, we can be sure whether there has always been that discrepancy or if it was just a copiests mistake.
3. As anyone can see, there are other books that some consider to be scripture and some don't. Who's to say what the Bible should really be. Christians still don't agree on this.
4. In all cases of a biblical "error" they can be clearly read as a copiests error, or the only speak about historical records.
5. Even with the errors caused by man, the message that can be taken out of any Bible is the same. It can be summed up by John 3:16. The reason it's called God's infalible word is not because the human made versions are perfect, it's because it's message is the same when you truly look at it. God's word is the message the Bible gives to everyone who reads it.
Some will twist context to try and change things. Some will even go as far as to change words, but even there we can still find the Light of God.
For the parts I can't explain, remember this. Just because I can't explain everything to you, doesn't mean it can't be explained. I Don't know everything, but I have faith that when I meet God, He can explain everything. Faith, that's what any religion will boil down to. And I Place my Faith and trust in the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, the salvation granting sacrifice of Jesus, and the Guidence and revelation of His Holy Spirit.
I couldn't do that if I didn't believe that my God's word, His message, is the same in every language.
hopefearmercy said:
That is a truth that can not be argued with. Unfortunately for Christians, we don't have any original copies of what is now our Bible.
hopefearmercy said:
As for the rest of this post, he we go.
Peace4All made reference to the Telephone game which I think is a great place to start. First off, God is the inspiration and writter of the Bible. However, as one can learn from the telephone game, once a message in the hands of a human, somethings bound to be messed up.
The Student posted one example here.
The question is if God word is infalible, how did this and other errors occur?
The answer is the telephone game. When humans recorded the this information it is quite clear someone made a typo.
So what does this mean for the Bible's strength?
Not much, and here are five reasons why.
1. It again proves that when mankind is in control we can not be perfect.
2. Since we don't have the original copies, we can be sure whether there has always been that discrepancy or if it was just a copiests mistake.
3. As anyone can see, there are other books that some consider to be scripture and some don't. Who's to say what the Bible should really be. Christians still don't agree on this.
4. In all cases of a biblical "error" they can be clearly read as a copiests error, or the only speak about historical records.
5. Even with the errors caused by man, the message that can be taken out of any Bible is the same. It can be summed up by John 3:16. The reason it's called God's infalible word is not because the human made versions are perfect, it's because it's message is the same when you truly look at it. God's word is the message the Bible gives to everyone who reads it.
Some will twist context to try and change things. Some will even go as far as to change words, but even there we can still find the Light of God.
For the parts I can't explain, remember this. Just because I can't explain everything to you, doesn't mean it can't be explained. I Don't know everything, but I have faith that when I meet God, He can explain everything. Faith, that's what any religion will boil down to. And I Place my Faith and trust in the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, the salvation granting sacrifice of Jesus, and the Guidence and revelation of His Holy Spirit.
I couldn't do that if I didn't believe that my God's word, His message, is the same in every language.
G
Gary
Guest
Let your yes be yes and your no be no
I proved my point. John Gilchrist was right. I have nothing to add.
http://www.geocities.com/gary_bee_za/gi ... index.html
Besides, if you were really ever a Christian you would know that a Christian does not "swear" by anything. Remember what Jesus said?
Matthew 5:34-37 But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Now I have a question for you..... did Muhammad ever swear by anything?
:-? :-?
hopefearmercy said:
I proved my point. John Gilchrist was right. I have nothing to add.
http://www.geocities.com/gary_bee_za/gi ... index.html
Besides, if you were really ever a Christian you would know that a Christian does not "swear" by anything. Remember what Jesus said?
Matthew 5:34-37 But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Now I have a question for you..... did Muhammad ever swear by anything?
:-? :-?
H
hopefearmercy
Guest
what point did you clarify lol
Well, since you are using your own belief....I shall use mine...
In Islam, muslims are not allowed to swear by anything other than Allah....Allah is the only one that can swear on any other thing...afterall, He is the creator of everything.
In Islam, if you swear, it is considered dangerous. WE are encouraged not to swear...in courts...you are to swear on by Allah swt....(just like yall swear on the Bible...which in case many lie on it and don't take it seriously), you will find a very few percentage of Muslims doing that, for they know if they Swear by Allah they will be held accountable and the fear of God is what is keeping them true...well the majority at least.
In Islam, if you break your swear, or oath or vow...you have a Kafara to do....that is you make up for your broken vow....only by the laws of Islam. It is not taken lightly and one is encouraged not to swear...and if they do, they are only to swear in God's name.
as far as proving your point about john gilcrest....is he muslim? or just a hater of islam?
hopefearmercy
Well, since you are using your own belief....I shall use mine
...In Islam, muslims are not allowed to swear by anything other than Allah....Allah is the only one that can swear on any other thing...afterall, He is the creator of everything.
In Islam, if you swear, it is considered dangerous. WE are encouraged not to swear...in courts...you are to swear on by Allah swt....(just like yall swear on the Bible...which in case many lie on it and don't take it seriously), you will find a very few percentage of Muslims doing that, for they know if they Swear by Allah they will be held accountable and the fear of God is what is keeping them true...well the majority at least.
In Islam, if you break your swear, or oath or vow...you have a Kafara to do....that is you make up for your broken vow....only by the laws of Islam. It is not taken lightly and one is encouraged not to swear...and if they do, they are only to swear in God's name.
as far as proving your point about john gilcrest....is he muslim? or just a hater of islam?
hopefearmercy
G
Gary
Guest
The True Living God (Yahweh) and His Oaths
vs.
Allah and his oaths
A real point of difference between Allah and Yahweh is that Yahweh swears by himself, since there is nothing greater for him to swear by:
Swears by the Quran
-Source-
vs.
Allah and his oaths
A real point of difference between Allah and Yahweh is that Yahweh swears by himself, since there is nothing greater for him to swear by:
- For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself. Hebrews 6:13
For men indeed swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is for them an end of all dispute. Hebrews 6:16
- "I have sworn by Myself; the word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow..." Isaiah 45:23
"I swear by Myself, says the LORD." Jeremiah 22:5
Swears by the Quran
- By the Quran, full of wisdom. S. 36:2
By the Quran, full of admonition. S. 38:1
- By the sky and the night visitant S. 86:1
Nay verily: By the moon, and by the night as it retreateth, and by the dawn as it shines forth. S. 74:32-34
By the star when it goes down. S. 53:1
- By the pen and by the record which [men] write. S. 68:1
- Nay I do swear by this city. S. 90:1
- By the night as it cancels [the light]; by the day as it appears in glory; by the Creation of male and female. S. 92:1-3
-Source-
P
peace4all
Guest
Well, Here is a continuation on teh telephone game.
We all know that what humans today read as the bible, is diffrent than gods true intent. So, Knowing that, It is unfair and unjust for a christian to use that translation (which may or may not be false) to condemn and deny people rights.
One hand teaches not to flaunt your religion
one hand teaches to try to force people into it.
Since you cannot determine which one is the true word of god, it should be used as the one that is least harmful to others.
In america, the land where you can have freedom of religion, isnt it ironic that people are trying to use 1 religion to dictate life?
We all know that what humans today read as the bible, is diffrent than gods true intent. So, Knowing that, It is unfair and unjust for a christian to use that translation (which may or may not be false) to condemn and deny people rights.
One hand teaches not to flaunt your religion
one hand teaches to try to force people into it.
Since you cannot determine which one is the true word of god, it should be used as the one that is least harmful to others.
In america, the land where you can have freedom of religion, isnt it ironic that people are trying to use 1 religion to dictate life?
H
hopefearmercy
Guest
no compulsion
nice words, but in Islam, it is our duty as Muslims to teach the message, and it is up to the people to decide for themselves....to either choose or refuse.
Everyone has biasness when it comes to what they believe in, but proving it is another thing.
One word about Islam or one sound of the athan(muslims call to prayer)even, is enough to hold that person responsible in fron of Allah on the day of judgement.
Muslims are to try and explain as much as they can even if it be one verse.
There is NO compulsion in religion.
hopefearmercy
nice words, but in Islam, it is our duty as Muslims to teach the message, and it is up to the people to decide for themselves....to either choose or refuse.
Everyone has biasness when it comes to what they believe in, but proving it is another thing.
One word about Islam or one sound of the athan(muslims call to prayer)even, is enough to hold that person responsible in fron of Allah on the day of judgement.
Muslims are to try and explain as much as they can even if it be one verse.
There is NO compulsion in religion.
hopefearmercy