SG Talk

(24-05-2025, 08:48 AM)Ali Imran Wrote: [ -> ]Who has the truth? James or Paul? You said you know where the truth lies. So tell who has the truth between James and Paul?

You haven't dealt with my latest contradiction and now you want to get involve with another

(24-05-2025, 08:54 AM)pinkpanther Wrote: [ -> ]You are putting mẹ in a tough spot. ..I believe parts of the Quran contain the word of God but the rest does not conform to previous scriptures 

In Jeremiah 8:8, we read how the scribes have falsified the scriptures. So we know there are falsehoods in the previous scriptures. Ergo, it will not conform to the Quran which we believe is from God and what is from God is the truth. 

Another name for God, out of the 99 names in the Quran, is al-Haqq, which means the Truth.

(24-05-2025, 08:55 AM)pinkpanther Wrote: [ -> ]You haven't dealt with my latest contradiction and now you want to get involve with another

Yes I have dealt, with a simple sentence.

None of the verses you gave says we must force them to accept Islam.

(24-05-2025, 08:42 AM)cheekopekman Wrote: [ -> ]You're right on that lah!


I may be wrong but in my opinion, all the disciples fled when Jesus was arrested at the garden because they feared for their lives also lah!  But John came back and Jesus on the cross told him to take Mary as his mother lah! John was the author of the Gospel of John so he wrote about himself lah!

Mark, Matthew, and Luke, all 3 didn't say John came back. And if I am not mistaken, John also didn't say John the disciple fled and then came back.

So your spin can easily be rejected.

(24-05-2025, 08:42 AM)pinkpanther Wrote: [ -> ]Hamza  why don't you go listen to credible speakers like scholars and Imams...especially Zakir Naid 

SimTan is not interested in Islam...same goes to Lksm, ckpm and me....we all know where the truth lies.

If you say you're interested in the truth, you will want to study Islam. That is a given.

(24-05-2025, 08:59 AM)Ali Imran Wrote: [ -> ]In Jeremiah 8:8, we read how the scribes have falsified the scriptures. So we know there are falsehoods in the previous scriptures. Ergo, it will not conform to the Quran which we believe is from God and what is from God is the truth. 

You going to a verse from the OT to make a claim for the Quran?  Show me from the Quran that previous scriptures were corrupted and Allah says not to believe in them

When you make a claim you need to bring out what is the original and compare to what is false...show me which part of the scriptures are corrupted

(24-05-2025, 09:07 AM)Ali Imran Wrote: [ -> ]If you say you're interested in the truth, you will want to study Islam. That is a given.

There are plenty who accepted Islam without studying Islam. .what do you say about that group of people

(24-05-2025, 09:08 AM)pinkpanther Wrote: [ -> ]You going to a verse from the OT to make a claim for the Quran?  Show me from the Quran that previous scriptures were corrupted and Allah says not to believe in them

When you make a claim you need to bring out what is the original and compare to what is false...show me which part of the scriptures are corrupted

You said the Quran doesn't conform with the Bible. I gave one reason why it doesn't conform. The Bible has falsehood within and that is why it doesn't conform with the Quran.

If you want to see corruption in the Bible, look for the contradictions. When any two parts of the Bible contradict, one of them is false and that false one is the corruption.

(24-05-2025, 09:10 AM)pinkpanther Wrote: [ -> ]There are plenty who accepted Islam without studying Islam. .what do you say about that group of people

Yes, that is true. Some men became Muslim because they wanna marry a Muslim girl.

We are told by our prophet not to judge or to question the reason why one converted to Islam.

(24-05-2025, 09:03 AM)Ali Imran Wrote: [ -> ]Mark, Matthew, and Luke, all 3 didn't say John came back. And if I am not mistaken, John also didn't say John the disciple fled and then came back.

So your spin can easily be rejected.

There many reasons ..I also don want to speculate ..
Let's go to AI

Several factors may help explain why John is absent from the crucifixion scenes in the Synoptic Gospels:

1. **Different Theological Emphases:** 
  The Synoptic Gospels tend to focus on the crowd, the leaders, and the general events surrounding Jesus’ death. They emphasize the suffering and abandonment experienced by Jesus and the reactions of various groups. In contrast, the Gospel of John offers a more personal portrayal, highlighting the relationship between Jesus and his disciple John, and emphasizing themes of fidelity and witness.

2. **Distinct Sources and Perspectives:** 
  Each Gospel writer had different sources, traditions, and theological aims. The Synoptic Gospels are believed to share some common oral and written traditions, which may not have included specific details about John’s presence. John’s Gospel, written later, provides a unique perspective, possibly drawing from different traditions that emphasized John’s role.

3. **Author’s Theological Intentions:** 
  The Gospel of John aims to present Jesus as the divine Son of God, emphasizing themes like witness and belief. Including details about John’s presence at the crucifixion aligns with this purpose, portraying John as a faithful disciple and a witness to Jesus’ suffering, which supports the theological message of the Gospel.

4. **Potential Literary or Historical Reasons:** 
  It’s possible that the Synoptic writers either did not have access to the tradition that John was present or chose to focus on other figures (such as Mary, the women, or the Roman soldiers). Their narratives may have been shaped by different community memories or theological priorities.

**Summary:** 
The absence of John at the crucifixion in the Synoptic Gospels likely reflects differences in sources, theological focus, and narrative emphasis. The Gospel of John explicitly records his presence, highlighting his role as a faithful disciple and witness to Jesus’ death, which aligns with its theological themes.

(24-05-2025, 09:13 AM)Ali Imran Wrote: [ -> ]You said the Quran doesn't conform with the Bible. I gave one reason why it doesn't conform. The Bible has falsehood within and that is why it doesn't conform with the Quran.

If you want to see corruption in the Bible, look for the contradictions. When any two parts of the Bible contradict, one of them is false and that false one is the corruption.

 Are you a scholar? A historian, a researcher?
You are just parroting your anti Christ propaganda..
1/3 of the world population believe it to be the truth ...if it is false, would God allow it to ruin His reputation ..think about it my habibi

(24-05-2025, 09:03 AM)Ali Imran Wrote: [ -> ]Mark, Matthew, and Luke, all 3 didn't say John came back. And if I am not mistaken, John also didn't say John the disciple fled and then came back.

So your spin can easily be rejected.

You have the right to reject lah!  You can go on spinning round and round also lah!

(24-05-2025, 09:24 AM)pinkpanther Wrote: [ -> ] Are you a scholar? A historian, a researcher?
You are just parroting your anti Christ propaganda..
1/3 of the world population believe it to be the truth ...if it is false, would God allow it to ruin His reputation ..think about it my habibi

I gave you logical argument. If two points contradict each other, they both cannot be true.

(24-05-2025, 09:24 AM)pinkpanther Wrote: [ -> ]1/3 of the world population believe it to be the truth ...if it is false, would God allow it to ruin His reputation ..think about it my habibi

Most Christians are only Christian in name only. They don't really believe the Bible.

On top of that, one top NT scholar, a Christian, Bruce Metzger already said there are corruptions in the NT. And I've also shown you Jewish scholars who are right now correcting the errors in the Bible. 

So, there are errors and corruption in the Bible. I didn't say that. The scholars are saying that.

(24-05-2025, 09:00 AM)Ali Imran Wrote: [ -> ]Yes I have dealt, with a simple sentence.

None of the verses you gave says we must force them to accept Islam.

When SimTan asked you about the muddy spring, you responded with over twenty lines, but when I inquired about shooting stars and the enforcement of faith, you only provided a single line.

I dismiss your reply ...it is non existence

(24-05-2025, 09:34 AM)Ali Imran Wrote: [ -> ]Most Christians are only Christian in name only. They don't really believe the Bible.

On top of that, one top NT scholar, a Christian, Bruce Metzger already said there are corruptions in the NT. And I've also shown you Jewish scholars who are right now correcting the errors in the Bible. 

So, there are errors and corruption in the Bible. I didn't say that. The scholars are saying that.

I like to quote the famous saying of Imam Zed..do not believe the works of men .

Bruce Metzger says that the NT is reliable..why you always bring him to contradict your statements

(24-05-2025, 09:37 AM)pinkpanther Wrote: [ -> ]I like to quote the famous saying of Imam Zed..do not believe the works of men .

Bruce Metzger says that the NT is reliable..why you always bring him to contradict your statements

I didn't say Bruce Metzger said the NT is unreliable. So you're barking up the wrong tree.

I only said Metzger said the NT has been corrupted.

(24-05-2025, 09:34 AM)Ali Imran Wrote: [ -> ]Most Christians are only Christian in name only. They don't really believe the Bible.

On top of that, one top NT scholar, a Christian, Bruce Metzger already said there are corruptions in the NT. And I've also shown you Jewish scholars who are right now correcting the errors in the Bible. 

So, there are errors and corruption in the Bible. I didn't say that. The scholars are saying that.

Actually you are right lah!  If you read the Bible, every name given has a meaning lah! "Peter" means "rock" and Paul called him "Cephas" lah!

(24-05-2025, 09:41 AM)cheekopekman Wrote: [ -> ]Actually you are right lah!  If you read the Bible, every name given has a meaning lah! "Peter" means "rock" and Paul called him "Cephas" lah!

Peter said Paul is his enemy.

(24-05-2025, 09:49 AM)Ali Imran Wrote: [ -> ]Peter said Paul is his enemy.

How did you get that leh?  I know Peter and Paul never agreed with each other lah!

(24-05-2025, 09:55 AM)cheekopekman Wrote: [ -> ]How did you get that leh?  I know Peter and Paul never agreed with each other lah!

I read the history of Christianity, in particular, the books of Bart Ehrman.

(24-05-2025, 09:40 AM)Ali Imran Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't say Bruce Metzger said the NT is unreliable. So you're barking up the wrong tree.

I only said Metzger said the NT has been corrupted.

Who cares about what he said..many scholars disagree with him..He is the mentor of Bart..I could care less...lets go to AI

Scholarly consensus indicates the New Testament's transmission has been remarkably reliable, with its core message remaining consistent across various manuscripts and translations. While textual variations exist, they generally don't impact major theological teachings. The abundance of manuscripts, dating back to the original languages, allows for a high degree of confidence in reconstructing the original text. 

Elaboration:
Reliable Transmission:
The vast majority of New Testament scholars agree that the original message and teachings of the New Testament have been preserved remarkably well. 

Textual Variations:
Textual criticism reveals minor differences between manuscripts, such as spelling variations or word order. However, these variations are generally not significant enough to alter the core message of the New Testament. 

Manuscript Evidence:
The existence of numerous manuscripts, including fragments and full texts, dating back to the original Greek allows for a high degree of confidence in reconstructing the original text. 

Independent Evidence:
Archaeological discoveries, historical records, and other forms of independent evidence corroborate the historical and geographical details mentioned in the New Testament, further bolstering its reliability. 
Major Teachings Uncompromised:
Even when variant readings are considered, the fundamental Christian teachings, such as the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, salvation by grace, and the Trinity, remain intact. 

Skeptical Views:
While some skeptics may point to specific verses or passages as evidence of corruption, the vast majority of scholarly consensus supports the reliability of the New Testament's transmission. 

Translation Variations:
Translations, while crucial for making the text accessible to different languages, also introduce slight variations. However, these variations are usually minor and do not affect the core message

(24-05-2025, 10:08 AM)pinkpanther Wrote: [ -> ]Who cares about what he said..many scholars disagree with him..He is the mentor of Bart..I could care less...lets go to AI

Scholarly consensus indicates the New Testament's transmission has been remarkably reliable, with its core message remaining consistent across various manuscripts and translations. While textual variations exist, they generally don't impact major theological teachings. The abundance of manuscripts, dating back to the original languages, allows for a high degree of confidence in reconstructing the original text. 

Elaboration:
Reliable Transmission:
The vast majority of New Testament scholars agree that the original message and teachings of the New Testament have been preserved remarkably well. 

Textual Variations:
Textual criticism reveals minor differences between manuscripts, such as spelling variations or word order. However, these variations are generally not significant enough to alter the core message of the New Testament. 

Manuscript Evidence:
The existence of numerous manuscripts, including fragments and full texts, dating back to the original Greek allows for a high degree of confidence in reconstructing the original text. 

Independent Evidence:
Archaeological discoveries, historical records, and other forms of independent evidence corroborate the historical and geographical details mentioned in the New Testament, further bolstering its reliability. 
Major Teachings Uncompromised:
Even when variant readings are considered, the fundamental Christian teachings, such as the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, salvation by grace, and the Trinity, remain intact. 

Skeptical Views:
While some skeptics may point to specific verses or passages as evidence of corruption, the vast majority of scholarly consensus supports the reliability of the New Testament's transmission. 

Translation Variations:
Translations, while crucial for making the text accessible to different languages, also introduce slight variations. However, these variations are usually minor and do not affect the core message

When you say the NT is reliable, what do you mean by that? 

Does the corruption affect the theology of the Christians? I say no, it doesn't really affect that much.

But is the NT corrupted? Yes.

(24-05-2025, 09:59 AM)Ali Imran Wrote: [ -> ]I read the history of Christianity, in particular, the books of Bart Ehrman.

yeah .he recently roasted Islam..you want a full video

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/commen...sts_islam/

(24-05-2025, 10:13 AM)pinkpanther Wrote: [ -> ]yeah .he recently roasted Islam..you want a full video

https://www.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/commen...sts_islam/

I don't go to Bart Ehrman to study Islam. He already said he has no knowledge of Islam or the Quran.

(24-05-2025, 10:10 AM)Ali Imran Wrote: [ -> ]When you say the NT is reliable, what do you mean by that? 

Does the corruption affect the theology of the Christians? I say no, it doesn't really affect that much.

But is the NT corrupted? Yes.

Several factors determine the reliability of the NT..one is the consistency of the manuscripts... the rest you can look it up...

Corruption is a broad scope ...scribal errors are corruption

(24-05-2025, 10:14 AM)Ali Imran Wrote: [ -> ]I don't go to Bart Ehrman to study Islam. He already said he has no knowledge of Islam or the Quran.

He is a propaganda tool for moslems to advocate their cause.... let's not kid each other

(24-05-2025, 10:14 AM)Ali Imran Wrote: [ -> ]I don't go to Bart Ehrman to study Islam. He already said he has no knowledge of Islam or the Quran.

Watch the video...who is the interviewer? A moslem?
What is a moslem and Bart doing? Christianity is the topic!

Why is the interviewer not a Christian? Are you trying to show your bias side

(24-05-2025, 10:19 AM)pinkpanther Wrote: [ -> ]Several factors determine the reliability of the NT..one is the consistency of the manuscripts... the rest you can look it up...

Corruption is a broad scope ...scribal errors are corruption

What about forgeries?

(24-05-2025, 09:34 AM)Ali Imran Wrote: [ -> ]Most Christians are only Christian in name only. They don't really believe the Bible.

The same can be said about the moslems ..
They don believe in the Quran ..back during my BMT...about 10 moslems but only around 5 performed prayers..

So don't judge Christians, because you will be judged by the same measure.