Muslim gladiator wrote:
About catholic, Just read their Bible with 7 books more than yours. Catholics argue that the Protestant Bible miss it.
Kai replies:
Are you now referring to the Old Testament or the entire Bible?
Yeah the Catholic translation contains them, yet the earlier Christians did not, the Jews never did.
It is a fact that the Alexandrian Jews did read them, but it has never been proven that they accepted them as Scripture.
Secondly, since the Bible is a collection of Books it would neither prove or disprove anything whether these books would be included or not; truth would still remain intact and the Qur’an would still be debunked.
Otherwise concerning the Apocrypha, which usually has been found among the Septuagint, the early Greek translation of the Torah. We can’t use the Septuagint to prove that apocrypha was ever accepted by the Jews nor by all Christian, since Septuagint was mainly emphasized upon by some Greek Christians not by Jews.
These were sadly, in many cases misinformed and had little knowledge about the matters.
This however was not the matter among Christians generally which is why you will not find the entire Apocrypha in the earliest list of the Old Testament Canon as perceived and accepted by the Christians. The Christians would get hold on the entire collection of Jewish material and include whatever they found, Scripture and Apocrypha; yet as I have already pointed out, this corrupted nothing.
In the Christian community the Septuagint could be a narrow or a wide one, the early one had only the books reckoned by the earliest church and the Jews, while the latter may contain some more scripture, the Apocryphical.
Actually the further you go back the less you see to the apocrypha.
Some scholars suggest that the Alexandrian canon was larger than the Hebrew, because of the apocrypha, however, there is not proof that there was a recognized Alexandrian canon, secondly, some of the Christians were the first ones to add the apocrypha, not the Jews.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
while Jews argue that Catholic and Protestant mistranslated the Old testament. So who should we believe, the owner of the house (the Jews), or the people who wants to buy the house.
Kai replies:
It is a fact that some early Jews were reluctant about the Old Testament since the Old Testament became a Christian book, and even verified Christian doctrine, such as the person, work and life of Jesus.
That however, proves in no way that the Old Testament has been corrupted; even less that Christians corrupted it.
A few ignorant Christians who knew nothing about Hebrew such as Justin Martyr (who otherwise had a quite clear insight into his own Christian time and situation) claimed that the Septuagint (the Greek translation) was the most accurate one. We know however that his claims are wrong.
In fact many early Greek Christians knew the Hebrew Scripture and were able to compare the Hebrew and the Greek translation of it.
One example is Origin’s (AD 185-254) Hexapla (meaning sixfold) a compilation which exhibited side by side six vertical columns of the Old Testament text, such as the 1) Hebrew Text, 2) the Hebrew Text transcribed into Greek letters, 3) the Septuagint and various other Greek translations.
Origin even refers to the books in the Old Testament by their Hebrew and Greek name.
Other Greek scholars such as Jerome and Eusebius used this compilation.
It is therefore a fallacy to even suggest that the Christian Old Testament might differ because the Christian only utilized a Greek translation.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Do not argue about Old Testament, because you can never prove which Old Testament you should depend on your argument. And after finding a solution for this problem, tell me to destroy the Old Testament you will choose with evidences InshaAllah.
?
Kai replies:
Do again clarify yourself here.
What do you mean by which Old Testament I use.
I read a translation usually, in the same way as most Muslims will read the Koran in a translation.
Yet if I really want to cave deeply I can look at a Hebrew-English Interliner.
The Hebrew text is red by Jews and Christians alike.
If you intend to build your presumption upon translations, then in the same way I can attack the Koran!
Muslim gladiator:
By the way, make more searches and you will find the Old Testament in KJV differs in some verses from NIV.
Kai replies:
Frankly, is there any oxygen on your planet bro. If you want to debate this then attack the Hebrew Scripture and forget the translations.
Otherwise I will start comparing Koranic translations and post the differences as actual elements that can debunk Islamic religion.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Quote:
Hence if you study Christianity, you are not expected to even consider the Aramaic but the witness’ account of the apostles, and what are apostles? Well what is Muhammad to you? What Muhammad is to you, Matthew, Peter (Mark’s Gospel) and John are to us.
My friend, you witness were Jewish and they used to speak in Hebrew and Aramaic. However, your witness did not put this Gospel with Greek. For anyone studied Bible knows that.
Kai replies:
Just because the witnesses were originally Jewish does not mean that the Gospel account was necessarily conveyed in Hebrew.
The goal of the apostles was to provide an account for the global community not merely to the Hebrew speaking.
That is why the Gospels were written down in Greek, the ancient international language so the message could be easily understood and read.
How do you otherwise know that the witnesses did not write it in Greek?
Why don’t you look at my previous posts on this thread and consider the evidences that I posted on that?
Muslim gladiator wrote:
By the way, About the Gospel Mark ,
This Gospel as like others, found without no name for its translator or any date in which it being translated. The big surprise here, the Gospel Mark has no name. And they called it Mark, Like how in USA they give unknown stuff the term “X”, So they called it Mark which means X or Gospel without any owner. Gospel Mark is not Gospel of Peter.
Kai replies:
Ok, now you force me to repeat myself. Early Christians did recognize the authorship of the Gospel account.
This is verified by both Papias who was in the apostolic circle and Justin Martyr, also an early church father.
Having red several books by authors who deny the authorship of the apostles, I merely have to conclude that these scholars can only be biased if they choose to omit the earliest evidences, and these are historical evidences.
Yet again using your own criteria can you show me the earliest Koran, one existing no more than 10-20 years after Muhammad’s death, with the name of Ibn Zaid as being the author; because if not, then in the name of integrity you should already have left Islam.
If you can actually show me the Qur’an in which the name of the original compiler Ibn Zaid is mentioned then you have proved your point; yet again it has to be a Koran no later than 10 years after Muhammad’s death.
If you are so eager to prove the points by evidential authorship, why don’t you present your evidential authorship?
Tuff? Yeah because you are applying the same challenge as raised by anti-Christian scholars which they on the other hand never would apply to other material in history, and which you a Muslim never would apply upon the Koran; then why do I a Christian even need to exhaust myself to deal with such questions.
Despite of that, we Christian possess the evidences which modern Muslims and atheist assume we lack (let me repeat myself):
The early church-historian Eusebius refers to some of the earliest insights into the Gospel material, the historical testimony of Papias (Eusebius dates Papias to Trajan’s reign (AD 98-117) and later AD 130-140. Bartlet dates Papias writing to take place about AD 100; in all honesty we may date his writings to AD 125). Papias was one of the earliest church fathers who according to the church father Irenaeus () was acquainted with the apostles. Irenaeus refers to Papias as being “a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp ()” (Polycarp was a disciple of John the Apostle). Eusebius in reference to Papias and Irenaeus’ reference to Papias in his Ecclesiastical History (History of the Church) 3.39.1-7, 14-17 writes:
Quote:
1 ... And of Papias there are five treatises in circulation, and which were entitled, An Exposition of the Lord's Reports. Irenaeus also mentions these as his only writing, using the following words: And these things Papias, who has been a hearer of John and a colleague of Polycarp, an early man, corroborates in writing in the fourth of his books. For there were five books that he composed. 2 So wrote Irenaeus. Yet Papias himself, according to the preface of his volumes, in no way presents himself to have been a listener and eyewitness of the holy apostles, but teaches that he had received the articles of the faith from those who had known them, for he speaks as follows: 3 But I will not hesitate to supplement at any time for you too the interpretations with whatever I learned thoroughly and remembered thoroughly from the presbyters, since I am confident in the truth on their account. For unlike many I was not delighted with those who say many things but with those who teach the truth, or with those who remember not the commandments of others but those given by the Lord to the faith and derived from truth itself. 4 But whenever someone who had followed the presbyters came along, I would carefully ask about the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or what Peter had said or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord, and which Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord say too. For I did not assume that whatever comes from books is as helpful to me as what comes from a living and lasting voice. 5 It is also worth calling attention here to his listing the name of John twice, as he includes the first John with Peter and James and Matthew and the remaining apostles, clearly indicating the evangelist, but the other John, with separate wording, he places among the others outside the number of the apostles, and putting Aristion before him, he clearly calls him a presbyter; 6 so, by these words, he substantiates the story of those saying that two men were in Asia of the same name and that there were two tombs in Ephesus both still said to be John's. It is also necessary to turn our attention to this: for it is likely that the second, unless someone should prefer the first, beheld the revelation that is circulated under the name of John. 7 And the Papias being explained now admits that he had received the words of the apostles from those who followed them, and declares that he was an ear-witness of Aristion and the presbyter John. At any rate, he hands down their traditions in his treatises, often mentioning them by name. ... 14 And in his own writing he also hands down other accounts of the aforementioned Aristion of the words of the Lord and the traditions of the presbyter John, to which we refer those truly interested. Of necessity, we will now add to his reports set forth above a tradition about Mark who wrote the gospel, which he set forth as follows: 15 And the presbyter would say this: Mark, who had indeed been Peter's interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order, about that which was either said or did by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who would make the teachings anecdotally but not exactly an arrangement of the Lord's reports, so that Mark did not fail by writing certain things as he recalled. For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify them. 16 Now this is reported by Papias about Mark, but about Matthew this was said, Now Matthew compiled the reports in a Hebrew manner of speech, but each interpreted them as he could. 17 He himself used testimonies from the first epistle of John and similarly from that of Peter, and had also set forth another story about a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which the Gospel according to the Hebrews contains. And let these things of necessity be brought to our attention in reference to what has been set forth.
From Eusebius reference to Papias several issues need to be pointed out. He confirms that the apostles particularly engaged in teaching the Gospel. Papias even considered the oral tradition from these apostles as more essential than the written record. This presents no problem. As a matter of fact this even strengthens the position of the written Gospels, as the oral tradition mentioned by Papias confirms the apostolic duty to be witnesses of the Gospel account. Secondly, Papias confirms that at this point both the oral witness and the written testimony are operating at the same time, 3) that he values the oral witness is obvious, and Papias would never use this terminology unless he linked the two to the same apostolic witness; notice that Papias refers to three of the Gospel compilers, Matthew Peter (Mark), and John:
Quote:
4 But whenever someone who had followed the presbyters came along, I would carefully ask about the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or what Peter had said or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the disciples of the Lord, and which Aristion and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord say too.
It is essential that Papias a contemporary of the apostles confirms the names of Matthew, Peter (Mark) and John; her we possess the actual names of the Gospel compilers from an early external witness.
I say with Papias I would give anything to hear the Gospel account from the actual Apostles rather than reading them from the written accounts, however Apostles are mortal, and the Gospel accounts were written for the same reason; thus the Apostolic witness still remains through the written code, that has always been their intended purpose. Yet the fact remains that the oral tradition, the witness and the written testimony can be linked to the same Apostolic individuals.
Papias also confirms that at least two of these apostles were the actual sources behind the written Gospel accounts; concerning the Gospel of Mark he writes:
Quote:
15 And the presbyter would say this: Mark, who had indeed been Peter's interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order, about that which was either said or did by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who would make the teachings anecdotally but not exactly an arrangement of the Lord's reports, so that Mark did not fail by writing certain things as he recalled. For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify them.
The Gospel of Mark
Papias confirms that there is a Mark’s Gospel, however, Mark’s Gospel is not to be considered as a Gospel compiled or composed by Mark. Papias notes that Mark served in dictating Peter’s teachings, or more correctly Peter’s testimony, possibly in the city of Rome. Additionally it is vital that Mark carefully sought to record everything which Peter had uttered. In other words, the Gospel of Mark is in reality the Gospel of Peter. It is interesting that Peter in his first Epistle writes from Babylon, which possibly refers to the city of Rome, and interestingly he is joined by Silas and Mark (1 Peter 5: 12-13)
Justin Martyr () a contemporary of Papias confirms Papias’ statement. He also reveals knowledge of a Gospel collection and if we possessed his work: ‘Against Marcion’, which was known to Irenaeus and Eusebius we would know more (see Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4.6.2 and Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4.11.8f). In his two works which have survived, his ‘Dialogue with Trypho’ and his two ‘apologies’ addressed to emperor Antonius Pius (138-161) and the Roman Senate (144-160). In the ‘Dialogue’ he refers to the ‘memoirs of Peter’ possibly Mark (Justin Martyr, Dialogue 106.3 and 100.4) and in his ‘First apology’ he refers to the ‘memoirs of the apostles’, and points out that these memoirs are called Gospels and are read in church along with the ‘compositions of the prophet’ (First apology, 66.3; 67.3).
Justin Martyr Dialogue 100:4
100.4 says:
Quote:
Chapter C.-In What Sense Christ is [Called] Jacob, and Israel, and Son of Man. "Then what follows-`But Thou, the praise of Israel, inhabitest the holy place'-declared that He is to do something worthy of praise and wonderment, being about to rise again from the dead on the third day after the crucifixion; and this He has obtained from the Father. For I have showed already that Christ is called both Jacob and Israel; and I have proved that it is not in the blessing of Joseph and Judah alone that what relates to Him was proclaimed mysteriously, but also in the Gospel it is written that He said: `All things are delivered unto me by My Father; 'and, `No man knoweth the Father but the Son; nor the Son but the Father, and they to whom the Son will reveal Him.'381 Accordingly He revealed to us all that we have perceived by His grace out of the Scriptures, so that we know Him to be the first-begotten of God, and to be before all creatures; likewise to be the Son of the patriarchs, since He assumed flesh by the Virgin of their family, and submitted to become a man without comeliness, dishonoured, and subject to suffering. Hence, also, among His words He said, when He was discoursing about His future sufferings: `The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the Pharisees and Scribes, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.'382 He said then that He was the Son of man, either because of His birth by the Virgin, who was, as I said, of the family of David383 and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham; or because Adam384 was the father both of Himself and of those who have been first enumerated from whom Mary derives her descent. For we know that the fathers of women are the fathers likewise of those children whom their daughters bear. For [Christ] called one of His disciples-previously known by the name of Simon-Peter; since he recognised Him to be Christ the Son. of God, by the revelation of His Father: and since we find it recorded in the memoirs of His apostles that He is the Son of God, and since we call Him the Son, we have understood that He proceeded before all creatures from the Father by His power and will (for He is addressed in the writings of the prophets in one way or another as Wisdom, and the Day,385 and the East, and a Sword, and a Stone, and a Rod, and Jacob, and Israel); and that He became man by the Virgin, in order that the disobedience which proceeded from the serpent might receive its destruction in the same manner in which it derived its origin. For Eve, who was a virgin and undefiled, having conceived the word of the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy, when the angel Gabriel announced the good tidings to her that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her, and the power of the Highest would overshadow her: wherefore also the Holy Thing begotten of her is the Son of God;386 and she replied, `Be it unto me according to thy word.'"387 And by her has He been born, to whom we have proved so many Scriptures refer, and by whom God destroys both the serpent and those angels and men who are like him; but works deliverance from death to those who repent of their wickedness and believe upon Him. 106: "The remainder of the Psalm makes it manifest that He knew His Father would grant to Him all things which He asked, and would raise Him from the dead; and that He urged all who fear God to praise Him because He had compassion on all races of believing men, through the mystery of Him who was crucified; and that He stood in the midst of His brethren the apostles (who repented of their flight from Him when He was crucified, after He rose from the dead, and after they were persuaded by Himself that, before His passion He had mentioned to them that He must suffer these things, and that they were announced beforehand by the prophets), and when living with them sang praises to God, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles. The words are the following: `I will declare Thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the Church will I praise Thee. Ye that fear the Lord, praise Him; all ye, the seed of Jacob, glorify Him. Let all the seed of Israel fear Him.' And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder; this was an announcement of the fact that it was He by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Jesus (Joshua), under whose name the people who survived of those that came from Egypt were conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs. And that He should arise like a star from the seed of Abraham, Moses showed before hand when he thus said, `A star shall arise from Jacob, and a leader from Israel; '410 and another Scripture says, `Behold a man; the East is His name.'411 Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him.
Interestingly the text clearly confirms that John Martyr’s reference to Peter’s Gospel is in fact Mark’s Gospel, as also Papias confirmed earlier:
Quote:
And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges.
These are found in Mark 3: 17-19
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Peter has Gospel the Church does not confess with it.
Kai replies:
Sorry please clarify your sentence
Muslim gladiator wrote:
I did not say that my friend from my own desire, who said that Twenty Christians Scholars have a degree “Professor”. We Muslims did not pay for them to say that. Go and read the “Complete Gospels” by Robert J. Miller (Teaches Religious Studies and Philosophy at Midway College, Midway, Kentucky. He made his book with Twenty Christians Scholars. Those people like Scholar Bart Ehram. Who became unbeliever after studying the Bible.
Kai replies:
Say what, about what?
And what does ‘say’ accomplish when evidence disputes.
I have already posted you a explanation of Christian liberal theologies and its motives; I myself have studied Christian liberal theology for quite a while, and I am certainly not impressed.
These people have claimed monopoly upon academic theology and excluded the Christian, their motive is not even based upon facts or evidences but theories, and their motive is not built upon discovering truth either, but upon the success of Secularism or even money.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Quote:
12“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you. Here the apostolic responsibility will be guided by the Spirit of God In other it is the apostles and their message we are to listen to not Jesus Christ This was also the understanding of the early Christians such as Clement:
Does the Spirit is the reason that the first verse on Gospel Mark has two words in some translated manuscripts while it is not in others?
Mark 1:1(New International Version)
{1The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.[a]
For anyone studied the Bible knows that the words “son of God” is not in some traslated manuscripts and if you know Greek. The Siprit put in in some manucsripts and he forgot to put in some others. Or some evils put it by hands to assure an idea.
There is the verse in Greek, nothing about son of God
ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 1:1 (1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament)
{1αρχη του ευαγγελιου ιησου χριστου}
Kai replies:
Well it is a fact that the Sinaiticus does not include ‘Son of God’, yet it is also a fact that both Alexandrius and Vaticanus contain it. Hence there is no reason why the original should not include ‘Son of God’.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Do you want more about Gospel Mark, get that
Go to the NIV which written by more than one hundred Scholars and if you did not like it, go “Complete Gospels” by Robert J. Miller (Teaches Religious Studies and Philosophy at Midway College, Midway, Kentucky
Mark 16:9-20 (New International Version)
{8Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))
9When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.
12Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.
14Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.
15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."
19After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.}
What do you want after this clear evidence? Who was responsible for putting those verses from 9:20 in the God’s Book. It seems to me the Your Holy spirit was sleeping while he gave those Gospels for their owners? Or there is not holy spirit gave anyone anything?
Kai replies:
Well, it is a fact that the ending of Mark 16 has been a matter of debate since the third century. Even some early Scholars refute it.
Personally I don’t see the reason why the entire Mark 16 should not belong to the teachings of the apostle Peter and dictated by Mark.
Yet lets say those who dispute it were correct, lets say that some early Christians did include it to round off the Gospel.
Then what? Well two points are worth mentioning!
Then Christians have been honest enough since the very beginning to point out that the particular verses are dubious. They have copied and later printed the text, yet pointed out that this verses should be approached with caution. In fact almost every translation will point this out.
And then again, if this has been a addition, then it reveals that Christians have always been aware of any possible mistake within the copying or translating of the Bible, and this case was one of the few pointed out. Then in what sense does it debunk the rest of the New Testament.
And then again even though Mark 16 should discredit Mark (which it does not, even though it was an addition) in what sense would it discredit Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, the Epistles and the book of Revelation. As I have already pointed out, the Bible is a collection of books not a book!
Muslim gladiator wrote:
How can you know if the any verse in the Bible is right or not? Put by hand or not?
Kai replies:
Because, Christians have always been honest about pointing out mistakes! We never burned books and corrupted text like the Muslims did with the Koran, and which makes it impossible for Muslims to compare early manuscripts, yet even less to prove that their text is intact.
Secondly, we have the historical evidences of Christian manuscripts
Thirdly, logic, addition may occur in the copying or translation of any book, including the Koran; yet are we so mentally deprived to presume that such a thing would corrupt the entire text, or why does that claim only apply to the Bible, not the writings of Socrates, Julius Caesar or the Koran?
A biased mind I think so.
If this is a problem, how do you explain that you a Muslim still believe in the Koran, when both the Koran and the Hadith and the early Islamic history prove that Allah’s revelation to Muhammad was corrupted, at the same moment revelation took place; was Allah not even able to protect his own revelation the moment he sent it.
This article below is about the Satanic verses in which Satan mingles his word with Allah’s revelation, the moment the Koran is revealed; Allah seems unable to hinder it. In what sense then, can we be assure that not the entire or great parts of the Koran are corruptions by Satan himself.
And let me also point out, that the author is an ex-Muslim who converted to Christianity:
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Responses ... verses.htm
How about the Islamic plagiarizing from the Jewish Talmud, in which the Koran has even included the Jewish commentaries to Jewish traditions, which are not even Scripture; here is one example:
The Koran says:
Then God sent down a raven, which dug the earth to show him how to bury the naked corpse of his brother. -- Sura 5:31.
This is pure plagiarism, this Story is found in the Jewish writings of Pirke Rabbi Eliezer:
Adam and his companion sat weeping and mourning for him (Abel) and did not know what to do with him as burial was unknown to them. Then came a raven, whose companion was dead, took its body, scratched in the earth, and hid it before their eyes; then said Adam, "I shall do as this raven has done", and at once he took Abel's corpse, dug in the earth and hid it.
The real problem however appears in the following verse in the Koran states:
That is why We laid it down for the Israelites that whoever killed a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be deemed as though he had killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life shall be deemed as though he had saved all mankind. -- Sura 5:32.
Where does this verse come from? Well not from God, it comes from a Jewish commentator, the Mishnah Sanhedrin:
We find it said in the case of Cain who murdered his brother, "The voice of thy brother's bloods crieth" (Gen. 4:10). It is not said here blood in the singular, but bloods in the plural, that is, his own blood and the blood of his seed. Man was created single in order to show that to him who kills a single individual it shall be reckoned that he has slain the whole race, but to him who preserves the life of a single individual it is counted that he hath preserved the whole race.
Mishnah Sanhedrin, 4:5
Talking about additions: what does a Jewish fairytale do in the Koran, and why does it even include a commentators note of it?
Hence Muslim gladiator, how about pulling the plank out of your own eye before condemning the Christians. I honestly believe that Mark 16 is intact, yet I honor those Christians who have doubt and deer to say so. Yet even though I am wrong, then the addition of Mark 16 will in no way debunk the Gospel of Mark, and certainly not the other Gospels.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Put in your mind I just gave u 10 percent of what I have.
Go and buy a version of NIV who wrote by more than 100 Scholars.
Kai replies:
Please clarify these lines
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Friend, you gave me a book made by Christian’s writer to assure that Quran does not say that Gospels does not being corrupted. I will reply about this issue by tomorrow InshaAllah and I will show you how mistake you are. Like how you are now
Kai replies:
No the website I referred to refers to a book written by a Muslim who compiles the Koranic readers and points out that a third of the verses in the Koran contain variants in comparison to other Arabic Korans.
Go back a check it out.