The Holy Gospel did not evolve!

Larry,
we are not discussing here what is the difference between the OT and NT Testaments rather if they changed over time. All I have shown you is to prove my point with ample evidence that leads a fair minded person to conclude that yes they did change indeed.
Any other issue is to be discussed in appropriate thread please.
Hasan

Caringheart wrote: Somehow Hasan I think you have the intelligence to know that everything you say relates to what you follow, you are just not ready to admit it.

Caringheart,
I do my homework and what I said is based on that. I could not have said this out of respect before before knowing this truth.

Hasan

honeto wrote: Larry wrote: Hasan,    You are the one who brought up the "Santa Claus thingy," so don't act like that I am trying to "divert" attention from other things.    And yes, the Bible was written by 66 different authors, you seem to think that because the Qur'an was "written" by one person, that that is what makes it the "true" holy text. But there are no source materials for the Qur'an because any previous writings and sources that were in it prior to Uthman's "standardized" copy were completely destroyed by Muslim authorities, which made authenticating the text impossible.    The Bible has a coherent form, that moves from the beginning to the end that is logical, historically accurate (There are many ancient sources that back up the Bible's historical writings), contains extensive geneaologies of Old Testament Patriarchs and prophets, etc. The amazing thing about the Bible is that with 66 different writers the form, cohesiveness and linear structure, along with a high degree of accuracy and agreement between the different writers is remarkable.    The Qur'an has no logical form or commentary, it is simply put together by using the lengths of the various "chapters" to determine its form and it is repetitive, has many discrepancies (one, in particular, the different number of days that God used to create the world), is verbose and the style and content changes from Muhammad's time in Mecca and then later in Medina, and includes in many places, Muhammad, his immmediate family, his allies, his enemies, etc. Why would revelations from God Himself concern Muhammad, his personal life, his actions, family and financial details that say how much money the "prophet" and his family are entitled to from any spoils of war or other "income."    There are also variant copies of the Qur'an, namely, those of Ibn Masud, who does not include Chapters 1, 113 and 114, and Ubay B Ka'ab who has two additional chapters, Surah al-Khal and Surah al-Afd, not found in Uthman's astandardized version.    Sorry, but I simply don't buy it. I am very happy to say that I have complete faith in the Bible and in it's prophecies, histories, geneaologies, poetry, musical forms, and message. Whether or not you accept that is irrelevant to me.    There is an interesting article concerning the contents, histories, stories, form, etc. of the Qur'an at;    http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/quran.htm Larry Larry, there is nothing accurate in the Bible, at least that's what we have seen so far through the Biblical quotes we have studied. Also, what really fascinating is the fact that its contents do not agree within itself. That bring us to the hard reality that if the All Knowing was behind it, it would not have those problems. So the conclusion and only thing left is to admit that humans without divine guidance tempered with it's contents. Since humans are not all knowing and can be inconsistent, only they can be behind Bible's current inaccurate and inconsistent state. To admit that fact will leave us in the middle of nowhere, and Godless? No, of course not, and don't believe if anyone who tells you that it does. God is God of truth, who does not compromise on truth. Admitting that fact will only bring us closer to God, and closer to His pure word, the Final Testament, The Quran, not to mention, bring us our salvation. We accept it, we benefit from it. If we reject it, we have ourselves to blame for covering up the falsehood and keeping ourselves and others from truth. Hasan Hasan,    You say there is "nothing accurate in the Bible." And, "Admitting this fact (that God is the God of truth) will only bring us closer to God, and closer to His pure word, the Final Testament, the Qur'an, not to mention, bring us salvation."    It's funny that you use the word "Testament" in your reply, is that to make it look like the Qur'an is REALLY the third installment of God's Word (even though His first two "Testaments" are hopelessly corrupted)?    Here are a couple of examples of errors or oddities in the Qur'an.    There are errors concerning confusion between Mary, recorded in the Qur'an as the sister of Aaron and the daughter of Imran (Biblical Amran) as well as the mother of Jesus (by implication in Surahs 19:28, 66:12, though the two, Mary and Miriam lived 1,570 years apart.    The name for Jesus in the Qur'an, Issa, is incorrect. Issa is the Arabic equivalent of Esau, the name for the twin brother of Jacob. The correct Arabic name for Jesus would be Yesuwa, similar to the Hebrew Yeshuwa.    The Jinn. The Jinns were forced to work for Solomon, making him whatever he pleased, such as palaces, statues, large dishes and brass fountains (Surah 34:11-13. A malignant Jinn was even commissioned to bring the Queen of Sheba's throne in the twinkling of an eye (Surah 27:38-44).    King Solomon was taught the speech of birds (Surah 27:16) and the speech of ants (Surah 27:18-19). In his battles he used birds extensively to drop clay bricks on Abrah's army (Surah 105:3-4), and marched them in military parades (Surah 27:17).    The ants, upon seeing Solomon and his army arriving in their valley (and, by implication recognizing who he was), talk among themselves to flee underground so as not to be crushed (Surah 27:18).    The Qur'an completely misrepresents the doctrine of the Trinity. Surah 5:116 mistakenly thought that the Christians worshipped three gods; the Father, the Mother (Mary) and the Son (Jesus). But Christians do not recognize this false doctrine at all.    These are just a few of the things that were listed on the website I named before;    http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/quran.htm    So you see, the Bible isn't the only "supposedly corrupted" holy book around, the Qur'an contains numerous errors, misrepresentations, untruths, etc. Larry

Edited by Larry - 13 September 2012 at 3:06pm

Friendship wrote: Assalamu alaika Larry.Yes indeed, the source of Qur'an meaning to 'read' and to 'compare' is derived from the languages of Jurhum and that spoken in Palestine up to the time the mother of Ishmael left Palestine. Let us learn from the philologists. There are words that are spoken from the neighbouring countries like Muhsanat, Kahanama Iranian word changed to Jahannama, Ra'ina a Hebraic word changed to 'unzurna' etc. I do not speak Hebrew but there are a lot of words that have a common root with Arabic. All verses starting with prophetic say, are Arabiciseds. The medinan Arabs did not know the meaning of the abbreviated alphabets unlike the Levi clan. So when the alphabets for example� A-L-M were revealed, their leader came to the holy Apostle and said your kingdom is going to last for 41 years for A=30, L=10, M=1 (or in a reverse form). Muhammad did not argue with him.� Understand that whenever the holy Apostle addressed those with Islam before him, they never disputed with him.Larry! There is inconsistency between what you claim to profess with that in the time of Muhammad. Those Christians and Jews in his time never denied his Message. Now you cannot say today their Torah and Bible were adulterated and that what is with you today is the authentic one. Don't be biased please and use your faculty to understand Allah. Be independent and a slave!I hope I have answered you. I am waiting for your answer also.Friendship.

   Friendship,

   My point about the Qur'an not being written in pure Arabic comes from the Islamic belief that there is a perfect Qur'an preserved in heaven that is identical to the Qur'an used by Muslims on earth. Why would a "perfect" Qur'an in heaven use words from different earthly languages, whether for the benefit of those who do not speak "pure" Arabic or whether there are "root" forms of Arabic in it? If an Arabic text is "pure" it would not be necessary to borrow words from Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Syriac, Assyrian, Ethiopian, etc.

   "Be independent and a slave?"

   That is an oxymoron, slaves are not independent and people who are independent are not slaves. I am not a "slave" of Jesus Christ, I am a follower of, and believer in, His holy nature as the Son of God. God does not ask us to be "slaves," He wants us to have true faith in Him, not to grovel on our bellies before Him like the ancients did before their idols.

Larry

   

Edited by Larry - 13 September 2012 at 1:29pm