1) The Quran literally calls the Torah and Gospel that they had in their hands as TRUTH/GUIDANCE etc.
The prophet SAW held a hebrew torah in his hands and said 'I BELIEVE IN YOU.
you already know this because ive detailed all of this before in my other thread.
Yet muslims like yourself are very quick to attack the bible and call it corrupt. When challenged by me, you guys then hide in the corner and mutter 'but dat king jamezez doe'
that is NOT THE BIBLE, that is a translation. Hence, translations and interpretatios are problematic because they will have personal opinions and bias thrown in to influence the reader.
How come muslims generally have no concern when they attack the bible so passionately? The prophet SAW himself specifically told the muslims that they shouldn't reject or confirm any part of the arabic translation they had in their hands 'incase you reject a part and it is actually the Word of Allah'.
Keep in mind, that they did not have the resources like we do, to study transliterations, compare and contrast different translations. Naturally a random translation by a madani jew could not be trusted. would you trust a torah given to you by an israeli rabbi today? obv not.
2) when it comes to the Quran, i never said the Quran is corrupt the same way i defend the bible. i say that muslims corrupt it with their false translations.
This is not even a lie. i have taken time out of my life to detail various examples.
read point 5 here
This is something few muslims would even openly accept, because in their mind it's always the christians who lie (and they lie a lot too). islam vs christianity debates are a fairly new thing. We were once seperated by language and geography. If christians lived in the arab muslim world, i...
vigilantcitizenforums.com
So, here, Allah has used the word RABB in a context where Joseph AS had referred to his slave master as his LORD/RABB. obv in the context, i dont know what language he spoke in egypt, but in hebrew the term for lord 'adoni' is seperate from Adonai which is THE Lord (God).
in arabic there is only one word, Rabb. Hence the prophet SAW himself rejected the term when he was called 'Rabb'. he said 'call me SYED/master instead'. All of this is reasonable and makes sense.
Yet muslim translators like ive highlighted there, purposefully altered the meaning of that verse so that 'rabb' instead refers to ALLAH and some have not even used the word LORD within the translation.
these are examples of corruption.
either done deliberately or in error. Eitherway, it shows the hypocricy of you muzziez. the majority of lies you have been fed, ultimately came by wahabi saudi riyadi money. that is the truth.
im fully aware the prophet SAW said wahabism/house saud was 'the side of the head of satan'. he literally said it and is it ehre in the many hadith. hence any type of mass influence coming from there is coming from shaitan.
you clowns attack christianity, Paul etc and it is always an attack against the Quran. FACT.
3)
you said
Nowhere in the ayat did Allah say that Jesus AS was REPLACED WITH A LOOKALIKE
'it is well understood'
but did Allah say it? did the prophet SAW say it? NO, so 'is is understood' means nothing in a context where the prophet SAW said RELIGIOUS JAHILLIYA WILL BE WIDESPREAD and most of this has come from the efforts of saudi najdi house of satan over the past 100 yrs.
That is the very satanic, deliberate insertion from translators like Mohsin Khan who themselves were imbeciles misinterpreting the gnostic sources...
in gnosticism, eg the Gnostic apocalypse of Peter...
it did not talk of another human being being given the likeness of Jesus and then put onto the cross. Rather 'the substitute' referred to the physical body which is in the likeness of the Spirit.
The gnostic position was that the body of Christ was crucified on the cross but Jesus was bigger than the body. When we talk about Jesus AS, he was more than just a man, he was literally THE WORD OF ALLAH..and no human has ever been called this.
4)
why are you misquoting 4:157 by only quoting a small part of it?
does context no longer matter?
the specific context of that verse, pertains to the sadducee position on the matter of life, death and the resurrection.
'he was neither killed, nor crucified BUT SO IT WAS MADE TO APPEAR TO THEM'
context, what did the sadducees think when they saw a dead man? they said HE IS DEAD
what does Allah tells us?
THINK NOT OF THE SLAIN AS DEAD, NO, THEY ARE LIVING, BUT YOU PERCEIVE IT NOT
literally this here was a major teaching of Jesus AS himself. He was going out of his way to debate this with the sadducees who denied life after death.
it is about the concept of barzakh.
DEATH is of the nafs. the nafs, our carnal attachments are what imprison us in barzakh.
no one is truely dead. Every soul is still conscious of itself in barzakh. The ones that 'die' are the ones imprisoned.
as the prophet SAW himself spoke of the 99 headed serpent that punishes us in the grave.
in the psalm this was referred to as 'THE CORDS OF SHEOL' ie our carnal nature binding us to this temporary world.
oh and one more thing...
no, most translations do not claim Jesus was swapped with alookalike...
only mohsin khan did that as he literally inserted his own opinions [like this]
Read translations of Quran القران الكريم - 4. An-Nisaa - سورة النساء - ( The Women ) - from 157 to 157 - transliteration, Yusuf Ali, Shakir, Pickthal, Mohsin Khan, Saheeh, Urdu,
www.searchtruth.com
the mohsin khan and saheeh translations are the ones with the satanic corruption writing the Word of Allah with their own hands. Eg writing their own opinions but making it as if it is the word of Allah.
in the arabic, it does not even mention Jesus being replaced with a lookalike.
5) let me summarise this so you cannot escape the truth
- Allah has confirmed the Bible as HIS WORD, TRUTH etc.
-any 'corruption' eg writing it with their own hands, refers only to false translations/misinterpretations
-if there was indeed a mass corruption of the torah, then there were many prophets who came after Ezra (as an example, since he is the one muslims claim corrupted it). Had any of those prophets made this single claim, then they would have had to right that wrong and hence there'd be an entirr new religion coming from a jewish prophet with a seperate old testament. However, there wasn't.
-Allah INSPIRED the disciples. Yet muslims say peter was led astray by iblees with the vision of the table in the cloud.
-Allah says HE caused true belief to prevail over false belief from bani israel concerning the matter of Jesus AS. Not only did Allah commemorate the story of the 7 sleepers of Ephesus, the prophet SAW himself commemorated the story of JURAIJ/ST GEORGE OF PALESTINE, these were 3rd century christians. So christianity was on haqq till the 3rd century at the very least...but they were all believers in the crucifixion of Christ. So clearly id rather be aligned with them, especially when the wider contexts and knowledge of it, makes perfect sense. However you are a kike hiding under the banner of islam who can only resort to takfir against me.
-the prophet SAW said religious Jahiilliya will be widespread. So obv i dont particularly care about a general consensus anyway. If an argument is pathetic, ill go against it. your argument that Jesus was replaced with a lookalike is beyon absurd. it is an embarassment.
unfortunately, the majority are like you, afterall, this is jahilliya.
btw, i already know your response will be pathetic. i dont expect anything honest from you based on what ive seen so far. you are the one attacking the Quran based on the above points.