IslamiCity.org Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Religion - Islam > Interfaith Dialogue
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - A quick question about the Evidence
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


A quick question about the Evidence

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
Author
Message
phanhuyen345 View Drop Down
Starter.
Starter.


Joined: 16 May 2018
Status: Offline
Points: 2
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote phanhuyen345 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: A quick question about the Evidence
    Posted: 17 May 2018 at 11:43pm

Son nhũ óng ánh chính là sự chọn lọc xuất sắc cho những cô nàng bắt mắt trong đêm dạ hội hoặc đi bar. Để đánh kiểu son này, bạn chỉ cần bôi tăng son nhũ màu đỏ lên phần son lì trước đấy, dùng cọ tán đều phần nhũ. Và bạn sẽ mang đôi môi "long lanh, lấp lánh" khôn cùng ấn tư£ng.
xem thêm:xăm môi giá bao nhiêu
Để sở hữu đư£c đôi môi đỏ tươi, căng mọng trong những ngày thu se lanh, bạn gái cần chuẩn bị son đỏ tươi, đỏ sẫm và son bóng. Kẻ 3/4 môi như hình 1, tô kín phần môi đ£ kẻ bằng bút chì đỏ tươi. Riêng phần khoé môi, dùng màu đỏ sẫm để điểm trang như hình 3. chung cuộc, trâm một tẹo son bóng nên để tạo độ căng mọng cho môi và bạn đ£ với một bờ môi đỏ như ý.
xem thêm:Phun xăm môi ở đâu đẹp và Lên Màu tự dưng Nhất?
Để sở hữu thể tô son lên màu thật đẹp, bạn ph£i giữ cho đôi môi luôn mềm mịn. Trong mùa đông, môi dễ trở nên khô ráp, bong vẩy khiến son lên môi ko đư£c trơn tuột mư£t. Chính cho nên trước lúc tô son môi, bạn h£y tẩy da chết cho môi bằng hổ lốn đường + dầu olive để mẫu bỏ các m£ng da tróc tr£ lại vẻ mềm mịn cho đôi môi. Sau lúc đ£ tẩy da chết cho môi, bạn h£y trâm 1 lớp son dưỡng môi mê say để môi thêm mềm mại.
nguồn:phun môi màu đỏ hồng

Back to Top
MIAW View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 January 2018
Status: Offline
Points: 167
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote MIAW Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 May 2018 at 9:08pm
Originally posted by phanhuyen345 phanhuyen345 wrote:

For years and years, I have heard claims from Islam that the Bible is corrupted. 

NOT ONCE have I seen one shred of evidence to persuade me of this claim. 

Who can dispel my view that corruption claims are merely Islam's way of trying to prove, conveniently for themselves, that the Quran harmonizes with the Bible when it obviously doesn't.

Islam (and the Qur'an in particular) does not 'try to prove' anything against other faiths and religions... it rather gives us guidance on how to submit to the Will of God our Creator and the Creator of everything seen or unseen... but it also informs us about what has happened in the past (i.e. how other nations and individuals behaved) and what will be in the future (i.e consequences and implications in this life and after death). Whether you choose to believe it or not is entirely your choice.
 

We are not here to prove anything against the Bible. We are here to try and explain Islam to those who wish to find out about it.

Sometimes we respond to hostile 'trolls' who come on here to attack our religion and try to demean our symbols (Allah SWT, Prophet Muhammad PBUH, The Qur'an... etc). However, make no mistake: We respect other people's faiths and convictions.

We know very well that the 'trolls' do not represent the majority out there... but they come on here with an 'attitude' and they must be answered somehow. 

We welcome people who come on here with 'genuine' questions about Islam (and there are so many of them), and I am sure most of us will try to help those people find the right answers.

Different people have different convictions, and each person believes that they have the 'Truth'. We appreciate that fact. We obviously believe in what God (Allah SWT) Has Told us in the Qur'an (because He was there, Witnessing everything that other nations did in the past)... but that does not make people of other faiths 'our enemies'. We believe that God Has Shown us the right path to follow, and it will be clear who was right and who was wrong... on the Day of Judgement.

I personally will not go to other people's websites and start provoking animosity or hostility with 'loaded questions'... and I expect the same from others here. However there are some people who are already  driven by 'Media-injected hatred' by the time they get here. It's sad.

To sum it up: If you want to know what the Qur'an says about the current bible, then some of us can point you to the relevant verses (they are there for everyone to see and read)... but if you then want evidence and proofs, then you'll have to 'Google it' and pray that God Will Guide you towards the Truth... the whole truth... and nothing but the truth.






















Back to Top
Tim the plumber View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 September 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 855
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tim the plumber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 May 2018 at 2:22am
Originally posted by phanhuyen345 phanhuyen345 wrote:

For years and years, I have heard claims from Islam that the Bible is corrupted. 

NOT ONCE have I seen one shred of evidence to persuade me of this claim. 

Who can dispel my view that corruption claims are merely Islam's way of trying to prove, conveniently for themselves, that the Quran harmonizes with the Bible when it obviously doesn't.


Well, the bible has changed a lot;

https://www.ranker.com/list/has-the-bible-changed/jacob-shelton

Quote The history of the Bible is fraught with revisions, wild interpretations, and massive overhauls. Over the course of the last century, changes to the Bible have seen the book expand and retract like a 2,000-year-old accordion.


The Koran was written far more directly from the profet so far less changes have happened;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33631745

Quote The Companion codices were highly similar. For example, the sequences of verses within the suras were the same, and so were most of the words within the verses.

Nonetheless, some words and phrases were different.

The differences reflected the partially oral transmission of the text, which is to say they are of the sort we expect to see when an oral text is written down.

These differences sometimes affected the meaning, but they did not change the basic ideas of the Koran.

Back to Top
DavidC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 September 2001
Status: Offline
Points: 2438
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DavidC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 May 2018 at 10:00pm
The Qu'ran and the Bible are completely different genres of literature. Better to compare Bible with hadith.
Christian; Wesleyan M.Div.
Back to Top
NABA View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 December 2012
Location: India
Status: Offline
Points: 849
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote NABA Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2018 at 2:24am
Can anyone explain gospel of Mark ch 16 v 17-18????
Back to Top
DavidC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 September 2001
Status: Offline
Points: 2438
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DavidC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 May 2018 at 2:26pm
There are many opinions on this. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

There are no known original autographs. Some texts contain Mark 16:9-20 and some do not. Several guesses as to why. The earliest manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20.
Christian; Wesleyan M.Div.
Back to Top
Niblo View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 01 September 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 46
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Niblo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 June 2018 at 4:39am
Originally posted by phanhuyen345 phanhuyen345 wrote:

<span style=": rgb251, 251, 253;">For years and years, I have heard claims from Islam that the Bible is corrupted. </span><br style=": rgb251, 251, 253;"><br style=": rgb251, 251, 253;"><span style=": rgb251, 251, 253;">NOT ONCE have I seen one shred of evidence to persuade me of this claim. </span><br style=": rgb251, 251, 253;"><br style=": rgb251, 251, 253;"><span style=": rgb251, 251, 253;">Who can dispel my view that corruption claims are merely Islam's way of trying to prove, conveniently for themselves, that the Quran harmonizes with the Bible when it obviously doesn't.</span>


Not even ONE piece of evidence???

First example from the New Testament:

The King James Bible (including the American Version); the King James 2000 Bible; the Jubilee Bible 2000; the Douay-Rheims Bible; the Webster’s Bible Translation; and the Young’s Literal Translation contain what is known as the ‘Comma Ioanneum’. This is shown below in capitals:

‘For there are three that bear record IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.’

Anthony and Richard Hanson write: ‘It (the ‘Comma Ioanneum’) was added by some enterprising person or persons in the ancient Church who felt that the New Testament was sadly deficient in direct witness to the kind of doctrine of the Trinity which he favoured and who determined to remedy that defect . . . It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament.’ (‘Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith; page 171).

The ‘Comma Ioanneum’ is spurious, and yet for centuries the Church insisted it be included in 1 John 5: 7-8; on the grounds that it had become official Church teaching.

In 1927, the Holy Office (Guardian of Catholic orthodoxy; and once named the ‘Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition’) declared: ‘After careful examination of the whole circumstances that its genuineness could be denied’ (Ludwig Ott: ‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’, page 56).

This is why my Bible (the Jerusalem Bible - a Catholic version) reads: ‘So there are three witnesses, the Spirit, water and blood; and the three of them coincide.’

Second example:

The story of the woman caught in adultery (found in John 7) has been a source of much controversy for decades. Is it authentic; or is in a later insertion into the text?

The King James Version (based on the Textus Receptus) includes the ‘pericope adulterae’ as an original part of the Gospel. On the other hand, more modern translations – such and as the ESV, NIV, RV; NRVS; and GNB – include the ‘pericope adulterae’, but bracket it as not original; while others print it in a smaller font (TNIV), or place it at the end of the gospel (REB), all with notes of explanation. This is because the story is not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts.

It certainly seems as if, somewhere along the way, a scribe added this story into John’s Gospel in a place he thought it would fit well. Most likely, the story had been circulating for a long time – as an oral tradition – and a scribe (or scribes) felt that, since it was already accepted as truth by consensus, it was appropriate to include it in the text of Scripture. The problem is that truth is not determined by consensus (witness the ‘Comma Ioanneum’ debacle).

The omission of the ‘pericope adulterae’ from the early manuscripts has been explained as an attempt by early church leaders to prevent scandal; to prevent the impression that adultery is acceptable (for Yeshua is said to have forgiven the woman). Concerned for the moral welfare of their flock these leaders are said to have ordered the story’s removal. If this is true, then they tampered with the Gospel!

The fact remains that the ‘pericope adulterae’ is not supported by early manuscript evidence (and some might say, the best manuscript evidence); there is, therefore, serious doubt as to whether it should be included in the Bible at all.

Third example:

Mark 16: 9-20: ‘Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept.   But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it. After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country.   And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them.   Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen.   And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”   So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.   And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.’

Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9-20 immediately after verse 8. At least one manuscript inserts additional material after verse 14; some manuscripts include, after verse 8, the following: ‘But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.’ These manuscripts then continue with verses 9-20.

Conclusion:

An acknowledged spurious text – justifying the belief in a Trinitarian deity – and still present in at least six current versions of the Bible; the insertion of the ‘pericope adulterae’; and the changes to Mark.

Perhaps now you can understand why scholars (both Christian and Muslim) speak of a corrupted New Testament.
'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib‎)
Back to Top
2Acts View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 22 March 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 128
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 2Acts Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 June 2018 at 10:43pm
Originally posted by Niblo Niblo wrote:

Originally posted by phanhuyen345 phanhuyen345 wrote:

<span style=": rgb251, 251, 253;">For years and years, I have heard claims from Islam that the Bible is corrupted. </span><br style=": rgb251, 251, 253;"><br style=": rgb251, 251, 253;"><span style=": rgb251, 251, 253;">NOT ONCE have I seen one shred of evidence to persuade me of this claim. </span><br style=": rgb251, 251, 253;"><br style=": rgb251, 251, 253;"><span style=": rgb251, 251, 253;">Who can dispel my view that corruption claims are merely Islam's way of trying to prove, conveniently for themselves, that the Quran harmonizes with the Bible when it obviously doesn't.</span>


Not even ONE piece of evidence???

First example from the New Testament:

The King James Bible (including the American Version); the King James 2000 Bible; the Jubilee Bible 2000; the Douay-Rheims Bible; the Webster’s Bible Translation; and the Young’s Literal Translation contain what is known as the ‘Comma Ioanneum’. This is shown below in capitals:

‘For there are three that bear record IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.’

Anthony and Richard Hanson write: ‘It (the ‘Comma Ioanneum’) was added by some enterprising person or persons in the ancient Church who felt that the New Testament was sadly deficient in direct witness to the kind of doctrine of the Trinity which he favoured and who determined to remedy that defect . . . It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament.’ (‘Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith; page 171).

The ‘Comma Ioanneum’ is spurious, and yet for centuries the Church insisted it be included in 1 John 5: 7-8; on the grounds that it had become official Church teaching.

In 1927, the Holy Office (Guardian of Catholic orthodoxy; and once named the ‘Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition’) declared: ‘After careful examination of the whole circumstances that its genuineness could be denied’ (Ludwig Ott: ‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’, page 56).

This is why my Bible (the Jerusalem Bible - a Catholic version) reads: ‘So there are three witnesses, the Spirit, water and blood; and the three of them coincide.’

Second example:

The story of the woman caught in adultery (found in John 7) has been a source of much controversy for decades. Is it authentic; or is in a later insertion into the text?

The King James Version (based on the Textus Receptus) includes the ‘pericope adulterae’ as an original part of the Gospel. On the other hand, more modern translations – such and as the ESV, NIV, RV; NRVS; and GNB – include the ‘pericope adulterae’, but bracket it as not original; while others print it in a smaller font (TNIV), or place it at the end of the gospel (REB), all with notes of explanation. This is because the story is not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts.

It certainly seems as if, somewhere along the way, a scribe added this story into John’s Gospel in a place he thought it would fit well. Most likely, the story had been circulating for a long time – as an oral tradition – and a scribe (or scribes) felt that, since it was already accepted as truth by consensus, it was appropriate to include it in the text of Scripture. The problem is that truth is not determined by consensus (witness the ‘Comma Ioanneum’ debacle).

The omission of the ‘pericope adulterae’ from the early manuscripts has been explained as an attempt by early church leaders to prevent scandal; to prevent the impression that adultery is acceptable (for Yeshua is said to have forgiven the woman). Concerned for the moral welfare of their flock these leaders are said to have ordered the story’s removal. If this is true, then they tampered with the Gospel!

The fact remains that the ‘pericope adulterae’ is not supported by early manuscript evidence (and some might say, the best manuscript evidence); there is, therefore, serious doubt as to whether it should be included in the Bible at all.

Third example:

Mark 16: 9-20: ‘Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept.   But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it. After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country.   And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them.   Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen.   And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”   So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.   And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.’

Some manuscripts end the book with 16:8; others include verses 9-20 immediately after verse 8. At least one manuscript inserts additional material after verse 14; some manuscripts include, after verse 8, the following: ‘But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.’ These manuscripts then continue with verses 9-20.

Conclusion:

An acknowledged spurious text – justifying the belief in a Trinitarian deity – and still present in at least six current versions of the Bible; the insertion of the ‘pericope adulterae’; and the changes to Mark.

Perhaps now you can understand why scholars (both Christian and Muslim) speak of a corrupted New Testament.
You wouldn't even have this information if it wasn't for the integrity and transparency of Christian scholarship. Take Mark 16 for instance. All my household Bibles contain a note in Mark that Mark 16 is not in many original manuscripts. Obviously no secrets here ! As David C has said it is more accurate to compare the Bible with hadith rather than the Quran.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.