Need explanations regarding some of Bible verses

hujanhijau

thats why i said it was an intentional "error" debmey..
read carefully and understand bro

kompia23

did the translator told you that? no..that just your assumption the fact that it was a translation error still stand

So, the translator told you that he changed the fact, is it? I believe not. In that case, hmmm...you're making assumption as well. Thus, your arguement is also invalid.

were not discussing on Muhammad here, better focus on the reliability of the bible, your holy book reliability is in questioned here

I don't question the bible reliability because it's true to the core. Its doctrine still stand despite the translator's errs. Some translation errs does not make the book false. Also, i'm just pointing out that your beliefs are in the same boat.

Regards.

gunblade712

kompia, we, the Muslims, believe that Word of God shouldn't contain even a minute error. If you believe that this rule can be bent, it us up to you.

you also claimed that the original scripture doesn't contradict, but what does the original say on 2 Chronicles 2:22? 42, or 22?

I've also come to know that the original scripture was lost. Is this true, kompia? or is that a lie threw to Christendom?

Debmey

kompia, we, the Muslims, believe that Word of God shouldn't contain even a minute error. If you believe that this rule can be bent, it us up to you.

First of all, Quran does have a lot of serious logical errors.
Secondly, we Christians don't share the same belief of yours that copyist errors render the word of God invalid.
Finally, there is no evidence to prove that the quran had never be changed and retained its original form.

you also claimed that the original scripture doesn't contradict, but what does the original say on 2 Chronicles 2:22? 42, or 22?

It just shows that transaltors choose to use different manuscripts and they both don't differ in essential content at all.

I've also come to know that the original scripture was lost. Is this true, kompia? or is that a lie threw to Christendom?

original script? Where is the original quran script? lost? Ahahahahaha....................

gunblade712

Originally posted by Debmey at 6-2-2009 12:17 PM

First of all, Quran does have a lot of serious logical errors.

If you took and swallow what the orientalist told you and do not heed our explanations pertaining the verses in Arabic which is used, then it is up to you.

Secondly, we Christians don't share the same belief of yours that copyist errors render the word of God invalid.

Again, if you believed that there can be error in the Word of God, then you believe what you wanna believe, I have no trouble in that.

Finally, there is no evidence to prove that the quran had never be changed and retained its original form.

So you don't really know the history of the Quran then. Please go and read it before you come here and speak about it.

QUOTE:
you also claimed that the original scripture doesn't contradict, but what does the original say on 2 Chronicles 2:22? 42, or 22?

It just shows that transaltors choose to use different manuscripts and they both don't differ in essential content at all.

DIFFERENT MANUSCRIPT?

The NIV uses DIFFERENT MANUSCRIPT FOR 2 CHRONICLES 2:22 THAN THE KJV???

original script? Where is the original quran script? lost? Ahahahahaha....................

Please go and study the history of the Quran before you speak about it. What, u want me to take a PICTURE of the original script? As I recall, even Dr Anis Sorrosh, a profound Christian Theologist, have got his hands on the ORIGINAL SCRIPTURE OF THE QURAN.

If you follow Ahmad Deedat's debate with him then you must notice it and it would be impossible for you to missed it out. Dr Anis Sorrosh even held the ORIGINAL SCRIPTURE in the air.

Don't show your ignorant nature here, kiddo.

Debmey

If you took and swallow what the orientalist told you and do not heed our explanations pertaining the verses in Arabic which is used, then it is up to you.

Truth is, you muslims cannot counter and explain away these errors.

Again, if you believed that there can be error in the Word of God, then you believe what you wanna believe, I have no trouble in that.

Yes sir, this is our belief, so how can you muslims impose something that we don't beleive and at the same time your quran cannot live up to? Arent you fellas contradicting yourselves?

So you don't really know the history of the Quran then. Please go and read it before you come here and speak about it.

Where is the original quran manuscript?

DIFFERENT MANUSCRIPT?

Yes sir, different manuscript, same content.

The NIV uses DIFFERENT MANUSCRIPT FOR 2 CHRONICLES 2:22 THAN THE KJV???

Yes sir.

Please go and study the history of the Quran before you speak about it. What, u want me to take a PICTURE of the original script? As I recall, even Dr Anis Sorrosh, a profound Christian Theologist, have got his hands on the ORIGINAL SCRIPTURE OF THE QURAN.

I did study history of quran, there are no original manuscripts from the 7th century available.

If you follow Ahmad Deedat's debate with him then you must notice it and it would be impossible for you to missed it out. Dr Anis Sorrosh even held the ORIGINAL SCRIPTURE in the air.

So where is the original quran manuscript?

Don't show your ignorant nature here, kiddo.

sori sir, you are the one that is ignorant

gunblade712

Originally posted by Debmey at 6-2-2009 12:37 PM

Truth is, you muslims cannot counter and explain away these errors.

we don't have to. The idea that you agreed the Bible contains error speaks for itself.

Yessir, this is our belief, so how can you muslims impose something thatwe don't beleive and at the same time your quran cannot live up to?Arent you fellas contradicting yourselves?

What the hell are you talking about? We are just conveying to you the message that the Book of God SHOULD NOT contain even minute error, BUT IF YOU STILL wanna believe that Word of God CAN CONTAIN ERROR, we have no say to that.

Like I say, you believe what you wanna believe, no matter how stupid that belief is.

Where is the original quran manuscript?

I believe the last time I've heard it was shown in the British museum.

Yes sir, different manuscript, same content.

Which two manuscript, debmey?

I did study history of quran, there are no original manuscripts from the 7th century available.

Can you give me your sources?

So where is the original quran manuscript?

It has already been answered. Don't spam us with the same question, kiddo.

The fact that Dr Anis Sorrosh held up the manuscript and say that it is the ORIGINAL SCRIPTURE tells us that the scripture still exist nowadays.

sori sir, you are the one that is ignorant.

You IGNORED the error and contradictions even though it has been proven and crystal clear.
That is why I say you are ignorant.

Debmey

we don't have to. The idea that you agreed the Bible contains error speaks for itself.

And I have proven to you muslims that none of these minor copyist errors changed the instrinsic content of the Bible.

What the hell are you talking about? We are just conveying to you the message that the Book of God SHOULD NOT contain even minute error, BUT IF YOU STILL wanna believe that Word of God CAN CONTAIN ERROR, we have no say to that.

Quran contaions lots of serious errors, it therefore cannot be the word opf God then.

I believe the last time I've heard it was shown in the British museum.

No sir, there are no orginal manuscripts of the Quran available.
The oldest one in British museum dates back only to the 11th century.

Which two manuscript, debmey?

Do you know either way? ahahahahaha.................

Can you give me your sources?

Can you show me one 7th centruy quran around?

The fact that Dr Anis Sorrosh held up the manuscript and say that it is the ORIGINAL SCRIPTURE tells us that the scripture still exist nowadays.

I am talking about manuscript sir, don't try to act blur around here.

hujanhijau

Originally posted by kompia23 at 6-2-2009 11:35 AM


So, the translator told you that he changed the fact, is it? I believe not. In that case, hmmm...you're making assumption as well. Thus, your arguement is also invalid.

...

what the translator should actually do is translate the verse honestly without any interpretive translation. the translator could introduce their own theological understanding of the book by giving notes, but not as the text itself...
they should not try to harmonize te bible by giving translation that are not accurate..
just like in quran, translator understanding is seperated from the text translation...   

Originally posted by kompia23 at 6-2-2009 11:35 AM



I don't question the bible reliability because it's true to the core. Its doctrine still stand despite the translator's errs. Some translation errs does not make the book false. Also, i'm just pointing out that your beliefs are in the same boat....

you believe that its true...

kompia23

In 2 Chronicles 22:2 , what does the original text said about Ahaziah's age? 22 or 42?

42, from my point of view, is in blood line age. 22 years old physically when He became King.

Kompiamy bro, the "translation problems" (if you call it a problem) in theQuran doesn't change the facts of that the Quran is trying to say.There are certain words which the translator did translate it properlybut the readers mistook it due to the fact that the readers did notlearned the language of Arab.

Would you agree with me that translator can made mistake in translating the word? Yes or no.. just a simple answer.

Take your Bible and look at it's front cover. Does it say "TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE"?

Does it necessary to write that title on the cover. It's so obvious to everyone. Everyone know that the original bible is in Hebrew and Aramic. Just for case comparison, when Cinderalla story book is being translated into BM language, did it require a title that reflect it has been translated from english. I guess not. Everyone knew.

We are not telling you to hate Jesus Christ a.s., weare telling you to open up and see that Jesus Christ a.s. is justanother mighty messanger of God, sent to the Jews, taught them theOneness of Allah. We are telling you to open up and see that the Jewstried to kill him (a.s.), and if they did, then Jesus Christ a.s. isnot the Messiah. We are telling you that Allah saved Jesus Christ a.s.from the cross.

Same with us. We are just asking you to believe in Jesus Christ as a Messenger of God and also the Son of God, which died on the cross for redemption of  our sins. And whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. And I would like add that Jesus did died on the cross, rose again on thethree day and ascended to heaven soon after, and is now sitted at the righthand of God. The Old Testaments fortold His coming, His coming confirmed prophecies, and He is coming back again to judge all. Do remember, Jews not only killed Jesus but many of God's prophets.

Also, Jesus is the Messiah and this is clearly reflected in Quran.

Regards.

kompia23

what the translator should actually do is translate the verse honestly without any interpretive translation. the translator could introduce their own theological understanding of the book by giving notes, but not as the text itself...
they should not try to harmonize te bible by giving translation that are not accurate.. just like in quran, translator understanding is seperated from the text translation...

To be frank, the translation with the big capital or not doesn't bother me. As i said, it's for the readers to understand better. There's no harm intention in it. The doctrines are still the same yesterday, today and will be tomorrow.

I believe.

Regards.

hujanhijau

thats why i said earlier that you BELIEVE its true..
your beliefs blinded you..
thats why you dont see any problem in it..

but for other peoples who want to learn what christianity is, they can see the problems

gunblade712

Originally posted by Debmey at 6-2-2009 02:14 PM

And I have proven to you muslims that none of these minor copyist errors changed the instrinsic content of the Bible.

the fact remains, debmey. There are errors in your so-called "Word of God".

Quran contaions lots of serious errors, it therefore cannot be the word opf God then.

how typical. All talk, but you don't even give me ONE example of this "serious errors in the Quran".

Oh well, it seems that debmey will spit out everything which he has obediently swallow from the orientalist websites.

No sir, there are no orginal manuscripts of the Quran available.
The oldest one in British museum dates back only to the 11th century.

This is why I told you to read the Quran's history. Have you done that?

Do you know either way? ahahahahaha.................

So you are claiming that the KJV uses DIFFERENT MANUSCRIPT TO TRANSLATE 2 CHRONICLES 2:22???

This is what happen when debmey can't think straight. He blurt out nonsense and threw a fitnah to his own religion. pity.

Can you show me one 7th centruy quran around?

so you can't give me the source of your study? Typical.

I am talking about manuscript sir, don't try to act blur around here.
  

I don't have to act blur. It's even recorded in the video. Why don't you have a look?

gunblade712

Originally posted by kompia23 at 6-2-2009 04:12 PM


42, from my point of view, is in blood line age. 22 years old physically when He became King.

Yes, from the explanations given from your website, that's what it says.

What I'm asking is on the original scripture itself, what does it say? 42, or 22?

For surety those copyist copied the book from an authenticated Word of God, am I right, kompia?

On that authenticated original version, what does it say?

Would you agree with me that translator can made mistake in translating the word? Yes or no.. just a simple answer.

I would say that the translator can't find the most suitable word, hence they choose the nearest possible word. Is that considered an error, kompia?

Doesit necessary to write that title on the cover. It's so obvious toeveryone. Everyone know that the original bible is in Hebrew andAramic. Just for case comparison, when Cinderalla story book is beingtranslated into BM language, did it require a title that reflect it hasbeen translated from english. I guess not. Everyone knew.

No, kompia. Not everyone knew the fact that the Bible was in Hebrew and Aramaic. The Christians boastly took their Bible and say "This is THE Bible, THE Word of God". How can you explain the difference of facts between the NIV and the KJV given here? Which one is the true word of God? NIV or KJV?

Bear in mind, the difference is NOT THE CHOICES OF WORDS USED BY THE COPYIST, BUT RATHER THE FACT PRESENTED IN THE SAME BOOK OF THE SAME CHAPTER OF THE SAME VERSE.

Your fellow Christian debmey told me that KJV took DIFFERENT MANUSCRIPT from the NIV. Is this true, kompia?

Samewith us. We are just asking you to believe in Jesus Christ as aMessenger of God and also the Son of God, which died on the cross forredemption of  our sins. And whoever believes in Him shall not perishbut have eternal life. And I would like add that Jesus did died on thecross, rose again on the three day and ascended to heaven soon after,and is now sitted at the righthand of God. The Old Testaments fortoldHis coming, His coming confirmed prophecies, and He is coming backagain to judge all. Do remember, Jews not only killed Jesus but many ofGod's prophets.

Also, Jesus is the Messiah and this is clearly reflected in Quran.

Regards.

The bold ones is what we rejected.

How can you proof your statement with the Bible, when it is clear in this thread that the Bible contains error and you know this fact is true? How can you tell the difference, then?

And secondly, whosoever believed in Jesus shall have eternal life? Did Jesus say this, or does someone else say this? Jesus said, in your bible :

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

(Matthew 7:22-23)

If believing in Jesus will grant you eternal life, how come Jesus say such thing above? Do you think that the Muslims will come to Jesus and call him "Lord, Lord"? Or do you think that the Jews will go to Jesus and call him "Lord, Lord"?

The fact that "Jesus died three days" was also been questioned and I haven't came across a single answer ever since. Jesus said that he would be in the belly of the earth for three days and three nights, right kompia? Try counting from Friday evening to Sunday morning, do you get three days and three nights?

tetra

but for other peoples who want to learn what christianity is, they can see the problems

absolutely..

gunblade712

we are talking about The Bible and it's authenticity here, guys.

Debmey here wanted to see the original scripture of the Quran, trying to divert from the topic, debmey?

I'm not arguing about the fact that the original scripture of the Bible is lost, certainly not! Why are you being so defensive, debmey?

I'm asking because your friend kompia told me that there are NO CONTRADICTIONS IN THE ORIGINAL COPY, so I asked him, is it true that the original copy is lost?

Simple question, but debmey turned hostile.

sixret

It is a common knowledge among theologists/scholars,be them Muslims,Jewish or Christians that Bible has many discrepancies.

Whoever study Bible with critical mind,will definitely spot MANY ERRORS AND DISCREPANCIES.

God is FREE from any discrepanciesàwe all(Muslims,Jewish,Christians) agree on this.

The BOOK from GOD CANNOT AFFORD TO HAVE ANY ERRORS OR DISCREPANCIES.NOT EVEN ONE ERROR.

When HUMANS could spot errors and discrepancies from the supposedly BOOK OF GOD,scepticism to that BOOK cannot be avoided.When scepticism of Bible's auhenticity creeps in our mind, our belief to that BOOK is shaken.

Let we(Muslims) show and guide you,to the discrepancies and errors of the Bible, one by one.

And here, where we need the help from Christian forumners, to proof to us that the verses from Bibles are NOT WRONG and/or CONTRADICT each other.

[ Last edited by  sixret at 6-2-2009 10:19 PM ]

sixret

Let Christians, that is, only Christians answer the question below:

First Case: The Doctrine Of Original Sin

Who introduce the doctrine?

Is it a teaching from Bible?

sixret

Second Case: Concerning The Number Of Men Of Israel Who Returned From Exile

Ezra chapter 2 says:



The family of Arah.....775


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezra%202;&version=51;


In Nehemiah chapter 7, it talks about the same man Arah:



The family of Arah.....652


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=nehemiah%207;&version=51;


Christians,please explain the contradiction.

[ Last edited by  sixret at 7-2-2009 02:35 AM ]

me_xy82

demey ni sebenarnya x cerdik pon.. die byk provok jek..

isi hancussssssssssssssssssssssssssss