ArchivedJudging & Testing God??Peace Alpha, I was meaning out of those 24,000 manuscripts. Why were some of those rejected? Was it because they were considered to be “uninspired”? So you believe that translations and versions are one of the same thing? I would disagree with you. The Quran has different translations, the differences are in the choice of words but the Arabic (which is the Quran) is exactly the same. The Bible however, has different versions. Allow me to explain. The KJV version that the Protestant world upholds has 66 books while the Roman Catholic version of the Bible, the Douay-Rheims, has 73 books. See now it’s not just a choice of words. When there’s a difference of 7 books between 2 Bibles that both claim to be the Word of God, then there’s something suspicious about it. Jimmy Swaggart considers these 7 extra books as being “spurious” meaning he doesn’t accept them to be the Word of God. I’m asking why? Are Catholics carrying around with them fabricated books? You mentioned the differences between the 2 verses that in one it has the word begotten and the other has the word son. How about if I give you a dramatic difference between the KJV and say the RSV. In the KJV it reads in 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." However I have read that this particular verse is a later addition by the churches and that all recent versions of the Bible such as the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible ...etc. have all unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages. Why is this? The scripture translator Benjamin Wilson gives the following explanation for this action in his "Emphatic Diaglott." Mr. Wilson says: "This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to its authority. It is therefore evidently spurious." And you tell me that every word of the Bible is the word of God. I wonder what other fabrications they will soon discover. I also thought I would share some interesting findings with you concerning the Gospel of Mathew. J B Phillips’ “The Gospels translated in modern English”, he writes concerning the Gospel of Mathew: "EARLY TRADITION ASCRIBED THIS GOSPEL TO THE APOSTLE MATTHEW, BUT SCHOLARS NOWADAYS ALMOST ALL REJECT THIS VIEW." In other words, St. Matthew did not write the Gospel which bears his name. This is the finding of Christian scholars of the highest eminence — not of Hindus, Muslims and Jews who may be accused of bias. Let our Anglican friend continue: "THE AUTHOR, WHOM WE STILL CAN CONVENIENTLY CALL MATTHEW" "Conveniently" because otherwise every time we made a reference to "Matthew" we would have to say — "THE FIRST BOOK OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" Chapter so and so, verse so and so. And again and again "The first book . . ." etc. Therefore, according to J. B. Phillips it is convenient that we give the book some name. So why not "Matthew?" Suppose it’s as good a name as any other! Phillips continues: "THE AUTHOR HAS PLAINLY DRAWN ON THE MYSTERIOUS 'Q' WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN A COLLECTION OF ORAL TRADITIONS." What is this "mysterious 'Q'?". "Q" is short for the German word "quella" which means "sources." There is supposed to be another document — a common source — to which our present Matthew, Mark and Luke had access. All these three authors, whoever they were, had a common eye on the material at hand. They were writing as if looking through "one" eye. And because they saw eye to eye, the first three "Gospels" came to be known as the Synoptic Gospels. But what about that "inspiration" business? The Anglican prebendary has hit the nail on the head. He is, more than anyone else, entitled to do so. A paid servant of the Church, an orthodox evangelical Christian, a Bible scholar of repute, having direct access to the "original" Greek manuscripts, let HIM spell it out for us. (Notice how gently he lets the cat out of the bag): "HE (Matthew) HAS USED MARK'S GOSPEL FREELY" which in the language of the school-teacher — "has been copying WHOLESALE from Mark!" Yet the Christians call this wholesale plagiarism the Word of God? Does it not make you wonder that an eye-witness and an ear-witness to the ministry of Jesus, which the disciple Matthew was supposed to be, instead of writing his own first hand impressions of the ministry of "his Lord" would go and steal from the writings of a youth (Mark), who was a ten year old lad when Jesus upbraided his nation? Why would an eye-witness and ear-witness copy from a fellow who himself was writing from hearsay? The disciple Matthew would not do any such silly thing. For an anonymous document has been imposed on the fair name of Matthew. So do you believe in the absurd idea that Jesus is “fully God” and “Fully human”? Why would we need Jesus to die for our sins? A God dieing for my sins? Is the “father” that incapable of punishing the sinners that he had to take his own “son” and have him killed? We don’t need your Bible to prove the Quran to be the word of God. The reason why we take prophecies that speak on Mohammad is that it is mentioned in our scripture, that Jesus announced to his people that there was going to come after him another prophet. We use the Bible, because this is what you believe. If I just showed you evidence from the Quran, it wouldn’t hold any weight with you. What we try to do, is use your own scriptures against you. Because there maybe some truths in the Bible, it doesn’t mean that the entire book is truthful. I’ll give you an example: In a court case, when the prosecutor is cross examining the witness and if he can prove that the witness is lying, he would win the case for his client, no? Ok, so what if the witness turns around and says to the judge, “what about the true statements I have made?” Is the court going to take that into consideration? Offcourse not. So this is our approach to the Bible. If the Bible has some truth in it, that’s fine. It could be from the influence of the injil. However, if we find one statement that goes against the Quran, we don’t consider the entire book to be from God. I knew about these verses. And I do read. Before I actually posted those verses, I checked on several Christian websites, to read what they had to say about the subject. The problem was that, I didn’t agree with their explanation. Maybe you can do a little better. See what I don’t understand is that if Jesus claims he was only sent for the Jews, then why the change in his mission. I understand that the Jews were rebellious people, however, if God can see into the future, did he not already know that they were going to rebel against him? Why didn’t God then send Jesus to all mankind at one time? What’s so special about the Jews that “God” himself had to guide them first? It seems to me that “God” believes that the gentiles are inferior to the Jews. Why them, why not all mankind? Jesus called himself a tribal Jew. God, a tribal Jew? Come on… Why not? Are these Laws not in your Bible? I don’t believe I made an argument against the gospels. If wine is a mocker, then why did Jesus drink it? Like I had already mentioned, since Jesus and his disciples drank alcohol, then it’s the views of many Christians that they can do the same. When one starts to drink, then he/she is not strong enough to limit the intake because of the influence of Satan. And since God knows the weakness of mankind, He ordered us to stay away from it, so that Satan could in no way tempt us. You know in the 20’s, the American government had passed a law banning alcohol. With the backing of the Churches, the police force, the brain power of the nation, your country failed miserably. On the other hand, our beloved prophet Muhammad, one man who lived among a barbaric people, uttered this one verse from God Almighty, and wine barrels in Medina were emptied, never to be filled again. God is indeed All-Powerful!!! And Allah knows best Peace and Blessings be to the Believers |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame