hope you are aware that Mohammed didn't write the koran, he never saw a written copy of the koran you have in your hand, the koran was being edited right up to the 10th century by the dajjal and his scribes (all documented in islamic scriptures), verses were being removed, and hadiths existed showing the verse on suckling men was in the koran and then removed, the verees on the children of Adam were removed, the verses on Mohammed meeting allah was removed, the verses on stoning for adultery was removed yet the koran says there is a copy of it in heaven, one has to ask does this perfect copy also have the abrogated verses and the removed verses is allah keeping up with what the muslims are doing hacking off verses replacing them here adding diacritical marks to distinguish between vowels and consonants when the language didn't have such distinguishing marks up till 150 yrs after the death of Mohammed... the arabs were illiterate during Mohammed's time, but yet these illiterate people somehow conveyed perfect copies of a language that wasn't fully developed yet? Are you this naive?
That website was created in 2004 was your religion created in 2004?
Show me the relevant excerpts from your shia sources instead of this childish hit and run excuse not to answer a question that will put you in limbo. And btw the website is a sorry excuse for a shia apologetic, it simply said the prophet compiled the koran giving you no hadiths or sources other than it's say so and that "allah wouldn't have allowed the prophet not to compile the koran", is this the kind of rubbish you have to defend the shia faith?, no wonder you are unable to respond to a straight forward question. Why doesn't the website list hadiths and where they are obtaining those hadiths from? Anyone who has read hadiths will simply know that the hadiths listed on your source site have been tampered with altered and given new isnads so now Ali is the one that collected the koran and compiled it instead of Uthman, Abu Bakr and Zaid Bin Thabit, but wait a minute didn't your website source say Mohammed himself was the one who compiled and structured it ( and remember he couldn't read or write!!!)
Since you are a shia and have stated you are a hadith rejecter, would you care to state for us where you are getting the information that the koran was compiled at all, since you reject hadiths of the sunnis namely Bukhari and Muslim? I dare you to post for your audience the relevant excerpts from your source that shows how the koran was compiled.
Are you this naive?
I wonder if you have heard of nervous laughter.?
A translation more appropriate to the current language of the era does not equate to removing words from the bible.
Are you this naive:
Eat this:
I guess my point flew over your head again. Let me elaborate for you what I mean:
KJV:
James 2:3
And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:
Now with your interpretations taken out of context to you no doubt that verse means that the bible tolerates gays and gays existed and wore gay clothings, neglecting the fact that in the etymology of the english language gay today did not always mean gay, so what is to be done?
NIV:
James 2:3
If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," 4have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?
BTW this is what the NIV says:
John 3
15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.[1]
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,
Footnotes
3:15 Or believes may have eternal life in him
3:16 Or his only begotten Son
Even if the word begotten was removed, what does the verse say:
"his one and only Son"
Since you are of the opinion the NIV is the more correct translation it still says Jesus is the Son of God, How does this help you as a muslim?
Do you honestly thing you have gained an inch arguing with such a logical fallacy that still contradicts your religion?
But I guess the point will again be lost to you and your reply post will probably be a rehashment of the exact same thing you posted.
ADDED VERSE: I John 5:7-8
I John 5:7-8 was most likely added in the fifteenth or sixteenth century. It is not found in any Greek manuscript dated prior to this time.
"The Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" ( I John 5:7-8 KJV).
Let us imagine for a second this verse was not found in any greek manuscrupt prior to the 16th century (does this mean it didn't exist?) What exactly has changed from the message of the bible with the omission of said verse?
ADDED VERSE: Acts 8:37
Acts 8:37 was added in the sixth or early seventh century. It is not found in any manuscript prior to this time.
ditto
In the KJV Jesus tells us HOW to cast out demons.
Matt. 17:21 [KJV] "Howbeit, this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."
In the NIV he does not. The entire verse was omitted. Fasting is also removed in Mark 9:29 & Acts 10:30.
RSV. (not included)
NIV. (not included)
GNB. (not included)
LBV. (not included)
I had a little read from the website you copied and pasted this info from , it was interesting it pretended to be an ecumenical all welcoming quest for truth and with the same breath attacked all things christian and venerated islam, pretending to host discussions of neutrality as to the meaning of life and why we are here all the while subliminally whispering in it's reader's ear (isssslam) I have not met a more deceitful website with an agenda.
Since you obviously have never read the bible it probably hasn't ocurred to you that the commandment to pray and fast is in other parts of the scriptures
AND YOUR KORAN IN SURA 4:158, but we are arguing with legalism and semantics and not with logic. The reply still stands imagine the verse was removed then what?
In the KJV Jesus is God's Son. In the NIV Jesus is God's servant.
Acts 3:13 [KJV] "...the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus;..."
Acts 3:13 [NIV] "...the God of our fathers has glorified his servant Jesus:..."
Acts 3:26 [KJV] "...God, having raised up his Son Jesus,..."
Acts 3:26 [NIV] "...God raised up his servant,..."
Acts 4:27 [KJV] "...thy holy child Jesus..."
Acts 4:27 [NIV] "...your holy servant Jesus..."
Let us cut to the chase of your selections out of context, do you think the NIV doesn't consider Jesus as the Son of God?
This insertion in the text is done specifically to support Trinitarianism and negate the intent of the rest of Revelation in this matter.)
The doctrine of the trinity is not restricted to a few verses modern scribes were unable to document manuscripts for in 1 John 5:7-8 or Rev 21, there are several verses this doctrine is based upon.
The Book Of War:
Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the LORD, What he did in the Red sea, and in the brooks of Arnon, [Numbers 21:14]
The Book Of Jasher:
(Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.) [2 Samuel 1:18] and [Joshua 10:13]
The Book of Manners of the Kingdom:
Then Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the LORD. And Samuel sent all the people away, every man to his house. [1 Samuel 10:25].
The History of Samuel the Seer, The History of Prophet Nathan & The Book of Gad the Seer:
Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer, [1 Chronicles 29:29].
Do you realise what is considered scripture and what is a historical record?
You think every book ever written in Israel on it's history, and it's royal annals were to be included in the bible?
Surah 87:18-19 we read:
Lo! This is in the former scrolls.
The Books of Abraham and Moses.
Where are the book(s) of Abraham? .
If this book is nowhere to be found, would a Muslim then conclude that this means the Qur'an is corrupted? If not, why not? Why would the same issue then contribute to his conviction that the Bible is corrupted?
Would it not be a matter of intellectual honesty to employ the SAME standards for evaluating the Bible and the Qur'an?
The Qur'an speaks about many revealed books, none of which can be found according to common Muslim understanding.
The scrolls of Abraham
The Torah of Moses.
The Injil of Jesus.
[Note: We do not agree with the following arguments. They are only summarized because they show the inconsistency of the Muslim reasoning. Their content is discussed elsewhere on this site.]
Some Muslims claim that the Biblical gospels are by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and therefore they are not "the book of Jesus". The book the Qur'an speaks about is missing. Also arguments are made often that Moses can't be the author of the current Torah. So, this book is not available either. But since the Qur'an refers to them, and they cannot be found, does that mean the Qur'an itself is corrupted?
Statements that cannot be found where they are claimed to be:
And remember Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of God (sent) to you confirming the law (which came) before me, and giving glad tidings of an apostle to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad." Surat-us Saff (61):6
Many Muslims believe that this statement is to be found in the "Injil of Jesus". But it is not found anywhere in the Biblical gospels.
Those who follow the apostle, the unlettered Prophet (Muhammad) whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures), -- in the Law and the Gospel; -- For he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; Surat-ul A'raf (7):157
Nowhere, either in the Torah or the Gospels is any mentioning of such a prophet to come, no matter whether we want to understand "ummi" as illiterate or gentile. In addition, there are other problems with Surah 7:157...But in Sura 7:157 is the problem that Moses prays to Allah and in Allah's response to Moses we read
Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet,
whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures), -
in the Taurat and the Gospel - .... -- Sura 7:157
The obvious problem is that the Gospel has not been revealed yet at that time, and nobody was able to find anything in it a non existing gospel.
Will our shia friend be able to respond to any of the serious allegations above before he makes some patronising remark and moves onto another topic?