Born again was reborn with a closed mind!

[Nur]

Nur, Muhammad and the rest pagan clan,

Hitler was as much of a Christian as you are much of a Muslim!

So then he was a christian? Nice of you to support fascists!

You lot make me laugh with your logic!

Where do you think Hitler stands?

By your logic, having accepted Jesus as the Saviour, Hitler must be in Heaven, with the rest of God's relatives!

Why don't you all try and answer my original question first, where is hard evidence for your Qur'an.

Go to any local mosque in any country, you will find a hard copy - I guarantee it! You will even find it in universities and in libraries! The evidence of its existence is stronger than the evidence of your own existence!

Was Muhammad prophet a myth or a legend?

He the Seal of all Prophets (PBUH), the Prophet prophecised by Jesus (PBUH) and the other Prophets (PBUT). I though you already know this!

Keep trying boys and girls and oh don't forget to say your 5 pagan prayers every day facing a building and a black stone

Thank you for your advice - like Abraham(PBUH) we are willing to do anything commanded by Allah, The God! Our "pagan" prayers is better than associating partners with Allah, your Creator.

Ku Klux klan are also semi Muslims too, Full Pagans.

Really? The whole world will have to re-write history and even current news for the sake of your silly views. Next you will be telling us that the Queen is head of the Mosques and that the Pope is a Muslim.

Serbs done the atrocities and what about Muslims who started this disease first.

But shouldn't the Serbs, being christians, have turned the other cheek? Again you are trying to rewrite history - I will be interested in knowing how many Serbs were killed by muslims and how many women were raped by the slaughtered muslims! Don't tell me the Serbs were muslims and the bosnians were people who converted to Chritianity!

Shall we talk about the atrocities Muhammad prophet done in the name of the Allah!

Please do - in particular can you mention how many people were slaughtered when the Prophet(PBUH)conquered Mecca with an army of 10,000 people. Can you also tell us what he did to Abu Sufyan and his wife Hind, who ate the liver of the Prophet (PBUH)'s beloved uncle, Hamza? And also how he treated the christians?

Mr Wais Islam,

Do you know Hebrew?

Why don't you quote two versions of the Bible and tell us what difference have you found?

Do you know Aramaic, the language Jesus (PBUH) spoke? And I thought Hebrew was not a requirement to read the bible - if you are now saying that there are no contradictions in the Hebrew text then you should be grateful we have pointed out translations which contradict! Go and tell your leaders to correct the English translations!

I don't think you deserve to know Jesus's name but I will tell you it was Iesous Christos in Greek and Yeshua in Hebrew.

Then why do you call him Jesus and do you know what his name was in his own local language? Isa!

Now shall we talk about the four versions of the Qur'an.

I've responded to this already, and you have not provided the proof. I'll remind you! If there are 4 original versions then all the millions of copies available today should be based on of these four. So you should be able to show us four different versions, but this is impossible. You made the assertion, now you prove it! Incidently, it is difficult to find two compies of the bible which match!

Read the history of the compilation of your book and be careful when and how to point your fingers toward others, especially the Bible.

No! You find us four versions and give us references! You made a silly assertion, now prove it!

Remember that whenever you point your index towards someone, three fingers are pointed toward you.

Did you get this from a Monty Python sketch? Three fingers, hehehehe! Don't point, just try and reason!

Therefore, we now ask you to explain to us how come that right after Muhammad's death there were at least FOUR versions of the Quran and all in the hands of close friends and disciples of Muhammad.

Get this into your three heads! The Quranic texts are identical - the commentary is not! Even today new commentaries of the Quran are being published. But the Quran itself is preserved. I sense a bit of jealousy, because the Bible has not been preserved. Don't you know jealousy eats one's faith like fire burns wood!

Where is that promise of Allah which says: "inna luhu la 7afidun!"
How come that Allah fail to preserve the "original" Quran and how come he couldn't prevent Westerners (Christians) from getting a copy from the Yeman's scripts which differ largely from your Uthmanic version and preceeded it?

Why, the Quran is available to the whole world - It's message is for the whole world and it is not to be hidden, like the dead sea scrolls were for many years!

How come that Allah failed to get hold of that copy and have it burned in oil with the other "perverted" copies?

Boring! You speak of God, as though he's a man like you or me (well perhaps not you!). Burn, you mean in the same way that the Gospels of the actual Disciples were burned by the Roman Emperor?

As for Mr Wise Nur there is a verse in the Bible which suits all of you:

Matthew 7:5-7 "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

A full commentary required, please! Thanks for calling me wise - it only seems that way because you are so unwise!

Next time come with something with a bit more substance if you want to talk because you produce no evidence but hotair!!!

Maybe we can fly a balloon with it.

Was that a joke? You really are getting frustrated and mad! Perhaps you should ring the Samaritans?

Good day gents.

Thank you and same to you!

bornagain born to tell the truth and uphold the truth!

BornaAgain as confused and frustrated as ever! Nevertheless you are a source of entertainment!

[This message has been edited by Nur (edited 09 July 2000).]

[This message has been edited by Nur (edited 09 July 2000).]

[bornagain]

Muhammad and Nur,

I need some more hot air for the balloon which is half full at the moment

>>
Hitler was as much of a Christian as you are much of a Muslim!

So then he was a christian? Nice of you to support fascists!
>>

If you think he was a Christian then he must think so too!

Still he is with Muhammad prophet in Hell!

I wonder what is a good Christian doing in Hell.

Oh sorry I forgot he was a Christian by your standards not the Bible!

So you do admit to being Pagans.
Thank you.

>>
The official acknowlegement of the Trinity"
Let us talk about the trinity and the council of Nicaea in around 325AD. Before this time there were many christians who were monothists, which caused much disagreement amongst the people. So Constantine I (the great) emperor of Byzantium, who authorised Christianity (circa 313 AD) by the Decree of Milan, called the Council of Nicaea. And the said Council enacted the famous law which calls to the faith that the Father and the Son are equal in essence and that the Son is a god out of a god".
>>

Do you have any hard evidence or just more hot air?

Balloon is three quarters full now.

Muhammad prophet according to you must have been illiterate and stupid because he accepted the Bible in 620 AD long after this happened as it was changed according to you.

I would like to see proof not conjecture.

The Qur'an was created in the 8th century and the proof lies in the British Library.

In the kufic script if you understand anything about the script because Muhammad's original supposed lost Quran was in Hijazi script!!!

Now who has shot himself in the foot?

Would you care to provide us with a Quran of Muhammad's time in the Hijazi script or do you just like to talk?

Oh I forgot the Goat ate that!!

>>
How come that Allah failed to get hold of that copy and have it burned in oil with the other "perverted" copies?

Boring! You speak of God, as though he's a man like you or me (well perhaps not you!). Burn, you mean in the same way that the Gospels of the actual Disciples were burned by the Roman Emperor?
>>

So Muhammad prophet was stupid to accept the Bible long after the Romans created their own?

Thanks for admitting it.

This explains Muhammad was a false prophet who did not know God.

>>
Get this into your three heads! The Quranic texts are identical - the commentary is not! Even today new commentaries of the Quran are being published. But the Quran itself is preserved. I sense a bit of jealousy, because the Bible has not been preserved. Don't you know jealousy eats one's faith like fire burns wood!
>>

Everyone knows that this is simply not true. It is a lie to claim that the Qur'an in Arabic has not been changed - even the Arabic version of 1908 published in Turkey is different from the version of 1924 published in Egypt.

Here you can read about the many differences in the "ARABIC" Qur'an.
http://www.callnetuk.com/home/aperfe...ndex.htm#Part2

There are many differences and absolutely no evidence that the Quran of Muhammad is anything like the one we have today in Arabia.

Now I am waiting for your proof?????

>>
Keep trying boys and girls and oh don't forget to say your 5 pagan prayers every day facing a building and a black stone

Thank you for your advice - like Abraham(PBUH) we are willing to do anything commanded by Allah, The God! Our "pagan" prayers is better than associating partners with Allah, your Creator.
>>

Abraham was not an Arab let alone a pagan like you, he walked by faith not by 5 prayers.

Where is your proof????

Keep it up boys.

I am just starting, who said I am getting bored and desperate or even jealous.

I love you all even though you hate me!

Bornagain to tell the truth!

[muhammad]

I need some more hot air for the balloon which is half full at the moment
Don't know how your computers giving off so much air, you better get an engineer to check it!

If you think he was a Christian then he must think so too!
Still he is with Muhammad prophet in Hell!
I wonder what is a good Christian doing in Hell.
Oh sorry I forgot he was a Christian by your standards not the Bible!
Officially hitler was a christian, this doesn't mean he followed the bible or any of the teachings. So to blame his handy work on christianity would be like blaming Islam for corrupt Muslim's. That was Nur's point. What makes you say that Muhammad (PBUH) is in Hell even by your own law? God will decide who will go to hell not you. Next you'll be telling us you have divine contact with God and you are a Prophet!

So you do admit to being Pagans.
Thank you.
Are you dreaming? Wake up! Nobody in this discussion has claimed to be a Pagan. Sorry but I don't know what you are talking about.

"The official acknowlegement of the Trinity"
Let us talk about the trinity and the council of Nicaea in around 325AD. Before this time there were many christians who were monothists, which caused much disagreement amongst the people.
So Constantine I (the great) emperor of Byzantium, who authorised Christianity (circa 313 AD) by the Decree of Milan, called the Council of Nicaea. And the said Council enacted the famous law which calls to the faith that the Father and the Son are equal in essence and that the Son is a god out of a god".

Do you have any hard evidence or just more hot air?

Balloon is three quarters full now.
Wow, I amazed! I can't believe you do not know your own history, and yet you talk so boldly about Islam. Sort out you're own back yard before other people's. I will give you references for this don't worry about that.

Muhammad prophet according to you must have been illiterate and stupid because he accepted the Bible in 620 AD long after this happened as it was changed according to you.
If he accepted the bible why does the Qur'an contradict it?

You see unlike you we believe that Muhammad (PBUH) received his revalations from Allah. Not from the bible or any other source.

I would like to see proof not conjecture.
So would I. Even when I give basic Christian history you refuse to accept it. Why is this? If I say something about the history of Christianity which is wrong then please correct me, don't just ignore it.

The Qur'an was created in the 8th century and the proof lies in the British Library.

In the kufic script if you understand anything about the script because Muhammad's original supposed lost Quran was in Hijazi script!!!

Now who has shot himself in the foot?

Would you care to provide us with a Quran of Muhammad's time in the Hijazi script or do you just like to talk?

Oh I forgot the Goat ate that!!
Here we go again - we are going around in circles. You said exactly the same thing before and it has been answered. Have you run out of new things to say?

How come that Allah failed to get hold of that copy and have it burned in oil with the other "perverted" copies?

Boring! You speak of God, as though he's a man like you or me (well perhaps not you!). Burn, you mean in the same way that the Gospels of the actual Disciples were burned by the Roman Emperor?
>>

So Muhammad prophet was stupid to accept the Bible long after the Romans created their own?
Look up ^ bornagain.
Muhammad didn't accept the bible. Otherwise Muslims would be Christians!

Thanks for admitting it.
Rather makes this point look silly now doesn't it!

This explains Muhammad was a false prophet who did not know God.
Sorry?

>> Get this into your three heads! The Quranic texts are identical - the commentary is not! Even today new commentaries of the Quran are being published. But the Quran itself is preserved. I sense a bit of jealousy, because the Bible has not been preserved. Don't you knon jealousy eats one's faith like fire burns wood!
>>

Everyone knows that this is simply not true. It is a lie to claim that the Qur'an in Arabic has not been changed - even the Arabic version of 1908 published in Turkey is different from the version of 1924 published in Egypt.

Here you can read about the many differences in the "ARABIC" Qur'an.
http://www.callnetuk.com/home/aperfe...ndex.htm#Part2

There are many differences and absolutely no evidence that the Quran of Muhammad is anything like the one we have today in Arabia.

Now I am waiting for your proof?????
Look bornagain you are wasting my time. Say what you have to say then back it up with a reference (be it a webpage or a book). Make one point at a time and I will discuss it.

To understand the preservation of the Qur'an you have to understand that from the Prophets time (PBUH) people have learn it by heart and this has been passed down though the generations. In this context, finding a misprint in a copy of the Qur'an is meaningless.

Keep trying boys and girls and oh don't forget to say your 5 pagan prayers every day facing a building and a black stone

Thank you for your advice - like Abraham(PBUH) we are willing to do anything commanded by Allah, The God! Our "pagan" prayers is better than associating partners with Allah, your Creator.
>>

Abraham was not an Arab let alone a pagan like you, he walked by faith not by 5 prayers.

Where is your proof????
Abraham was not an Arab, so what? He wasn't a christian either? Where is your proof that he prayed to Jesus (PBUH).

Keep it up boys.
Will do, don't worry.

I am just starting, who said I am getting bored and desperate or even jealous.
Well the way you started insulting, instead of answering the questions gave us that impression.

I love you all even though you hate me!
Don't worry bornagain, we don't hate you. You're a good source of entertain for us all!

Bornagain to tell the truth!
Arrogance is not a good thing according to christianity (despite the fact that a lot of christians are arrogant).

[This message has been edited by muhammad (edited 11 July 2000).]

[bornagain]

Muhammad and Nur,

>>
If you think he was a Christian then he must think so too! Still he is with Muhammad prophet in Hell! I wonder what is a good Christian doing in Hell.

Oh sorry I forgot he was a Christian by your standards not the Bible!

Officially hitler was a christian, this doesn't mean it followed the bible or any of the teachings. So to blame his handy work on christians would be like blaming Islam for corrupt Muslim's. >>

That is what Muhammad prophet claimed and you believed him so what is stopping you from believing me?

I am here alive and living with hundreds of people witness of me

Muhammad prophet does not have any living witnesses.

Joke apart this is what you are doing with Muhammad prophet believing through a book that came about some 200yrs after his death.
Mind you I don’t make prophet claims like this.

Compare this with Jesus Christ we have a book of Matthew written between 33AD and 70AD which speaks about the future in it’s time, destruction of the temple in 70AD which Jesus says will happen.

Proof Matthew was written before the destruction of the temple and you can validate it by just this one prophecy alone but the critics want more proof.

1) The Gospels and Acts are quoted as genuine by ancient writers,beginning with writers contemporaneous with the apostles themselves and continuing thereafter. This sort of proof is the strongest argument
for the authenticity of a writing and is regularly used by ordinary historians to prove that a particular work came from a certain author.

This method when applied to the Gospels and Acts, establishes without question their authenticity. For example, the Epistle of Barnabas (ca. 120 A.D.) quotes Matthew as Scripture, and Clement of Rome (ca. 90 A.D.) also quotes words found in Matthew. The Shephard of Hermas alludes to Matthew, Luke, and John. Ignatius, who was a church leader in Antioch about 37 years after Christ's death (i.e. 70 - 110 A.D.), alludes to Matthew and John. His contemporary Polycarp, who knew personally the disciple John and other eywitnesses to Jesus' ministry, refers to different New Testament works some fourty times. Papias, who also knew John, specifically says Matthew and Mark wrote their Gospels; the offhand way in which he makes this remark shows that it was a fact
generally known. Justin Martyr about twenty years later frequently quotes the Gospels. Irenaeus, who knew Polycarp, specifically names the four Gospel writers.

2) The books of the New Testament are always quoted as authoritative and as one of a kind. The ancient writers did not quote these books as they would quote any ordinary piece of literature. These books were
special and possessed final authority concerning what they said. Paley
provides quoteations from Theophilus, the writer against Artemon, Hippolytus, Origin (230 A.D.), and many others to prove the point.

3) The books of the New Testament were collected together into one volume at a very early date. Today we divide the NT into the Gospels and the Epistles. The ancient writers made a similar distinction,
only they called it the Gospels and the Apostels. Ignatius mentions collections of NT books into the Gospels and the Apostles. According to Eusebius, Quadratus distributed the Gospels to converts during his travels.

Irenaeus and Melito refer to the collection of writing which we today call the NT. Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian (both about 190-200 A.D.) also refer to the division of Scripture into the Gospels
and the Apostles. This shwos that the Gospels and Epistles were collected
together as the NT at an early date.

4) These writings were given titles of respect. Polycarp, Justin Martyr,
Dionysius, Irenaeus, and others refer to them as "scriptures", "divine writings", and so forth.

5) They were publically read and preached upon. Paley quotes Justin Martyr,
Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian to prove the point.

6) Copies, commentaries, harmonies of the Gospels were written. Thousands upon thousands of copies of the NT books are laboriously made by hand.

Many commentaries and other works on them were written by men such as Panaenus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and so on. It is especially noteworthy that during the first three centuries no commentary was written on any book outside the NT, with the sole exception of Clement's commentary
on the so-called Revelation of Peter. Harmonies, or combinations of the four Gospels into one, were also composed; for example, Tatian's Diatessaron (A.D. 170).

7) Moreover, the NT books were accepted by all heretical groups as well as by orthodox Christians. Examples of such heretics include Basilides, the Valentinians, the Carpocratians, and many others. Though they all denied some aspect of the NT teaching, they nevertheless acknowledged the authenticity of the NT books themselves.

8) The Gospels, Acts, thirteen letters of Paul, 1 John and 1 Peter were recognized as authentic writings even by those who doubted the authenticity of certain other NT Epistles. E.g., Origen cites the book
of Hebrews to support a particular point he is making. He notes that some persons might doubt the authority of Hebrews, but he says that the same point could be proved from the undisputed books of Scripture. He then quotes Matthew and Acts. According to Origen, the four Gospels were received without doubt by the whole church of God under heaven. In the same way Eusebius reports that while some doubted certain Epistles, the four Gospels were unniversally recognized as authentic.

9) The early enemies of Christianity recognized that the Gospels contained
the story on which the faith was founded. Celsus, for example, admits that the Gospels were written by the apostles. Porphyry attacked the Christian faith as it is found in the Gospels. The heretic Julian pursued the same procedure.

10) Lists of authentic Scriptures were published, which always included the Gospels and Acts. Citations from Origen, Athanasius, Cyril, and others go to prove the point.

11) The Apocryphal books were never treated in the above manner. The apocryphal books were forgeries which were written in the second century after Christ. They purported to be writings of the apostles and carried
titles like the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, and so forth.

It is a simple historical fact that during the first three hundred years, with one exception, no apocryphal Gospel was ever even quoted by any known writer. In fact, there is no evidence that any forged Gospel
whatever existed in the first century, when the four Gospels and Acts were written. The apocryphal Gospels were never quoted, never read or preached upon in Christian assemblies, not collected into a volume, not
included in teh lists of authentic Scriptures, not appealed to by the heretics, not noticed by Christianities enemies, not the subject of commentaries or harmonies. They were almost universally rejected by
Christian writers of that age.

Therefore, Paley concludes, the Gospels must be the authentic writings of the Apostles. Even if it were the case that the names of the Gospel authors are wrong, it still cannot be denied in the light of the above
arguments that the Gospels do contain the story which the original apostles told and for which they labored and suffered.

Therefore, unless the story is true, the apostles were all liars. But this has already been shown to be impossible in the light of their sufferings and changed lives.

Therefore, the Gospel accounts must be true.

Let me summarize. The final binding decision on the list of books in the NT has been made at a 4th century council, that is true, but apart from a few quarrels on Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the letters by Jude and
James, and the Revelation, all the other books were unanimously accepted by the Church from early on. And the canon was not "disputed" and decided on Nicea, but only confirmed officially, what had been clear for at least 150 years more or less, and the Gospels have always been
accepted and none of the "apocryphal gospels" has ever been accepted by
the Church. Nicea did not make any "new" decisions in this regard. It was not that they had a long list of possible gospels and then selected the current four. No other gospel has ever had any acceptance in the
Church.

>>
"The official acknowlegement of the Trinity"
Let us talk about the trinity and the council of Nicaea in around 325AD. Before this time there were many christians who were monothists, which caused much disagreement amongst the people.
So Constantine I (the great) emperor of Byzantium, who authorised Christianity (circa 313 AD) by the Decree of Milan, called the Council of Nicaea. And the said Council enacted the famous law which calls to the faith that the Father and the Son are equal in essence and that the Son is a god out of a god".
Do you have any hard evidence or just more hot air?
Balloon is three quarters full now.
Wow, I amazed! I can't believe you do not know your own history, and yet you talk so boldly about Islam. Sort out you're own back yard before other people's. I will give you references for this don't worry about that.
>>

There is no need to be amazed anymore as I have explained my history above but the question is can you explain your history with any degree of proof or you just believe by blind faith and that is what I am trying to say?

You people have no shred of proof, what hope is that?

>>
Muhammad prophet according to you must have been illiterate and stupid because he accepted the Bible in 620 AD long after this happened as it was changed according to you.
If he accepted the bible why does the Qur'an contradict it?
You see unlike you we believe that Muhammad (PBUH) received his revalations from Allah. Not from the bible or any other source.
>>

That is exactly what I am asking you?

Why does it contradict?

Muhammad accepted the Bible after the Nicea council, the Bible he saw in and around 620AD, almost 300yrs after the council and I have given proof above to show that I am not making this up.

Are you saying Muhammad prophet lied when he accepted the Bible or that he accepted a different Bible?

I have proved above from historical people and evidence that you can validate the Bible with historical people who lived at the time and through prophecy which is fulfilled.

If you are still saying that the Bible presently is corrupt because of some copyists errors which occurred to preserve the original found copies then I am afraid you are being dishonest with yourself.

Even with copyist errors it does not change the original doctrine of Jesus Christ being the saviour, the copyist errors can also be resolved when you look at the manuscripts like siniacticus and codex alexandrinus.
let us hypothetically say that the Bible has already been altered. This will lead us to two conclusions:

· Either the corruption had happened pre-Islam

· Or the corruption had happened post-Islam

If the corruption had been completed before Islam , one would think that Quran would have mentioned it and warned the Muslims from believing the Bible that the people of the Book had at that time.

On the contrary the Quran commanded absolute obedience and belief in the Bible .It is written in "Surat El Maidah" : "say,o' people of the book,you stand on nothing until you observe the Torah and the Gospel and what has now been sent down to you from your Lord"

A true Muslim is one who believes everything that has been sent down by the Almighty in the Bible at the time of Islam. Thus the preceding nullifies the theory of the Bible corruption before the coming of Islam.

It is well known that the religion of Islam appeared in the 6th century AC.At that time the Bible had already been translated into numerous languages, and spread through out the world. In order for the corruption to take place the following has had to happen:

· A universal approval for the Bible alteration.

· Gathering all the original Bible copies and destroying them from around the world.

· A global approval of the new Bible version.

· Reprinting and publishing the new edition worldwide.

Logically this is an impossible task !!

THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE:
It is true that any theory would stand or fall on the historical foundation. Today we do have ‘Bible scrolls’ and ‘manuscripts’ that were written down way before the appearance of Islam, all of which are identical to the versions that we have in our hands today.

Examples of the whereabouts of some of these manuscripts:

· A manuscript written in 130 BC and it is found in Manchester library in England

· A manuscript written 200 BC on Papyrus and it is found in Michigan university.

· The Vatican MSS written 325 BC and it is found in the Vatican library.

· The Sinai Codex and it is kept today in the British Museum in London.

THE SPIRITUAL EVIDENCE:
As far as the spiritual evidence, we believe that the Bible is the word of God, and the Almighty is well able to protect His word from corruption. In the Torah, in Genesis, God commanded the Jews through Moses, the prophet, to obey and trust wholly in His word. In the New testament, in the book of Revelation, we find a stern warning stating:"... if any man shall add unto these things God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book, and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the book of life."

In the Quran Surat Alhijr, we read : "Verily, it is we who have sent down this exhortation ,and most surely we are its guardian."

Based on all the previously explained evidences, any man that says that the Bible has been corrupted or altered is in fact blaspheming, and indicating that the Almighty God is unable to guard and protect His Word.

A true believer would stay away from accusing the Almighty of being unable, or incapable of keeping His Word from corruption.

>>
I would like to see proof not conjecture.
So would I. Even when I give basic Christian history you refuse to accept it. Why is this? If I say something about the history of Christianity which is wrong then please correct me, don't just ignore it.
>>

I have corrected you above and I am not ridiculing you in anyway just stating the facts.

Sorry if I caused you offence in anyway earlier.

>>
The Qur'an was created in the 8th century and the proof lies in the British Library.
In the kufic script if you understand anything about the script because Muhammad's original supposed lost Quran was in Hijazi script!!!
Now who has shot himself in the foot?
Would you care to provide us with a Quran of Muhammad's time in the Hijazi script or do you just like to talk?
Oh I forgot the Goat ate that!!
Here we go again - we are going around in circles. You said exactly the same thing before and it has been answered. Have you run out of new things to say?
>>

No you did not answer it with any secular proof but just that it was memorised and passed down.

I explained that if Muhammad prophet could forget verses and his disciples remind him the next day then ask yourself honestly what chances are their that carrying the Quran for 200yrs as memory could not have created errors when transmitting it orally later to write it down.

You just have to look at the hadith to see that Bukhari and Sahih Muslim accepted only 2% hadith out of 600,000 rejecting the majority but we don’t know on what criteria the 98% were rejected.

Then you have to look at all the abrogations in the Quran.

God can't just give one verse today and tomorrow cancel it, think about it, he is the creator who knows all, past present future.

He does not need to do this and this is why we trust him as he is all knowing which we are not!

>>
So Muhammad prophet was stupid to accept the Bible long after the Romans created their own?
Look up ^ bornagain.
Muhammad didn't accept the bible. Otherwise Muslims would be Christians!
>>

I have explained above through the Quran that all Muslims accepted the Bible not Just Muhammad.

I know you are going to say but I don’t believe in the Quran but the point is Muslims do believe in it and it did accepted the Bible.

What you are saying is your view and you then contradict what the Quran says.

You are making a silly assertion that Muslims would be Christians because Muslims do claim to have come from Judaism and Christianity so think about what you are saying otherwise they would not believe in Moses and Jesus.

>> Get this into your three heads! The Quranic texts are identical - the commentary is not! Even today new commentaries of the Quran are being published. But the Quran itself is preserved. I sense a bit of jealousy, because the Bible has not been preserved. Don't you knon jealousy eats one's faith like fire burns wood!

Everyone knows that this is simply not true. It is a lie to claim that the Qur'an in Arabic has not been changed - even the Arabic version of 1908 published in Turkey is different from the version of 1924 published in Egypt.

Here you can read about the many differences in the "ARABIC" Qur'an. http://www.callnetuk.com/home/aperfe...ndex.htm#Part2
There are many differences and absolutely no evidence that the Quran of Muhammad is anything like the one we have today in Arabia.
Now I am waiting for your proof?????
Look bornagain you are wasting my time. Say what you have to say then back it up with a reference (be it a webpage or a book). Make one point at a time and I will discuss it.
To understand the preservation of the Qur'an you have to understand that from the Prophets time (PBUH) people have learn it by heart and this has been passed down though the generations. In this context, finding a misprint in a copy of the Qur'an is meaningless.
>>

Let me explain now as the difference wasn’t just misprint but fundamental.

"During the time of ‘Uthman differences in reading the Qur’an became obvious, and after consultation with the Companions, ‘Uthman had a standard copy prepared from the suhuf of Abu Bakr kept with Hafsa at that time.

The following is the report transmitted in Sahih Bukhari:
"Narrated Anas bin Malik: Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to ‘Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to ‘Uthman, ‘O chief of the Believers! Set this people right before they differ about the Book (Qur’an), as the Jews and the Christians did before’.

Then ‘Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, ‘Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may copy the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you. Hafsah sent it to ‘Uthman. ‘Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa’id bin Al-’As and Abdur Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. ‘Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, ‘In case you disagree with Zayd bin Thabit on any point in the Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish, as the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue’.

They did so, and when they had written many copies, ‘Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsah. ‘Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt...."" (Sahih Bukhari, Vol.6, #510, p. 479).(Ulum, p.52f).

However, the reason for these differences of the Iraqis and Syrians (Sham) is central in understanding why such an action was taken.

It is thus worth noting that at-Tabari (d.309 A.H.) in his Tafsir (commentary), includes in his version of this Hadith:

"Hadaifah said, "I took part in the expedition against Armenia where there were Iraqis as well as Syrians. But the Syrians follow the reading of the Qur’an according to Ubai ibn Ka`b, and they say some things which the Iraqis have not heard, so the latter accuse them of unbelief. In the same way the Iraqis, who follow the reading of Ibn Mas`ud, read some things which the Syrians have not heard, and the Syrians accuse

Although many claim that the codices of the Companions were different simply because they were ‘personal notebooks’, the differences Tabari mentions were those actually recited by their pupils, the citizens of Iraq and Syria, as ‘Qur’an’ from these men. These were not ‘notebooks’, and Sahih Muslim (Vol. 2, p. 393f., #1797-1801) records examples of the differences taught to the followers.

For this reason Ibn Mas’ud is known to have refused to hand over his text to `Uthman’s agents declaring that he received his from Muhammad and he was not willing to accept what young Zaid ibn Thabit recited. And, Sahih Muslim #6022 (Vol. 4, p. 1312; English version) records his admission that he told his followers to likewise withhold their copies!

Those who believe the other version, that 6 out of the ‘7 Forms’ were withdrawn at the Final Review, are faced with the equally problematic choice that the admitted variations in writing were either because the people did not obey immediately, OR, at a later time error crept into the written text of the ‘1 Form’ of the Qur’an which remained at the time of Muhammad’s death!

However, it must then be accepted that such error would of necessity been in the Companions’ texts in order for them to be burnt!

No Sunni could accept this! Thus, those who do believe the version that the ‘Final Review’ marked the end of the ‘7 Forms’ are forced by their beliefs to deny that variation of any kind would have continued in the written texts. Thus, they have to declare that the many Companion codices vary from one another only because they were ‘notebooks’.

>>
Abraham was not an Arab let alone a pagan like you, he walked by faith not by 5 prayers.
Where is your proof????
Abraham was not an Arab, so what? He wasn't a christian either? Where is your proof that he prayed to Jesus (PBUH).
>>


Bornagain to tell the truth whether you accept it or not!




[This message has been edited by bornagain (edited 13 July 2000).]

[Nur]

Salaam,

BornAgain, I will insh'Allah respond to your posting, but can you and your friends please respond to all the points raised by myself, Muhammad, Abdur Rahman and Mahdi. Up to now we have responded to all the silly points you and your friends raised even though you copied it from various websites.

You tried to defend your version of Christianity and have claimed that all christians are united and follow authentic books. Well can you explain why the Encyclopedia Britanicca says that one of the biggest practical problems with Christianity is that there more than 22,000 different christian sects? And also can you tell us in which verses of the New Testament the concept of trinity is mentioned? You see, Sir Isaac Newton, who was a Unitarianist, has actually proven the only reference made to the concept of Trinity in the New Testament is actually a forgery. Also where is it mentioned in the Bible that God came down to earth to be reborn as man? References to this concept has also been proven by Sir Isaac Newton and others to be a forgery.

In fact all the "secular" evidence that you are so fond of points to the fact that you guys do not follow the teachings of Jesus (PBUH) or any of the other Prophets (PBUT) but in fact you follow the teachings of people who compromised the Religion of the God as preached by all the Prophets (PBUT) with that of the Pagan beliefs held by the greeks and the romans. This is a historical fact.

You took the ideas of St Paul, who the disciples of Jesus (PBUH) (most notably St James and St Barnabas) disagreed with and who had actually massacred Christians earlier, and you added to it even more ridiculous ideas! You do not follow any of the teachings of Jesus (PBUH) and you do not even accept the teachings of his disciples, who were against St Paul! Does the Gospel of Baranabas not mention Muhammad (PBUH) explicitly? Is this why you reject it?

More later - let me read your nonsense now!

[Nur]

Salaam,

I have read your posting BornAgain and again you making claims which even your leaders do not make! Did you dream up these ideas about the authenticity of the books you claim to follow?

History books written by Christians show us that the early christians still went to the Synagogue with other jews and only differed from other jews in that they believed in Jesus (PBUH) as a Prophet.

The people of Nazareth were all unitarianists and did not at all like St Paul who had massacred christians in the past. The disciples too disliked St Paul because he came up with a concept which allowed people to departed from the teachings of Jesus (PBUH) and the teachings of other Prophets (PBUT) in particular the teachings of Moses (PBUH).

So the christians developed into 2 main groups, those who followed the teachings of Jesus (PBUH) and those who followed the teachings of St Paul. Eventually those who followed St Paul were supported by the pagan Roman Empire and with their support they were able to massacre the Unitarianists and establish their version of Christianity.

However, it took these followers of St Paul 4 centuries to establish concepts they had borrowed from the Greeks and the Romans - and a number of meetings were held by the "official" christians and chaired by the pagan roman emperors. It was at these meetings that the controversial concepts of Trinity and other pagan concepts were formally announced and forced into religion. And it was also in these meetings where it was decided that it was ok to kill Unitarianists.

Can you believe this? All the Prophets, including Jesus (PBUT) preached about the One God, but the misguided "official" christians, with the backing of the roman empire, actually massacred the believers of the One God!

More later! Oh and Insh'Allah I will give refences later when Ush and the gang decide to respond to the points raised by myself and others!