190 replies

  1. The sound is not good, distorted, right at the point around 2:07 where you started reading from Vermes – I did not hear “Constantine” as the victor in 312 AD “over his rival Maxentius”

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Interesting that the Hungarian pronunciation is “Vermesh”.

    Why does is not have the “sh” when translated / transcribed into English?

    Why Vermes ?

    all this time I was pronouncing his last name wrong.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. is this the same book? (under a slightly different title) “The Real Jesus”

    It has a lot of your quote on page 163, but does not show page 162 or 164

    Here, Geza Vermes (on page 82 of “The Real Jesus”) says that Jesus’ biological father was Joseph and that the Ebionites taught that. (thus denying the virgin conception of Jesus- implying by Vermes – I realize that others claim that some Ebionites did believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, etc. (we discussed this before at your many blogs since 2011)

    Ebionites (Greek: Ἐβιωναῖοι, Ebionaioi, derived from Hebrew אביונים ebyonim, ebionim, meaning “the poor” or “poor ones”) is a patristic term referring to a Jewish Christian movement that existed during the early centuries of the Christian Era.[1] T They regarded Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah while rejecting his divinity and his virgin birth[2] and insisted on the necessity of following Jewish law and rites.

    The bold part contradicts Islam.

    [3]https://books.google.com/books?id=M1RsWXhXXogC&q=Ebionites#v=snippet&q=Ebionites&f=false

    Like

  4. page 82 of Geza Vermes, “The Real Jesus” – he says the Ebionites taught that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus, which contracts the virgin conception of Jesus, that even Islam believes in. (Qur’an 3:45-47; 19:19-21; 66:12)

    https://books.google.com/books?id=M1RsWXhXXogC&q=Ebionites#v=snippet&q=Ebionites&f=false

    Like

  5. The details of Geza Vermes life was very interesting.

    I did not know he was a Roman Catholic priest for a while.

    But he went back to Judaism much later, according to the Wikipedia article.

    Although he (and you and other Muslims) seek to try and create doubt around the Gospel according to John and the apostle Paul’s writings, (and book of Hebrews – interesting . . . another Jewish Christian ! 😉

    1. they were all Jews (who gave the proper interpretation of the OT)
    2. they all harmonize with the Synoptic gospels
    3. The Synoptic gospels teach the blood atonement at the last supper (Mark 14; Matthew 26; Luke 22) and “ransom” (Mark 10:45; Matthew 20:28) trials, crucifixion, death, atonement of Jesus and resurrection over several whole chapters. (Mark 14-16; Matthew 26-28; Luke 22-24)
    4. So, even the ploy you have to try and say that the Synoptics are different and imply they have the “original” Islamic Injeel, they do not – as they teach basic Christian doctrine and affirm the Deity of Christ (Matthew 2:1-12 – they worshipped Him; 14:33 – worshipped Him as Son of God; Mark 2:28 – “the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” – a claim to being Elohim – Yahweh of Genesis 1-2, creator of the Sabbath day. and only God can forgive sins – Mark 2:1-12, etc.
    5. Since the Synoptics teach the crucifixion and death and atonement, etc. you cannot claim that Islam preserves the oldest and original “Injeel”
    6. Also, the Qur’an says the Injeel at the time of Muhammad was with them, between their hand, go ask the people who are reading the Scriptures (now, at that time) – esp. 10:94; 5:47; 5:68; 3:3, etc.

    Like

  6. It is interesting to go back and read this post from 2011 and the exchanges we had in the comboxes. (I had to delete your links to your old blogs because they had Malware / spyware, etc.)

    But I think I reproduced what you wrote.

    The Christian (Dr. Anthony McRoy) in this post refuted the Muslim (Abdul Haqq) argument that the Ebionites were “proto-Muslims”. see the link to the unbelievable radio show. (Justin Brierley)

    This also refutes Geza Vermes, who, in the quote you read, seems to strongly imply that the Christian faith just suddenly popped into existence with the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.

    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/desperate-and-dubious-muslim-apologetic-methods/

    Like

  7. @ Ken

    1. they were all Jews (who gave the proper interpretation of the OT)

    John’s authors definitely not. And they jacked up the Hebrew Bible all…the…time. Examples off the top of my head:

    John:
    Passover
    Not a leg will be broken
    They will look at me whom they pierced

    Paul
    Abraham(as) was justified through faith
    Cuts off that one can do the Torah.

    2. they all harmonize with the Synoptic gospels

    Except when they don’t. John is like reading a whole different book and has Jesus(as) talking like a Greek and does almost no parables.

    3. The Synoptic gospels teach the blood atonement at the last supper (Mark 14; Matthew 26; Luke 22) and “ransom” (Mark 10:45; Matthew 20:28) trials, crucifixion, death, atonement of Jesus and resurrection over several whole chapters. (Mark 14-16; Matthew 26-28; Luke 22-24)
    4. So, even the ploy you have to try and say that the Synoptics are different and imply they have the “original” Islamic Injeel, they do not – as they teach basic Christian doctrine and affirm the Deity of Christ (Matthew 2:1-12 – they worshipped Him; 14:33 – worshipped Him as Son of God; Mark 2:28 – “the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” – a claim to being Elohim – Yahweh of Genesis 1-2, creator of the Sabbath day. and only God can forgive sins – Mark 2:1-12, etc.

    Most of these are mistranslation such as “lord of the Sabbath” and you know this. Also, don’t be too sure they don’t have portions of the Injeel

    5. Since the Synoptics teach the crucifixion and death and atonement, etc. you cannot claim that Islam preserves the oldest and original “Injeel”

    Exceot we can as that is not the Gospel. Jesus(as) according to your text taught the gospel to the people which obviously has nothing to do with the crucifixion.

    6. Also, the Qur’an says the Injeel at the time of Muhammad was with them, between their hand, go ask the people who are reading the Scriptures (now, at that time) – esp. 10:94; 5:47; 5:68; 3:3, etc.

    No it doesn’t.

    Liked by 3 people

  8. 4. – no, there is no mistranslation of Mark 2:28

    ὥστε κύριός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ τοῦ σαββάτου

    Mark 2:28

    “Consequently / Therefore, Lord, is the Son of Man even of the Sabbath.”

    smoother English:
    “Consequently, the Son of Man is Lord, even of the Sabbath”

    Pretty clear claim of being Elohim-Yahweh of Genesis 1-2.

    English translations:

    Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
    NKJV

    “Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath.”
    NLT

    So the Son of Man is Lord, even over the Sabbath!”

    NIV

    So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

    ESV

    So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”

    CSB

    “So then, the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

    NASB

    “So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”

    Like

    • @Ken Temple

      from the link i posted

      “If you go and look at the text in Greek the text is clear, the υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (son of man) is the Lord of the Sabbath. So looking at the original Greek does not help since the confusion is still there. But interestingly enough if you take the text and translate it into Aramaic then the sense of verse 28 changes. As explained by Dr. Ehrman in his book Did Jesus Exist? we discover,

      “Aramaic uses the same word for man and for son of man. It is the word barnash. And so the two-liner originally said, “Sabbath was made for barnash, not barnash for the Sabbath. Therefore barnash is lord of the Sabbath.” Now the therefore makes sense. The reason that humans (barnash) are the lords of the Sabbath is because of what he just said: Sabbath was made for humans, not the other way around. Moreover, now the last line makes sense in the context of the story. The disciples (the barnash) are masters of the Sabbath, which was created for their sake.” (p. 89)”

      Liked by 3 people

      • @ Vaqas

        Thank you for catching Ken up to his text and another of its many corruptions.

        Liked by 3 people

      • One by one, the lies of this idolatrous cult are being exposed.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Except Mark includes Aramaic original speech when he sees it appropriate for the audience to understand, in several places, in his gospel, and even Paul W. mentions this in one of his recent videos. (“Talitha Cum” – daughter, rise”, “Abba” = Father, etc.”
        Besides the scholarly tendency (like Ehrman) to speculate on an original source, without any extant evidence) there is a big problem with limiting the oste ‘ωστε (“consequently, so, therefore”) verse 28 as only connected to verse 27, when, as R. T. France demonstrates, it is the summary of the whole pericope on why Jesus is Lord (kupios) and has authority to forgive sins (v. 10 – where “Son of Man” is used and is definitely talking about Jesus’ title, and not to some generic concept of humankind. – it is also summing up the reason why Jesus is claiming authority of being greater than David, as giving authority for His disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath Day – (verses 23-25) Also, as R. T. France further points out (and Paul Williams quotes him as a great scholar when it suits his agenda), the parallels in Matthew 12:1-13 and Luke 6:1-5, show that Mark 2:28 is not meant about humanity in general, but Jesus as the Son of Man and His claim to have authority over the Sabbath, and as the Lord of the Sabbath, He is claiming to be the Elohim-Yahweh of Genesis 1-2, a very high Christology for the gospel according to Mark, harmonious with the gospel according to John. (see R. T. France, Commentary on Mark, p. 147-148 – France says, “it is inconceivable that Mark could have intended” a different sense for “son of man” other than the claim for Himself, as in Mark 2:10, and His authority to forgive sins and His authority to allow His disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath Day. the “consequently”, “So” Hoste / ‘ωστε is summing up the whole pericope.

        So, you are refuted.

        Like

      • @ Ken

        Parallels don’t mean sh!t. You are retarded.

        Liked by 1 person

    • @Ken Temple

      From the same link i posted,

      “To finish up his argument Jesus tells them “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath”. Up until now his argument makes sense but then he adds, “Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.” In the book of Mark the phrase “Son of man” clearly refers to Jesus, who is understood to be the Messiah. But this phrase does not follow from his previous argument. It seems to be a non sequitur, because why would the fact that the Sabbath was made for man make Jesus (the Messiah) Lord of the Sabbath? But this is precisely what the word therefore implies, that because of the previous argument Jesus concluded that He is Lord of the Sabbath.

      I remember years ago in Sunday School classes this scripture was talked about and debated because no one could really make sense of it. I heard a number of different explanations regarding verse 28, but none of them seemed satisfactory and felt like the explanation was stretched just a little too far.”

      Liked by 1 person

    • @Ken Temple

      You have not addressed the main problem with you’re version of the text. that the therefore doesn’t make sense and is a non sequitur.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Yes it does, as ‘ωστε / hoste = a summary of the whole paragraph, pericope, as R. T. France, and good scholarship (as Paul W. always says) confirms, and is on my side of the argument.

        Like

      • Actually I never said France produces good scholarship all the time! He was evangelical so he had his predictable bias.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Kennywise caught lying again! This clown has a habit of misrepresenting what others say. He did the same with Rabbi Skobac.

        Like

      • and you are a fundamentalist Muslim, so you have your predictable and anachronistic bias and desperation attempts to discredit previous Scriptures, when the Qur’an clearly affirms them.

        Like

      • It’s affirms the truth that is in those scriptures yes. It also falsifies what is false therein. That’s what the Quran claims for itself.

        Liked by 3 people

      • It unknowingly, ignorantly, unwittingly, affirmed ALL of the previous Scriptures.

        Like

      • I never said “all the time” either. I am just pointing out your inconsistency of using your schtick of “the best of modern scholarship” in a cherry picking way of using whatever suits your bias and agenda of seeking to cause doubt on the NT and seeking to point to Islam, which is a 600 year late and subjective claim of one guy in the deserts of Arabia, who motivated Jihadists for war booty and eternal sex in paradise. “if you fear poverty . . . ” Surah 9:28, 29, 30

        Ibn Kathir confirms.

        Like

      • The rantings of a wooden fundamentalist mean absolutely nothing to me Ken. What brain you have is utterly waisted on your absurd American religion.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yet your fellow Brit Kenneth Kitchen and some other Brits agree with me. It is not an “American religion”. Richard Bauckham calls Mark 10 – why do you call Me good? Only God is good” = “a wonderful double entendre” and claim of being God Himself. Go back and learn from good Brits like C. S. Lewis and John R. W. Stott, etc.

        Like

      • Your version of evangelical fundamentalism is certainly American with your republican spin of separation between church and state. Lewis and Stott were both devout Anglicans for whom the Queen is head of state and head of the church, so you are wrong – again.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Lewis and Stott and Kitchen and others agree with me that the OT & NT is God’s word, historical, inspired, reliable and defended the crucifixion, death, atonement, resurrection, Deity of Christ, Trinity, etc.

        Like

      • CS Lewis was not a fundamentalist like you and rejected inerrancy because he knew the Bible contains errors.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, I know.

        Yet, he defended the Deity of Christ, Gospel according to John, Trinity, death and crucifixion of Christ, salvation by grace and faith vs. all things Islam that disagree with Christian faith.

        Like

      • When it came to John he unfortunately rejected good biblical scholarship

        Liked by 1 person

      • He believed the Bible had errors and yet remained a Christian. This is what Geza Vermes would have referred to “having your cake and eating it”. Raymond Brown is an even better example. An actual scholar who recognised the problems in the Bible and yet convinced himself that all was still good, despite the evidence saying otherwise.

        Liked by 1 person

      • That’s because they assume Biblical inerrancy from the start. This is what drives them to manipulate the evidence, as in Kitchen’s pathetic argument that evidence for Jericho in Joshua’s time has simply disappeared, even though older evidence still exists. How convenient.

        Plus, they know that there is definitely no chance that Jericho could have existed in the 1200s or 1100s, which is wherw most chronologies place Joshua, so they conveniently push the Exodus and the alleged conquest back about 200 years around the time of Akhenaten (instead of Ramesses II).

        Liked by 2 people

      • HAHAHAHA, Kennywise gets caught lying, and so has to deflect once again!

        You truly are a scumbag, Kennywise. This is why no one likes you. You deserve mockery because you are a liar and a hypocritical pig who worships a genocidal, bloodthirsty god.

        Liked by 1 person

    • @Ken Temple

      Then let me ask you Ken, why would the fact that the Sabbath was made for man make Jesus (a.s) Lord of the Sabbath?

      Liked by 1 person

      • He is going back to the intent of the purpose of the Sabbath Day – to give rest for work week – and He is showing that He is Lord and able to forgive sins (2:10) and also authority to do good on the Sabbath Day (pick grain when hungry) – He is claiming His interpretation is over the wooden and brittle interpretation of the Pharisees regarding the Sabbath day.

        Like

      • Disagreements between Jewish teachers was the norm. Nothing shocking in itself. Also the disciples were able to forgive sins too according to John.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Speaking of the Sabbath, the Bible contradicts itself on its purpose as well.

        “And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.” (Deut. 5:15)

        “Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.” (Exodus 23:12)

        Deuteronomy states that the purpose of the Sabbath was to remember that God brought Israel out of Egypt, but Exodus states that the reason is simply to rest from work, like God rested after creating the world.

        Liked by 1 person

    • @Ken Temple

      do you really not see how that is a non sequitur? You are imploring the same stretches of logic encountered by the author of the link i posted.

      “I remember years ago in Sunday School classes this scripture was talked about and debated because no one could really make sense of it. I heard a number of different explanations regarding verse 28, but none of them seemed satisfactory and felt like the explanation was stretched just a little too far.”

      Liked by 2 people

    • @Ken Temple

      “It unknowingly, ignorantly, unwittingly, affirmed ALL of the previous Scriptures”

      Proof?

      Liked by 2 people

      • Surah 5:47
        Surah 5:68
        Surah 10:94
        Surah 3:3
        “confirming the book before between the hands”
        مصدقا
        we gave the roots and forms of this word in Farsi – “to confirm”

        Like

    • @Ken Temple

      “Surah 5:47
      Surah 5:68
      Surah 10:94
      Surah 3:3
      “confirming the book before between the hands”
      مصدقا”

      OK! So Ken if you were given a response to each of these verses would that satisfy you enough to finally stop using this silly argument?

      Liked by 2 people

      • Oooh, Vaqas is about to put the smackdown on Kennywise! Come on Vaqas. Have some compassion for your battered opponent. He’s already down 0-15.

        Wait, on second thought, it’s Kennywise, so go ahead. Knock his clown teeth out. 🤣

        Like

      • No one has ever given a good response to this argument. Even one Muslim scholar admitted that the Qur’an never says the text of the previous Scriptures was changed; and Paul W. reported that on one of his older blogs that is no longer available; then, later, Paul W. had to go back on that and say that it was garbled in a phone conversation. (I am just recalling from memory)
        It would take time to go back and find some fragments of those posts in other websites, since Paul W. deleted his old blogs several times and Ijaz took the last one over by stealth and arrogance and malice vs. Paul for exposing Jihadists at Speakers Corner.

        Like

      • “Ijaz took the last one over by stealth and arrogance and malice vs. Paul for exposing Jihadists at Speakers Corner.”
        Why is it only non-Muslims who say this truth??

        Liked by 3 people

      • Doesn’t it make you wonder, Paul?
        And why does Faiz / QB spew hatred and not able to control his fingers and evil thoughts from being typed out, thus proving Islam cannot give him power over his sinful nature, his “Nafs – Amareh” نفس اماره
        the sinful inner self that commands and pulls to sin and hatred and insults, etc.

        Like

      • Lol, maybe the non-Muslims want to exploit the conflict for their own agendas? It’s true though. Too many Muslims have taken a close-minded approach to the whole unfortunate incident. And I’ve always said that I didn’t agree with brother Ijaz’s actions.

        What this has to do with Kennywise’s whining about my mockery of him though? I have no idea. I guess he’s just whining like he always does. 🤣

        Liked by 2 people

      • You expose your character for all to see. That is a good thing. Thanks QB / Faiz.

        I wish you peace, but you say other hateful things.

        shows your religion cannot give you good manners. Adab ادب

        Like

      • 😂😂 All who see me skewer clowns like you laugh at your whining.

        I wish you hell, Kennywise. You are a scumbag, so your wishes of “peace” is just a smoke-screen. Christians try to deceive people with their fake kindness. Smart people don’t fall for that, and that frustrates you. Also, you have tried to respond in kind to me, in violation of your god’s command to turn the other cheek. Whenever I ask you why you are so disobedient, you avoid answering.

        And moron, most of your pathetic religion’s current spokesmen, like you masters Scam Shamoun and Dead Wood, are the epitomy of “bad manners”. This is the only way you idiots can defend your religion, not with sound arguments.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Thanks for proving the lack of power of your religion, again. You are a loser, QB / Faiz and I feel sorry for you.

        Like

      • 😂 Awww, keep whining clown. Your pathetic whining sessions only show that you have no real argument. You just deflect when you’re cornered.

        And again, why do you keep avoiding my question? Why did you not obey your mangod and turn the other cheek?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Shamoun did sometimes have bad manners, and I called him out on it. He is having his own trials these days; and I pray for him; but when he sticks to the texts and issues and avoids the ad hominem, his (and Wood’s ) material is actually very good.

        Like

      • Both are pseudoscholars, just like you. And both are living examples of your own standards and proof that your religion has a corrupting influence on people.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I read “The Balance of Truth” by Pfander (never been refuted) and other classic works – Zwemer, Tisdall, Abraham Geiger, Arthur Jeffery, John Gilchrist, (none of these have been refuted) etc. – before Shamoun and Wood and James White started writing on the subject. I just use their quotes for convenience, since they are the ones who have written and confirmed those older works and I did not write. I had to plow through books before the internet and learn the old fashion way.

        Like

      • 🤣 So you read biased Christian and Orientalist whose works have been debunked by more recent scholarship? We’re sooo impressed Kennywise…NOT!

        Like

      • They have never been debunked.

        Like

      • In your dreams, stupid. 😂

        Like

      • In my experience the most vile hate filled people are Christian missionaries full of the ‘Spirit’. I could name names but they are well known at speakers’ corner.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Hey moron, there have been plenty of good responses. You idiots just want to convince yourselves that your contradictory and corrupt book is reliable, when all rationality and reason says otherwise.

        Liked by 2 people

      • “It is also asserted that the Quran never confirms the four Gospels of the New Testament, but only the Gospel given to Jesus. Again, this is an erroneous claim since the Quran mentions the Gospel that was available during the time of Muhammad. That Gospel was none other than the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We even quoted Ibn Ishaq who claimed that the Apostle John wrote down the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Quran goes so far as to allude to a parable found only in Mark and calls it the Gospel:

        “Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. Thou wilt see them bow and prostrate themselves (in prayer), seeking Grace from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure. On their faces are their marks, (being) the traces of their prostration. This is their similitude in the Taurat; and their similitude IN THE GOSPEL IS: like a seed which sends forth its blade, then makes it strong; it then becomes thick, and it stands on its own stem, (filling) the sowers with wonder and delight. As a result, it fills the Unbelievers with rage at them. Allah has promised those among them who believe and do righteous deeds forgiveness, and a great Reward.” S. 48:29

        The Quran here calls Mark 4:27-28 the Gospel! The late A. Yusuf Ali notes:

        The similitude in the Gospel is about how the good seed is sown and grown gradually, even beyond the expectation of the sower: “the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how; for the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the earth”; MARK, iv 27-28 … (Ali, The Holy Qur’an – Meaning and Translation, p. 1400, n. 4917; bold and capital emphasis mine)

        The late S. Abul A’la Maududi concurs with Ali:

        This parable is found in a sermon of the Prophet Jesus that has been reported in the New Testament, thus:

        “And he said, So is the kingdom of God as if a man should east [sic] seed into the ground: And should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how. For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear. But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the harvest is come [author- This is taken from Mark 4:26-29]. And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it [author- this comes from Mark 4:30-32].”

        From one of Sam Shamoun’s excellent articles. He is right on this point.

        Paul Williams even had a post (no longer, as those old blogs are gone) where he admitted that a Muslim scholar agreed that they were right; but later said that his understanding was garbled through the phone.

        Maybe the Muslim scholar got scared of death threats and Fatwas against him . . . humm . . .

        Like

      • Quick example of Christian deception. I took a look at Maududi’s commentary on Surah Fath. He does note that the parable mentioned in the Quran is found in the New Testament, but interestingly, in the previous note regarding the Torah, he stated:

        “The allusion probably is to Deuteronomy, 33: 2-3, in which the Holy Prophet’s advent has been foretold and the word “saints” has been used for his Companions. Apart from this, if some other quality of the Companions has been mentioned in the Torah, it is not found in the existing, corrupted Torah.

        So Maududi concurred with the Islamic consensus that the present Torah is corrupt.

        He said the same thing in the commentary on Surah Taubah, verse 111:

        “…it should also be noted that the above-mentioned changes became possible because the original Torah had been tampered with in several ways. Some portions were taken away from it and others were added to it. Thus, the Torah in the existing form is not purely the Word of God but also contains the comments, etc. , of the Jewish scholars mixed up with it. So much so that at some places it becomes difficult to distinguish the Word of God from the Jewish traditions, their racial prejudices, their superstitions, their ambitions and ,wishes, their legal interpretations, etc., all of which have got mixed with the Word of God. (For further details please see E.N. 2 of Al-i-Imran).”

        Regarding the Gospels, Maududi states in the commentary on Surah Saff, verse 6:

        ” one should know that all the four Gospels contained In the Bible were written by the reek-speaking Christians, who had entered Christianity after the Prophet Jesus. The traditions of the sayings and acts of the Prophet Jesus reached them through the Syriac speaking Christians not in the written form but as oral traditions, and they translated these Syriac traditions into their own language and incorporated them in their books. None of the extant Gospels was written before 70; the Gospel of St. John was compiled n century after the Prophet Jesus probably in Ephesus, a city in Asia Minor. Moreover, no original copy even of these Gospels in Greek, in which these were originally written, exists. None of the Greek manuscripts that have been discovered and collected from here and there and which all belong to the period before the inventions of printing dates before the 4th century. Therefore, it is difficult to say what changes might have taken place in these during the first three centuries What makes it particularly doubtful is that the Christians have been regarding it as quite lawful to romper with their Gospels intentionally as and when they liked. The author of the article “Bible” in Encyclopedia Britannica (Ed. 19731 writes:

        “The main source of the evidence and of the variations are the manuscripts of the N.T., dating from the and to the 10th century or even later. In the process of copying, these manuscripts underwent the revisions that necessitate textual criticism. Some of these revisions were unintentional, as the scribe skipped a word or a line or as he mistook one character for another. Other revisions came from the desire of the scribe to harmonize the text of one Gospel with another or of one Testament with the other; or from his pious wish to “correct” or clarify the text at another point. But now that variations in the text exist, collection of the manuscripts is a difficult task.”

        Under such conditions as these, it is very difficult to say with absolute certainty that the sayings of the Prophet Jesus (peace be on him) found in the Gospels, have been preserved, reproduced and cited faithfully and accurately, and that no change has taken place anywhere.”

        So as usual, the Christians misrepresented what someone else said. The level of deception and ignorance is appalling.

        http://www.englishtafsir.com/

        Liked by 2 people

    • @Ken Temple

      Answer my question first Ken, If i give you a response to each of the verses you listed will you recant you’re argument or will you just keep spouting it nonetheless?

      Liked by 3 people

      • No, because your responses would be nonsense, (and repeated the broken record that I have already seen for years) since it has already been proven that the Qur’an never condemns the text of previous Scriptures, only wrong oral interpretations “twisting with their tongues”, etc.

        I have studied this issue since 1986 and have read a lot on it and never found Muslim arguments to be credible at all.

        Like

      • Kennywise is afraid. That’s why he tried to preempt with his pathetic cut and paste comment.

        Liked by 2 people

      • “I have studied this issue since 1986 and have read a lot on it and never found Muslim arguments to be credible at all.”

        😂😂😂 Sure you have Kennywise, sure you have. Most of your comments are copied from other pseudoscholars. How is that “studying”?

        Liked by 2 people

    • @Ken Temple

      “No-”

      (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

      Liked by 2 people

    • @Ken Temple

      “The Quran here calls Mark 4:27-28 the Gospel!”

      That’s irrelevant Ken, Muslims do not believe that the ENTIRE gospel and torah have been corrupted, only portions.

      Liked by 1 person

    • @Ken Temple

      It’s a table being flipped due to frustration.

      Liked by 3 people

    • @Ken Temple

      No problem Ken.

      Like

    • @Ken Temple

      “It is the Qur’an that comes along 600 years late and later and violates those verses and violates Rev. 22:18, by claiming to be “revelation” from God Almighty.”

      Revelation 22:18
      “I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.”

      Since the Prophet(s.a.w) was not described as being afflicted by the plagues of Revelation i guess we can chalk it up as a false prophecy. Thank you Ken for proving Islam as true.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Clever one Vaqas. It does not prove Islam is true at all.

        verse 19 indicates the final judgement in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10-15) is one of the judgments. Plagues are judgments. False prophets and unbelievers in Christ as Lord and Messiah (fulfiller of prophecies, the substitute of Isaiah 53 – the cross, atonement, resurrection – his rejection of those truths demonstrates where he went – the lake of fire.

        Maybe Muhammad’s suffering as he was dying of the poison meat from the Jewish lady was a judgment of God. He said as he was dying that he could feel the pain of his aorta vein.

        The Quran says,

        And if he (Muhammad SAW) had forged a false saying concerning Us (Allah), We surely should have seized him by his right hand (or with power and might), And then certainly should have cut off his life artery (Aorta), (Quran 69:44-46, Muhsin Khan)

        Sometime after Muhammad ate poisoned meat and was dying he exclaimed,

        ….Narrated ‘Aisha: The Prophet in his ailment in which he died, used to say, “O ‘Aisha! I still feel the pain caused by the food I ate at Khaibar, and at this time, I feel as if my aorta is being cut from that poison.” (Sahih Bukhari 5:59:713)

        Like

      • Lol, Kennywise resorts to another debunked copy/paste argument. 🤣

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Ken

        Different word is used in Arabic dumb@$$.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ Ken

        Also because you are so sure you fat disgusting arrogant kaffir I have a challenge for you. Let’s both pray sincerely that I get to be Muhammad’s(saw) neighbor wherever he’s at and you get the exact opposite.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ken Temple: Maybe Muhammad’s suffering as he was dying of the poison meat from the Jewish lady was a judgment of God. He said as he was dying that he could feel the pain of his aorta vein.

        Which poison takes years to kill and specifically attacks the aorta?

        Liked by 2 people

    • @Ken Temple

      Ken the verse specially states that plagues will be added to anyone who adds to the revelation there’s no arguing around that. i’m not denying that the next verse mentions a painful afterlife. That much is obvious

      “And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.”

      HOWEVER that is not verifiable, but the bit about plagues is. The prophet did not suffer any plagues despite adding to the revelation therefore Islam is true Christianity is false.

      As for the cheap and reused argument concerning the verse of the aorta and the poisoning, that is also simple. The fact is every missionary chops the verse in half and ignores the first part in order to gain the interpretation they want.

      “And if he (Muhammad SAW) had forged a false saying concerning Us (Allah), We surely should have seized him by his right hand (or with power and might), And then certainly should have cut off his life artery (Aorta)”

      The “seized him by his right hand” is as far as i’m aware, always interpreted to mean quickly and forcefully. Not after a few years.

      But if you want to play that game Ken then sure, let’s play.

      Luke 13:33
      “Nevertheless, I must keep going today and tomorrow and the next day, for it is not admissible for a prophet to perish outside of Jerusalem.”

      …Now you tell me Ken where was Jesus(a.s) said to be crucified?…

      Liked by 3 people

  9. The apostle Paul (Romans 4,Galatians 3) and James (James 2:23) quoted Genesis 15:6

    Then he [Abram] believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.

    You are nuked on that one.

    More as time allows.

    Like

    • @ Kennywise

      While this wasn’t my intended passage (though hilariously he jacks this one up as well):
      There are multiple ways to read this for one:

      He put his faith in the Lord and He reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Gen 15:6).

      or

      He put his faith in the Lord and he reckoned it to Him as righteousness” (Gen 15:6).

      If, on the other hand, we maintain (as did Onkelos, Rashi, and Maimonides) that the Lord counted it to Abram for righteousness, we are saying that God characterized Abram’s faith in Him as a “righteous” or meritorious mode of thought. This, too, seems to make sense, but is this idea really consonant with the root principles of the Jewish religion? No, says Shadal (Samuel David Luzzatto – 1800-1865) in his comment on Genesis 15:6. Rejecting the view that the phrase in question means that “God deemed it a merit to Abram,” Shadal declares that “the idea that faith should be deemed a ‘merit’ in a person is not only illogical, but contrary to the Torah and Prophets.”4 Elsewhere in his writings, he expands on this concept: Neither the prophets nor the Tannaim nor the Amoraim circumscribed matters of faith by saying that he who believes thus and thus or does not believe it is to be excluded from the communityof Israel . . . they judged every man according to his deeds . . . . What we are left with is a tantalizing puzzle, not unlike the M. C. Escher lithograph of two artists’ hands that seem to be drawing each other. Is God
      accounting righteousness to Abram, or is Abram accounting righteousness to God? There are valid reasons both to accept and to reject each alternative.

      https://jbqnew.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/361/361_counted.pdf

      But no matter which way you go the verse is more than likely forged:

      “To put this into perspective; the lord appears to Abram in a vision declaring that Abram should not be afraid because he (the lord) is the shield and that Abram will be rewarded. Abram responded sceptically at first due to an honest reflection on his reality, followed by an almost unrealistic promise that resulted in Abram accepting it as ‘fact’ and by doing so he is declared ‘righteous.’22 Noteworthy is that Abram is the active agent; it is due to the act of ‘believing’ that he is considered ‘righteous.’23 One cannot ignore the fact that the phrases in Genesis 15:6 does not fit in well with what proceeds or follows it. This is emphasised by the fact that in Genesis 15:7 θεός reminds Abram that he was the one that took him from Ur of the Chaldeans and gave him that land as possession “ἘγώεἰμιὁθεὸςὁἐξαγαγώνσεἐκχώραςΧαλδαίωνὥστεδοῦναίσοιτὴνγῆνταύτηνκληρονομῆσαι.” Why would it have been necessary for further argumentation and substantiation if Abram believed and was declared righteous in Genesis 15:6? The opinion here is that the concepts as represented by the Greek “καὶἐπίστευσενἈβρὰμτῷθεῷ”, (Gen 15:6a) and “ἐλογίσθηαὐτῷεἰςδικαιοσύνην”, (Genesis 15:6b) was added, prematurely so, by a redactor of the Masoretic text and merely translated into Greek. If one would ‘ignore’ Genesis 15:6 for a moment, then Abram’s response in Genesis 15:8 is not surprising. He remains doubtful, almost cynical, inferred from the question he asks: how can he be sure that the land will be his and his heirs? After failure to convince Abram, κύριος commanded Abram to make an offer (Gen 15:10-11) after which Abram fell asleep and it was then that a thick dreadful darkness came over him (Gen 15:12b) “καιίδούφόβοςσκοτεινόςμέγαςέπιπίπτειαύτώ” followed by the lord’s punishment, presumably due to the ‘lack’ of Abram’s faith. The supposed ‘punishment’ is followed by affirmation that on that day the lord made a covenant with Abram that they (his descendants) will be given the land as promised (Gen 15:17-21). ”

      http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2413-94672016000100018

      What I meant to say was his ridiculous “seed/seeds” argument that anyone with a basic knowledge of Semitic grammar would laugh at.

      Like

      • LOL

        the charge of “forged” is thrown out when you cannot refute the facts that the extant text is clearly there.

        Like

      • The Genesis account of Abraham certainly has forgeries. For example, “Ur of the Chaldees” is an anachronism and shows the author’s ignorance of history. There was no “Ur of the Chaldees” in Abraham’s time.

        Like

      • LOL
        Hilarious coming from the most anachronistic guy who made up a new religion 600 years too late and read his thoughts and dreams back into Jewish Midrash and Talmudic legends and added his own justifications for many wives and eternal sex in paradise and booty for Jihad and conquering the world. “if you fear poverty . . . ” (Allah will get the booty for you by making war vs. the people of the book and getting the Jiziye from them – don’t worry – Surah 9:28-30 – and even Ibn Kathir agrees that was the reason for attacking Byzantine Empire.

        Like

      • 🤣🤣🤣 Deflecting again you clown? Hmmm…let me see…some moron named Saul comes along, never having met Jesus, claims he has a “vision”, and then decides he is the ultimate authority on Jesus’ message. Oh and he also claimed to be a Pharisee, and yet also worked for the temple authorities, who were Sadducees. Pharisees and Sadducees didn’t get along. So he was lying. Wow! Talk about a Satanic apostle coming too late!

        Liked by 3 people

      • After all is said and done; QB / Faiz exposes the real reason for Muslim’s arguments against Saul / the apostle Paul, the gospel according to John, Hebrews, Mark 10:45; Mark 14:24-25 (blood sacrifice ransom atonement), etc. – you are all stuck with a massive contradiction of the Qur’an affirming the book at the time of Muhammad for the people of the book (both Jews and Christians) and yet later after the Jihads, etc. the Muslims discovered contradictions, so they had to come up with the theory of Tahreef Al-Nass / Tahreef Al-Matn (change of the text).

        Like

      • 🤣🤣 After all is said and done, Kennywise still cannot refute the fact that Paul was a liar, and so the clown must deflect to the Quran. Of course, we know that the Quran says nothing about “confirming” the idiotic New Testament or the contradictory books of the Tanakh. Reasonable people know this, but broken records like Kennywise the pagan clown have to repeat the debunked arguments to convince themselves to remain enslaved to their pagan religion.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Moses wrote the final editions of the Pentateuch in the 1400s BC, and there may have later editors (such as Joshua who wrote about his death at end of Deuteronomy) – this is not a problem for inspiration or inerrancy. Writing for the people at the time of writing to understand geographical settings is not a problem.

        Like

      • 😂 Dumbass, Ur did not exist in the time of Moses either. So your Bible is wrong. And if later editors changed things around, then it means your Bible was corrupted. Thank you for admitting it.

        Also, the book of Joshua could not have been written by Joshua and it also contradicts the book of Judges in some ways.

        Liked by 3 people

      • More contradictions. Since Kennywise brought up Joshua, let’s look at it:

        “Therefore the five kings of the Amorites, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, the king of Eglon, gathered themselves together, and went up, they and all their hosts, and encamped before Gibeon, and made war against it.” (Joshua 10:5)

        “And all these kings and their land did Joshua take at one time, because the Lord God of Israel fought for Israel.” (10:42)

        “As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day.” (15:63)

        OK, so Joshua seemed to have captured Jerusalem, but the Jebusites didn’t leave. Alright, nothing weird so far. But then we have this from Judges:

        “The men of Judah attacked Jerusalem also and took it. They put the city to the sword and set it on fire.” (Judges 1:8).

        But then we also this in the same chapter:

        “The Benjamites, however, did not drive out the Jebusites, who were living in Jerusalem; to this day the Jebusites live there with the Benjamites.” (1:21)

        So was Jerusalem captured by Joshua or by the Judahites after his death? And did the Judahites burn the city down and kill everyone in it, or did the Jebusites remain in the city until the Benjamites tried to drive them out and failed?

        Only an idiot reads these obvious contradictions, and still thinks it is a unified narrative. The reality is that the contradictions because these books were compiled by later editors who cobbled together different stories. That is what any reasonable person would conclude.

        Liked by 3 people

    • @Ken Temple

      “Moses wrote the final editions of the Pentateuch in the 1400s BC, and there may have later editors (such as Joshua who wrote about his death at end of Deuteronomy) – this is not a problem for inspiration or inerrancy. Writing for the people at the time of writing to understand geographical settings is not a problem.”

      It is a problem when God specifically said to not add or subtract from his revelation…

      Liked by 3 people

      • Jesus affirmed all the TaNaK (Torah, Nabi’im (prophets) and Writings (Poetic and Wisdom literature, Psalms, holy writings) in His day – “every jot and title” – Matthew 5:17-20 – so whatever final editors gave to the final editions at the time to help readers understand is within parameters of inspiration / infallibility / inerrancy of the OT text.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jesus also used non-canonical books, and thus “confirmed” them as well:

        Compare Matthew 22:13 with 1 Enoch 10:4:

        “Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’” – Matthew

        “And again the Lord said to Raphael: ‘Bind Azazel hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening…” – Enoch

        The same motif is used. To modern Christians, this “parallel” would not necessarily imply that Matthew was using 1 Enoch as a source or that he considered it to be a reliable book. But, as with the passages like Jude 6-7, when we consider that the Enoch-story was very well-known to Jews at the time, they would have immediately recognized the allusion to 1 Enoch 10:4 and the binding of Azazel (the leader of the Watchers). Other such parallels include Matthew’s use of the “Son of Man” concept, which scholars have noted is similar to the way the Book of Parables interprets Daniel 7,[34] and Matthew 24:36-44, which refers to “the days of Noah” and God’s imminent judgement.

        There is also the example of John 7, where Jesus quotes an unknown source, not found anywhere in the Bible:

        “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.”

        Finally, the fact that Kennywise admits that there were later attempts to edit the Bible proves that it has been corrupted. The “inspired” word of God should not have been altered in any way, as Vaqas pointed out.

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ QB

        Also for giggles the Ebionites also believed the Torah had been corrupted (like Jeremiah 8:8 clearly states):

        “It is also important to recognize that the Ebionites would have thought that Jesus’ teaching role in relation to the law was especially important as they contended that the writings of the Pentateuch had been corrupted and did not represent the true law of God; he would restore the forgotten laws received on Mount Sinai for God’s people. Akers explains that the Ebionites “based their belief in Jesus on Deuteronomy 18:15-18, when Moses predicts a future prophet due to the peoples’ reluctance to hear the voice of God. For the Ebionites, Jesus is this prophet, the prophet of truth” (The Ebionites: Eccentric or Essential Early Christians? William J. Cook, Jr. pg.5)

        Liked by 2 people

      • And boom goes Kennywise yet again!

        Liked by 1 person

    • @Ken Temple

      “so whatever final editors gave to the final editions at the time to help readers understand is within parameters of inspiration / infallibility / inerrancy of the OT text.”

      God disagrees with you ken,

      Deuteronomy 4:2
      “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.”

      Deuteronomy 12:32
      “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it”

      Proverbs 30:5-6
      “Every word of God is tested; He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him. Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.”

      Liked by 3 people

      • Jesus apparently did not think that whatever form of text He had in His day of the OT / TaNaKh, it did not violate those true verses and principle.
        We agree with those verses and principles. The NT teaches the same, as in Rev. 22:18.

        It is the Qur’an that comes along 600 years late and later and violates those verses and violates Rev. 22:18, by claiming to be “revelation” from God Almighty.

        Like

      • Boom again! And Kennywise is at a loss! Vaqas leads 15-0.

        So what you’re saying Kennywise you idiot is that your Jesus came along 1200 years (in reality it was more like 500 years after) after the warning in Deuteronomy and decided it wasn’t as strict as it seemed. Hmmm…so someone comes along more than a 1000 years later (the last time I checked, 1000 is more than 600), and changed this around? Wow!

        Let’s see if Kennywise can pick up on the irony.

        Liked by 3 people

    • “and yet later after the Jihads, etc. the Muslims discovered contradictions, so they had to come up with the theory of Tahreef Al-Nass / Tahreef Al-Matn (change of the text).”

      That is a LIE.
      Ibn Abbas who is a COMPANION of the prophet said your book is false. Is that early enough for you?

      Liked by 3 people

      • @ Atlas

        I realized something about this pos. We should all really say al hamduliah that Allah spoke the truth when He said you can show someone EVERY sign and they still wouldn’t believe. I mean think about how much we tear apart the utter trash that he calls a religious text and all he can do is repeat the same sh!t over and over again. It really is fascinating and if a Muslim ever asked me about a kaffir being blinded I would direct them to Ken.

        Liked by 2 people

  10. Irrelevant. The Quran was sent down from God to Muhammad.

    In his fanciful dreams.

    Like

    • 😂😂 No Kennywise, in reality. It was the Satanic apostle Paul who thought he was chosen to be a spokesperson for Jesus, despite never having met him. This moron dreamt of being a super-apostle, but he was really a villain.

      Liked by 2 people

      • And yet, your prophet, coming 600 years late, affirmed the book that the people of the gospel had “between their hands”, at the time.

        “Go ask the people of the book, those who are reading the written Scripture” (Surah 10:94) (at that time – because it says, “if you are in doubt about what We are revealing to you . . .” (all points to “at that time”) But still ignorant of the content.

        Muhammad was ignorant of the content of the gospels, but affirmed the written book of the Christians at the time – the Injeel. (and this included all the 27 books of the NT in the orthodox Christian east and west).

        The problem is Muhammad got his information from heretics, apocryphal gospels, Jewish Midrash, Talmud, legends and myths and mixed it all together for his own use in order to do Jihad and get booty and promises of eternal sex with the houris to get his Jihadists to fight for him.

        Like

      • 😂😂😂 When Kennywise cannot refute an argument, he pathetically deflects to the Quran’s alleged “confirmation” of his idiotic book!

        As I schooled you before, the Quran refers to specific contexts, dummy. So when it says “ask the people of the book”, it’s referring to their experiences during the Exodus.

        The problem is that you are an idiot. You repeat the same debunked nonsense over and over again. I think the reason is that you are trying to convince yourself of your own BS. Deep down inside, you know it’s BS.

        And again, just because something is not in your silly Bible, doesn’t mean it can’t be true. A story that may have been mentioned in an earlier source, whether it was from an “apocryphal” book or whatever simply means that the Quran is saying that it was a historic event.

        Given your book’s heavy reliance on pagan myths, especially from Egypt and Babylon, as well as its reliance on apocryphal books like 1 Enoch shows that you are a hypocrite and idiot for using this argument.

        Liked by 3 people

  11. I realize that Paul Williams later claims that he misunderstood Abdel Haleem over the phone, but this pretty much proves our point, which was already stated a long time ago in the classic texts of Pfander, Zwemer, John Gilchrist, Tisdall, and is harmonious with Geiger’s findings that Islam is just Midrash Judaism mixed with some other stuff from Muhammad’s own mind:

    These quotes by this Muslim scholar, Muhammad Abdel Haleem, would affirm that Surah 5:47; 5:68; 10:94; 3:3-4; 2:136; 29:46 do not teach that the Christian Scriptures were corrupted in their written text; and that Surah 2:79, 3:78, and 5:13 refer to Christians and Jews who have orally misinterpreted the text and a party of the Jews who goes apart and writes new books and claims that it is from God. (see more below *)

    And remember, Paul Williams even admitted Islamic scholar Abdel Haleem told him the Qur’an does not say that the Bible was corrupted. But, unfortunately, Paul Williams took that old web-site down.

    “According to Paul Williams, world-renowned Islamic scholar Abdel Haleem confirmed for him in a phone conversation one of the two claims that Christians often make regarding the Bible. In the view of Professor Haleem, the Qur’an does NOT teach that the Bible was corrupted. Instead, it teaches that the Bible has been misinterpreted. Prof. Haleem’s statements in this connection, as PW says, “put Muslim apologist Bassam Zawadi (who has argued many times for the view that the Quran teaches textual corruption) in the wrong.” This, as Paul Williams also says, serves to “vindicate the oft-stated views of Sam Shamoun and David Wood.”
    (Summary by Anthony Rogers) (see at link above)

    https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2017/01/12/muslim-scholar-abdel-haleem-agrees-that-the-quran-does-not-teach-that-the-text-of-the-previous-scriptures-was-corrupted/

    Like

    • Ken it is immoral and reprehensible of you to repeat this. I have made very clear on several occasions to you that I misheard the professor (I was standing in a noisy Trafalgar Square talking to him in my mobile). He made clear later that the Quran certainly does not endorse the gospels containing as they do only a few authentic sayings of Jesus.

      Liked by 3 people

      • But I said up front that you went back and said that you misunderstood.

        However, it does not make sense, given the argument that Anthony Rogers makes, with Surah 7:157, which says that the Christians AT THAT TIME would confirm things claimed.

        Like

      • Lol, Kennywise previously admitted that there was no Arabic Bible at the time, and yet now, he claims they had it in the time of Muhammad (pbuh)! 😂

        The reality is that 7:157 doesn’t prove that there was a book that was the same as the modern Bible or that it endorses the whole Bible. Christians are desperate to make logical leaps to confirm their corrupted book.

        Liked by 1 person

      • No; that was not my point at all.

        The Qur’an THINKS the Scriptures that the Jews and Christians had at the time was Holy Scripture (Hebrew for OT and the Jews and Greek for the Byzantines / Christians), but he does not know what the content is. He is ignorant; but he imagines that the Qur’an confirms the previous Scriptures.

        Like

      • Lol, but if it told the Jews to check their sources, then it wasn’t telling them to check the Bible stupid, because they didn’t have it! Get it? They had something else. All in all, it does not prove that your corrupt Bible was in Arabia at the time. The Quran was confirming something else.

        Like

      • Geiger was right that the Islamic content in the Qur’an is Midrash and Talmud Judaism.

        But Muhammad thinks / imaging he affirming the previous Scriptures of Torah, Injeel, and Zabur (Psalms of David)

        Like

      • Geiger was refuted by more modern scholarship, idiot. 🤣

        Moreover, I think Geiger was Jewish, not a Christian, so he regarded your religion as a corruption of Judaism, which ironically confirms the Quran and Islam.

        Like

      • No, Geiger was not refuted by “more modern scholarship”

        yes he was Jewish, that is why he rightly analyzed that the Qur’an and Islam are basically “warmed over Midrash and Talmudic Judaism” (combined with Muhammad’s own stuff he made up)

        Like

      • 🤣 And then he was refuted by modern scholarship. Got it, Kennywise.

        Moreover, as I already said, just because there is some parallelism doesn’t mean those stories are false or simply copied. In contrast, your idiotic book actually copied pagan myths and apocryphal books like 1 Enoch. I know you’re afraid of this fact so that’s why you keep ignoring it. 😁

        Like

      • Again, Kennywise gets caught lying. The guy is a piece of crap, plain and simple. What more needs to be said? He’s just trying to convince himself. He knows no one takes him seriously.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Ken has certainly made himself look low in my sight, misusing an old issue for his nefarious purposes.

        Liked by 4 people

      • @ Kennywise

        This is WHY everyone calls you a slimeball. Even the guy who told you about Geiger said his research is out of date and here you go parroting.

        “Since the foundation of the modern discipline of Islamic studies in the nineteenth century until very recently, scholars have often seen the appearance of biblical stories in the Quran, often in significantly altered, distorted, or amplified form, as reflecting Muhammad’s dependence upon Jewish teachers and thus an overarching Jewish influence on Islam. In point of fact, this approach to the biblical tradition in the Quran has significant roots in medieval Christian polemic against Islam. In recent years, a few scholars have sought to develop more constructive approaches to this material and to Quranic narrative in general; nevertheless, a full‐scale reconsideration of the basic problem is still lacking, and the legacy of medieval polemic in the early Orientalist tradition, as well as its modern implications, has yet to be widely recognized.”

        https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1749-8171.2007.00044.x

        Even the dumb@$$ that you learned about Geiger from said he was out of date:

        “He makes historical evaluations that clearly are wrong and questionable.”

        https://bloggingtheology.com/2020/03/15/the-crucifixion-and-the-quran-a-study-in-the-history-of-muslim-thought/comment-page-1/#comment-35073

        My dude, you didn’t even know modern research on YOUR religious text regarding “Lord of the Sabbath” (which is kindergartner level btw) so stay out of others.

        Liked by 3 people

      • @ Ken

        Because I feel like making you look stiupid again for today you and Rogers quoted 7:157 to “prove” the Bible during Muhammad’s(saw) time was pure correct. That’s really interesting considering the passage is God talking to Moses(as) during HIS time. Whaaaaatttt???!!!?!!!?! Let’s laugh at your and his reading incompetence, ahem:

        “Moses chose from his people seventy men for their meeting with Me when a violent earthquake seized them. Moses said: “Oh Lord, if You had wanted you would’ve destroyed them way before this as well as me. Are you destroying us because of what the idiots among us did? This is nothing but Your test and through it, You mislead and You guide whomever you want! You are our Protective Friend so forgive us and show us mercy and never allow us to fall into it again because You are the best of those who can forgive! And write good for us in this life as well as the Next because we have lovingly and with full loyalty turned back to you!” I responded: “I target with My punishment whoever I wish and My Mercy extends to everything. I will give My Mercy to those who are God-fearing, purifying themselves by giving what is due in charity and truly believes in My revelations. Who follow the Messenger, the illiterate prophet they find described in the Torah that is with them, and in the Gospel. He will order them to what is good and forbid to them what is evil. And make allowed for them things that are pure, forbid to them all the things that are filthy and he will take off from them the chains and burdens around their necks that used to be on them. Those who will believe in him, obey him out of respect and help him, following the light sent down with him and they are the successful ones.…” So now tell them: “People! I am the Messenger of God for you all, sent by the One who owns the kingdom of the heavens and the earth! No one is to be worshipped or obeyed but He. He gives life and He gives death, so believe in God and His Messenger, the prophet which can neither read nor write, who believes in God and His words, and follows them closely, so that you can be considered committed to guidance.… (Surah Al-Araf, 7:155-158.)

        So EMBARRANGSLY despite claiming to be “experts” in Islam you all were too stupid to realize God is relaying a thing He told Moses(as). Out of curiosity (as its never happened to me) how does it feel to be made a bumbling idiot at least twice a week?

        Also, for the rest of your stupid arguments:

        https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2019/02/24/corruption-of-the-scriptures-part-i-does-islam-confirm-the-bible-as-a-scripture-from-god/

        Liked by 3 people

      • @Stew,

        Twice a week?! You must be joking. Kennywise is made into an idiot almost delay, and at least 5 or 6 times each day!

        Liked by 2 people

      • @ QB

        Oh, no doubt anytime he shows up here the number goes up. The only reason I gave that number is the little b!tch runs away or doesn’t answer clearly when cornered (like for example how he’ll ignore my point that 7:157 is referring to Musa’s(as) time) and then comes back a few weeks later repeating the same crap claim its “never been refuted”.

        Liked by 1 person

      • @ QB

        Yawn. Did Kennywise admit that he and Anthony Rogers misread 7:157 yet?

        Like

      • Of course not Stew. Don’t be silly.

        Liked by 1 person

  12. Anthony Rogers was right: (confirms the older works I mentioned)

    Saturday, March 22, 2014

    The Uncorrupted Injeel
    On a recent outing in London Paul Williams, who was recently outed himself (in more ways than one, see here and here), discovered something that outs Islamic apologists like Bassam Zawadi, not to mention many others.

    According to PW, world-renowned Islamic scholar Abdel Haleem confirmed for him in a phone conversation one of the two claims that Christians often make regarding the Bible. In the view of Professor Haleem, the Qur’an does NOT teach that the Bible was corrupted. Instead, it teaches that the Bible has been misinterpreted. Prof. Haleem’s statements in this connection, as PW says, “put Muslim apologist Bassam Zawadi (who has argued many times for the view that the Quran teaches textual corruption) in the wrong.” This, as PW also says, serves to “vindicate the oft-stated views of Sam Shamoun and David Wood.”

    To PW’s relief, Professor Haleem went on to say that the Injeel is not the same as the four canonical gospels or the New Testament, and that the former was “largely lost to history” while the latter contains only “a few shreds of Jesus’ authentic teaching.’” For whatever reason, and I can think of one that is more than plausible but best left unspoken, PW still hates the Bible but wants to leave room for the Qur’an to still be true in its theological and historical pronouncements, even though he finds the ethical and religious injunctions of the Qur’an impossibly hard to follow (contrary to its own empty-boast about being light and easy, Q. 2:185ff, 7:157, et. al).

    As is often the case, PW’s relief on this score proves to be very temporary. For if we follow out this reasoning, it would have to mean that the Quran mentions two different books: the Bible (i.e. the canonical Gospels, the New Testament) and the Injeel (i.e. the original message given to Jesus). Furthermore, it would also mean: 1) when the Qur’an speaks of Christians misinterpreting the Bible at the time of Muhammad, it is not talking about the Injeel, for the Injeel was “largely lost to history”; and 2) when the Qur’an speaks of the Injeel being largely lost to history, it is not talking about the Bible that Christians had in their possession at the time of Muhammad, because they certainly must have had the Bible in their possession in order to (allegedly) misinterpret it.

    The problem with saying that the Bible and the Injeel are two different books – one of which existed at the time of Jesus but was lost before Muhammad’s time, the other of which existed at the time of Muhammad but was being misinterpreted – is that the Qur’an does not mention these two different books. Anywhere. This idea is totally foreign to the Qur’an. It nowhere says that Christians have a book that is different than what was given to Jesus, and it nowhere says that the book given to Jesus is different than the book in the possession of Christians.

    Worse than the above, not only does the Qur’an not make such a distinction, it actually contradicts it. To give just one example, the Qur’an says that Christians can find Muhammad in the (Torah and the) Injeel.

    Those who follow the apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom THEY FIND mentioned in their own (scriptures), – in the law and the Gospel [i.e. Injeel]; – for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him, – it is they who will prosper. (Q. 7:157, Yusuf Ali)

    If Christians did not have the Injeel at the time of Muhammad, then the Qur’an is wrong when it claims that they could find Muhammad in it. And if Christians (allegedly) could find Muhammad in the Injeel, then that means Christians must have had it at the time of Muhammad. And of course, since we have today what the Christians had at the time of Muhammad, then that means that Christians today have the Injeel.

    This puts Muslims in quite a bind. Instead of crying down everything they don’t like in the Bible as a corruption of the original message sent down by God in the first century, they will now have to do the tough job of disproving that the Bible, i.e. the Injeel, teaches things like the following:

    Jesus is God

    Jesus became a human being

    Jesus died, was buried and rose again for the salvation of sinners

    Among other things.

    There can be no question of corruption from a Qur’anic standpoint, and thus no cherry-picking of verses to avoid the obvious. The only option that is open to Muslims in light of what Professor Haleem admitted, i.e. the Qur’an does not teach that the Bible has been corrupted, and that the Qur’an demonstrates, i.e. the Bible is the Injeel, is the hard job of honest exegesis.

    This is why Professor Haleem’s devastating admission coupled with an artificial and false distinction could only provide temporary relief for those who want to give credence to the Qur’an, even those who have left Islam behind. PW should really just come all the way out and make a clean break with Islam, leaving behind not only any hope of being able to live up to the Qur’an’s impossible requirements, but also any notion that it is true in its theological and historical teachings.

    The good news for those who have ears to hear it, is that according to the uncorrupted Injeel, the true God does not first require us to live up to His dictates before He will love us; rather, we love Him because He first loved us (1 John 4:19). And God demonstrated his own love towards us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8). That is why Jesus could say in the Gospel that His yoke is easy and His burden is light (Matthew 11:30). The love of God taught in the Bible is a saving and transforming love; the love of Allah taught in the Qur’an produces despair for those who are honest with the fact that they do not measure up to what Allah requires in order to be loved by him. PW has already learned the latter. Let’s pray that he (and all Muslims) also comes to learn the former.”
    Anthony Rogers

    Like

  13. Paul Williams admitting that Shamoun and Wood were right. (confirming earlier works like Pfander, Zwemer, Tisdall, Gilchrist, etc.)

    Williams further said about his scholarship:

    “However, Sam Shamoun and David Wood have repeatedly argued that the Quran does not teach textual corruption of the Bible. They would appear to be right.

    “Bassam Zawadi has written many articles defending the view that the Quran teaches textual corruption of the Bible. But to be fair Bassam HE IS NOT A SCHOLAR and has never claimed to be one. Professor Abdel Haleem is a leading expert on the Quran in Arabic.” ( at PW old blog blogging theology dot org , comment-5690)

    From Shamoun’s comment at Anthony Roger’s article

    Like

  14. LOL

    “because you are liar”

    Ha ha

    you are like a lot of 5th graders – “no!! you are a liar” ( I cannot refute intellectually so I will call you a liar.)

    Like

    • 😂😂 Actually moron, you are the one who engages in that type of argument. When I call you a liar, you say “no you’re a liar”. I’ve called you out for this type of childish argument before.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Actually, is you who act like a child.

        Difference of opinion is not lying.

        you don’t know the definition of lie, lying and liar.

        Like

      • 🤣🤣🤣 Oh I’m dying of laughter! Kennywise just did the same thing he literally criticized me for in the previous comment! “No, you’re a child!”

        Oh Kennywise, how stupid are you? 🤣

        Liked by 2 people

      • Making false statements about other people or misrepresenting what they said is not “opinion” dumbass. It’s lying. You are a liar.

        Like

      • The Qur’an:

        Affirms/confirms مصدق the inspiration of the previous Scriptures – Surah 3:84, 2:136; 3:3-4
        Affirms/confirms مصدق the preservation of the previous Scriptures – Surah 5:47; 10:94 (between the hands – بین یدیه = what they have at the time of Muhammad)
        Affirms/confirms the authority of the previous Scriptures – 5:43 – why do they come to you when they have the Torah?
        5:47 – let the people of the Gospel judge by what God has revealed therein –

        5:68 – O people of the Scripture, اهل الکتاب you have no standing unless you observe/uphold/ hold fast to / do / obey the Torah and the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.”

        “Say, “O People of the Scripture, you are [standing] on nothing until you uphold [the law of] the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed to you from your Lord.” And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. So do not grieve over the disbelieving people.” Qur’an Surah 5:68, Sahih International translation

        10:94 – Gospel and Torah authoritative for Muhammad also. Resort to the previous Scriptures; Ask the people of the book.

        and since none can change the words of Allah – Surah 6:114-5 (or 116 depending on different English translation/numbering system) and 18:27; (see also 6:34, 10:65)

        therefore, the previous Scriptures were not corrupted.

        Like

      • More copy and paste nonsense. We’ve been through this already, moron. Context is important. The Quran does not confirm Paul’s idiotic letters or the contradictory Gospels.

        Like

      • You cannot refute it.

        Like

      • It’s been refuted many times already! 😂

        Liked by 2 people

      • Faiz / QB:
        No; this argument has not been refuted.

        But we have argued a lot and repeated a lot down over several years, to the bottom line:

        the Qur’an ignorantly affirms مصدق و تصدیق the previous Scriptures, the OT and NT.

        The Qur’an is too late and not real revelation from the Living God.

        It contradicts established history. (Surah 4:157)

        It cannot be from God since it mis-understood the doctrine of the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, and the Sonship of Christ (Surah 5:72-78; 5:116; 19:99-92; 6:101; 112; 4:171)

        If it was from God, it would have communicated those doctrines properly and understood what the Christians were saying. (for several centuries)

        It has lots of the other incredibly ridiculous things, along with the Hadith, about Muhammad’s multiple wives and cleansing his privates details; and justifications for aggressive warfare and motivation for the Jihadists / Qatals / harbs – war booty, captive females sex maids, eternal sex in paradise with the Houris if they get killed in battle, etc.

        justification for unjustly attacking the Christians. (Surah 9:28-30 – “if you fear poverty . . . ”

        The doing away with adoption, etc.
        justification for getting Zaynab Bint Jahash. Surah 33, with Hadith, etc.

        Mistaken information about sister of Aaron, Mary, the sun setting in a muddy pool in the west, Alexander the Great, unscientific details, etc.

        Dependence of apocryphal gospels and heretical writings and Jewish Midrash and Talmud (as opposed to clear knowledge of written Scripture), etc.

        Depends on legends and fables – “the cave of the seven sleepers of Ephesus”, etc.
        Overall, a very bad book.

        However, Faiz / QB, I wish you peace.

        It is we born again Christians who have true peace with God.

        John 14:27

        Romans 5:1

        Enough debate for a while, since we both are repeating our own sincerely held beliefs.

        Like

      • Moron, your copy and paste nonsense doesn’t impress anyone. All of this has been explained many times and modern scholars like Sidney Griffiths accept that the Quran is very clear on the corruption of the Torah and Gospel.

        I wish you hell, Kennywise you loser. Take your “peace” and shove it up your rear-end. There is no “peace” in idolatry. “Born again” paganism is still paganism. Sorry. 😉

        Liked by 1 person

      • I told you the kaffir wouldn’t respond and would run away😂😂😂

        Liked by 2 people

    • The brokenrecordblog

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: