Is the Bible God's Word ? by Ahmed Deedat

Debmey

Notice that ZY's cut and paste contained nothing but partial secondary quotations.

Shld we waste our time trying to expose his misquotation?

My challenge to ZY is very simple. For each person he quoted, show us the entire piece that they wrote. If he can do that, and they all say that the Bible is not the word of God, I will immediately convert to Islam.

Deal?

peace & cheers

Originally posted by Debmey at 2005-1-20 12:06 AM:
Notice that ZY's cut and paste contained nothing but partial secondary quotations.

Shld we waste our time trying to expose his misquotation?

My challenge to ZY is very simple. For each person ...

The bible itself is a partial secondary quotation. A partial secondary quotation can never be recognized or legitimized as the word of God, except by people who love illigitimacy.

Because of this too, you are repelled by whatever is legitimate like The Qur'an.

Originally posted by zy at 19-1-2005 11:54 PM:


THE WITNESSES
The most vociferous of all the Bible-thumpers are the Jehovah's Witnesses. On page 5 of their "FOREWORD," mentioned ...

did you ever read what you cut n paste?

aenemy7

The Jehovah Witness itself was founded by a freemasons...so what dya expect??? the bibles are not in it's original form anymore....


Allah Knows Best,Peace Yall.......

Debmey

Originally posted by KENNKID at 2005-1-20 03:24 PM:



The bible itself is a partial secondary quotation. A partial secondary quotation can never be recognized or legitimized as the word of God, except by people who  ...

There is no proof that the Bible uses secondary materials.
But there is a lot of proof that the Quran ncut and paste from many sources, including the Bible. Doesn't that make the Quran even worst under kennkid's logic?

lolipop9

Originally posted by Debmey at 21-1-2005 07:02 AM:



There is no proof that the Bible uses secondary materials.
But there is a lot of proof that the Quran ncut and paste from many sources, including the Bible. Doesn't that make the Qur ...

Peace.

Yusuf Ali
Al-Qur'an, 016.101-104 (An-Nahl [The Bee])

016.101-104When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.
Say, the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from thy Lord in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims.
We know indeed that they say, "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear.
Those who believe not in the Signs of Allah,- Allah will not guide them, and theirs will be a grievous Penalty.

Peace

[ Last edited by lolipop9 on 21-1-2005 at 09:45 AM ]

snipersnake

zy

THE BOOK CHRISTENED "THE NEW TESTAMENT"

WHY "ACCORDING TO?"
What about the so-called New Testament?* Why does every Gospel begin with the introduction - ACCORDING TO ... ACCORDING TO ... (See pic below). Why "according to?" Because not a single one of the vaunted four thousand copies extant carries its author's autograph! Hence the supposition "according to!" Even the internal evidence proves that Matthew was not the author of the first Gospel which bears his name.
"And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (JESUS) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (JESUS) saith unto HIM(MATTHEW), follow ME (JESUS) And HE(MATTHEW) arose, and follwed HIM (JESUS)." (Matthew 9:9)
Without any stretch of the imagination, one can see that the "He's" and the "Him's" of the above narration do not refer to Jesus or Matthew as its author, but some third person writing what he saw and heard - a hearsay account. If we cannot even attribute this "book of dreams" (as the first Gospel is also described) to the disciple Matthew, how can we accept it as the Word of God? We are not alone in this discovery that Matthew did not write the "Gospel according to St. Matthew" and that it was written by some anonymous hand. J. B. Phillips concurs with us in our findings. He is the paid servant of the Anglican Church, a prebendary of the Chichester Cathedral, England. He would have no reason to lie or betray to the detriment of the official view of his Church! Refer to his introduction to the "Gospel of St. Matthew" (reproduced here on page 28). Phillips has this to say about its authorship.

"EARLY TRADITION ASCRIBED THIS GOSPEL TO THE APOSTLE MATTHEW, BUT SCHOLARS NOWADAYS ALMOST ALL REJECT THIS VIEW." In other words, St Matthew did not  write the Gospel which bears his name. This is the finding of Christian scholars of the highest eminence - not of Hindus, Muslims and Jews who may be accused of bias. Let our Anglican friend continue: "THE AUTHOR, WHOM WE STILL CAN CONVENIENTLY CALL MATTHEW." "Conveniently," because otherwise everytime we made a reference to "Matthew," we would have to say - "THE FIRST BOOK OF THE NEW TESTAMENT" Chapter so and so, verse so and so. And again and again "The first book ..." etc. Therefore, according to J. B. Phillips it is convenient that we give the book some name. So why not "Matthew?" Suppose its as good a name as any other! Phillips continues: "THE AUTHOR HAS PLAINLY DRAWN ON THE MYSTERIOUS 'Q' WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN A COLLECTION OF ORAL TRADITIONS." What is this "mysterious 'Q'?" "Q" is short for the German word "quella," which means "sources." There is supposed to be another document - a common source - to which our present Matthew, Mark and Luke had access. All these three authors, whoever they were, had a common eye on the material at hand. They were writing as if looking through "one" eye. And because they saw eye to eye, the first three "Gospels" came to be known as the Synoptic Gospels.

WHOLESALE CRIBBING
But what about that "inspiration" business? The Anglican prebendary has hit the nail on the head. He is, more than anyone else, entitled to do so. A paid servant of the Church, an orthodox evangelical Christian, a Bible scholar of repute, having direct access to the "original" Greek manuscripts, let HIM spell it out for us.(Notice how gently he lets the cat out of the bag): "HE (Matthew) HAS USED MARK'S GOSPEL FREELY," which in the language of the school-teacher - "has been copying WHOLESALE from Mark!" Yet the Christians call this wholesale plagiarism the Word of God?

Does it not make you wonder that an eye-witness and an ear-witness to the ministry of Jesus, which the disciple Matthew was supposed to be, instead of writing his own first hand impressions of the ministry of "his Lord," would go and steal from the writings of a youth (Mark), who was a ten year old lad when Jesus upbraided his nation? Why would an eye-witness and an ear-witness copy from a fellow who himself was writing from hearsay? The disciple Matthew would not do any such silly thing. For an anonymous document has been imposed on the fair name of Matthew.



[ Last edited by zy on 24-1-2005 at 08:32 AM ]

zy

zy

PLAGIARISM OR LITERARY KIDNAPPING
Plagiarism means literary theft. Someone copies ad verbatim (word for word) from another's writing and palms it off as his own, is known as plagiarism. This is a common trait amongst the 40 or so anonymous authors of the books of the Bible. The Christians boast about a supposedly common chord amongst the writers of the 66 Protestant booklets and the writers of the 73 Roman Catholic booklets called the "Holy Bible." Some common chord there is, for Matthew and Luke, or whoever they were, had plagiarised 85% word for word from Mark! God Almighty did not dictate the same wordings to the synoptists (one-eyed). The Christians themselves admit this, because they do not believe in a verbal inspiration, as the Muslims do about the Holy Quŕ醤.1

The 85% plagiarism of Matthew and Luke pales into insignificance compared to the literary kidnapping of the authors of the Old Testament where a hundred percent stealing occurs in the so-called Book of God. Christian scholars of the calibre of Bishop Kenneth Cragg euphemistically calls this stealing, "reproduction"2 and take pride in it.

PERVERTED STANDARDS
Dr. Scroggie (referred to earlier on) most enthusiastically quotes in his book3 a Dr. Joseph Parker for his unique eulogy of the Bible:

"WHAT A BOOK IS THE BIBLE IN THE MATTER OF VARIETY OF CONTENTS! . . . WHOLE PAGES ARE TAKEN UP WITH OBSCURE NAMES, AND MORE IS TOLD OF A GENEALOGY THAN OF THE DAY OF JUDGMENT. STORIES ARE HALF TOLD, AND THE NIGHT FALLS BEFORE WE CAN TELL WHERE VICTORY LAY. WHERE IS THERE ANYTHING" (in the Religious Literature of the world) "TO CORRESPOND WITH THIS?" A beautiful necklace of words and phrases undoubtedly! It is much ado about nothing, and rank blasphemy against God Almighty for authorising such an embarrassing hotch potch. Yet the Christians gloat over the very defects of their book, like Romeo over the "mole" on Juliet's lip!.

Debmey

Originally posted by lolipop9 at 2005-1-21 09:42 AM:


Peace.

Yusuf Ali
Al-Qur'an, 016.101-104 (An-Nahl [The Bee])

016.101-104When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, ...

Thats call a baseless claim, not proof. I've got lots of proof that the Quran plagiarised. Want to see them? You really want to know the truth about the Quran? You ready?

lolipop9

Peace.

Thats call a baseless claim, not proof. I've got lots of proof that the Quran plagiarised. Want to see them? You really want to know the truth about the Quran? You ready?

I'm not asking you to believe me debmey..just give it a thought..
To me The Quran being arabic is a proof that it is not plagiarised from the previous scripture.

Al-Qur'an, 025.004-006 (Al-Furqan [The Criterion, The Standard])

025.004-006 But the misbelievers say:"Naught is this but a lie which he has forged, and others have helped him at it." In truth it is they who have put forward an iniquity and a falsehood.
And they say: "Tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him morning and evening."
Say: "The (Qur'an) was sent down by Him who knows the mystery (that is) in the heavens and the earth: verily He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."


Peace

[ Last edited by lolipop9 on 24-1-2005 at 11:39 AM ]

Originally posted by lolipop9 at 2005-1-24 11:01 AM:
Al-Qur'an, 025.004-006 (Al-Furqan [The Criterion, The Standard])

025.004-006 But the misbelievers say:"Naught is this but a lie which he has forged, and others have helped him at it." In truth it is they who have put forward an iniquity and a falsehood.
And they say: "Tales of the ancients, which he has caused to be written: and they are dictated before him morning and evening."
Say: "The (Qur'an) was sent down by Him who knows the mystery (that is) in the heavens and the earth: verily He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

AMIN AMIN AMIN

snipersnake

Originally posted by Debmey at 23-1-2005 02:54 PM:



Thats call a baseless claim, not proof. I've got lots of proof that the Quran plagiarised. Want to see them? You really want to know the truth about the Quran? You ready?

can u please show us deb?

snipersnake

Originally posted by KENNKID at 23-1-2005 05:09 PM:


AMIN AMIN AMIN

YA ROBBAL ALAMIN

Originally posted by snipersnake at 2005-1-24 11:09 AM:


can u please show us deb?

He has tried to show us before, but the commitment to memory of the Qur'an by Muslims, since the time of the holy prophet, and our constant recitation of the words of God, in our prayers, in our supplications, in everything that we do, has failed them in their attempts. That is the wisdom of reciting the Qur'an, as commanded by God Almighty. How Beautiful, how Magnificent, how Great is Allah. Alhamdulillah. Praise be to Him.

snipersnake

Originally posted by KENNKID at 23-1-2005 05:19 PM:


He has tried to show us before, but the commitment to memory of the Qur'an by Muslims, since the time of the holy prophet, and our constant recitation of the words ...

yeap..one of the forrumers even reffered to the hafiz as superhumans

Debmey

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Sources/index.html

there you go. A very interesting piece of schorlarship.
Proves beyond any doubt that the Quran took from multiple sources.

peace

lolipop9

Peace.

there you go. A very interesting piece of schorlarship.
Proves beyond any doubt that the Quran took from multiple sources.

peace

Al-Qur'an, 029.048 (Al-Ankaboot [The Spider])
029.048 And thou wast not to recite a Book before this, nor art thou to transcribe it with thy right hand: In that case, indeed, would the talkers of vanities have doubted.

DivinePonytail

Talking about the Quran, could one of you explain to me who actually wrote the first copy of the Quran? Was it written peice by piece by only one or multiple people?