Perfect Preservation of the Quran

Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
2,221
The Textus Receptus and their additions such as the Comma Johanneum. Most blatant act of forgery and ill intent if I ever seen one. They fooled Christians for centuries and still do to this day.
I think you're a bit of a one-track record with this Comma Johanneum.
 






Kung Fu

Star
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
4,947
Well, did Adam and Eve have a material body?
When they were sent down to earth they did. When they were in the Garden God could've created them in a way they could sustain being there. The same could apply to Jesus. For all we know Jesus could be in the very same Garden with a body which would allow him to be there and not perish. God knows best though.
 






Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
2,939
Not that Jesus' resurrection is relevant to this thread, but the Quran does have a significant hole in Jesus' story and what happened to Him after someone else took his place on the cross. There's one account by Ibn Kathir which says Jesus, after the youngest of twelve disciples volunteered to take Jesus' place, was "beamed up" sort of speak, through the roof of the house.

The majority assumption by muslims that Jesus entered heaven alive, also poses alot of philosophical, logical and theological problems to which Islam doesn't provide satisfactory answers either. This is problematic, to say the least.


ok ill give you this one, ill respond...will still put you on ignore (im running out of patience) but i gotta make this point.

1) you shouldnt say 'the quran' only to go and talk about ibn kathir.
ibn kathir was just a random muslim...ok not totally random, he was a student of ibn tahmiyya who is the inspiration behind the wahabi movement. As a result, he has obv been pushed...a totally artificial authority via google seo.

i'd love to telly ou how diverse islam is..or used to be, but that was when there was no monopoly on the flow of information. in the post-modern era with book printing and then digital content, ibn kathir's tafseer has hit the bigtime.

eg

Tafsir Ibn Kathir is the most renowned and accepted explanation of the Quran in the entire world. In it one finds the best presentation of Ahadith (stories), history, and scholarly commentary. Muslims consider it to be the best source based on Quran and Sunnah. .

cringe to the nth degree, this is total bollocks..i mean it's probably true that the ave muslim who googles their tafseer is obv reading ibn kathir's tafseer..but it has zero actual credibility with anyone with an ounce of intelligence.

ibn kathir's tafsir's refer to 'quotes' attribured to ibn abbas..that's what gives them their apparent weight. ibn abbas was the cousin of prophet Mohammad.

ibn kathir is from the 14th century..over 700 yrs after ibn abbas. In his lifetime, a new magical source materialised conveniently..

The other usp of ibn kathir was that he deliberately designed his tafsir, to DIFFER from the judeo-christian sources..and he was unique in that at the time.
i dont need to tell you why that was blatantly wrong, but in fact...it was the equivalent of pissing on the Quran.

2) the ONLY thing written is this.

But Allah raised him up unto Himself. And Allah is Ever All-Powerful, All-Wise.
(سورة النساء, An-Nisaa, Chapter #4, Verse #158)


that is in no way confusing on it's own...it just refers to his ascension, the end. He said himself 'i am going to The Father'.
obv when it comes to metaphysics i have an entire grand explanation for it, but it isnt necessary here, for the sake of simplicity, this is no different than what is in the NT

however just to give you an example of how it's done...this is how the actual translation is worded

(2) But Allah raised him ['Îsa (jesus)] up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he عليه السلام is in the heavens). And Allah is Ever All-Powerful, All-Wise.
(سورة النساء, An-Nisaa, Chapter #4, Verse #158)


derp

you know what THIS is?
this is literally 'writing the Quran with their own hands'
ie when the Quran referred to the people of the book 'writing the book with their own hands' it wasn't literally referring to THE book, but to the interpretations..hence going back to Jeremiah 8 where it says 'the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely'
the same problem persists amongst muslims.
isnt is so convenient one of the biggest bser's ibn kathir, wanted to 'leave out the israeliyat'?
that's satanically devious.


3) just another example of muslim david wood-esque type logic
the famous substitute theory or whatever it is called..

what happened there was some david wood esque muslim read gnostic material eg the gnostic apocalypse of peter.
where in the GAOP it refers to the 'substitute' as the physical body of Jesus...
this person/these people took it as 'so you mean...it was someone else who died and not jesus? hah.....we got them xtians now'
and it was shoved down everyones throats with blatantly false style of translations that once again was 'writing the book with their own hands'

And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Îsa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them [the resemblance of 'Îsa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man)], and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Îsa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) عليهما السلام]:
(سورة النساء, An-Nisaa, Chapter #4, Verse #157)



even though ive done this a thousand times over
it's quite basic...

-in islam, in the Quran itself, we're told the slain are not DEAD..they are living..

And do not speak of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead; nay, (they are) alive, but you do not perceive.
(سورة البقرة, Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #154)


the idea is that our carnal nature and it's attachments cause the soul to become 'bound' to sheol/barzakh/hades
that is DEATH.
The idea is that if you KILL your carnal attachments, you experience 'death before passing away', fana...which sufi islam explans in depth. Martyrs are an example of people who leave their wordly attachments in the cause of Allah and as a result 'die to the world' and hence do not experience 'death' in barzakh, but are living.
do you understand this?

then you talk about Jesus in this context, whilst also remembering who he is, the Word of God...
and keep in mind here, what when i say 'Word of God' i actually mean the logos, the universal consciousness, the primordial waters.

YET how did many muslims in the past, interpret this term 'the Word/Kalam of Allah'?
they first wrongly interpreted it to mean 'the Divine scriptorium/the Quran' (the divine scriptorium is a post-causal record, the book of destiny, the akashic records, whatever you want to call them..which is the foundation of the Quran..similarly in judaism they say the same for the Torah, they call it 'the original torah'). After that when faced with the idea of 'the Eternal Word' they were stumped
one side said 'that means da quran is eternal doe'
and the other side said 'vell it cant be eternal doe cuz it's created, post-causal etc doe'
and so, they got lost...and they were influential muslims too, guys like al ghazali.

although sufism does go in depth on the whole universal consciousness theme, it is entirely divorced from biblical contexts and on it's own, with some overlapping of hindu vedanta ideas (i mean they're kind of shared, vedanta philosophy came in the muslim era anyway, they kind of evolved together without directly acknowledging each other).

the only reason im sharing this stuff with a guy who places value on David wood...is because i had to...cuz there was so much ignorance in what you said.
 






Lyfe

Star
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
1,057
Not that Jesus' resurrection is relevant to this thread, but the Quran does have a significant hole in Jesus' story and what happened to Him after someone else took his place on the cross. There's one account by Ibn Kathir which says Jesus, after the youngest of twelve disciples volunteered to take Jesus' place, was "beamed up" sort of speak, through the roof of the house.

The majority assumption by muslims that Jesus entered heaven alive, also poses alot of philosophical, logical and theological problems to which Islam doesn't provide satisfactory answers either. This is problematic, to say the least.
People who dont understand soteriology(the doctrine of salvation) also wont understand the significance of the cross which is why Muslims fail to grasp the implications of whats suggested by Jesus being removed from it. No longer does Jesus accomplish that which he set out to do which is to be a ransom for sins through his death. It was the cross and this act that provides salvation to the world, yet Islams teachings deny the cross and in effect shutup the world from reconciliation to God through penal substitution and the blood of Jesus Christ. We cannot enter into Gods glory in our current corrupted, defiled, and unclean state. Only the blood of Jesus can remove and blot out sin. We are all guilty of violating Gods laws. He stood in the courtroom and took upon himself the penalty that we rightly deserve so God can legally dismiss our case. If Christ didn't die that means he was never resurrected and we are still dead in trespass and sin awaiting the divine sentencing for our trespasses.

1Cor 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
1Cor 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain.
1Cor 15:15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
1Cor 15:16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
1Cor 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith [is] vain; ye are yet in your sins.
1Cor 15:18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
1Cor 15:19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

Its a clever deception by the antichrist kingdom as all antichrist religions through subtlety deny and distort these core understandings that salvation hinges on.
 






Kung Fu

Star
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
4,947
I think you're a bit of a one-track record with this Comma Johanneum.
There's more. You also, have the whole woman sinner and he without sin casting the first stone bit, you also, have the bit about the tomb, and more.

I stick to the Comma because it's so blatant and deceitful and you know this.
 






Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
2,221
ok ill give you this one, ill respond...will still put you on ignore (im running out of patience) but i gotta make this point.

1) you shouldnt say 'the quran' only to go and talk about ibn kathir.
ibn kathir was just a random muslim...ok not totally random, he was a student of ibn tahmiyya who is the inspiration behind the wahabi movement. As a result, he has obv been pushed...a totally artificial authority via google seo.

i'd love to telly ou how diverse islam is..or used to be, but that was when there was no monopoly on the flow of information. in the post-modern era with book printing and then digital content, ibn kathir's tafseer has hit the bigtime.

eg

Tafsir Ibn Kathir is the most renowned and accepted explanation of the Quran in the entire world. In it one finds the best presentation of Ahadith (stories), history, and scholarly commentary. Muslims consider it to be the best source based on Quran and Sunnah. .

cringe to the nth degree, this is total bollocks..i mean it's probably true that the ave muslim who googles their tafseer is obv reading ibn kathir's tafseer..but it has zero actual credibility with anyone with an ounce of intelligence.

ibn kathir's tafsir's refer to 'quotes' attribured to ibn abbas..that's what gives them their apparent weight. ibn abbas was the cousin of prophet Mohammad.

ibn kathir is from the 14th century..over 700 yrs after ibn abbas. In his lifetime, a new magical source materialised conveniently..

The other usp of ibn kathir was that he deliberately designed his tafsir, to DIFFER from the judeo-christian sources..and he was unique in that at the time.
i dont need to tell you why that was blatantly wrong, but in fact...it was the equivalent of pissing on the Quran.

2) the ONLY thing written is this.

But Allah raised him up unto Himself. And Allah is Ever All-Powerful, All-Wise.
(سورة النساء, An-Nisaa, Chapter #4, Verse #158)


that is in no way confusing on it's own...it just refers to his ascension, the end. He said himself 'i am going to The Father'.
obv when it comes to metaphysics i have an entire grand explanation for it, but it isnt necessary here, for the sake of simplicity, this is no different than what is in the NT

however just to give you an example of how it's done...this is how the actual translation is worded

(2) But Allah raised him ['Îsa (jesus)] up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he عليه السلام is in the heavens). And Allah is Ever All-Powerful, All-Wise.
(سورة النساء, An-Nisaa, Chapter #4, Verse #158)


derp

you know what THIS is?
this is literally 'writing the Quran with their own hands'
ie when the Quran referred to the people of the book 'writing the book with their own hands' it wasn't literally referring to THE book, but to the interpretations..hence going back to Jeremiah 8 where it says 'the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely'
the same problem persists amongst muslims.
isnt is so convenient one of the biggest bser's ibn kathir, wanted to 'leave out the israeliyat'?
that's satanically devious.


3) just another example of muslim david wood-esque type logic
the famous substitute theory or whatever it is called..

what happened there was some david wood esque muslim read gnostic material eg the gnostic apocalypse of peter.
where in the GAOP it refers to the 'substitute' as the physical body of Jesus...
this person/these people took it as 'so you mean...it was someone else who died and not jesus? hah.....we got them xtians now'
and it was shoved down everyones throats with blatantly false style of translations that once again was 'writing the book with their own hands'

And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Îsa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them [the resemblance of 'Îsa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man)], and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Îsa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) عليهما السلام]:
(سورة النساء, An-Nisaa, Chapter #4, Verse #157)



even though ive done this a thousand times over
it's quite basic...

-in islam, in the Quran itself, we're told the slain are not DEAD..they are living..

And do not speak of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead; nay, (they are) alive, but you do not perceive.
(سورة البقرة, Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #154)


the idea is that our carnal nature and it's attachments cause the soul to become 'bound' to sheol/barzakh/hades
that is DEATH.
The idea is that if you KILL your carnal attachments, you experience 'death before passing away', fana...which sufi islam explans in depth. Martyrs are an example of people who leave their wordly attachments in the cause of Allah and as a result 'die to the world' and hence do not experience 'death' in barzakh, but are living.
do you understand this?

then you talk about Jesus in this context, whilst also remembering who he is, the Word of God...
and keep in mind here, what when i say 'Word of God' i actually mean the logos, the universal consciousness, the primordial waters.

YET how did many muslims in the past, interpret this term 'the Word/Kalam of Allah'?
they first wrongly interpreted it to mean 'the Divine scriptorium/the Quran' (the divine scriptorium is a post-causal record, the book of destiny, the akashic records, whatever you want to call them..which is the foundation of the Quran..similarly in judaism they say the same for the Torah, they call it 'the original torah'). After that when faced with the idea of 'the Eternal Word' they were stumped
one side said 'that means da quran is eternal doe'
and the other side said 'vell it cant be eternal doe cuz it's created, post-causal etc doe'
and so, they got lost...and they were influential muslims too, guys like al ghazali.

although sufism does go in depth on the whole universal consciousness theme, it is entirely divorced from biblical contexts and on it's own, with some overlapping of hindu vedanta ideas (i mean they're kind of shared, vedanta philosophy came in the muslim era anyway, they kind of evolved together without directly acknowledging each other).

the only reason im sharing this stuff with a guy who places value on David wood...is because i had to...cuz there was so much ignorance in what you said.
What's ignorant about relaying simple facts? Did Kathir not write what I said he wrote? Is it not true that there's no account of Jesus in the Quran after he appeared to have been crucified?

Disgusting dishonesty from your part. Let me make it easy for you and put you on ignore myself.
 






Last edited:
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
2,221
When they were sent down to earth they did. When they were in the Garden God could've created them in a way they could sustain being there. The same could apply to Jesus. For all we know Jesus could be in the very same Garden with a body which would allow him to be there and not perish. God knows best though.
So where in the scriptures does God describe this?
 






Last edited:
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
2,221
There's more. You also, have the whole woman sinner and he without sin casting the first stone bit, you also, have the bit about the tomb, and more.

I stick to the Comma because it's so blatant and deceitful and you know this.
Completely disagree. We've had this argument before.
 






Kung Fu

Star
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
4,947
So where in the scriptures does God describe these this?
Describe what exactly? God doesn't tell us everything because it simply isn't important to our salvation. God told us He created Adam and Eve in the presence of angels in a place that's not earth and then He sent them down to earth after they disobeyed Him. Point being God was able to do it with Adam and Eve and He did with Jesus but in reverse. Also, Adam and Eve's bodies were in the Garden so why couldn't Jesus be in the same Garden until his time comes to return to earth? What part of that doesn't make sense?

If you're looking for the process in how their bodies were exactly created, how long their hair was, were the black or white, and etc. Then you're out of luck. Why are you asking pointless questions?
 






Last edited:

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
9,805
Completely disagree. We've had this argument before.
I have also discussed this with @Kung Fu

There is presently controversy over the legitimacy of Codex Sinaiticus (the text claimed to be “oldest and best” yet on examination a somewhat maimed and mangled version of the Bible (I.e. the critical text). The notion that has extended from this is of an evolving and increasingly harmonising text, perhaps helped by the odd well meaning scribe.

An online group I am part of is conducting examination of the claimed dates and is unearthing some very interesting information!!!

......

.....“I will put the questions in three general areas.

#1 is the "phenomenally good condition" (Helen Shenton, British Library) of the manuscript, parchment and ink. You can see that in two videos, one recent from the BBC, and an earlier one from 1930s. Also you can see the super-ink on the pages that I call "palaeographic puzzles." e.g. 1800s ink next to supposed 300s.

1500 years, supposedly, dried out in the hot desert sun, used century upon century -- yet today we have easy-peasy page turning of this "ancient" parchment.

And the experts never offered anything remotely similar.

#2 is the question of:

Leipzig (1844) being white parchment and unstained, and consistent leaf after leaf, while

British Library (1859) being stained, uneven, and darker, every leaf.

There has been no theory offered to mach . Maybe the Russians were avid coffee drinkers and kept spilling on the manuscript? Imho, that is the BEST possible theory that could match authenticity. The two libraries have offered no sensible handling scenarios. Even when the British Library acknowledged the manuscript section differences, it was all left up in the air. |

(Remember, coffee stains did get on some of the DSS, but this would be a massive amount of spillage :) )

One theory does match the evidence.

1844 Leipzig was taken out without any tampering.

1859 British Library (formerly St. Petersburg) had a major staining job done. At the monastery, and perhaps also a bit in Cairo in the strange months of 1859. It was done a bit amateruishly, thus the uneven results.

Chemical and related tests would blow the whistle, but nothing has ever been done, on either section. The tests planned in Leipzig 2015 by the Berlin scientists at BAM were cancelled.

#3
is in some ways the most fascinating, what we can call the historical imperative.

After Simionides claimed that he was involved with the creation of Codex Simoneidos on Mount Athos, the controversies flared in the British Journals. Remember, Simomides has published the Greek Hermas a few years before the Sinaiticus Hermas, so his involvement was a real likelihood. This was too much of a "coincidence".

One element that came out was that Kallinikos and Simonides, at least three times, explained that Tischendorf had been involved with the colouring of the manuscript, that was taken out in 1859.

Today we can see that this claim matches 100% the actual differences between the smaller 1844 section and the larger British Library section.

Plus, made without observational evidence, this would have been a truly absurd claim, destroying his own position. If the colouring had not actually occurred, a simple manuscript observation would destroy the Simonides claim.

Tischendorf was, in fact, quite crafty. The two sections were far away from each other, access was very difficult, if not impossible. and he simply told people to use his wonderful facsimile edition instead.

Even now, 150 years later, there are many Tischendupes. :)

Steven Avery Overall, the evidence simply and strongly points to the conclusion that Sinaiticus is an 1800s creation.

Tests like those planned by BAM would help, however the libraries are unlikely to agree on any testing, since they are well aware of the problematic element of their prized possession. There would be a lot of egg on their face when any real tests are done. (And many of the best tests are non-destructive.)

The current textual crew is working with "deeply entrenched scholarship" that forces them to take a "circle the horses" approach.”
 






Last edited:

Kung Fu

Star
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
4,947
I have also discussed this with @Kung Fu

There is presently controversy over the legitimacy of Codex Sinaiticus (the text claimed to be “oldest and best” yet on examination a somewhat maimed and mangled version of the Bible (I.e. the critical text). The notion that has extended from this is of an evolving and increasingly harmonising text, perhaps helped by the odd well meaning scribe.

An online group I am part of is conducting examination of the claimed dates and is unearthing some very interesting information!!!

......

.....“I will put the questions in three general areas.

#1 is the "phenomenally good condition" (Helen Shenton, British Library) of the manuscript, parchment and ink. You can see that in two videos, one recent from the BBC, and an earlier one from 1930s. Also you can see the super-ink on the pages that I call "palaeographic puzzles." e.g. 1800s ink next to supposed 300s.

1500 years, supposedly, dried out in the hot desert sun, used century upon century -- yet today we have easy-peasy page turning of this "ancient" parchment.

And the experts never offered anything remotely similar.

#2 is the question of:

Leipzig (1844) being white parchment and unstained, and consistent leaf after leaf, while

British Library (1859) being stained, uneven, and darker, every leaf.

There has been no theory offered to mach . Maybe the Russians were avid coffee drinkers and kept spilling on the manuscript? Imho, that is the BEST possible theory that could match authenticity. The two libraries have offered no sensible handling scenarios. Even when the British Library acknowledged the manuscript section differences, it was all left up in the air. |

(Remember, coffee stains did get on some of the DSS, but this would be a massive amount of spillage :) )

One theory does match the evidence.

1844 Leipzig was taken out without any tampering.

1859 British Library (formerly St. Petersburg) had a major staining job done. At the monastery, and perhaps also a bit in Cairo in the strange months of 1859. It was done a bit amateruishly, thus the uneven results.

Chemical and related tests would blow the whistle, but nothing has ever been done, on either section. The tests planned in Leipzig 2015 by the Berlin scientists at BAM were cancelled.

#3
is in some ways the most fascinating, what we can call the historical imperative.

After Simionides claimed that he was involved with the creation of Codex Simoneidos on Mount Athos, the controversies flared in the British Journals. Remember, Simomides has published the Greek Hermas a few years before the Sinaiticus Hermas, so his involvement was a real likelihood. This was too much of a "coincidence".

One element that came out was that Kallinikos and Simonides, at least three times, explained that Tischendorf had been involved with the colouring of the manuscript, that was taken out in 1859.

Today we can see that this claim matches 100% the actual differences between the smaller 1844 section and the larger British Library section.

Plus, made without observational evidence, this would have been a truly absurd claim, destroying his own position. If the colouring had not actually occurred, a simple manuscript observation would destroy the Simonides claim.

Tischendorf was, in fact, quite crafty. The two sections were far away from each other, access was very difficult, if not impossible. and he simply told people to use his wonderful facsimile edition instead.

Even now, 150 years later, there are many Tischendupes. :)

Steven Avery Overall, the evidence simply and strongly points to the conclusion that Sinaiticus is an 1800s creation.

Tests like those planned by BAM would help, however the libraries are unlikely to agree on any testing, since they are well aware of the problematic element of their prized possession. There would be a lot of egg on their face when any real tests are done. (And many of the best tests are non-destructive.)

The current textual crew is working with "deeply entrenched scholarship" that forces them to take a "circle the horses" approach.”
None of the oldest Bibles have the Comma. Not one Greek manuscript prior to 14th century has the Comma. The Comma seemed to have popped out of nowhere ;)

We all know deep down with the scribes were trying to do. Deceit and polytheism is the name of the game.
 






seekinheart

Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
978
None of the oldest Bibles have the Comma. Not one Greek manuscript prior to 14th century has the Comma. The Comma seemed to have popped out of nowhere ;)

We all know deep down with the scribes were trying to do. Deceit and polytheism is the name of the game.
U do know that a liar, recites everything word for word, where as an honest man stories tend to slightly change in terms at points.

The fact that someone wrote a lie down word for word and maintained it based on the lie that, miniscule alterations have happened in the Bible but ultimately couldnt take away from the lords true message, just testifies how greater the Bible is to the monologue that is the Qu'Ran. Youve created false dichotomy's of truth and ironically, the Bible is the measuring truth of these methods: meaning: Oh well we know the Qu'Ran is word for word, "preserved" as opposed to the Bible. Haha, u guys are in love with the Bible and u rest ur truthfulness on proving it wrong, which u cant do. Coz its the truth.
 






seekinheart

Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
978

Praise be to God, this girl talks about how she was drawn to Jesus comparing the QuRan to the Bible, and just how the Quran had no answers for WHY Jesus was crucified.
 






Kung Fu

Star
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
4,947
U do know that a liar, recites everything word for word, where as an honest man stories tend to slightly change in terms at points.

The fact that someone wrote a lie down word for word and maintained it based on the lie that, miniscule alterations have happened in the Bible but ultimately couldnt take away from the lords true message, just testifies how greater the Bible is to the monologue that is the Qu'Ran. Youve created false dichotomy's of truth and ironically, the Bible is the measuring truth of these methods: meaning: Oh well we know the Qu'Ran is word for word, "preserved" as opposed to the Bible. Haha, u guys are in love with the Bible and u rest ur truthfulness on proving it wrong, which u cant do. Coz its the truth.
Lol.

Deep down you know the Quran is right and your interpolated forged Bible, who we have no idea who the authors were, is a lie. There's clear forgery right in front of your face but yet remain ignorant. The Quran talks about folks like you for a reason.
 






Kung Fu

Star
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
4,947

Praise be to God, this girl talks about how she was drawn to Jesus comparing the QuRan to the Bible, and just how the Quran had no answers for WHY Jesus was crucified.
Lol. Did she also, see a dream of Jesus and how he was telling her Christianity was the key to her salvation?

Have you even read the Chapters involving Jesus in regards to the Quran?
 






Top