[Lukongsimi]

Ok.

A belief without evidence can still be true.

The actor already provided his evidence

[pinkpanther]

Ok. If you say so. 

But yes, I also say the Quran is the authority over the Bible. As you already know, the Bible has been manipulated by men, and as such, we do not know which part is true or false. By the grace of God, He has given us the Quran, which we can be 100% sure is the verbatim word of God.

The Quran did not mention the Bible at all. How can you conclude that the Bible is corrupted...I have showed you scholars attesting to the uncorrupted Bible....

On the contrary, some moslems have taken the 4 fold gospels as the Injil ....the interpretations of moslems regarding the Bible are boundless..

Why criticise the Bible when you have no business in it?

[pinkpanther]

The actor already provided his evidence

He cannot say what you saw was false because it would discredit Muhammad's words and teachings

[Lukongsimi]

He cannot say what you saw was false because it would discredit Muhammad's words and teachings

No wonder lah

[pinkpanther]

Ok. If you say so. 

But yes, I also say the Quran is the authority over the Bible. As you already know, the Bible has been manipulated by men, and as such, we do not know which part is true or false. By the grace of God, He has given us the Quran, which we can be 100% sure is the verbatim word of God.

I would say that the Bible is the authority over the Quran! The Quran tells Muhammad to check with the people of the books if he was unsure...so the previous scriptures are an authority over the Quran!

[pinkpanther]

No wonder lah

He doesnt believe in visions so he is a disbeliever..

[Lukongsimi]

Ok. If you say so. 

But yes, I also say the Quran is the authority over the Bible. As you already know, the Bible has been manipulated by men, and as such, we do not know which part is true or false. By the grace of God, He has given us the Quran, which we can be 100% sure is the verbatim word of God.

Your Koran was eaten up by goat lol

[Ali Imran]

The Quran did not mention the Bible at all. How can you conclude that the Bible is corrupted...I have showed you scholars attesting to the uncorrupted Bible....

On the contrary, some moslems have taken the 4 fold gospels as the Injil ....the interpretations of moslems regarding the Bible are boundless..

Why criticise the Bible when you have no business in it?

Which scholars say the Bible is uncorrupted?

[Ali Imran]

He doesnt believe in visions so he is a disbeliever..

When Joseph Smith says Jesus came to him, do you believe him?

[pinkpanther]

Which scholars say the Bible is uncorrupted?

 Many scholars and theologians have expressed confidence in the integrity and preservation of the Bible, asserting that it has not been corrupted over time. Here are some notable examples:

1. **F. F. Bruce:** He emphasized that the biblical texts have been preserved with remarkable accuracy through meticulous manuscript transmission. Bruce stated, *"The true text of the New Testament is available to us today, and it is substantially the same as the original."*

2. **Sir Frederic Kenyon:** He was confident in the reliability of the biblical manuscripts, noting that the number of manuscripts and their consistency support the preservation of the biblical text. Kenyon famously said, *"The last foundation for any doubt that the text of the Bible has been preserved intact is gone."*

3. **William F. Albright:** An archaeologist and biblical scholar who affirmed the historical reliability of the Bible, indicating that the textual transmission has been accurate enough to confirm historical details.

4. **Josh McDowell:** An apologist who argues that the manuscript evidence overwhelmingly supports the Bible’s textual integrity, stating that the text we possess today is reliable and not significantly corrupted.

5. **Sir William Mitchell Ramsay:** After archaeological research, Ramsay concluded that the New Testament documents are historically trustworthy and have been preserved accurately over centuries.

6. **Norman Geisler:** A Christian apologist and scholar who affirms that the biblical manuscripts are reliable and that the text has been preserved without significant corruption.

These scholars base their confidence on extensive manuscript evidence, archaeological corroboration, and textual analysis, reinforcing the view that the Bible remains trustworthy and uncorrupted.

[Lukongsimi]

In Christianity, the Holy Spirit and angels are both spiritual beings, but they are distinct. The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity, God Himself, while angels are created beings who serve God. Angels act as messengers and ministers, while the Holy Spirit empowers believers and guides them into truth.

[pinkpanther]

When Joseph Smith says Jesus came to him, do you believe him?

We do not believe in additional revelations or visions outside of what is recorded in scripture.

[Lukongsimi]

Islam (Quran 6:151–153) Christianity (Bible Exodus 20:2–17)
How come 600 years later the Ten Commandments altered by Koran after it was written by God at mount Sinai ?
Go figure which book is true?

[Lukongsimi]

Which scholars say the Bible is uncorrupted?

Many scholars, including both Christian and some Muslim scholars, have argued that the Bible has not been corrupted. While acknowledging minor textual variations in manuscripts, they assert that the core message and meaning of the Bible have been remarkably preserved. 

Here's a more detailed look:
Christian Scholars:

• Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort:
  These renowned textual critics, who produced The New Testament in the Original Greek, emphasized that the vast majority of the New Testament text has no variation or doubt, with substantial variations comprising only a small fraction of the whole. 
  
  
• Bruce Metzger:
  A prominent New Testament scholar, Metzger pointed out that Origen's claims about manuscript corruption were based on theological and exegetical grounds rather than textual ones. 
  
  
• Many others:
  A large number of Christian scholars and theologians believe the Bible has been remarkably well preserved despite minor differences over the centuries. 
  
  

Muslim Scholars:

• Ali al-Tabari, Amr al-Ghakhiz, Bukhari, Al-Mas'udi, Abu Ali Husain Bin Sina, Al-Ghazali, Ibn-Khaldun, and others:
  Several Muslim scholars, including those listed here, have accepted the authenticity of the Gospels and other Bible texts. 
  
  
• Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan:
  The founder of Aligarh College stated that it's not proven that corruption of the Bible (tahrif-i-lafzi) occurred. 
  
  
• Fakhruddin Razi:
  Razi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, argued that it was not practicable to corrupt the Bible because the scriptures were widely known and circulated. 
  
  
• Ibn Taymiyyah:
  Ibn Taymiyyah stated that the four Gospels were written after Jesus was taken up into heaven and they transmit some of his words, actions, and miracles. 
  
  
  

[pinkpanther]

Many scholars, including both Christian and some Muslim scholars, have argued that the Bible has not been corrupted. While acknowledging minor textual variations in manuscripts, they assert that the core message and meaning of the Bible have been remarkably preserved. 

Here's a more detailed look:
Christian Scholars:

• Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort:
  These renowned textual critics, who produced The New Testament in the Original Greek, emphasized that the vast majority of the New Testament text has no variation or doubt, with substantial variations comprising only a small fraction of the whole. 
  
  
• Bruce Metzger:
  A prominent New Testament scholar, Metzger pointed out that Origen's claims about manuscript corruption were based on theological and exegetical grounds rather than textual ones. 
  
  
• Many others:
  A large number of Christian scholars and theologians believe the Bible has been remarkably well preserved despite minor differences over the centuries. 
  
  

Muslim Scholars:

• Ali al-Tabari, Amr al-Ghakhiz, Bukhari, Al-Mas'udi, Abu Ali Husain Bin Sina, Al-Ghazali, Ibn-Khaldun, and others:
  Several Muslim scholars, including those listed here, have accepted the authenticity of the Gospels and other Bible texts. 
  
  
• Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan:
  The founder of Aligarh College stated that it's not proven that corruption of the Bible (tahrif-i-lafzi) occurred. 
  
  
• Fakhruddin Razi:
  Razi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, argued that it was not practicable to corrupt the Bible because the scriptures were widely known and circulated. 
  
  
• Ibn Taymiyyah:
  Ibn Taymiyyah stated that the four Gospels were written after Jesus was taken up into heaven and they transmit some of his words, actions, and miracles. 
  
  
  

Wah even Moslems find no faults with our Bible...only our friend here had problems with the Bible

[Ali Imran]

So these scholars are lying?

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna44117239

[Ali Imran]

We do not believe in additional revelations or visions outside of what is recorded in scripture.

So it wasn't Jesus who visited Joseph Smith?

[pinkpanther]

So these scholars are lying?

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna44117239

Where did it say that the bible is corrupted?

[Ali Imran]

Where did it say that the bible is corrupted?

What do you understand by corruption?

When a verse that wasn't written by the original author of the epistle of John was inserted, would you call that a corruption?

[pinkpanther]

So it wasn't Jesus who visited Joseph Smith?

Nope...visions are not in line with scriptures.
For Lksm, it is different...his are premonitions from God ...

[Ali Imran]

Nope...visions are not in line with scriptures.
For Lksm, it is different...his are premonitions from God ...

So it was the devil who visited Joe Smith and pretended to be Jesus?

[pinkpanther]

What do you understand by corruption?

When a verse that wasn't written by the original author of the epistle of John was inserted, would you call that a corruption?

If there is a footnote then you don call it a corruption

[pinkpanther]

So it was the devil who visited Joe Smith and pretended to be Jesus?

I don know...it could be the devil

[Ali Imran]

If there is a footnote then you don call it a corruption

But if it wasn't written by the original author, would you say it is a forgery?

Take the longer ending of Mark as another example. Scholars say it wasn't written by the original author of Mark, which means someone else added their own words into that book. Would you call that a corruption?

[Ali Imran]

Going to sleep now.

See you guys tomorrow morning.

[pinkpanther]

But if it wasn't written by the original author, would you say it is a forgery?

Take the longer ending of Mark as another example. Scholars say it wasn't written by the original author of Mark, which means someone else added their own words into that book. Would you call that a corruption?

Nope ..it is not a corruption..no scholars will say that
this does not automatically imply that the entire Gospel is corrupt. It simply highlights the dynamic nature of textual transmission and the scholarly process of identifying and understanding variations in ancient texts.

[Ali Imran]

Nope ..it is not a corruption..no scholars will say that

I've shown you this before. I'm sure you forgot that it clearly says "corruption".

[Ali Imran]

I don know...it could be the devil

OK cool.

So we know that the devil can appear as Jesus to some people.

How do we know the one who visited LKSM isn't the devil impersonating Jesus?

[pinkpanther]

I've shown you this before. I'm sure you forgot that it clearly says "corruption".

I'm sure you have forgotten what I wrote yesterday

some scholars, particularly those who hold a more conservative view of biblical inerrancy, have raised concerns about his approach, suggesting he may be biased in his analysis of the New Testament text. These critics argue that Metzger's work favors certain textual families (like the Alexandrian text) over others (like the Byzantine text).

[Ali Imran]

I'm sure you have forgotten what I wrote yesterday

some scholars, particularly those who hold a more conservative view of biblical inerrancy, have raised concerns about his approach, suggesting he may be biased in his analysis of the New Testament text. These critics argue that Metzger's work favors certain textual families (like the Alexandrian text) over others (like the Byzantine text).

So you have Alexandrian text and they differ from Byzantine text?