God�s written instructions for life.

islamispeace wrote: I have shown conclusively that the Gospels were not unanimously accepted until the late 2nd century.

Okay, but who cares whether it was unanimously accepted by others, keyword others? It was accepted by Christ and his early followers which set the stage with the first Christian congregation that was founded at Pentecost 33 C.E. Acts chapter 2:1-47 shows the first miracles in a Christian congregation setting not in some cave where no one is present to testify or confirm its trueness.

3 And tongues as if of fire became visible to them and were distributed about, and one sat upon each one of them, ⁴ and they all became filled with Holy Spirit and started to speak with different tongues, just as the spirit was granting them to make utterance.

Also as a point of reference Professor of Church History Oskar Skarsaune states: �Which writings that were to be included in the New Testament, and which were not, was never decided upon by any church council or by any single person . . . (I said this all along) The criteria were quite open and very sensible: Writings from the first century C.E. that were regarded as written by apostles or by their fellow workers were regarded as reliable. Other writings, letters, or �gospels� that were written later were not included . . . This process was essentially completed a long time before Constantine and a long time before his church of power had been established. It was the church of martyrs, not the church of power, that gave us the New Testament.�

Also noted is, Ken Berding, an associate professor whose field of study is the Christian Greek Scriptures, gives this comment about how the canon emerged: �The church did not establish a canon of its choosing; it is more proper to speak of the church recognizing the books that Christians had always considered to be an authoritative Word from God.�

So, again, it was the 1^st century Christian�s congregation who selected the canon as confirmed by the scriptures. (1 Corinthians 12:4, 10� to yet another operations of powerful works, to another prophesying, to another discernment of inspired utterances) The apostle Paul performed miracles, even a resurrection, giving powerful evidence that God�s spirit was backing him and his writings. What backings did Muhammad have? Zero! What did he do more powerful than even the Apostle Paul? Zilch!

The writers that you refer to in your post did not establish the canon; they merely testified to what God had already accepted through his representatives, who were guided by his spirit, so you are beating a dead horse although it shows historically that it was in fact true. .

You have a strong tendency to put the cart before the horse as you put the pupils or students of Christ before the teacher or Christ! Some of these later writers admitted to even being students of Christ Apostles.

islamispeace wrote: That means that their authenticity was being debated

Why, because you say so, what was being questioned was whether or not the Gospel contradicts one another, a big difference from the Gospel not being authentic. Another one of my references . . .

kish wrote: Early in the history of Christianity, critics argued that the Gospels contradicted one another and thus their accounts could not be trusted. The Syrian writer Tatian (about 110-180 C.E.) came to the defense of the Gospels. He felt that any apparent contradictions would disappear if the Gospels were skillfully harmonized and blended into one account instead of four. Tatian set about preparing such a harmony. About 170 C.E., Tatian completed his work, known as the Diatessaron, a Greek word meaning �through [the] four.�  In the 19th century, critics began to promote the view that none of the Gospels were written before the middle of the second century C.E.; hence, they could have little historical value. Ancient manuscripts of the Diatessaron discovered since then, however, provide definitive evidence that the four Gospels were well-known and accepted as a collection by the middle of the second century C.E. Discovery of the Diatessaron and commentaries on it in Arabic, Armenian, Greek, and Latin led Bible scholar Sir Frederic Kenyon to write: �These discoveries finally disposed of any doubt as to what the Diatessaron was, and proved that by about A.D. 170 the four canonical Gospels held an undisputed pre-eminence over all other narratives of our Saviour�s life.�

Besides, many people questioned whether Moses and Jesus are real historical (Authentic) people, that is a big difference whether Moses and Jesus really existed or not. Just because people debate the evolution theory over the creation of God does that mean God is not real? Of course not, people have a right to question things.

Like always, no proof, the fact that you put church fathers ahead of Jesus, his 12 Apostles and the first Christian congregation shows a lack of logic, proof and support to your so-called conclusive evidence.

The scribes of the Quran and the hadiths that came 250-300 years later and the different recitations, are they look upon the same way, you those writings ahead of the Quran? Do you put them before Muhammad? If not, why then would Christians put the Church fathers ahead of Jesus Christ, his 12 Apostles and the first Christian congregation? Where is the logic? The Church fathers came later as did the writings of the Quran and the hadiths. Do you believe and accept all the hadiths? No, you don�t. But Christians according to you must accept every uninspired writings, how foolish does that sound?   

islamispeace wrote: Even your own sources showed that there were differences in which books to accept, as in the example of Revelations, which was rejected by some people.  The Christian canon was always in a fluid state.

Again, according to whom? Not all Muslims believe there were 114 Sura�s in the Quran and in the hadiths, and Muslims have been divided since the existence of these books. Shiites and Sunnis have different collections of hadiths. Some believe them only when it suits them. For example, they would accept passages in them that would glorify Muhammad and his teachings but reject those that discredit him. 

Muslim scholars admit that many of the hadiths were fabricated. For example, Goldhizer cites the Muslim scholars Al-Ya'qubi, II, p. 311, Ibn al-Faqih al-Hamadani, p. 95, 3, Ibn Maja, p. 102 concerning Abd al-Malik (716-794 A.D.), one of the four great jurists of Islam, who was himself a major collector of hadith:

So is this another one of your double standards? Your sources shows differences in the Quran and hadiths and many of them are not accepted. Does the hadiths set the standard for the Quran? If not, neither does the church fathers for the NT or the Gospel.

islamispeace wrote: Um, have you ever heard of the Gnostic Gospels?  Ever heard of the "Gospel of Truth"?  Ever heard of the Montanists?  The existence of these groups shows that Christianity was in a fluid state.  Each group had its own beliefs and regarded certain books as being more authoritative than others.

Because of free thinking, how absurd, and yet these pseudo gospels where not accepted into the Bible canon in early Christianity, of course you already knew that. Why, because they were not considered inspired writings until hundreds of years later.

islamispeace wrote: Now Kish, answer the question.  Why did Papias have to defend Mark from this "presbyter" if, as you claim, his Gospel was well-accepted?  You wanted evidence that the authority of the Gospels were being debated, which I have already provided.  Here I have given you some more evidence.

No, what you have proven again is that Papias made references to these sacred and authentic HEBREW writings of the Gospel of Matthew and of Luke and John which everyone else doubted, great work for supporting my case! And this was in 140 C.E. But let me give you the correct reference . . . �Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them.���The Ecclesiastical History, III, XXXIX, 12-16.

islamispeace wrote: I gave the example of Mark 1:11 which had Adoptionist undertones in one Greek manuscript and several Latin ones as well.

Nope, way off track. Jesus� birth fulfills the promise of God that a child would be born to rule on David�s throne. (Isaiah 9:6-7) For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. ⁷ To the abundance of the princely rule and to peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom in order to establish it firmly and to sustain it by means of justice and by means of righteousness, from now on and to time indefinite. The very zeal of Jehovah of armies will do this.

islamispeace wrote: There is also the example of the Pericope de Adultera not being present in most early copies of the Gospel of John.

It wouldn�t be present; it was not part of the original early inspired writings of the Gospel of John. As you yourself pointed out God will preserves his word alive. That is why the Gospel most people have today is the same Gospel as the one from the 2^nd century, you keep making my point. Thanks again!

islamispeace wrote: There is also the ending of Mark 16, where most early copies end at verse 9, even though many modern Bibles have the additional verses which were obviously added later.

Exactly! Earlier copies did not have the additional verses! Why? Because they are NOT regarded as authentic, they are missing in most of the ancient manuscripts, such as the Sinaitic and the Vatican No. 1209. What the Gospel writers wrote were authentic not what others decided to write afterwards. That is why most Bible translation that do have them say that those verses are not authoritative or have them in (parentheses long/short version) or say [The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9�20.] That�s God keeping his word preserved!

islamispeace wrote: All of these examples are proof that the Gospels underwent many changes.  So, the answer to your question is once again a resounding 'yes'!

Wrong again, most Bibles have the earlier version. However, your examples islamispeace actually does shows how the earliest copies of the Gospel were kept intact despite repeated efforts to change. We are right back to point A, the original copies of the Gospel from the 2^nd century is the same Gospel that most people have today two thousand years later.

But of course none of this disproves anything that we have been discussing throughout this post, that is what the Gospel teaches about Jesus; that he is God�s son, that he appointed 12 Apostles, died on a torture stake, was resurrected to heaven, taught God�s Kingdom, that Jesus appeared to Saul/Paul in a vision on the road, etc, etc. These are the teachings of the Gospel that you are unable to refute, but yet what you bring to this discussion was to discredit Jesus by what was later added to the Gospel but was not written in the original verses of the Gospel. Who in their right mind would do that? What is your motive? If these points are the only points you have to disprove Jesus being the son of God or that he died and was resurrected you have a very long journey ahead of you.

islamispeace wrote: If you won't open your eyes to the evidence I have already given, that is your problem.

That was his evidence everyone, smashed to smithereens. .

islamispeace wrote: Did you read the thread "Shibbo's Follies"? How could Shibbo have "pinned me down"  . .

Looks that way to me . . .

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17330&PN=2

But, let me get this right, I asked you �Have you found a Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that teaches other then what we have today which is essentially the same as what was published and circulated in the second century?�

You said

islamispeace wrote: the fact of the matter is that extant manuscripts show without a doubt that the original Gospels did indeed contain material that does not conform to the modern copies.

I think you need some rest or you should read what you just wrote over and over and over again. It is what I keep saying dude, where are you? 98% of the Gospel we have today is what was written in the Gospel in the 2^nd century. The flimsy examples you provided with Jesus not being God�s son, Mark 16, the adultery and everything else came afterwards, that is why 98% of Christians or Bibles today do not accept that but accept Jesus as God's son, the crucifixion and the resurrection.  

That is why 98% of the world�s population who poses a Bible in whole or part and who are Christians does not believe that flimsy accounts.   

Unless, of course you can present to us the �ORIGINAL� Gospel apart from what is in the Museum and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Can you actually do that, now that would be impressive!

Kish wrote: Okay, but who cares whether it was unanimously accepted by others, keyword others? It was accepted by Christ and his early followers which set the stage with the first Christian congregation that was founded at Pentecost 33 C.E. Acts chapter 2:1-47 shows the first miracles in a Christian congregation setting not in some cave where no one is present to testify or confirm its trueness.

Kish wrote: Also as a point of reference Professor of Church History Oskar Skarsaune states: �Which writings that were to be included in the New Testament, and which were not, was never decided upon by any church council or by any single person . . . (I said this all along) The criteria were quite open and very sensible: Writings from the first century C.E. that were regarded as written by apostles or by their fellow workers were regarded as reliable. Other writings, letters, or �gospels� that were written later were not included . . . This process was essentially completed a long time before Constantine and a long time before his church of power had been established. It was the church of martyrs, not the church of power, that gave us the New Testament.� Also noted is, Ken Berding, an associate professor whose field of study is the Christian Greek Scriptures, gives this comment about how the canon emerged: �The church did not establish a canon of its choosing; it is more proper to speak of the church recognizing the books that Christians had always considered to be an authoritative Word from God.�

Kish wrote: So, again, it was the 1st century Christian�s congregation who selected the canon as confirmed by the scriptures. (1 Corinthians 12:4, 10� to yet another operations of powerful works, to another prophesying, to another discernment of inspired utterances) The apostle Paul performed miracles, even a resurrection, giving powerful evidence that God�s spirit was backing him and his writings. What backings did Muhammad have? Zero! What did he do more powerful than even the Apostle Paul? Zilch!

Kish wrote: The writers that you refer to in your post did not establish the canon; they merely testified to what God had already accepted through his representatives, who were guided by his spirit, so you are beating a dead horse although it shows historically that it was in fact true. .

Kish wrote: You have a strong tendency to put the cart before the horse as you put the pupils or students of Christ before the teacher or Christ! Some of these later writers admitted to even being students of Christ Apostles.

Kish wrote: Why, because you say so, what was being questioned was whether or not the Gospel contradicts one another, a big difference from the Gospel not being authentic. Another one of my references . . .

Kish wrote: Like always, no proof, the fact that you put church fathers ahead of Jesus, his 12 Apostles and the first Christian congregation shows a lack of logic, proof and support to your so-called conclusive evidence.

Kish wrote: The scribes of the Quran and the hadiths that came 250-300 years later and the different recitations, are they look upon the same way, you those writings ahead of the Quran? Do you put them before Muhammad? If not, why then would Christians put the Church fathers ahead of Jesus Christ, his 12 Apostles and the first Christian congregation? Where is the logic? The Church fathers came later as did the writings of the Quran and the hadiths. Do you believe and accept all the hadiths? No, you don�t. But Christians according to you must accept every uninspired writings, how foolish does that sound?

Kish wrote: Again, according to whom? Not all Muslims believe there were 114 Sura�s in the Quran and in the hadiths, and Muslims have been divided since the existence of these books. Shiites and Sunnis have different collections of hadiths. Some believe them only when it suits them. For example, they would accept passages in them that would glorify Muhammad and his teachings but reject those that discredit him.

Kish wrote: Muslim scholars admit that many of the hadiths were fabricated. For example, Goldhizer cites the Muslim scholars Al-Ya'qubi, II, p. 311, Ibn al-Faqih al-Hamadani, p. 95, 3, Ibn Maja, p. 102 concerning Abd al-Malik (716-794 A.D.), one of the four great jurists of Islam, who was himself a major collector of hadith: So is this another one of your double standards? Your sources shows differences in the Quran and hadiths and many of them are not accepted. Does the hadiths set the standard for the Quran? If not, neither does the church fathers for the NT or the Gospel.

Again, off-topic.  But, let me just explain quickly one little thing for your benefit.  The Hadiths are secondary to the Qur'an.  There are indeed many forged hadiths.  Muslims use two ways to authenticate hadiths.  One is to compare them to the Qur'an and the other is to study their chains of transmissions (isnads).  Christianity does not have either.  Christians have nothing to compare their fluid canon and edited Gospels to.  And they don't have unbroken chains of transmissions going back to Jesus (pbuh).  As such, nothing in the Bible can be authenticated with certainty as a teaching of Jesus. 

Kish wrote: Because of free thinking, how absurd, and yet these pseudo gospels where not accepted into the Bible canon in early Christianity, of course you already knew that. Why, because they were not considered inspired writings until hundreds of years later.

No, what is absurd is that you ask for evidence of the fluidity of early Christianity and then resort to special pleading when such evidence is given.  You asked for "manuscripts" to "counter the argument that the Gospel was accepted everywhere."  I showed that in early Christianity, there were such movements as the Montanists and such popular books as the so-called "Gospel of Truth".  As usual, you try to downplay these.  Regardless of your special pleading, they serve as evidence of many, competing factions of Christians.

Kish wrote: No, what you have proven again is that Papias made references to these sacred and authentic HEBREW writings of the Gospel of Matthew and of Luke and John which everyone else doubted, great work for supporting my case! And this was in 140 C.E. But let me give you the correct reference . . . �Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them.���The Ecclesiastical History, III, XXXIX, 12-16.

How blind can you be?  Here I give you direct evidence of disagreements and debates concerning the Gospels.  What do you do?  You argue that since Papias was defending the Gospel of Mark, that somehow proves it was authentic!  The simple fact is that someone was debating with Papias (we don't know who as he is only identified as a presbyter), which serves as evidence that not everyone accepted the Gospel of Mark.  Isn't that what we have been discussing?  

Kish wrote: Nope, way off track. Jesus� birth fulfills the promise of God that a child would be born to rule on David�s throne. (Isaiah 9:6-7) For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. 7 To the abundance of the princely rule and to peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom in order to establish it firmly and to sustain it by means of justice and by means of righteousness, from now on and to time indefinite. The very zeal of Jehovah of armies will do this.

Irrelevant as you completely fail to account for why some NT manuscripts had Adoptionist undertones.  Instead, you try to appeal to alleged "prophecies" in the Tanakh.  First of all, you as a Jehovah's Witness who denies that Jesus is God refer to Isaiah 9 which other Christians argue applies to Jesus and "proves" that Jesus was God.  Second, you fail to prove that Jesus was ever called "everlasting Father".  In the Gospels, Jesus never refers to himself as "everlasting Father".  In fact, he always refers to the "Father who is greater than him".  Third, besides not reading the verse in its context, you also resort to typical Christian mistranslations of the verse.  Compare you translation to a Jewish one:

"For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace"" [1]. 

Notice the major difference in translation!  The verse is not referring to this "child" as "the mighty God" or "the everlasting Father" but to God Himself.  Instead, it refers to the child as "prince of peace".  Fourth, the context of the verse shows that it is not referring to the Messiah who is to come.  If you read the chapter from the beginning, you will see that it is referring to the Israelites' situation under Ahaz, whose son Hezekiah is the child referred to in verse 5. 

Regardless, you have completely failed to explain the changes that were made to Mark 1:11 to remove the Adoptionist undertones. 

Kish wrote: It wouldn�t be present; it was not part of the original early inspired writings of the Gospel of John. As you yourself pointed out God will preserves his word alive. That is why the Gospel most people have today is the same Gospel as the one from the 2nd century, you keep making my point. Thanks again!

Yet it is present in the modern Bible!  Even the Jehovah's Witness Bible retains the story but contains a disclaimer explaining that the story is not present in some manuscripts [2]!This is an example of deliberate additions to the NT!  Isn't that what we have been discussing?   

Also, you have shot yourself in the foot again since Papias stated that a similar story was found in the Gospel to the Hebrews:

"[This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be fount in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.]" [3].  

Yet no such story is found in the Gospel of Matthew (the one which was allegedly written in Hebrew)!  Where did it go?  Why is it not present in the Gospel of Matthew?  

Kish wrote: Exactly! Earlier copies did not have the additional verses! Why? Because they are NOT regarded as authentic, they are missing in most of the ancient manuscripts, such as the Sinaitic and the Vatican No. 1209. What the Gospel writers wrote were authentic not what others decided to write afterwards. That is why most Bible translation that do have them say that those verses are not authoritative or have them in (parentheses long/short version) or say [The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9�20.] That�s God keeping his word preserved!

They are regarded as authentic because EVERY Bible today retains the story!  They do usually contain a disclaimer which explains that the verses are not present in the earliest manuscripts but the point is that they still retain the verses, thereby suggesting that the verses are indeed authentic.  And Christians who read the verses have no reason to doubt them and are thereby deceived into believing that Jesus actually resurrected.

But the truth of the matter is that the resurrection story was not present in the earliest Gospel!    That means that the earliest Gospel written contained no resurrection story and yet the resurrection is one of the most important tenets of Christianity!  This echoes another early Christian document, the Didache, which also never mentioned the resurrection (as well as the crucifixion).    

Kish wrote: Wrong again, most Bibles have the earlier version. However, your examples islamispeace actually does shows how the earliest copies of the Gospel were kept intact despite repeated efforts to change. We are right back to point A, the original copies of the Gospel from the 2nd century is the same Gospel that most people have today two thousand years later.

Then you are delusional.  The fact that these additional verses are still retained in modern Bibles shows that Christians do not want to discard them and instead choose to retain them and believe the false story of the resurrection.  Also, you don't realize that even though the Gospel of Mark did not have a resurrection story, the other Gospels do.  What does this mean?  Why did the other Gospels add this story when the earliest one written did not have it?  Why did Matthew and Luke, who used Mark as a template, add the story?  Does it not suggest that the resurrection story was not part of early Christian theology?  It sure does to me!

Kish wrote: That was his evidence everyone, smashed to smithereens. .

If you say so, Kish!  The fact that you try to make pathetic responses and then say things like "smashed to smithereens" shows that you are an expert at declaring victory and patting yourself on the back instead of actually offering a substantive rebuttal.  Other people reading this thread may come to a different conclusion, just so you know!  

Kish wrote: Looks that way to me . . . http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17330&PN=2

Again, if you say!  I answeres Shibbo's questions in that thread.  Afterwards, other people took over and...how did you put it?  Oh yeah...smashed him to smithereens!  Join Shibbo's club, Kish!  The club of blind Christians who cannot use reason and evidence to prove their claims but instead resort to bad research and plagiarism!

Kish wrote: think you need some rest or you should read what you just wrote over and over and over again. It is what I keep saying dude, where are you? 98% of the Gospel we have today is what was written in the Gospel in the 2nd century. The flimsy examples you provided with Jesus not being God�s son, Mark 16, the adultery and everything else came afterwards, that is why 98% of Christians or Bibles today do not accept that but accept Jesus as God's son, the crucifixion and the resurrection.

Where am I?  I am here on earth, which is very far from Planet Kish, where you are! 

Of all the examples I gave, you agreed that all (except for Mark 1:11) were false stories which were added later.  Yet, you fail to explain why they are still retained in modern Bibles and believed by Christians as scripture.  You also failed to explain why the earliest Gospel written contained no resurrection story!  

Also, regarding Mark 1:11, you ignored the argument and instead diverted to the alleged "prophecy" in Isaiah 9, which I showed was not a prophecy about the Messiah, but of Hezekiah.  You still have not explained why some early manuscripts had a different reading of Mark 1:11 which suggested that God had "adopted" Jesus as His son at the baptism. 

Kish wrote: Unless, of course you can present to us the �ORIGINAL� Gospel apart from what is in the Museum and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Can you actually do that, now that would be impressive!

Actually, that is where your position is weakened!  There simply is no early account of Jesus' life.  The Gospels were written decades after and are believed by scholars to have been based on an earlier document called "Q".  Unfortunately, "Q" no longer exists, which basically makes proving the authenticity of the Gospels impossible.  What an unfortunate set of circumstances for you Christians! 

And finally, here are the parts you have yet to answer:

First, Leviticus does not say that only blood will be accepted for atonement.  Those who cannot afford to sacrifice an animal can use pigeons or even wheat!  Leviticus 5 states:

"As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering[a]; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin.

 ⁷ ��Anyone who cannot afford a lamb is to bring two doves or two young pigeons to the LORD as a penalty for their sin�one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. ⁸ They are to bring them to the priest, who shall first offer the one for the sin offering. He is to wring its head from its neck, not dividing it completely, ⁹ and is to splash some of the blood of the sin offering against the side of the altar; the rest of the blood must be drained out at the base of the altar. It is a sin offering. ¹⁰ The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for them for the sin they have committed, and they will be forgiven.

 ¹¹ ��If, however, they cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, they are to bring as an offering for their sin a tenth of an ephah[b] of the finest flour for a sin offering. They must not put olive oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering. ¹² They are to bring it to the priest, who shall take a handful of it as a memorial[c] portion and burn it on the altar on top of the food offerings presented to the LORD. It is a sin offering. ¹³ In this way the priest will make atonement for them for any of these sins they have committed, and they will be forgiven. The rest of the offering will belong to the priest, as in the case of the grain offering.��"

2.  The act of atonement could only be done in the Temple.  If Jesus' crucifixion was supposed to serve as atonement for our sins, then it did not count as it was not even within the walls of Jerusalem, let alone on the Temple grounds! 

3.  The atonement ritual was only for the Jews.  It was not required, for example, from the people of Jonah:

"Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. ⁹ Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.�

 ¹⁰ When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened."(Jonah 3:8-10)

honeto wrote: . . . Read this carefully, open your own "Bible" and confirm each and every quote and its material support to my point and if you disagree or think I have a mistake let me know and if you have facts disproving my point, I will respectfully accept your point on this matter. So here it is:

Honeto, if you would like to discuss this topic in detail please post a new one I would appreciate it. I agree that we should take it verse by verse.